The Super League | FA + PL: New Charter & Fines | UEFA: Settlement

Would you be happy if City joined this European Super League?

  • Yes

    Votes: 109 5.3%

  • No

    Votes: 1,954 94.7%
  • Total voters
    2,063
BeerIsTheBest said:
Hey PD

Like other posters I have no legal training so do take this post with that statement in mind. I’ve looked at the FA Handbook this evening and assume that the current FA action is covered by this. The publication makes it clear that any appeal against any sanction will be dealt with internally by the FA. Rather I suppose like a dismissed employee appealing their dismissal to an independent person in authority within the employing organisation.

To Frank Swift’s questions there is no reference in the Handbook to appeal to, or involvement of, any body external to the FA which does seem to rule out CAS. So I assume that the FA (defined independent) appointed people become judge, jury and possibly executioner.

As we have effectively signed upto the FA rules and regs I assume that we are bound by the Handbook.

Understanding how the club may or could involve any external body and how natural law, and the constitution (like statute of limitations) may overshadow the FA rules and regulations and ways of working is beyond my comprehension other to envisage a bad result for us and a giant legal claim for restraint of trade or whatever.
Click to expand...
There is no appeal. Arbitration under the Premier League rules are self-contained and there is no CAS. If something is considered wrong with the arbitration procedure (as in the recent cases with City), it is possible to ask the High Court to intervene. As a rule the award (equivalent to a court judgment/decision) in the arbitration will be the final word on the matter.
 
Last edited:
projectriver said:
There is no appeal. Arbitration under the Premier League rules are self-contained and there is no CAS. If something is considered wrong with the arbitration procedure (as in the recent cases with City), it is possible to ask the High Court to intervene. As a rule the award (equivalent to a court judgment/decision) in the arbitration will be the final word on the matter.
Click to expand...
Does anyone remember when Spurs were found guilty in 1994 of making illegal payments to players? I think the punishment was a 12 point deduction effective from the start of the 1994-95 season, huge fine, and excluded from the 1994-95 FA Cup. Sugar - who was Tottenham chairman at the time - took it to arbitration and succeeded in getting the punishments drastically reduced. From memory, the points deduction was either reduced or completely wiped off, and they were allowed to play in the FA Cup after all.
IIRC, that was an independent arbitration panel so I’m guessing the rules have changed with regards to arbitration and it’s now internal? Which doesn’t sound particularly impartial to me.
 
M18CTID said:
Does anyone remember when Spurs were found guilty in 1994 of making illegal payments to players? I think the punishment was a 12 point deduction effective from the start of the 1994-95 season, huge fine, and excluded from the 1994-95 FA Cup. Sugar - who was Tottenham chairman at the time - took it to arbitration and succeeded in getting the punishments drastically reduced. From memory, the points deduction was either reduced or completely wiped off, and they were allowed to play in the FA Cup after all.
IIRC, that was an independent arbitration panel so I’m guessing the rules have changed with regards to arbitration and it’s now internal? Which doesn’t sound particularly impartial to me.
Click to expand...
Tottenham appealed twice - the first appeal to the FA halved the points deduction to six but more than doubled the fine to £1.5 million. Sugar then threatened to take the FA to court and they agreed to set up an independent arbitration tribunal, which upheld the increased fine but struck out the points deduction and the exclusion from the FA Cup. There didn't seem to be any agreed procedure for this second appeal, it was just Sugar throwing his weight about. Nor did Tottenham seem to be disputing their guilt, merely the extent of the punishment.
 
Norbiton said:
Tottenham appealed twice - the first appeal to the FA halved the points deduction to six but more than doubled the fine to £1.5 million. Sugar then threatened to take the FA to court and they agreed to set up an independent arbitration tribunal, which upheld the increased fine but struck out the points deduction and the exclusion from the FA Cup. There didn't seem to be any agreed procedure for this second appeal, it was just Sugar throwing his weight about. Nor did Tottenham seem to be disputing their guilt, merely the extent of the punishment.
Click to expand...
Weren't the points deduction and the exclusion from the FA cup overturned because they were not laid down as punishments for the offences committed by Spurs in the FA rule book. City are not appealing against the severity of a punishment for offences admitted. At the moment (and for the last two years at least), in City's "case", we have no idea what is being investigated and whether any "charges" will ever be brought against the club. The judge seemed to find this more than a little irritating but presumably hopes that ruling that the club has to produce documents requested will lead to a "speedy" resolution of the matter (whatever it might be). This reminds me of City's "bad day" in court when CAS admitted as evidence just about every document UEFA wanted and which we did not - before ruling that these documents proved nothing and that our accounts were true, accurate and complete. This judgement may have the same result - to show that there are NO grounds for any charges rather than that City are getting off on a technicality.
 
With the Champions League moving to the rubbish new format and this ploughing ahead there’s a real (no pun intended) danger that this competition will become the dominant club contest in the world.

I don’t think City were in a position to do anything differently but it does seem to have worked out badly. Hopefully the Super League will crash and burn but I’m not so sure it will.

I always wondered what basis UEFA ever had to stop it. Why shouldn’t some clubs be able to arrange a competition between themselves? Ultimately, the only way to beat it is to have a competition that is more attractive to a global audience, but UEFA have interests that directly work against that.
 
projectriver said:
There is no appeal. Arbitration under the Premier League rules are self-contained and there is no CAS. If something is considered wrong with the arbitration procedure (as in the recent cases with City), it is possible to ask the High Court to intervene. As a rule the award (equivalent to a court judgment/decision) in the arbitration will be the final word on the matter.
Click to expand...
In an earlier post you said it was the UK Courts that had the final say?
Confused of Neasden.
 
This league can and only will work with Premier League Clubs.

Perez would have started the league without PSG or German clubs , he just wanted the Premier League Fanbase around the globe to get the money. The Spanish clubs needs the Power of the Premier League ,Premier League is more powerful then them

It's English Supporters job to cancel this shite thing
 
Chris B said:
With the Champions League moving to the rubbish new format and this ploughing ahead there’s a real (no pun intended) danger that this competition will become the dominant club contest in the world.

I don’t think City were in a position to do anything differently but it does seem to have worked out badly. Hopefully the Super League will crash and burn but I’m not so sure it will.

I always wondered what basis UEFA ever had to stop it. Why shouldn’t some clubs be able to arrange a competition between themselves? Ultimately, the only way to beat it is to have a competition that is more attractive to a global audience, but UEFA have interests that directly work against that.
Click to expand...
The Champions League will have to change to survive. The reality is that the biggest clubs can make much more money by owning their own broadcast rights and selling matches directly on pay-per view. They can make the same amount on a single game (up to £100m) than they currently can from the entire competition and that doesn't even include sponsorship. UEFA simply can't justify the current position. The clubs own the product and give all the rights to UEFA. It is not sustainable. If UEFA don't change they will die. That said I think Ceferin knows this.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The Champions League will have to change to survive. The reality is that the biggest clubs can make much more money by owning their own broadcast rights and selling matches directly on pay-per view. They can make the same amount on a single game (up to £100m) than they currently can from the entire competition and that doesn't even include sponsorship. UEFA simply can't justify the current position. The clubs own the product and give all the rights to UEFA. It is not sustainable. If UEFA don't change they will die. That said I think Ceferin knows this.
Click to expand...
Yes but England has followed a model of revenue sharing. Spain allows Barca and Real to negotiate their own deals.

The outcome is that England has much higher tv income based on an (almost) competitive league. By comparison, Bayern have won the Bundesliga nine(?) times in a row. Juve had a similar run in Serie A. In Spain, there is no real competition outside of the top three. Atletico have rare wins in La Liga.

England has has had had five different champions in the last ten years. That is probably why the TV income exceeds the other Leagues.

Go along with what the big teams want and competition will go and so will revenue in the long run.

UEFA need to stand firm and tell the clubs to piss off!
 
Last edited:
JGL07 said:
Yes but England has followed a model of revenue sharing. Spain allows Barca and Real to negotiate their own deals.

The outcome is that England has much higher tv income based on an (almost) competitive league. By comparison, Bayern have won the Bundesliga nine(?) times in a row. Juve had a similar run in Serie A. In Spain, there is no real competition outside of the top three. Atletico have rare wins in La Liga.

England has has had had five different champions in the last ten years. That is probably why the TV income exceeds the other Leagues.

Go along with what the big teams want and competition will go and so will revenue in the long run.

UEFA need to stand firm and tell the clubs to piss off!
Click to expand...
The only problem with that is the big clubs want to piss off, because that’s where the money is. UEFA need to improve their competitions but they’re making them worse.
 
Len Rum said:
In an earlier post you said it was the UK Courts that had the final say?
Confused of Neasden.
Click to expand...
English Courts will have the final say but not on the decision of the arbitration itself (unless there is some manifest error). English Courts can deal with disputes but not as an appeal to the arbitration itself ordinarily.
 
Hope city do everything possible to stop this. Purely because for all his bollocks about us it is actually Tebas's darlings (Barca and real) that are ruining the game by spending beyond their means. I suspect they need this to go through or they are in financial shite.
 
JGL07 said:
Yes but England has followed a model of revenue sharing. Spain allows Barca and Real to negotiate their own deals.

The outcome is that England has much higher tv income based on an (almost) competitive league. By comparison, Bayern have won the Bundesliga nine(?) times in a row. Juve had a similar run in Serie A. In Spain, there is no real competition outside of the top three. Atletico have rare wins in La Liga.

England has has had had five different champions in the last ten years. That is probably why the TV income exceeds the other Leagues.

Go along with what the big teams want and competition will go and so will revenue in the long run.

UEFA need to stand firm and tell the clubs to piss off!
Click to expand...

It changed 5 years or so ago albeit Barcelona and Real Madrid still receive the lion's share

"50 per cent of La Liga’s television money is distributed equally between clubs, with the remaining half divided in two equal parts and allocated based on sporting results over the past five seasons and social influence.

The revenues are shared in accordance with Spain’s Royal Decree Law of 2015, which saw La Liga stop selling rights on an individual basis and return to the collective selling of media rights.

Since that law was introduced, La Liga has narrowed the gap between its highest and lowest-earning clubs, a ratio that was previously as high as 12:1 but now stands at 3:5:1. "
 
projectriver said:
Here’s a piece I wrote for Mail on Sunday.


www.dailymail.co.uk

STEFAN BORSON: Premier League in unenviable spot in City legal battles

Manchester City's seemingly never-ending battle with the football authorities over matters of accounting are so esoteric you wonder who's interested.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
Good and fair article mate. Hopefully the PL will see some sense and let this quietly drop. I guess thats not likely given the pressure they will be under from the usual suspects. They should put up or shut up.
 
projectriver said:
Here’s a piece I wrote for Mail on Sunday.


www.dailymail.co.uk

STEFAN BORSON: Premier League in unenviable spot in City legal battles

Manchester City's seemingly never-ending battle with the football authorities over matters of accounting are so esoteric you wonder who's interested.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
Congratulations on having the piece published.

I know you're not responsible for the picture taglines but I guess the following re. 'new emails' is bollocks (unless I've missed something)?

Pep Guardiola's squad is alleged to have been built outside of FFP, with new emails leaked
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top