PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Snape said:
Not seen if mentioned, but have just watched footage of Khaldoon at the Amabani's wedding. The circles that our owners are in, I simply can't see a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...
I cant see a guilty verdict because he is not stupid. He knows the cartel of clubs would want us gone. Being anything less than squeaky clean wouldn't do, and I think even squeaky clean isnt enough.
 
The Premier League leadership group are strangling the life out of their own product. Some people would call it pissing in your own chips. Why would you do that unless you are getting orders to do it from key stakeholders? The PL need to wake up and realise that sponsorship is a legitimate revenue source and stop trying to over regulate things. More money for the game is a good thing right?
 
Vic said:
Only transfers out, looking at that wording (where we have received consideration and some arbitrary panel thinks we've been paid more than the player is worth). Did £40m for Palmer sound too much?

Are you sure it's for transfers freely agreed between clubs?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure. These are the next two sections:

1000000549.png

Each club has to report all transactions over 1 million (threshold transactions). The PL then makes a determination if they are APTs or otherwise not at arms' length (this is the rule they were threatening clubs over "swap" transfers iirc). Then they do a FMV assessment and if there is a discrepancy, the club has to either cancel the contract (not for transfer of player registrations) or amend the contract and adjust cash paid/ received.

I think. :)
 
Bez said:
The Premier League leadership group are strangling the life out of their own product. Some people would call it pissing in your own chips. Why would you do that unless you are getting orders to do it from key stakeholders? The PL need to wake up and realise that sponsorship is a legitimate revenue source and stop trying to over regulate things. More money for the game is a good thing right?
Click to expand...
I remember the time when Barclay's Bank sponsored the PL or the one before it and sure enough Sheikh M loaned Barclay money to prevent financial problems.
They should be careful who they accuse, they may find themselves in dire need of sponsorship from anywhere.
 
Let’s look at Grealish transfer & imagine it happened this summer.

£100m release clause & as an academy graduate pure profit for Villa which helps them out. Few would argue that was his value except City & Villa. I can’t believe there wouldn’t be accusations & innuendo flung at both clubs.

Do they ignore it or would they get involved?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Pretty sure. These are the next two sections:

View attachment 125369

Each club has to report all transactions over 1 million (threshold transactions). The PL then makes a determination if they are APTs or otherwise not at arms' length (this is the rule they were threatening clubs over "swap" transfers iirc). Then they do a FMV assessment and if there is a discrepancy, the club has to either cancel the contract (not for transfer of player registrations) or amend the contract and adjust cash paid/ received.

I think. :)
Click to expand...
I'm probably reading that wrong but are they saying that, if the selling club are found to have sold the player undervalued (according to the 'independent' valuer) then the buying club has to pay more or call the whole thing off.

And vice versa, if the player is deemed to be worth less, then the buying club has to give money back or scrap it all?

I sometimes think I'm living in an alternate universe if that's the case. One where up is down and down is blue.
 
Centurions said:
I'm probably reading that wrong but are they saying that, if the selling club are found to have sold the player undervalued (according to the 'independent' valuer) then the buying club has to pay more or call the whole thing off.

And vice versa, if the player is deemed to be worth less, then the buying club has to give money back or scrap it all?

I sometimes think I'm living in an alternate universe if that's the case. One where up is down and down is blue.
Click to expand...
If that IS the case the PL can literally conspire to make certain clubs fail/pass the financial rules.

It's a few more quid for our Lord P waiting to happen in a proper court.
 
Centurions said:
I'm probably reading that wrong but are they saying that, if the selling club are found to have sold the player undervalued (according to the 'independent' valuer) then the buying club has to pay more or call the whole thing off.

And vice versa, if the player is deemed to be worth less, then the buying club has to give money back or scrap it all?

I sometimes think I'm living in an alternate universe if that's the case. One where up is down and down is blue.
Click to expand...

They are saying for player registrations the option of cancelling the contract doesn't exist, so the two clubs have to amend the contract and pay/receive extra/less.

I think.

Not sure how that works on international transfers tbh.

Not sure how any of it works legally actually.
 
blue b4 the moon said:
If that IS the case the PL can literally conspire to make certain clubs fail/pass the financial rules.

It's a few more quid for our Lord P waiting to happen in a proper court.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's it. For any transaction over 1 million, they can decide whether or not it is an APT, whether it is at arm's length or not and then they can fix the FMV at whatever they want.

Yes, I know they are using "independent" consultants, but anyone who has used consultants know they provide the person paying with the justification for pre-determined courses of action. Don't buy that independent bullshit.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Yes, that's it. For any transaction over 1 million, they can decide whether or not it is an APT, whether it is at arm's length or not and then they can fix the FMV at whatever they want.

Yes, I know they are using "independent" consultants, but anyone who has used consultants know they provide the person paying with the justification for pre-determined courses of action. Don't buy that independent bullshit.
Click to expand...
Yep - having been one of those for many years - I can confirm that
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
I cant see a guilty verdict because he is not stupid. He knows the cartel of clubs would want us gone. Being anything less than squeaky clean wouldn't do, and I think even squeaky clean isnt enough.
Click to expand...
This in a nutshell. And we'd have to be seriously stupid to have done the things we're accused of doing. It's the kind of shit that you can imagine happening on Peter Swales' watch but not on Khaldoon's.
 
M18CTID said:
This in a nutshell. And we'd have to be seriously stupid to have done the things we're accused of doing. It's the kind of shit that you can imagine happening on Peter Swales' watch but not on Khaldoon's.
Click to expand...
We were on a learning curve, going where nobody had gone before, even with the best it is likely there is a fault somewhere. That said the PL do not need proof to find us guilty, just like the UEFA 2nd case, and just like the 2nd case it is not important to win the 115, it is what happens after that, that is important. The lessons learnt from the 1st and 2nd UEFA cases the UTD, Everton, Nottingham and Leicester cases and ours against the PL. Our day in court will happen.
 
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