City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

Ducado said:
Any new rules they bring in will have to be legally watertight, do clubs have vote in new rules? If so is it a simple majority?

Going to be tricky for some clubs, but if you make rules to benefit yourself and get called out on it,
Click to expand...

I think the most important thing to sort out first is the Premier League board members and its voting system on rule changes, I think MANCHESTER CITY should call for a vote of no confidence in the Premier League system and call for major changes and ask the chairman to stand down
 
blueste41 said:
Yes, 14 clubs will be required to vote in favour of the proposed changed rules. This puts the PL in an impossible position-they need a minimum of 14 clubs to agree to change the rules so they comply with the law (as ludicrous as that sounds) and most clubs won't want a change because it will mean they fail PSR (equally ludicrous) they are fuked!
Click to expand...
So we are in circular firing squad territory

Looks like it’s back to drawing board, one could imagine having failed in their attempt to hobble us and a few other clubs they may quietly drop the whole thing, before it bites its creators
 
blueste41 said:
Yes, 14 clubs will be required to vote in favour of the proposed changed rules. This puts the PL in an impossible position-they need a minimum of 14 clubs to agree to change the rules so they comply with the law (as ludicrous as that sounds) and most clubs won't want a change because it will mean they fail PSR (equally ludicrous) they are fuked!
Click to expand...

If ‘they’ really are as bent as we believe, then we should expect the annual allowable losses will be increased to accommodate the impact/costs of the shareholder loans.
 
halfcenturyup said:
If seven clubs vote down any changes, what do the PL do?

Remember, the question was why Everton and Chelsea would vote with City now, if they are going to be hurt by interest on their loans.

What they do is vote down any rule including shareholder loans in APT. The PL can't make the rules "legal" without a 2/3 majority so they would have to scrap APT rules in their entirety or run with rules found to be anti-competitive. Bye bye APT.

Tyranny of the minority.
Click to expand...
My guess is Everton and Chelsea just didn't consider the implications fully. It could still work in their favor, any changes to the APT laws will still need 14 votes. Everton*, Chelsea, Brighton and the others with large owner debts won't be voting through something that causes them problems. I've gone through a few scenarios in my head and I can't see any of them getting passed. That will create an impasse, is it legal for them to just revert to the pre-existing rules?

What this whole thing shows is the current rules aren't fit for purpose. Luton last year, Ipswich this, get the same say as everyone else even though they are essentially visitors. I'd suggest the 3 promoted clubs don't get a vote, instead 1 vote goes to The championship, 1 to league 1 and the other to FA. Maybe even give the The championship all 3 votes.

For all the praise some clubs get on here and the abuse others get, the 1 thing all 20 have in common is the fact they will always look out for themselves. There are no friends here, maybe 1 or 2 enemies but certainly no friends, money, money, money is all that's at play here.

*Everton are capable in fairness.
 
OntarioBlue said:
I’m assuming there’s nothing stopping owners converting debt to equity ?
Click to expand...
Apart from diluting their investments and making future borrowing a little more difficult no their isnt, although that could be factored into the new rules, if those extra funds showed a sporting advantage and had an impact on relegation or european places then that opens up a different discussion again
 
All I'm seeing from the MSM is, City had a couple of minor wins. We failed on everything thing else because it's deemed lawful.

Just like CAS, the MSM still avoid the amount of times NO EVIDENCE was qouted. We will always be the ones that "got away with a techincallity."

The MSM - BBC especially - are ignoring: UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE. The report is quite clear about the way we were treated. We cannot win and will always be cheats.
 
Total City result.
But amazed Brighton are in hock to owner 'loans' - they have been the best player traders for years, should surely be well in bank credit..?
 
Impeccable One said:
If ‘they’ really are as bent as we believe, then we should expect the annual allowable losses will be increased to accommodate the impact/costs of the shareholder loans.
Click to expand...

I think this is almost certainly what they'll do. Put in some clause that increases allowable losses for the short-term and that says "trending towards compliance" will be sufficient.
 
tregyblue61 said:
All I'm seeing from the MSM is, City had a couple of minor wins. We failed on everything thing else because it's deemed lawful.

Just like CAS, the MSM still avoid the amount of times NO EVIDENCE was qouted. We will always be the ones that "got away with a techincallity."

The MSM - BBC especially - are ignoring: UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE. The report is quite clear about the way we were treated. We cannot win and will always be cheats.
Click to expand...

I don't give a fuck about what those cunts say. The facts are out there in black and white. We know they hate us, the more damage we do to the lot of them, the more pain they feel, the more beautiful it is.
 
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