You're spot on with one thing there...I might be living in fantasy land, but with PSR basically in the bin and the chance for clubs to create much higher sponsorship deals, couldnt ticket prices be cheaper? Knowing that revenue wont be relied on as much.
No, without APT rules City could receive a 1 billion pound a season sponsorship deal from Etihad and every penny of it could and would be included to meet our PSR (the PL's version of FFP) rules.
It's worth listening to, helps to get a more balanced view when you take in several opinions.So don't listen
Good advice, I never listen to talk shite.So don't listen
But he didn't DO any real analysis of the law. He stated the facts of the judgement and then said "here's what a bunch of experienced people think".
And besides, 3 years of sports law makes him one billion percent more qualified and experienced to comment on the judgement than every single working football journalist in this country combined.
Don't worry when Arsenal, Liverpool and the rags shout shit the other 17 clubs will be expected to jump on the shovelI don’t know the exact meaning of “set aside”, mate. However, given that APT was deemed unlawful, I’m thinking there will be an hiatus of uncertain duration and threat anything done during the vacuum would be hard for the PL to challenge retrospectively.
Re your other points, we can only guess how bullish or conciliatory the club wants to appear. It will be interesting to see if the Geordies choose to exploit the uncertainty, even if we don’t.
The forthcoming emergency PL meeting may well set the tone for things to come. Will there be an all-round desire to quickly find a constructive solution? Or will there be infighting and/or a wish to teach the cartel clubs a lesson by slowing everything down? Who knows?
Now if they played in red I could understand but...What I don't understand is how the owner of Leicester can use his own company to sponsor his statium and shirts ?
This never brought up. You can't a have sponsor who's related to you.
You can sponsor your own shirt and statium and give free loads.
I don't understand how Leicester have got away with this
A bit early in the day to be on the sauce, innit?I might be living in fantasy land, but with PSR basically in the bin and the chance for clubs to create much higher sponsorship deals, couldnt ticket prices be cheaper? Knowing that revenue wont be relied on as much.
Do you know the qualifications of all sports journalists in this country? Do you know the work history of all sports journalists in this country?
If a presumption, it is interesting that you are quick to question the knowledge of others and then you make a claim that is not based on facts.
They also found procedural reasons, which would also need to be corrected. Then surely the whole new, impeccably drafted package would need to be voted in properly rather than anything prior being reinstated?Thanks Vic but it says….
“that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason;”
That says to me that if the shareholder loans area is corrected then it becomes lawful as they state that is the only reason?
It’s never too early. The breakfast club is still a thing in some pubs.A bit early in the day to be on the sauce, innit?
I only got the free 15 minutes - seems to me the club is correct that the whole PL APT regime is null and void given the judgment's full exposition. Its core pricing mechanisms as well as owner loans are unlawful so there is no painless fix for the cartel. They can't now discriminate against particular clubs because of the geographic location of their owners so how else do they stop us? We'll be back to the pre 2021 situation where the PL followed UEFA's rules and under those there would be no issue - viz PSG & Qatar.It was a good podcast. I also found the comments on 115 and our robust standing on the APT findings may come from a position of strength. Who knows but that is exactly what I thought before listening to the podcast.
Thanks Vic but it says….
“that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason;”
That says to me that if the shareholder loans area is corrected then it becomes lawful as they state that is the only reason?
The problem is that quite a lot of the leaks were false information. For example there were leaks about City facing draconian punishments from EUFA in the run up to the CAS decision. This information was false but Panja reported it as fact with no caveats. In fact UEFA had virtually no evidence and Ceferin later tried to cut a deal with Khaldoon. The information coming from Gill and Parry (who was part of the UEFA IC which investigated City) was false. It was used as part of a smear campaign against City. Panja may be close to senior people at MUFC and LFC but it doesn't make him a reliable source. Panja's story last week said City had only won a minor challenge about databases. The Judges' summary shows that is just untrue.Gill is regularly seen sitting next to Ferguson at Utd matches, he's the highest ranking English man at UEFA. Parry is head of the EFL and surely has some contacts still at Liverpool. What disqualifies them as good sources?
Yes mate, I highly researched the job history of EVERY SINGLE sports journalist in this country then got my calculator out and did the maths to calculate that it was "one billion percent". I thought for a while that it was only 999,999,986% but there was a rounding error on Sam Matterface.
Not sure if that’s a serious question.Gill is regularly seen sitting next to Ferguson at Utd matches, he's the highest ranking English man at UEFA. Parry is head of the EFL and surely has some contacts still at Liverpool. What disqualifies them as good sources?
This is my whole point and I agree with you. People don’t address the bit in bold below though there maybe more to it than I understand.
that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason;
Once we’ve finished, examining their own bogies will be the only thing they’re capable of.Wonder if the PL perform as detailed an investigation into the clubs regarding PSR ?
Panja’s motive was to downplay the points city won on. The league is doing the same and so is stefan to a certain extent hence the backlash. We can speculate to motive.The problem is that quite a lot of the leaks were false information. For example there were leaks about City facing draconian punishments from EUFA in the run up to the CAS decision. This information was false but Panja reported it as fact with no caveats. In fact UEFA had virtually no evidence and Ceferin later tried to cut a deal with Khaldoon. The information coming from Gill and Parry (who was part of the UEFA IC which investigated City) was false. It was used as part of a smear campaign against City. Panja may be close to senior people at MUFC and LFC but it doesn't make him a reliable source. Panja's story last week said City had only won a minor challenge about databases. The Judges' summary shows that is just untrue.
What I don't understand is how the owner of Leicester can use his own company to sponsor his statium and shirts ?
This never brought up. You can't a have sponsor who's related to you.
You can sponsor your own shirt and statium and give free loads.
I don't understand how Leicester have got away with this