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

halfcenturyup said:
They need to recognise it's just business. When United were top dogs every sponsor was falling over themselves to get a bit of the action. Business changes, adapts, develops. Now it's our turn.

They don't want to discriminate (apparently), so make sure all sponsorships are around fair value, related, associated or third party. Do it properly. No need for APTs at all.
Click to expand...
No need for any financial rules only whatever a club loses over a year has to be paid by the owner/owners. Yes this may give a few clubs a certain advantage for a time but let's get it right have ADG and the Saudi investment group invested in City and Newcastle to lose 100s of millions every season?? Its a long term investment same as the dodgy meat seller at United made and littlewoods with the dippers.
 
If I were the PL, I would:
1. Scrap APTs completely and rely on IAS 24 related definition.
2. Introduce a cap for team spending that is absolute, ie not related to a club’s income. Make it big enough for the big boys. (Then the rags could stop outspending us!)
 
Stoned Rose said:
Stefan and Damocles are wrong.

We proved their rules are unlawful. Which is what we set out to do.
Click to expand...
I think the outcome from the Tribunal was much better than I expected due largely to not knowing the PL had not been as careful in its drafting , implementation and following of the rules. In effect the tribunal has now made them unusable and so has forced a rethink. Makes the PL look grossly incompetent at best. That is a win.

The next test is the consequences of that decision and the proposed rules which will emerge and I guess that's the next battle to be had and based on the letters flying round the war is far from over.
 
blueparrot said:
You can as long as it passes the fair market value test.
Click to expand...
If FMV is a subsection of APT that's in turn a subsection of PSR in general and the supposed objective of PSR is sustainability then why the fuck isn't an FMV assessment conducted for under market value abuse by APT's which actually jeopardises sustainability such as Newcastle's association with Sports direct? Is it that the long term sustainability of Newcastle under fat mike was never a concern for the premier league as they posed zero threat to the red shite, but within 5 days of a takeover the rule(s)need changing pronto.
 
Clubs will be reluctant to vote in rules if there is a threat of legal action.
Clubs are not going to be happy keep getting hit in the pocket on legal fees
 
They (whoever they might be) have to decide “What do we want the PL to be?”

If they want it to be a socialist experiment, then make it one and live with the consequences.

If they want it to be a communist experiment, then make it one and live with the consequences.

And, if they want to make it a laissez-faire capitalist experiment, then make it one and live with the consequences.

However, whatever they do has to be more than palatable to the vast majority of the clubs in the League AND NEEDS TO BE LEGAL UNDER BRITISH LAW!

The problem they’ve had is implementing a cartel-based system of hodge-podge rules meant to harm one type of business model they fear, while protecting others. THAT’S ILLEGAL ON ITS FACE, but they’ve been too up their own protectionist arse to acknowledge it. City merely forced that realization, because they weren’t going to be told what was and was not legal by an extra-legal cartel-based system when it came to running a successful club!
 
mattcity5 said:
Loads of people think we're state-owned. Theyre wrong, but I can understand their confusion, it is a bit of a fine line. But why are we so bothered about a club being state owned?

Is it because potentially they'll be richer than everyone else? If so, so what. Somebody always has to be the richest, and if we're wanting to limit ownership based on that, it's a really slippy slope to being as bad as the red shirts.

What would be the worst that would happen? Newcastle sign great players and the league is even more competitive?

Any piece of regulation regarding funding is one piece of regulation too many to me.
Click to expand...
The problem is certain individuals/clubs don’t want that. Unsure even if the City hierarchy want that TBH.

I think City fans are different and one of the few that welcomes the competition. We have seen us at our absolute rock-bottom and at our highest of highs, all in the space of 25 years. We don’t think we have a divine right to win anything and we don’t think we are deserve any special treatment. We wouldn’t begrudge a Newcastle or another sides fans experiencing the unexpected euphoria due to takeover, huge injection of finances and subsequent glory. Unfortunately, what we have witnessed over the past decade, is that some individuals/clubs do believe they have a divine right to success and woe betide anyone who dares get in their way.
 
Last edited:
bobbyowenquiff said:
It is shocking and depressing that the Newcastle story is getting virtually no coverage. As you say it's not a conspiracy theory. The evidence for the APT case shows that one (redacted) Club Director orchestrated a group of ten other club directors who then colluded with Richard Masters to introduce an emergency amendment to the rules to block investment at Newcastle United. What did the other nine clubs (including City and Newcastle) think about this collusion? How can any organisation enable a partial group of its shareholders, supported by the CEO, to actively inflict commercial damage on another member? Is this activity even legal? Who is going to investigate what is happening behind closed doors at the Premier League?
Click to expand...
especially when according to the PL rules , all clubs are supposed to act in Good faith
 
The cartel must be so pissed off and have told Webb that City’s next game at Wolves they want to see 3 straight red cards , 2 penalties, 6 yellow cards 2 disallowed goals all in favour for Wolves.
 
johnny crossan said:
They also knew the APT 2024 amendments were illegal before they were voted through in February apparently. That's when & why City launched their action.
Click to expand...

It's like the 115 they didn't give a shit! They let those new apt rules go through because they knew it was slow the money coming down by months! They are the ones who are corrupt with an agenda
 
Martin Samuel has made the point that the first, fundamental change that the PL must make is to get rid of profit out of profit and sustainability. It is no concern of the PL's. The sustainability of football clubs is of concern to everyone but the obsession with profit appears to be little more than a mechanism for owners (especially American?) to siphon money out of the game. This appears to be the root cause of the bad relations with City, which seem to be escalating into outright war. The revenue and therefore spending power of City and other, non-establishment clubs had, as a consequence to be controlled as strictly as possible. Hence the obsession with acceptable revenue streams, to the point where unlawful regulations have been put in place. Even now the PL insists that the regulations are in tact, or at the most need a few minor revisions. We must ask why. Why is it so important to the PL to limit owner investment? Why must APT's be subjected to such delays and nit picking calculation? Why does the PL not want money coming into the game? City will find out, however many times we have to go to the tribunal.
 
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