It doesn’t work like that and nor should, to be fair. Arsenals mitigation would be untouchable in that they were following the rules that were in place at the time.But if it's deemed that loans should be subject to fair market value wouldn't they have to back date them and make them fork out?
I’ll watch Sly News later in for the first time in a very long time.It’s looking like the news is that bad for the PL most media outlets are trying to hide it . SSN to their credit said it has huge consequences for the PL and its finances
Surely if the rules are null and void then the amended rules are moot? Or have I skipped too many pages on here?no, the amended rules from Nov, still being challenged.
Quick question.I might be single tonight, but I’ve had a great night already. :-)
Off to make chips, scampi, and mushy peas, along with a glass of beer.
"Now this is not the end.It is not the beginning of the end.But it is,perhaps the end of the beginning.Sorry for being slow have we got a victory over the cunts is this the end of it
Quick question.
Are you the same JRB that’s on the SSC forums?
Yes, but Arsenal ensured the rules were there in the first place so should now pay the piper?It doesn’t work like that and nor should, to be fair. Arsenals mitigation would be untouchable in that they were following the rules that were in place at the time.
It’d be like getting done because you smoked in a pub in 1980, or many thousands of elderly people getting done for smacking their kids in the 70’s, before both those things were illegal.
Can't beat Scampi and Mushy peas, and a slice of Warburtons with LurpakI might be single tonight, but I’ve had a great night already. :-)
Off to make chips, scampi, and mushy peas, along with a glass of beer.
I guess so based on this, but need to be challenged separately anyway.Surely if the rules are null and void then the amended rules are moot? Or have I skipped too many pages on here?
OK, I'm assuming it's gonna bite 'em on the arse in future though, is it not?It doesn’t work like that and nor should, to be fair. Arsenals mitigation would be untouchable in that they were following the rules that were in place at the time.
It’d be like getting done because you smoked in a pub in 1980, or many thousands of elderly people getting done for smacking their kids in the 70’s, before both those things were illegal.
Daily Mail saying amended rules being judged by the same panel.Surely if the rules are null and void then the amended rules are moot? Or have I skipped too many pages on here?
And voted for the amendments before the Judges’ decision despite being warned. They are total idiots who could have avoided being in another costly legal battle.What does this tell you about the clubs who voted for these illegal rules ? How can they be allowed to run and own clubs that are happy to work outside the law of the land ?
Not really. They’ll convert any outstanding loans to equity and that’ll be the end of that.OK, I'm assuming it's gonna bite 'em on the arse in future though, is it not?
I'm far from a legal expert but if the rules are now void, it's surely pretty much a free pass for all clubs. all clubs should be able to easily say we can't comply with rules that don't exist and we can't be expected to have budgeted to comply with rules they weren't aware of.Right so does this mean Arsenal are fucked due to the loan thing?
I don't know who they are, name the cunts.Not to be ungentlemanly, but today is also one in the eye for those Professional City Fans (™) who wailed, moaned, gnashed their teeth, and complained long and loud on social media when City initially took this action.
Because they had books and podcasts to sell to the public and throwing City under the bus in the name of viewers and listeners is fair game isn’t it?
They know who they are. And so do we all.
How can amending illegal rules make them legal?While it's great news for City it's by no means over. We've still got APT2 to come and the changes made by the PL may have been enough to stave off the need for scrapping it altogether. So by all means have a beer on todays good news but know we've still got another judgement to come (and I don't mean the 115 charges nonsense).
Damn, I was trying to avoid it but I'm going to have to read the DM.Daily Mail saying amended rules being judged by the same panel.
If the amendments in Nov 24 addressed the three aspects of the rules which were found to be unlawful (and which made the rules as a whole void as now found), isn’t it likely the amended rules will be found lawful, or am I missing something?Surely if the rules are null and void then the amended rules are moot? Or have I skipped too many pages on here?