MeatnSpudsMCFC
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 12,547
Everyone waffles on about Draper's post but I thought Barney Ronay's column was far worse. Though after the Rodri banner I think it's safe to say he's got an axe to grind.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
How does this proven unlawfulness that went on for 3 years sit with the need to “act with good faith” towards the clubs/game?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Don’t forget the sleight of hand, either.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
If you’re asking this you’ve ended up in a set 1 class by accident when you should be in detention for eating all the felt tips.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Magic response, mate.
Loads of people on here have since the initial judgment. And it’s totally fine. I disagree.
It’s not difficult to understand the difference between disagreeing and making out something nefarious or underhand is going on.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
No suggestion of that from me Stefan.
Think you’re an immense contributor to this community and a thoroughly decent chap.
I know and that’s why my responses to you look nothing like those to those that do.
Appreciate that.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,900
What?
bluetonium
Well-Known Member
You know what's laughable about this whole situation? Fair market value for associated party transactions. Yet there is no such system for player transfer fees and value. Why? Because it's ultimately left up to the market to determine, i.e. the buyer sets the value with what they're willing to pay, the seller confirms that market value by paying it, or walks away, and in theory, aren't all premier league teams associated parties?
I'm not saying for a moment that I think football clubs should get away with whatever they can or overspend to their hearts content, but let's be real these financial rules have never had that aim, and unless you're talking about wage caps or a handicapped draft system, I just don't see how the more successful clubs don't continue to be more financially attractive, nor why that should be stopped just because other clubs don't like it.
I'm not saying for a moment that I think football clubs should get away with whatever they can or overspend to their hearts content, but let's be real these financial rules have never had that aim, and unless you're talking about wage caps or a handicapped draft system, I just don't see how the more successful clubs don't continue to be more financially attractive, nor why that should be stopped just because other clubs don't like it.
There is a whole system for FMV of player transfers and loans. The whole APT regime applies to transfers too.
TBH that's part of the problem. This isn't a football story it's a legal story and as such should be on the business pages penned by someone with relative knowledge.SSN leading with the big story on the hour that the rags are a bigger cloob than Spturds.
#NotFitForPurpose
Plays By Sense Of Smell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 12,147
Is that a direct quote from Lord Pannick?
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Surely Masters position is now untenable?
In November he told clubs the tribunal findings were a actually a vindication of the rules and a few minor tweak's to the existing rules would make them water tight (as a result amendments were voted through in November).
Yesterday his statement claims the tribunal findings are about the "old rules" which is now irrelevant because "new rules" were brought into force last November.
Both of those statements can't be true at the same time?
Yesterday he also failed to inform clubs that the same panel will rule on the "new"/amended" (whichever he's calling them) in the near future, attempting to make it sound like they are not under legal scrutiny.
In November he told clubs the tribunal findings were a actually a vindication of the rules and a few minor tweak's to the existing rules would make them water tight (as a result amendments were voted through in November).
Yesterday his statement claims the tribunal findings are about the "old rules" which is now irrelevant because "new rules" were brought into force last November.
Both of those statements can't be true at the same time?
Yesterday he also failed to inform clubs that the same panel will rule on the "new"/amended" (whichever he's calling them) in the near future, attempting to make it sound like they are not under legal scrutiny.
Didsbury Dave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 39,279
For the record my nickname is Dave and I lived in Didsbury when I joined this forum.
I went to Konspiracy many times and when I first met GDM we found out we were in there the same night even though we wouldn’t meet for another 20 years.
Fascinating stuff eh
whitenoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 1,144
Is your nickname Dave because your real name is Rodney?
BamberBridgeBlue
Well-Known Member
Biggest pointless argument ever. The two teams line up before the game. Each player exchanges a fact about attendance v attendance, social media engagement, past glories. Biggest team gets the 3 points.SSN leading with the big story on the hour that the rags are a bigger cloob than Spturds.
#NotFitForPurpose
I just don’t understand or care about the “my club is bigger than your club” (oo er Mrs) argument.
asahartford1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 9,993
Shit, it's all fake, does this mean Gordon is not Gordon.