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

remember arthur mann said:
www.footballinsider247.com

'Man City launch new accusation after Arsenal lobbying' - Stefan Borson

Football Insider has been told by Stefan Borson Man City have launched a new accusation after Arsenal have been "lobbying".
www.footballinsider247.com www.footballinsider247.com
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that it’s about fairness I think for us as fans the biggest issue from a fairness point is things like the hotel, player sales women’s teams sales suspicious Covid allowances, fake stadium plans, club sale costs, hacking psg sponsorship etc APT for me is secondary. I hope this means we will come back to these issues especially when the 115 is sorted but I assume not
 
WRicko said:
It’s interesting that it’s about fairness I think for us as fans the biggest issue from a fairness point is things like the hotel, player sales women’s teams sales suspicious Covid allowances, fake stadium plans, club sale costs, hacking psg sponsorship etc APT for me is secondary. I hope this means we will come back to these issues especially when the 115 is sorted but I assume not
Click to expand...
I suppose City will, in a fashion, run the APT, and 115 charges, in tandem
 
WRicko said:
It’s interesting that it’s about fairness I think for us as fans the biggest issue from a fairness point is things like the hotel, player sales women’s teams sales suspicious Covid allowances, fake stadium plans, club sale costs, hacking psg sponsorship etc APT for me is secondary. I hope this means we will come back to these issues especially when the 115 is sorted but I assume not
Click to expand...
Chelsea FC have made a >£100M profit yet their owning company a >£400M loss, they have taken out loans which have been used to buy shares, convert to equity, in Chelsea FC. Their owners are using every trick in the book and inventing new ones to get around PSR

The value of the women's team >£200M with virtually zero fixed assets was 2/3rds the value of Newcastle with far greater fixed and tangible assets when sold by Ashley
 
domalino said:
I realise there’s loads of logistical and practical reasons why the tribunals/panels have to be like this with unknown end dates and people not being available at times etc. but it does seem really insufficient as a fan (and to fans of other clubs) that a judicial process has no predictable end date when the sporting calendar means the deadline and when potential punishments get dealt out matters.

If the PL do end up changing up their processes after these City/APT cases, I really think it would be better to have a definitive deadline that could be announced even if that means allowing loads of time padding for scheduling etc and ultimately a later decision.

I think the unknown end date and secondary/tertiary hearings and “expected” deadlines passing by with no decision has contributed to the general lack of trust and confidence in the process.

If we’d been told 2 years ago a judgment would be done by September 1 2025, it would at least have allowed the story to subside out of the news cycle for a bit, instead we get these update stories once a week and Peps being pushed into saying the judgment will be in a few weeks, which then passes so that becomes a story in itself.
Click to expand...
I suppose the fact that PL Rules are ultimately subject to UK law has been the main reason for City to have much success regarding fairness and observance of those rules.

Whatever sector of business or even private issues, the law has always been painfully slow as Stefan repeatably tells us so that will not change.

Whether that 19th century trait will ever be speeded up to actually modern methods is a step too far I fear for this traditional charge by the hour profession.
 
Gordyola said:
Chelsea FC have made a >£100M profit yet their owning company a >£400M loss, they have taken out loans which have been used to buy shares, convert to equity, in Chelsea FC. Their owners are using every trick in the book and inventing new ones to get around PSR

The value of the women's team >£200M with virtually zero fixed assets was 2/3rds the value of Newcastle with far greater fixed and tangible assets when sold by Ashley
Click to expand...
This is because the PL employ non-exec directors who are completely under qualified for the tasks put before them. You and I can see the obvious flaw in Chelsea's sale of its women's team for a massively inflated £200m. Add into the mix attendances, revenue streams from tv/sponsors, kit sales, etc. and it just doesn't add up.
 
Gordyola said:
Chelsea FC have made a >£100M profit yet their owning company a >£400M loss, they have taken out loans which have been used to buy shares, convert to equity, in Chelsea FC. Their owners are using every trick in the book and inventing new ones to get around PSR

The value of the women's team >£200M with virtually zero fixed assets was 2/3rds the value of Newcastle with far greater fixed and tangible assets when sold by Ashley
Click to expand...
So we are in agreement yet city don’t seem to do anything about it but are bothered about APT
 
Gordyola said:
Chelsea FC have made a >£100M profit yet their owning company a >£400M loss, they have taken out loans which have been used to buy shares, convert to equity, in Chelsea FC. Their owners are using every trick in the book and inventing new ones to get around PSR

The value of the women's team >£200M with virtually zero fixed assets was 2/3rds the value of Newcastle with far greater fixed and tangible assets when sold by Ashley
Click to expand...
Everyone knows it’s fucking bent. Will be interesting to see UEFA’s take on seeing as they don’t allow such asset transfers/purchases unlike the PL.
 
WRicko said:
So we are in agreement yet city don’t seem to do anything about it but are bothered about APT
Click to expand...
Yes The only thing about City not doing anything about it is, maybe, they are awaiting the outcome of the whole APT saga and fair market value. Remembering that, IIRC, Chelsea sided with City?
 
I was intrigued by Stefan's article but would like him to be a little more explicit so that we can be a little clearer on its meaning.

It seems that there is a widespread belief that Chelsea are getting away with breaches of the rules and the PL isn't "going after them". But what Stefan highlighted was that City were actually drawing attention to Arsenal's lobbying against City and this appears to explain what Simon Cliff was referring to in his remark about City being aware that clubs had motives other than their own interests for voting on proposals. This seems to have little if anything to do with Chelsea's sale of hotels, women's clubs or anything else but seems to be arguing that these clubs are motivated by a desire to introduce regulations that put other clubs at a clear disadvantage by damaging their ability to work as they are entitled. An obvious example would appear to be, first of all, the exclusion of interest free loans from owners from the APT rules at the express demand of at least one club, and then the rushed "amendments" which still subjected "APTS" to FMV calculations but left loans free from any interest until the new "amendments come into force. In these cases the PL would appear to be treating some clubs (might I suggest City and Newcastle at least?) very differently to other clubs, to the point where the rules are a weapon to put them at a disadvantage. The rules appear, therefore to have nothing to do with the better governance of football, which is the responsibility of the PL but much to do with the protection of other clubs, which is the negation of what the PL exists for.

What intrigues me is that this cannot be a sudden realisation that hit City like a hammer blow quite recently! I wonder whether this may have a connection with the charges the PL has brought against City and the delay between hearing and award. We have long since drawn attention to FFPR that have nothing to do with fairness and PSR which take no account of sustainability. In particular there is no mention of debt, no measures to require repayment and certainly no interest in analysing its origins. Yet revenue is regulated in considerable detail, and the PL has been hounding one of its most "sustainable" clubs for at least 7 years, when it picked up the baton from the hands of UEFA. CAS found that UEFA had absolutely no evidence to support its claims. We know nothing of the evidence the PL might have but we suggest it would have to be spectacular to nullify the impressive array brought forward by City. IF City have won and won well on the 115 charges we may well be arguing that the whole panoply of regulations to guarantee fair play and sustainability are no such thing but simply measures to hinder the progress of some clubs in the interests of others, that the PL has cooperated with some clubs to do this, is not fit to perform its role as a regulatory and governing body and that individuals must be held to account. Why have our affairs been investigated ad infinitum while other clubs can hide theirs in the Cayman Isles and be allowed such generous losses, break FFP, PSR but face no sanction. Why does the statute of limitations not apply to City but does protect another club which could indulge in criminal access to our scouting records? The PL might wish to delay such an award indefinitely.

I would certainly welcome any comment on the above from those who are far, far better qualified than I. Is what I've said total rubbish? Or could there be a grain of truth in it?
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I was intrigued by Stefan's article but would like him to be a little more explicit so that we can be a little clearer on its meaning.

It seems that there is a widespread belief that Chelsea are getting away with breaches of the rules and the PL isn't "going after them". But what Stefan highlighted was that City were actually drawing attention to Arsenal's lobbying against City and this appears to explain what Simon Cliff was referring to in his remark about City being aware that clubs had motives other than their own interests for voting on proposals. This seems to have little if anything to do with Chelsea's sale of hotels, women's clubs or anything else but seems to be arguing that these clubs are motivated by a desire to introduce regulations that put other clubs at a clear disadvantage by damaging their ability to work as they are entitled. An obvious example would appear to be, first of all, the exclusion of interest free loans from owners from the APT rules at the express demand of at least one club, and then the rushed "amendments" which still subjected "APTS" to FMV calculations but left loans free from any interest until the new "amendments come into force. In these cases the PL would appear to be treating some clubs (might I suggest City and Newcastle at least?) very differently to other clubs, to the point where the rules are a weapon to put them at a disadvantage. The rules appear, therefore to have nothing to do with the better governance of football, which is the responsibility of the PL but much to do with the protection of other clubs, which is the negation of what the PL exists for.

What intrigues me is that this cannot be a sudden realisation that hit City like a hammer blow quite recently! I wonder whether this may have a connection with the charges the PL has brought against City and the delay between hearing and award. We have long since drawn attention to FFPR that have nothing to do with fairness and PSR which take no account of sustainability. In particular there is no mention of debt, no measures to require repayment and certainly no interest in analysing its origins. Yet revenue is regulated in considerable detail, and the PL has been hounding one of its most "sustainable" clubs for at least 7 years, when it picked up the baton from the hands of UEFA. CAS found that UEFA had absolutely no evidence to support its claims. We know nothing of the evidence the PL might have but we suggest it would have to be spectacular to nullify the impressive array brought forward by City. IF City have won and won well on the 115 charges we may well be arguing that the whole panoply of regulations to guarantee fair play and sustainability are no such thing but simply measures to hinder the progress of some clubs in the interests of others, that the PL has cooperated with some clubs to do this, is not fit to perform its role as a regulatory and governing body and that individuals must be held to account. Why have our affairs been investigated ad infinitum while other clubs can hide theirs in the Cayman Isles and be allowed such generous losses, break FFP, PSR but face no sanction. Why does the statute of limitations not apply to City but does protect another club which could indulge in criminal access to our scouting records? The PL might wish to delay such an award indefinitely.

I would certainly welcome any comment on the above from those who are far, far better qualified than I. Is what I've said total rubbish? Or could there be a grain of truth in it?
Click to expand...

It could be the building of a criminal case.
 
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