manimanc
Well-Known Member
Funnily enough that happened to us.None as they haven't broken any rules that were in place at the time.
You know, goalposts getting moved everytime we complied with the rules.
Funnily enough that happened to us.None as they haven't broken any rules that were in place at the time.
I thought they were against the amendments not APT in principle…but I’m a KFA in all this, my missus is the solicitor but for some reason she wants to watch Emily in Paris instead of reading through the judgement for me and explaining it in layman’s terms.Did they though? The club argue it.
City's position was based on law & fairness not balls or money.I think there could be a carve up. City don't necessarily want zero regulation in this area, but they want it to be fair and non-discriminatory (against us). To be honest, I'm not even sure they'd care it was unlawful - as long as it doesn't get challenged they could pass something that all the clubs are happy with - the PL messed up here by picking a fight with the one club that had a) the balls and b) the money to take it all the way.
The graph should really show how much each club is serviced through loans, whether that be from banks or from shareholders.Yes, but its semantics really, the banks would want their money back, and it would be the owners who'd have to find it, but OK they currently owe £0.
Interesting
As I say I don’t think 7 clubs will vote the PL down indeed the panel’s verdict probably gives the PL a clear line of sight in terms of how an independent panel will view matters going forward
I don’t like using the phrase red herrings in relation to owners loans but sorry I think this is being a little overstated in terms of this aspect of the ruling. One way or another the owners will work round this my guess re Chelsea this was as much to do with their plans going forward in terms of associated sponsorship or more likely something to do with the multi club plans concerns re a sum is nothing more than a sum that will increase the costs for PSR but simply won’t see the owners receiving any income