I see what you're saying, but to clarify, I'm not talking about legal principles here so much as moral consistency. In the sense that we are accused of financially weighting things in our favour in an unproven way, while at the same time the Premier League have pushed through a framework which has been factually shown to actually weight things in other club's favour. In Arsenal's case we're talking about tens of millions that, if the rules were fair and balanced, should be counting towards their PSR calculations since the introduction of APT rules.
I know the APT rules don't apply to what we are accused of, but I'm highlighting the brass neck of a league that is on the one hand attempting to haul us over the coals for adding an extraneous illegal revenue source - while with the other hand, facilitating some clubs in leveraging an extraneous revenue source (or rather, cost avoidance) unlawfully.
To your final point, I agree, there's nothing wrong in principle with that kind of funding, and they have made a rod for their own back. But after this, it's never been more apparent that there is no consistent idea here of some ethical, sustainable vision. They are playing favourites. And if people didn't believe it before, well it's now been proven in court.
You have to ask why, and whether the PL made a full disclosure of the background, and the legal advice, to its members before the vote? Or did a little cabal keep that to themselves?
That's what would have happened if Swales still ran the club.There’s clearly some level of corruption going on here. Why was he vetted by United and Liverpool? What was said at the interview? What offers/promises were made?
Given what we now know, I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to suggest there may have been some level of you scratch our back, we will scratch yours, going on.
Never said it was not relevant. I said it was difficult to draw conclusions from it. And it was.Matt Lawton broke this news on 26th September and @tolmie's hairdoo also tweeted about it. They were correct. Well done gentlemen.
@slbsn questioned the reference to the agenda item being removed as potentially not being relevant. Clearly Stefan hadn’t had the nod.
Matt Lawton and @tolmie's hairdoo get where water doesn’t and that’s great news for us. Keep up the excellent work fellas.
as posted earlier
So happy they’ve had to call an emergency meeting to tell everybody how happy they areSSN just now "PL will be very happy with the verdict"......good grief
They have claimed it as a victory ;)SSN just now "PL will be very happy with the verdict"......good grief
Red cartel client media missing the main story? Shirley shome mishtakeWhat's even more damning is that they were told that owner loans at zero or preferential interest rates were likely to be APTs. And yet they, at the suggestion of some unnamed individual or club, chose to exclude these from the rules.
This is the real story here in my view and the media should be asking the question of who suggested excluding soft loans and why the PL listened to them.