These aren’t views and you claimed to have quoted me.Matey, you have your views and I have mine,
You have a platform on talksport and get reactions good or bad it is part of the job and all I have is this forum
I would never call you pathetic or say you talk crap because it's just my views, I was just saying about the United covid19 and the PSR you were talking about and how other teams had to get allowances cleared by the panel and many clubs' allowances was turned down,
The funny thing is I think we are on the same page with the PSR allowances for clubs. Yes the bigger the club the larger the losses on match-day revenue in COVID-19, United have the largest stadium and would have bigger losses to let's say Everton, But £45million allowances for United claimed and were signed off when teams like Arsenal with 60.000 for home games only got around £5million,
If I overstep the mark on my post then Sorry, Sometimes my wording on posts is crap and that is down to the lack of my IQ levels that are in low double figures only.
Matey, you have your views and I have mine,
You have a platform on talksport and get reactions good or bad it is part of the job and all I have is this forum
I would never call you pathetic or say you talk crap because it's just my views, I was just saying about the United covid19 and the PSR you were talking about and how other teams had to get allowances cleared by the panel and many clubs' allowances was turned down,
The funny thing is I think we are on the same page with the PSR allowances for clubs. Yes the bigger the club the larger the losses on match-day revenue in COVID-19, United have the largest stadium and would have bigger losses to let's say Everton, But £45million allowances for United claimed and were signed off when teams like Arsenal with 60.000 for home games only got around £5million,
If I overstep the mark on my post then Sorry, Sometimes my wording on posts is crap and that is down to the lack of my IQ levels that are in low double figures only.
He can’t resign until after the 115 case. To do so would completely undermine the PL’s position midway through the hearing.
But my strong suspicion is an exit plan will already be in place.
Thanks for clearing that up halfcentury.UEFA doesn't have APT rules, only RPT rules, I think.
None of the club's AD sponsors are related parties, but I am sure ridiculous sponsorships would be reviewed somehow. Probably by assuming that if a sponsor is paying an amount vastly over fmv, then it wouldn't be at arm's length.
The interest free loans have given some clubs a competitive advantage over others. Also assisting those clubs to pass the PSR. I assume that they will have to ensure that interest is paid in future and will get the rules changed provided there is no backdating.I was of a similar mindset yesterday, and wasn't convinced by Stefan's conclusions.
But having looked at the judgment again, I'm less certain it's as big a win as City are suggesting. Firstly, Stefan is taking the judgment at face value because the reasoning for City's court action is unknown. We can speculate and I think the timing gives a clear indication of what we were trying to achieve, but ultimately his position is to look at what we challenged and what we were successful on and I think in doing so a score draw is a fair assessment.
I'm still willing to make the assumption that it was the change in drafting following Newcastle's takeover and the impact that had on our potential sponsorships that City took issue with. I don't think it's a wild jump to make that connection, considering the timings.
So we've successfully argued that the PL's decision on our sponsorships was unlawful. A big win on the face of it. But there's no certainty those sponsorships are re-instated. It ultimately comes down to the PL providing us with comparable transaction data and their databook to justify why those sponsorships were not deemed to meet FMV and for us to have the ability to challenge their benchmarking. But that doesn't necessarily mean we'll be successful in securing those sponsorships and then pursuing damages.
As for the APT rules themselves, they have to now cover shareholder loans and they also need to re-draft the rules around FMV to ensure that clubs can comment on the PL's comparable transaction data before a decision on FMV is made.
The PL might have an issue with securing a majority vote on amended rules, particularly around shareholder loans, but I'm not sure it's a significant loss for them on the amendments needed around assessing FMV. There's no doubt in my mind the PL has a cartel of clubs controlling it, but when it comes to assessing FMV the board (cross-examined in this case) were largely found to have a robust approach to making that assessment. The critical part to any success City have on this is whether the comparable transactions a) are comparable and; b) do justify rejecting our proposed sponsorships. Clearly the club do not believe that evidence will justify the decision. But we'll have to wait and see. Any "win" on this really comes down to whether or not those sponsorships are allowed in light of the evidence, and with our ability to make comment on the database.
Again it's clear the club feel that the failure to share critical evidence or allow City to comment or challenge it is more evidence of a conspiracy within the PL.
Funny you should mention that, I was just thinking about that programme yesterday. Remember that bellend who was slagging off City when Mancini was appointed (I think he called us "grubby") and finally got his comeuppance...was it Smith? That's the 1st time I remember the media starting to become anti-City. Think he ended up getting sacked.Oh I do wish Sunday Supplement still existed can you imagine Martin Samuels schooling Barclay and that greasy haired twat as their heads exploded.
Not sure if that’s a serious question.
"The Tribunal has determined both that the APT rules are structurally unfair and that the Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice."I may have missed it in the thousands of posts, but my take is City lost on an issue that they really wanted the panel to find in their favor … the issue of bias and discrimination.
This was/is probably the only issue from this case that has direct implications in the 115 case.
Arguing that it’s been proven that the PL exhibits bias & discrimination carries weight in any legal dispute.
If it was the case that City's sponsors could pay City massive amounts of money if the APT rules was abolished, why then didn't they do that before the APT rules existed.