In no other sphere of business that I can think of is an owner barred from investing their wealth into their company.I doubt City want rid of FFP /PSR as this would open up the likes of Newcastle In any case it all changes soon with the squad cost control method
Be good thoughCan't see them all standing and clapping Khaldoon in ... that prick Lewis from Arsenal will probably flounce out again!
I’ve previously said twice that Wednesbury isn’t the test that was applied. This is the third and last time.I'm really not sure what justifies the disparaging tone.
You've linked Wednesbury with "balance of probabilities". I'm arguing that if a decision was such that no reasonable person could have made it, then that can't be decided on a balance of probability because that would mean it was not certain that no reasonable person could have made the decision. (I read that three times to see if it made sense.) I'd be happy to see something cited that combines Wednesbury and balance of probability (rather than balance of reasons).
But is Wednesbury the test the Tribunal applied? Wednesbury was mentioned only in citing another case that did involve a public authority (the Competition Commission). The Tribunal cites the principle (and rejected City's argument that no reasonable board could have done what the PL Board did) but in the end seems to have accepted that it is not for the PL to prove that their FMV assessment was reasonable, but for City to prove it was unreasonable (and in that City failed). Now presumably that was decided on the balance of probability!
LOL. There was actually a job advertised recently with the shadow football regulator dealing with financial policies and regulation.
I was very tempted to apply but it would've involved a significant pay cut from my current role.
I agree absolutelyIn no other sphere of business that I can think of is an owner barred from investing their wealth into their company.
This alone shows up FFP, PSR & APT for what they really are... Restraint of trade by a cartel trying to create a monopoly.
I'm not sure tbh but I read something way way back in the thread that an injunction could be sought. I'm sure our more knowlegable and learned blues will know.Sorry if this sounds simplistic (I am obv) but does it matter if the vote is 19 - 1? Surely if the rules are deemed illegal, the club just take the whole lot to court and the threat of that should surely carry the day.
Anfield.He’ll probably be asked to fall on his sword. He can’t be sacked as that would be akin to an admission of liability. It didn’t make sense he had to leave that event early this week. The story was that it was to prepare for next week’s meeting. He needs a week to prepare? He was called somewhere.
Or buying a few more clubs ;)Maybe we should start buying votes from the so-called smaller clubs
Note:So am I missing something here,
It's Okay for owners to loan their clubs £500million interest-free or charge 6% and then add it to the club's kdebts. But they want to stop Sponsorship deal investments, so the clubs' debt rises, and then it takes the club's market value down by £500million. OK, that sounds like a great idea for football.
So if our owners want to loan us £1billion it is OK, But if our owners agree on a major deal with a large leading company to Sponsors us it is wrong, Even if our owners did have links to that company and it's a major brand trading legally then it's still a legal business that has to produces annual revenue figures that show that sponsorship deal.
It's full-on Prejudice by the Premier League, WHY not go full on back ball in the bag system with its members voting,
Huge debts which are never paid back has always been the biggest threat to the future of footbal clubs. This has always been one of the most absurd things about the PL's FFP regime. United fans still talk about organic growth but their club has total debts approachng 1bn and that figure continues to grow. The whole empire is propped up by loans from US banks. With this business model investment is apparently a bad thing. The PL hierarchy has taken leave of its senses in the last 10 years.So am I missing something here,
It's Okay for owners to loan their clubs £500million interest-free or charge 6% and then add it to the club's debts. But they want to stop Sponsorship deal investments, so the clubs' debt rises, and then it takes the club's market value down by £500million. OK, that sounds like a great idea for football.
So if our owners want to loan us £1billion it is OK, But if our owners agree on a major deal with a large leading company to Sponsors us it is wrong, Even if our owners did have links to that company and it's a major brand trading legally then it's still a legal business that has to produces annual revenue figures that show that sponsorship deal.
It's full-on Prejudice by the Premier League, WHY not go full on back ball in the bag system with its members voting,