City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

[lonestay]

As a Newcastle fan we've seen the response of the cartel and their lapdogs since the beginning of our takeover, they did whatever they could to stop the takeover going through, and almost did.

As for the cartel's lapdogs, the likes of Crystal Palace, I think there's an element of them being happy for the ladder to be pulled up if it keeps everyone else down there with them, they're happy for the them not to be able to ever bridge the financial gap to the 6 as long as no other club can. They're happy to just take mid-table mediocrity and £100m in TV money every season.

PSR also helps to keep a financial gap between promoted clubs and their mid-table mediocrity gravy train.

Without our takeover, none of this probably would've happened, the rules were amended to stop our owners potentially turning us into challengers, I think the impact on you that let to your case was collateral damage or rules that were aimed at us.

For whatever reason, our owners seem to have been super compliant so far. I suspect that might have something to do with the "legally binding assurances" that were given to enable the takeover to go through (in addition to our competition tribunal case and the $1bn settlement of the BeoutQ dispute). Or maybe they're just happy to sit back and let other clubs do the work for them?

Anytime your club wants to join the fight then please tell City and our legal representation, otherwise I don't have a lot of time for Newcastle who want the benefits of this fight but don't wish to participate in it .

 

[Stoned Rose]

That is indeed a whole new area, but I've asked the question before about the nature of financial regulation in football. What is it for? What's the objective?

Is it to ensure a genuinely level financial playing field? No one really wants a scenario like Germany or France, where the wealthiest club by far generally dominates the league. Obviously that probably applies to us at the moment but there are a number of clubs who stand apart from the rest financially, with united & Chelsea showing that spending does not necessarily equate to success.

If that's the objective then you have to look at revenue sharing and spending caps. The notion of 'anchoring' is not one that I'm comfortable with. Why allow the lowest earning clubs to restrict the spending of the successful ones? You're handicapping clubs like us and Liverpool by doing that.

Is it to ensure genuine financial sustainability? I've said many times that the current PSR/FFP regimes, with the focus on historic profits and losses, aren't fit for that purpose. The squad cost rules are better, but still don't answer the fundamental questions around debt, which has generally been the main factor in club failure. We could have easily gone into administration in summer 2008, not because of historic losses, but because of cashflow issues and our inability to meet the £15m liability for the previous summer's transfers. FFP/PSR, even with squad cost limits, still won't prevent that liability-based scenario.

To use your example, if Musk took over Ipswich, and proposed a £1bn sponsorship over 5 years, it should fail the PL's FMV test. I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem with that. If he lent them a billion, there would be no regulatory scrutiny though, although they could still only spend so much, based on their revenue, expenses and squad cost. You could argue there should be some leeway though. But if he did lend them a substantial sum, regardless of whether they could spend it, then changed his mind a couple of years later and demanded it back, they'd be screwed, possibly terminally. It happened with Brooks Mileson at Gretna (although he fell seriously ill). Why are there no rules to mitigate impacts like this?

I'll finish with the question I started with, which is what is financial regulation trying to achieve? We've never had a satisfactory answer to this question.

“Fairness” mate.

But only for the cartel.

 

[chedinho]

You know what, I was lay here in the night, aching knee doing my brains in, and as usual on bluemoon to pass the time, and it started me thinking.

Why do so many clubs align themselves with the red cartel? Now, obviously before people jump in with the usual responses, take a minute and think. If you class it as taking our side or theirs, any club who sits on the red side is effectively accepting mediocrity for ever. Just be an also ran, be happy to stay in the Prem, no aspiration whatsoever that at some point there may be that crack in the door, an investor who wants to pump some money in and take the club to greater heights etc. What a fucking weird mentality. Surely these clubs top brass can see the wood from the trees, that the red cartel don’t give a fuck about any of them, they just want them to know their place, do your best and be a feeder club for us when we want to plunder your best talents.

Why not align with us? I’ve enjoyed the last 15 or so years so much, been a blue for 53 years, seen everything you could ever wish to see, I’d have no problem whatsoever to see another club rise like a phoenix and have their time in the sun.

Anyway, that’s my musings on this Saturday morning, I’ll get back to feeling sorry for myself and wanting to saw my leg off, lol.

We have to look at it from their point of view.

Staying in the prem would be a big deal to a lot of clubs. Anything that gives the an advantage on achieving that will gain their vote.
European places giving more revenue would be something else for teams to aim for.
Selling players like Solanke provides a financial cushion for clubs. They know their immediate financial future is secure.
And the investor… we were lucky. Shinawatra era nearly ended in disaster for us. It’s not always worth the gamble. And I doubt waddle would have sold the club had he known.

For clubs to align with us we have to an argument that benefits everyone. Or at least put something forward that gives clubs optimism.

I don’t have any answers. It’s my opinion why clubs have sided with the red cartel.

How did they get FFP through? They enticed lower table teams by restricting promoted clubs to spending 65% of their revenue. Imo anyway.

 

[Stoned Rose]

As a Newcastle fan we've seen the response of the cartel and their lapdogs since the beginning of our takeover, they did whatever they could to stop the takeover going through, and almost did.

As for the cartel's lapdogs, the likes of Crystal Palace, I think there's an element of them being happy for the ladder to be pulled up if it keeps everyone else down there with them, they're happy for the them not to be able to ever bridge the financial gap to the 6 as long as no other club can. They're happy to just take mid-table mediocrity and £100m in TV money every season.

PSR also helps to keep a financial gap between promoted clubs and their mid-table mediocrity gravy train.

Without our takeover, none of this probably would've happened, the rules were amended to stop our owners potentially turning us into challengers, I think the impact on you that let to your case was collateral damage or rules that were aimed at us.

For whatever reason, our owners seem to have been super compliant so far. I suspect that might have something to do with the "legally binding assurances" that were given to enable the takeover to go through (in addition to our competition tribunal case and the $1bn settlement of the BeoutQ dispute). Or maybe they're just happy to sit back and let other clubs do the work for them?

Newcastle can fuck off.

Sneaking out the back door while every **** in the pub tries to glass city.

There as bad as the rest of the cunts.

 

[sir baconface]

:) That, detective, is the right question.

(One of the right questions)

Really? “Why would X have done that?” is the weakest defence imaginable.

I for one am pretty sure we did some shady dealings. However,I was never confident of the PL having sound proof and, after the latest fiasco, am even less so now.

I’m pretty sure there were some restrictions in place at the time (UEFA?) although I can’t remember what.

 

[the blue panther]

Newcastle can fuck off.

Sneaking out the back door while every **** in the pub tries to glass city.

There as bad as the rest of the cunts.

Looking a lot rosier for them now, though. E.g. How do the P.L. assess fair market value for the sponsors of the whole Geordie nation? That very big sleeping giant will soon be awake. They'll be eating at the top table with us soon if they get things right.

 

[KS55]

Wouldn't trust any of em, Lawton was complicit on a Piers Morgan show and has cosied up to the Stretford lot.
Gonna be interesting how far our tentacles go if we (God forbid) win the witchunt charade.

Huge vats for the boiling of piss are being prepared. Emailing media with the word ‘hypocrite’ will become a national sport; Dan Roan, the Telegraph, and the Grauniad will all say the verdict is wrong, without, of course, any logic to back that up. The Graun will repeat their brilliant analysis of the CAS verdict which was that we were guilty because CAS did not use the word ‘innocent.’ They referenced Scottish criminal law to justify their nonsense.

 

[BringBackSwales]

As a Newcastle fan we've seen the response of the cartel and their lapdogs since the beginning of our takeover, they did whatever they could to stop the takeover going through, and almost did.

As for the cartel's lapdogs, the likes of Crystal Palace, I think there's an element of them being happy for the ladder to be pulled up if it keeps everyone else down there with them, they're happy for the them not to be able to ever bridge the financial gap to the 6 as long as no other club can. They're happy to just take mid-table mediocrity and £100m in TV money every season.

PSR also helps to keep a financial gap between promoted clubs and their mid-table mediocrity gravy train.

Without our takeover, none of this probably would've happened, the rules were amended to stop our owners potentially turning us into challengers, I think the impact on you that let to your case was collateral damage or rules that were aimed at us.

For whatever reason, our owners seem to have been super compliant so far. I suspect that might have something to do with the "legally binding assurances" that were given to enable the takeover to go through (in addition to our competition tribunal case and the $1bn settlement of the BeoutQ dispute). Or maybe they're just happy to sit back and let other clubs do the work for them?

Fuck Newcastle, your club was happy to sign the letter to UEFA on arsenal headed notepaper, asking (begging) UEFA to ban us from Europe. Talk about reaping what you sow

 

[citizen_maine]

Newcastle can fuck off.

Sneaking out the back door while every **** in the pub tries to glass city.

There as bad as the rest of the cunts.

The cynic in me agrees that Newcastle fans have only had their eyes opened to what's been going on because it now directly affects their club, but on the other hand, I don't really care why other fans are starting to see it, as long as they are

 

[sir baconface]

I think most clubs prioritises protecting the business case of their (US) owners. For them it is perfectly fine being a mid table team as long as they make good money every year. The cartel system virtually guarantees that this can go on forever. City is a threat to this system and those who profits just want to continue to extract money out of football.

In what other universe is this behaviour rewarded and net contributors penalised?

This is why a proper review is needed and why tweaking the current misguided ones is not enough.

And also why the PL’s “instant solution” can go and fcuk off.