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

[Gone for a Burton]

City could bring the whole stinking, rotton, corrupt and racist shell to the ground .....if they are so minded.

I don't think they are.

I think they'd prefer to be proven right on the IMPORTANT issues under 'dispute' and to demonstrate publicly that at CAS, APT & PL Tribunals all important matters were found it City's favour......
Not guilty
Innocent
Unfair
Discriminatory &
Racist in everything but name !!

Our name must be cleared
"Once and for all"

Thereafter, much depends on the actions of the PL & cartel.

If there are insufficient changes, City may decide to drain the swamp....the momentum & high ground is all with us.

I imagine their preference is for radical reform and refitting with the certainty that the yank red cartel are 100% neutered !!

 

[domalino]

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.

The problem is that an entire generation of fans has been convinced that FFP or similar controls equals fair. It’s in the name after all!

Who it’s fair to and who decided it was fair becomes a secondary matter.

 

[sir baconface]

How long has Ingo Bank been CFO - anybody know anything about him

Sounds like a fkn monopoly card.

 

[citizen_maine]

Sounds like a fkn monopoly card.

Ingo bank, go directly to bank, do not pass go...

 

[Ballosteve]

As if this is the week that has blown up the PL. Absolute hyperbole.

To be clear, the next two weeks will be the weeks that blow up the PL unless the PL start playing ball.

:)

I was saying the exact same to my mate,I think that something more is brewing behind the scenes and next two weeks it could all go tit's up.....

 

[Oldham Exile]

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

I am with you on this......

Yes, I can absolutely understand some CITY fans dwelling on the actions and attitudes of Newcastle (the club) in the past - but that was when their owner was a self-serving **** who was only interested in what was best for his wallet.

In the here and now of 2024 I lean towards the view that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - so would welcome Geordies to the thread and the anti-Red Cartel movement.

Also over many years I have met many Geordies and had several as close friends - they are a great bunch from my experience - very similar to CITY fans in my view.

Mike Ashley was/is a **** though

 

[ufo]

As if this is the week that has blown up the PL. Absolute hyperbole.

To be clear, the next two weeks will be the weeks that blow up the PL unless the PL start playing ball.

:)

Yes now we know there was loads of blowing blowing job going on behind the scene

 

[Tevez City]

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.

The Financial unfair play rule is not trying to achieve anything but one thing, which is to make easier for the Cartel clubs to keep their dominance in football for ever.

 

[ufo]

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.

The end goal of ffp was to turn Epl into E MLS so that they can fuck city from different positions. On surface the rule book looks neat and tidy but inside it’s still the reds ccunts and dildo levy running the show. They have managed to get this far and it’s only a matter of time , the day they bring in salary cap , it’s done .

 

[spider blue]

The end goal of ffp was to turn Epl into E MLS so that they can fuck city from different positions. On surface the rule book looks neat and tidy but inside it’s still the reds ccunts and dildo levy running the show. They have managed to get this far and it’s only a matter of time , the day they bring in salary cap , it’s done .

God a salary cap, that will well and truly end it all.