I don't think a regulator would be an MP and he certainly wouldn't be Gary Neville. I suspect it would be a committee of lawyers who could call upon expert assistance if/when necessary. And I think the experience of the last few months shows the robust independence of the upper echelons of the legal profession.I'm fully onboard with the idea of an IR, just concerned about the influence that resonates from certain sections of the media and Politicians.
I'm blowing smoke up your arse but your understanding and that of certain posters on here represents a much better knowledge of the game than some MP's could ever have. It could be misconstrued as looking through blue tinted spectacles but the level of knowledge and understanding on here far outweigh's that of the Westminster mob, I don't have that much faith in them.
That doesn't explain why Newcastle didn't say/ do anything.They knew that excluding shareholder loans was unlawful but chose to ignore it after a club owner who has lent his club a substantial amount of money, interest free, asked them to exclude it. So they did.
Never mind Masters resigning, the NEDs who constitute the rest of the board should also resign over that as they're supposed to provide oversight.
Nail on the fuckin head!And that is the point.
The new rules that Masters was stuttering about last week, could well be painstakingly re-constructed over a sufficient period of time, and they could, though it's unlikely, produce a robust masterpiece of meticulous exactitude, compliant with UK commercial law in every aspect, or maybe not, but even if they pull of this masterpiece of in-house corporate legislation, it'd still be a crock of shit.
Because it's not the slap dash, make it up on the hoof, nature of these rules that's the real problem, though that was one of the reasons we scored such a significant victory, it's their purpose.
And their purpose cannot be addressed without stating what it is, as opposed to what is spun, and the biggest clue to what it is, is to ask who is best served by these rules? And to get there you follow the money, in this case "old" money, and when you do that you'll find where the real power lies in the Premier League, and what really motivates these powers behind the throne.
Everyone in here knows who the real power brokers in the Premier League are, what drives them and so on, and that Masters is simply their puppet. It is no coincidence that City was happy to take our UEFA case to CAS, happy to take this APT nonsense to arbitration and likewise the 115, because each time we do we're taking these trumped up charges away from the festering shit pits of self interest that spawned them, away from the power brokers and their puppets, and into the light of arbitration, governed by law and facts and reality.
That's why we're confident we'll smash the 115, because we know that nothing these self interested fuckers cook up can stand scrutiny when exposed to impartial legal professionals.
Interestingly didn’t City challenge the commence of an PL arbitration panel in the HC?Given the seniority and eminence of this panel, (former Supreme Court etc) I’d say its findings would not be challenged/changed by a court of law.
Better. Break it up into four & it'd be perfect! :-)The APT case was won by City in part because our legal team showed that the rules were nowhere near as comprehensive as they should have been and were therefore unlawful. In the Leicester case their counsel showed that Leicester were to be sanctioned for actions which were not prohibited by PL regulations. The regulations have increasingly been called into question and rulings have shown that the PL are to be held to the letter of their regulations. When the "charge sheet" for the 115 was first published City had to inform the PL that the regulations we had breached actually concerned the length of the grass and not entering in 2011 a competition we actually won in 2011!
We presume such blunders have been eliminated but PB has shown that the charges surrounding Mancini's contract deal with clear breaches perhaps in 2023 but with affairs which were clearly not breaches under the regulations obtaining at the time. It may be that there is a dawning realisation that, yet again, the PL doesn't understand its own regulations or that the regulations don't say what the PL thinks and intends. Then there is the matter of lawfulness - if the regulations had meant what the PL intended, would they be lawful?! These will be side issues, rather amusing as well, because City are certain we haven't breached any regulations and certainly haven't broken any laws.
PS Bit worried about the paragraphing. Satisfactory?
Compromise is a word the PL seems unable to understand. This is a real mess and it is going to be difficult to sort out but it is a mess wholly of the PL's making. And for every club benefitting from the loans there is another club which has suffered for violations of PSR, APT and the initials pour out. These clubs should be natural allies of City in the fight with the PL and together we can ensure that football gets sensible, fair and lawful regulations.I share your crocodile tears.
Technically you may be correct. However, if I were them I would argue that they would have made different business decisions, therefore revised APT requires revised PSR.
Rather than get into a new wrangle, I’d imagine a compromise would be struck here in the interests of everyone moving forward.
they'll of seen shit were getting then voted to stand back and hope goes their wayThe Telegraph have some knob journalist claiming we will sue until we win. Has nobody told him that
That doesn't explain why Newcastle didn't say/ do anything.
All this shit was brought in to stop them and yet they have said sweet F.A.
The PL did consult with their council and were told in their view the amendments were in fact inline with Uk law. An organisation can have any rule, unless clearly in contravention of the law eg no females allowed, and are valid until testedIn February 2024 at a meeting of all the Premier League clubs took place to vote on the amendments. At that meeting City stated they believed the amendments were illegal.
A sensible, financially competent organisation would have sat down with City and asked them why they believed that. Then, instead of taking a vote, would have asked their legal team for advice.
The Premier League didn't. Instead they voted on the amendments sending it on a very toxic and expensive collision course with one of its members. In doing so it risked damaging the PL brand around the world.
Me and you know why they took that course of action but none of the lick spittle press will ask them why did they do that and questioning if they, Masters et al are fit to run the PL.