No, he’s right. That was the purpose all along. They’ll still call us cheats even when we have been cleared. “Clear and organised.”
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Yes that’s how I saw it.Yes but that was under UefA rules who are still using IAS 24 to identify RPT's not the new bullshit rules installed by the Premier League of APT's with associated underbiddder requirements and City having to proove that the deal is FMV.
Meaning as things stood without APT, related or not, it was still FMV.
I think you could argue now either way, that they more than got bang for their buck.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Clubs can borrow as much as they like but can only spend so much, based on their accumulated profit or loss for the relevant period.Villa and Newcastle should get round the blocks by borrowing from their owners where possible. Worth noting that CFG some time ago arranged a £500m line of credit from a consortium of banks. That money will be used for infrastructure projects both physical and IT which we will use, paying a fee for IT where necessary. There are lots of arrangements possible for beating roadblocks. They need to be creative.
It should be remembered that clubs have just one set of income and any of that which is used for non ffp purposes, leaves more for spend on the team. I read on a site the other day that the poster couldn’t understand why the PL knocking us back would leave less for womens and youth football “because those activities are not subject to ffp.” D’oh.
One answer is to allow owners to fund transfer spending but only via equity, and introduce a hard cap for all clubs.
For example wages & amortisation, minus transfer profit, can only be a maximum of £400m averaged over a rolling 3-year period. And debt can only be taken on to fund infrastructure.
Tueartsoverhead kick
Well-Known Member
I take it that wouldn’t be good for the ragsClubs can borrow as much as they like but can only spend so much, based on their accumulated profit or loss for the relevant period.
One answer is to allow owners to fund transfer spending but only via equity, and introduce a hard cap for all clubs.
For example wages & amortisation, minus transfer profit, can only be a maximum of £400m averaged over a rolling 3-year period. And debt can only be taken on to fund infrastructure.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Correct.I take it that wouldn’t be good for the rags
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
It's an old one but Souness sums it all up
Thought that was far fairer on RTE, than what your used to watching annd elsewhere, even if the assumption of guilt was there still due to the UEFA verdict.
Even Brian Kerr surprised me with his attitude, although I’d say the tact he took was as much to do with the points being driven by Souness and Quinn.
Because normally he’s just a smug gobshite.
Tueartsoverhead kick
Well-Known Member
That’s why I like you lolCorrect.
Axel Freed
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2023
- Messages
- 1,954
- Team supported
- City
Men against boys
Stefan has the air of a friendly uncle trying to explain something a bit too complicated for his toddler aged nephews to understand. He remains patient as time after time they make points that reveal their lack of understanding and so he tries to explain it again to them a little bit more slowly.
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
Tbf he probably developed that skill on here!Men against boys
Stefan has the air of a friendly uncle trying to explain something a bit too complicated for his toddler aged nephews to understand. He remains patient as time after time they make points that reveal their lack of understanding and so he tries to explain it again to them a little bit more slowly.