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

[flb]

At the end of the day ladies and gentlemen we continue to win trophies on a regular basis ( Mancini and Pellegrini) aswell as the king in Pep.
We could be sponsored by fucking pot noodles and we’d still take the piss.
This is no more than putting the cunts in their place.
The sorry red fucking wankers over the road have spent a billion and done fuck all.
Sponsors are nice , but they can’t fucking beat us on the pitch.

 

[Bluearmy]

Well up to now they have ignored UK legality. I wonder if they will try to take out or water down the need to obey UK law?

They can't operate outside of UK Law….

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Not according to ChatGPT

Q. when were associated party transactions introduced as a rule in the Premier league

A. The Premier League introduced specific rules around related party transactions (often called associated party transactions) to improve financial transparency and ensure fair play in its 2013 Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. These rules were part of the Premier League's broader financial oversight framework, aimed at maintaining the league's integrity and preventing financial abuses.

it's literally telling you it's RPT not APT

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Maybe so, but I've just put this into CoPilot.

Did the original Premier League rules for PSR (FFP) include checks for Associated Party Transactions?

Yes, the original Premier League Profitability and Sustainability (PSR) rules, which were part of the Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations introduced in 2013, included checks for Associated Party Transactions (APTs). These checks were designed to ensure that any transactions between clubs and related parties were conducted at fair market value. This was done to promote financial transparency and maintain fair competition within the league.

Maybe it's a terminology issue, but two AI sources both say they were introduced in some form in 2013

you do know AI is frequently wrong and hallucinates don't you?

 

[BerkshireBlue]

It’s not really stopping City. It’s stopping Newcastle, Villa and Forest and the likes more. We’re already in the castle so the drawbridge being pulled up doesn’t make a massive difference to us. We might have lost a bit of money through lost sponsor deals but our income is already gigantic so we are all good around PSR.

unfortunately it is stopping city, that's why we're fighting it. The PL are saying etihad should be worth something stupid like £10 whereas it should be worth £100m a season there or there abouts given Real Madrids sponsership

 

[Vic]

This is the latest pile of shite from Sam Wallace. I'm hoping Sheikh Mansour decides he'd rather just shut the Telegraph down and write off his investment instead of selling it to the highest bidder.

https://archive.is/20241122151449/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/11/22/man-city-atp-vote-analysis-what-it-means/

You would hope that even Telegraph readers might spot the nonsense in this sentence:

"In the aftermath of that arbitration judgment last month the club claimed victory. Yet all those key parts of the APT rules deemed unlawful by the tribunal have now been amended."

If we hadn't had the victory, the rules wouldn't have been amended.

And what's this "recourse to the High court" over the 115?

 

[BerkshireBlue]

But are the amendments legal?

for me, no they're not. They still include the benefit of the shareholder loans in the PSR calculations for the previous two seasons which is unfair for clubs without shareholder loans. Something frowned upon in competition law

 

[Paladin]

Not sure I get this going back to court argument.

My understanding and apologies I have not spent long on this, is todays vote has gone through and that could be ok depending on the tribunal findings.

We will surely keep our powder dry, possibly a holding letter but nothing more.

I would assume if the tribunal’s clarity allows this, then PL clubs are ok and we live with it.

If tribunal finds these new rules are not, then the PL will need to change them again and see if they can get a vote through (you would hope questions would be asked as to why they didn’t wait).

The court option only comes if the tribunal rules these new rules are not lawful and PL keep them or change them in a way we don’t feel meets the criteria.

All we have learned today is if they are lawful they will be implemented.

Am I correct or miles off??

Correct I think. But some clubs have already benefited from illegal rules, whilst others have suffered financially by not having the illegal interest free loans. I would have expected the imparity to be addressed in some way.

 

[SilverFox2]

They can't operate outside of UK Law….

Is that not what they already are doing?

 

[red 2 hats]

One thing that stands out from today's vote is how morally bankrupt 16 Premier league teams are.
They've no interest in the bigger picture and the general good of the game, they've voted through amendments to a proven unlawful set of rules, all to save their own greedy needy self serving selves.
They've threw the kitchen sink at City for years, trying to find any bit of dirt at us, it's now clear who the true snakes are, hope when the dust settles one or two of these clubs find themselves going bump, it also shows how few friends we have in the boardrooms.