Saying you don’t agree with every opinion shouldn’t elicit the response “But then I’ve read the details” type response. It’s a bit pissy.In fairness to Stefan, I don't think it's him that makes the entire discussion about him and his views, it's everyone else. If people are constantly replying to his posts, he has every right to respond in turn.
this is wrong. There is always a route to the high court (and not just on procedural points) But there are so many hurdles to that it is most unlikely we will ever get to the point where we can use that option.Unless the legal posters are wrong it doesn’t seem like we have a route to the high court unless on procedural grounds but that point has been contested to death on here.
It seems to me we have ended with the worst of both worlds, where regulations have been imposed which do not provide a level playing field, are of questionable legality, appear to be applied inconsistently from one club to the next, and where disciplinary charges appear to be motivated by personal animosity on the part of the PL chief executive.
Can I just clarify one thing on this excellent explanation?
(I am giving @slbsn a break because the poor bastard has put up with a lot these last few days, not the least of which has been my stupid questioning ....)
Is there any argument in the above example for saying the contract signed on 1/3 as a lawful contract can be applied also to the period 1/2 to 1/3?
We’re 2-1 up after 85 minutes.So are we winning or fucked
We are fucked then lol.We’re 2-1 up after 85 minutes.
Even if there is, the facts we know of strongly suggest that point has not been reached.I agree, but if that is the case then is there not a point at which the PL would/should have ceased the investigation and handed any evidence over to the police/HMRC etc?
I'll take that in Itself as good news thanks.Even if there is, the facts we know of strongly suggest that point has not been reached.
I think the implication is that we got the deals to pass the relevant thresholds and tests, but did it in ways which are concealed in our accounts and books. As I understand it, as presented generally.Isn't there a massive contradiction here, re the Etihad renewal. The PL classed the sponsorship as an APT, so how does that square with any potential 115 accusations of RPT. This is what I can not fathom, if 115 is seeking to illegitimise the Etihad sponsorship why did the PL not reject the renewal out of hand and say they will not even think about approval because of their concerns. Am I missing something here (again).
I thought it was 2-0.We’re 2-1 up after 85 minutes.
I don't know how he copes with the monotony of it all. Answering the same questions over and over again, in both threads. Hats off to him.Can’t believe Stefan’s still posting tonight. He looked fucked this morning, as if he’d been on a bender ;-)
VAR check ongoingI thought it was 2-0.
As it should be.Martin Samuel's solution is a good one imo. All clubs given the same budget ceiling irrespective of source.
Seems to me the original ffp rule was designed to stop City. A case of do as I say not as I did.I think this is a interesting question, and the answer to that Geordie tosser’s question is “there is no reason at all in principle but this is what the majority of the league’s clubs decided should be the rule.” And the APT tribunal agreed that it was a legitimate position for the PL. to take.
But make no mistake, after 30 years of not having a rule that preclude dealings between associated parties, the majority of the PL decided that they should have such a rule within days of the Newcastle takeover being announced.
Go figure.
In the same way, after years of not having those sorts of regulations, UEFA decided it was necessary to introduce FFP at precisely the time City were looking to sign Kaka. Again, go figure.
There is undoubtedly an argument to be made that football should not be a complete free-for-all. There is equally an argument to be made that it should be.
It seems to me we have ended with the worst of both worlds, where regulations have been imposed which do not provide a level playing field, are of questionable legality, appear to be applied inconsistently from one club to the next, and where disciplinary charges appear to be motivated by personal animosity on the part of the PL chief executive.
Record numbers of posters unable to see this post.There is an ignore button you know....
It was Chelsea to start with, before we rode into town.Seems to me the original ffp rule was designed to stop City. A case of do as I say not as I did.
Problem is nothing was done about Chelsea only City. They might of thought about putting ffp in place when they got the money but they only actually did when the Sheikh rocked up at City.It was Chelsea to start with, before we rode into town.
I don't know how he copes with the monotony of it all. Answering the same questions over and over again, in both threads. Hats off to him.