City launch legal action against the Premier League | Unconfirmed reports that City have secured "potentially significant victory" (p 808)

[jim tolmies perm]

Can't get my head around us going through with this action without having something on the cartel...
Just a gut feeling...
Looking forward to any potential revelations next week

 

[Boo or Boo-urns]

2036 AD

Negotiation's over. Sentence is death!

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Smaller sides with owners unable to fully back their clubs of course are at a huge disadvantage in the P/L. That they have made it to the P/L in the first place - at least for one season - is huge. But odds are against them from staying up.

With regard to an independent regulator... what's to regulate? Other than clubs overspending to the point of insolvency?

Exactly - ultimately squad sizes are controlled (one of the few good rules), if in the unlikely event one side does throw every penny at buying players, it can only have the best 25 players (17 plus 8 "homegrown"), their next opponent may accumulate the next best 25 and so on. Then you have to factor in, coaching, desire, hunger, development(ageing, maturing) injuries, etc etc - absolutely no need for regulation - there's no guarantees - it regulates itself as do all businesses - All the nonsense, panic rule making up and fiddling, only succeed in diminishing the brand and aiding rival leagues.
Stop fcking messing with the game PL.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

It's fair until it's not. Suppose for example there is a system in place that goes something like this

1) Clubs can raise money through sponsorship of their stadiums, shirts, noodles etc
2) Where a club owner has a related interest in the organisation sponsoring the club this must be noted in the accounts
3) when a sponsorship is from a related party a FMV test is applied and the value maybe amended in a subset of the accounts

Then we get into murky water
4) if the sponsoring organisation is not a related party it may be an associated party. An association can be very broad but let's limit it to one based on geography. If the club owner and the sponsoring organisation all originate from the same country they are associated.
5) in the case of an associated party transaction the deals are subject to further scrutiny and may be prohibited or capped (I think)
6) oh by the way just because you're American and the sponsoring organisation is American it doesn't necessarily mean it's an associated transaction
7) oh you're from a gulf state? Oh definitely associated then
8) therefore out of the 20 teams in the league 2 teams are subject to greater sponsorship scrutiny and caps than the other 18.
9) Etihad could sponsor United for £5billion a year but only be allowed to sponsor City for £50million based on country of origin
10) also we have to send details of our sponsors and 2 failed sponsors to the premier league who are also sponsored by potentially competing organisations in the same industry. The premier league also seems to have difficulty keeping things confidential.

It's fair until the majority uses their power against the minority

Great point. We could lose sponsorships from the Middle East region which could go to our commercial rivals.

 

[HelloCity]

Could this be part of a 3D chess move to drain the PL of money, fighting this case, so that they have less resources to use towards the 115 court case?

Would we not be draining our own resources by doing that?

This is a completely different subject which the club feel they need to challenge.

 

[abu13]

I have said before, can anyone anywhere point me to a single article written in the press discussing the ramifications if City are cleared of any wrong doing with the 115 charges? Would there be reform at the pl? would the club be eligible for compensation/ damages?

The reporting has been completely one sided and biased, it is only very recently where reporters have started to comment that City strongly deny the charges.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Sam Wallace in the Telegraph with a lengthy article detailing how the club is attempting to destroy the PL by being allowed unlimited spending. Possibly supported by Newcastle (surprise surprise) but no other club.

That’s just totally false. He’s an idiot.

 

[supercity88]

Smaller sides with owners unable to fully back their clubs of course are at a huge disadvantage in the P/L. That they have made it to the P/L in the first place - at least for one season - is huge. But odds are against them from staying up.

With regard to an independent regulator... what's to regulate? Other than clubs overspending to the point of insolvency?

You're working on the basis that those rules are simplified. At the moment we're in a dangerous position with the history boys and US owners creating this strong agenda of David and Goliath or Good against Evil. We see rule change after rule change aimed at creating what the media perceive to be a more fair and competitive league. And we have this huge divide between the PL and the EFL. I wonder what EFL clubs would decide to do if they could vote? I wonder how these heroic American owners would feel about a spending cap that was truly restrictive and required them to actually make good business decisions rather than sit back, spend a set amount each year and earn far more in TV revenue and prize money, knowing there will be at least 3 teams (the promoted sides most likely) unable to cope and falling back down again.

It's the mistake plenty of clubs made when FFP was first introduced. Everton being the best example. Voting for FFP has ultimately fucked them. They voted with short sightedness, based on their finances at the time and believing their stature at that time would be enough to see them comply and stay in the division. And now, they're falling foul of the rules they voted for.

 

[I'm Blue]

Exactly right, except it's associated party, not related party. Something the press are struggling with.

Corrected.
I actually knew that but my head is fried.
I guess my Facebook law degree isn’t up to scratch.
Fuck me I remember when I could just enjoy watching football.
Now we all need to be an expert in everything, including gardening because of grass length.

 

[abu13]

Did we vote against the ammendment or abstain?

I am sure there was something somewhere where we abstained as we thought something was unlawful and to vote either way would validate the process.