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

Rory Bluelow said:
You’d expect any competent CEO to “read the room” of his twenty shareholders and basically know where the votes would go on contentious matters. He’s a fucking clown and has presided over/caused chaos.
Click to expand...

The problem being that Masters is neither competent nor impartial, seeing that he was appointed following approval from the rags and dippers.

The fact that other candidates declined to accept the post, suggests that everything was possibly not above board, and their principles would not allow them to take the job.

Masters, on the other hand, seemed to have no qualms about being used as a puppet to carry out the cabal's wishes, however corrupt or distorted.
 
halfcenturyup said:
For anyone interested.



He did a good job pooh-poohing most of the nonsense, but at the end he missed the chance to shut the noise about the EFL deal up. Shame that.

Chapman was OK. Logan had no idea.
Click to expand...

Am I right in thinking that if City win, the world doesn't end, and we (English football) reverts to the situation as it was before the February ammendment kicked in?

By which I mean that clubs are only allowed to spend what they earn (from sponsorship, broadcast, matchday and competition prize money) and FMV is determined by the same calculation that UEFA use?

I suppose that's a question for any of our experts but you seem to have a good handle on all this and I didn,'t think that came across in the podcast.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
Am I right in thinking that if City win, the world doesn't end, and we (English football) reverts to the situation as it was before the February ammendment kicked in?

By which I mean that clubs are only allowed to spend what they earn (from sponsorship, broadcast, matchday and competition prize money) and FMV is determined by the same calculation that UEFA use?

I suppose that's a question for any of our experts but you seem to have a good handle on all this and I didn,'t think that came across in the podcast.
Click to expand...
No, they said on Talk Shite that if city win this case our owners could sponsor Phil Fodens left sock for a billion pounds & it would be the end of football as we know it! Keep up :-)
 
What’s this I read that the legal costs for the premiership may inpact financial support for the lower leagues?
 
GortonBlue62 said:
Am I right in thinking that if City win, the world doesn't end, and we (English football) reverts to the situation as it was before the February ammendment kicked in?

By which I mean that clubs are only allowed to spend what they earn (from sponsorship, broadcast, matchday and competition prize money) and FMV is determined by the same calculation that UEFA use?

I suppose that's a question for any of our experts but you seem to have a good handle on all this and I didn,'t think that came across in the podcast.
Click to expand...

That depends if it's just the February amendments the club is claiming is anti-competitive, or the whole section of rules on APTs.

But in either case, if the club wins its claim, all that happens is that the APT rules (or some of them) are deleted and the PL has to make sure any new rules aren't anti-competitive.

So all the break-even rules will still be there, along with the new "non-mandatory" anchor rules, the threshold transaction rules and, yes, FMV rules for threshold transactions not at "arm's length". All those rules, and more, will still be there.
 
halfcenturyup said:
That depends if it's just the February amendments the club is claiming is anti-competitive, or the whole section of rules on APTs.

But in either case, if the club wins it's claim, all that happens is that the APT rules (or some of them) are deleted and the PL has to make sure any new rules aren't anti-competitive.

So all the break-even rules will still be there, along with the new "non-mandatory" anchor rules, the threshold transaction rules and, yes, FMV rules for threshold transactions not at "arm's length". All those rules, and more, will still be there.
Click to expand...
And City would have no problem with any of that would we?

The MSM media narrative that we are trying to establish a free for all where we could spend what we like is just nonsense (I hope I'm right on this point). After all if that was the case I think Newcastle's Saudi PIF would blow us out of the water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.