PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Prestwich_Blue]

Is not knowing the rules were unlawful an excuse ?

Legally, no it isn't. But Masters did 100% know that excluding shareholder loans was highly likely to be unlawful yet still did it because it didn't suit some of the member clubs. Like you, I can't understand why some of the 'better' journalists weren't calling for his head.

 

[Oystercatcher28]

Said it before and I'll say it again.........the biggest threat to our game is American owners.
It's seems only a few fan bases can see this, and perhaps a very small amount of the press/media

Agreed, and those red ******s just love milking fanbases and exploring fast buck promotions. Not that all owners don't like a bit of that and this.

 

[give it to gordon]

At what point does the government or a similar body get involved to force the pl to go by the rules of the country ?

You can't have organisation working in England and working outside the laws of the land. That would lead to chaos across all walks of life

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

I said at the start of all this that the only 2 options were the collapse of the Premier League or a major back down on their part. There seems so much animosity involved now, that only a major fracture will result. Very sad for our game when you consider the basic premise that a club just wants to invest in it's own future, be it Newcastle, City, Leicester, Everton or anyone outside the cartel.

Indeed, a fracture in top level football will have no winners. The PL commands astronomical revenue from Tv deals compared to any other league in the world, it seems the likes of Masters and co are on a suicide mission to destroy that by protecting certain clubs who have already tried and failed to destroy the league by trying to form the super league. Why does nothing get done with these clubs and why does it feel like they have a gun to the PL league’s head saying that if you don’t get rid of City we will take our ball and go elsewhere.

 

[cheekybids]

You've probably just written the NYT's next headline...

"$500M Payment for NYC Infrastructure Project Raises Eyebrows Amid Allegations of Corruption"

 

[SilverFox2]

This is what I struggle with. Clubs seemingly knew that excluding shareholder loans was likely to be unlawful yet still voted the APT rules that excluded them through. They ignored legal advice and voted based on self-interest.

I worry that their next step will be to appeal any adverse legal decisions then appoint compliant yes men to the appeals panel (like the ones who gave the original Leicester verdict).

 

[cheekybids]

In any normal situation, if a commercial enterprise implemented rules it knew were unlawful, because these rules didn't suit a major customer and that customer asked them to exclude those rules, the CEO and Chairman would have to resign if another major customer, which was disadvantaged by that exclusion, successfully challenged this in court.

I second that motion…..

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Legally, no it isn't. But Masters did 100% know that excluding shareholder loans was highly likely to be unlawful yet still did it because it didn't suit some of the member clubs. Like you, I can't understand why some of the 'better' journalists weren't calling for his head.

I expect you understand all too well mate.

 

[cheekybids]

Legally, no it isn't. But Masters did 100% know that excluding shareholder loans was highly likely to be unlawful yet still did it because it didn't suit some of the member clubs. Like you, I can't understand why some of the 'better' journalists weren't calling for his head.

Who are those better journalists again?????

 

[give it to gordon]

I second that motion…..