posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 4 minutes ago
sounds like its to keep clubs where they are, anti competition. If City have done wrong than punish them but i dont like ffp how its used to keep clubs from winning the lottery or w.e and provide competition to the elite clubs. Dont like stae owned sportswashing clubs though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see it more for a measure for state owned clubs who use families and made up companies to pump money into a club. We all know the billions Newcastle are dying to spend.
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
I read Villa voted against it as well
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
comment by Michael Edwards FC 2.0 loading…{Proud o... (U2720)
posted 3 seconds ago
I read Villa voted against it as well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Villa aren't in a great position in terms of what they can spend. They have spent a lot of money recently. If they fail to make CL this season they may have to sell players, or pump money in at an amount the rules don't allow. Therefore understandable if they didn't vote in favour of it, however kind of short term thinking for me as if clubs with bigger backing such as City are able to pump money in, they will only be further behind.
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted about a minute ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those individuals do not exist in 2024. It is a billionaire playground now
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP is a different topic altogether. ATP rules are about inflating sponsorship deals above market value, simply to enable you to be able to spend more which gives you an unfair advantage.
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
Problem with allowing one rich owner to bankroll a club is if they go bust then the club is screwed.
It happened to my local non-league club 20 odd years ago. They were owned by a local businessman who would keep the club afloat, his business went bust so the club couldn't pay wages and eventually liquidated.
I think owners should be allowed to put money in but only for club infrastructure so the club can grow naturally.
If they want to fund a 100k stadium so they get more match day revenue then no issue, but they shouldn't be allowed to use their money to buy players.
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP is a different topic altogether. ATP rules are about inflating sponsorship deals above market value, simply to enable you to be able to spend more which gives you an unfair advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
which is only an issue cos of ffp, falls into it. Without ffp forcing clubs into spending only what they generate thered be no need to inflate sponsorships.
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted about a minute ago
Problem with allowing one rich owner to bankroll a club is if they go bust then the club is screwed.
It happened to my local non-league club 20 odd years ago. They were owned by a local businessman who would keep the club afloat, his business went bust so the club couldn't pay wages and eventually liquidated.
I think owners should be allowed to put money in but only for club infrastructure so the club can grow naturally.
If they want to fund a 100k stadium so they get more match day revenue then no issue, but they shouldn't be allowed to use their money to buy players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yh but they can implement rules surely to safeguard that without hamstringing clubs challenging the establish elite.
posted 3 days, 14 hours ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP is a different topic altogether. ATP rules are about inflating sponsorship deals above market value, simply to enable you to be able to spend more which gives you an unfair advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
which is only an issue cos of ffp, falls into it. Without ffp forcing clubs into spending only what they generate thered be no need to inflate sponsorships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clubs aren't only allowed to spend what they generate though. They're allowed to make losses and many things aren't included in their spend, such as infrastructure. Many clubs who grew normally have great sponsorship deals, through their global appeal and rich history and yet somehow somebody like City dwarfs them in terms of sponsorships, how? Due to inflating their sponsorships. This absolutely should not be allowed.
I'm not a huge fan of FFP myself as it stops some clubs being able to take more risks which makes it difficult for clubs to compete with clubs already at the top or who inflate their sponsorships and can therefore spend more. However something had to happen with the amount of clubs going bust and if the laws are in place and agreed to, they need to be followed. City found a way around it which gave them an unfair advantage, which is partially what they're being investigated for in regards to FFP. This should be all but closed off with the APT amendments and clubs should be punished for circumventing the rules the clubs have signed up to, even if there are differing opinions are whether the rules are good for the game, they are still the rules.
posted 3 days, 14 hours ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP is a different topic altogether. ATP rules are about inflating sponsorship deals above market value, simply to enable you to be able to spend more which gives you an unfair advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
which is only an issue cos of ffp, falls into it. Without ffp forcing clubs into spending only what they generate thered be no need to inflate sponsorships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clubs aren't only allowed to spend what they generate though. They're allowed to make losses and many things aren't included in their spend, such as infrastructure. Many clubs who grew normally have great sponsorship deals, through their global appeal and rich history and yet somehow somebody like City dwarfs them in terms of sponsorships, how? Due to inflating their sponsorships. This absolutely should not be allowed.
I'm not a huge fan of FFP myself as it stops some clubs being able to take more risks which makes it difficult for clubs to compete with clubs already at the top or who inflate their sponsorships and can therefore spend more. However something had to happen with the amount of clubs going bust and if the laws are in place and agreed to, they need to be followed. City found a way around it which gave them an unfair advantage, which is partially what they're being investigated for in regards to FFP. This should be all but closed off with the APT amendments and clubs should be punished for circumventing the rules the clubs have signed up to, even if there are differing opinions are whether the rules are good for the game, they are still the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah no issue with any of this, just think ffp could be done a lot better. I dont buy the excuse of it being to stop clubs going bust, theres surely better ways to do that without stifling potential new and healthy competition as much as the current rules do.
posted 3 days, 14 hours ago
The issue is these things are voted on by the established. Not just the top 6... The established prem clubs and ones who yoyo up and down for the prem money wont vote in something that risks new competition for their places.
posted 3 days, 14 hours ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 54 seconds ago
The issue is these things are voted on by the established. Not just the top 6... The established prem clubs and ones who yoyo up and down for the prem money wont vote in something that risks new competition for their places.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules are voted on by the clubs who are in the league.
Your point doesn't make much sense. On one side you're saying it's unfair on clubs who can't pump money in to compete with the already established clubs and then on the other sides you're saying they're happy with this arrangement as it makes it difficult for the clubs below them to compete with them for a PL place.
The relegation payments have been greatly reduced to improve competition also. I think year one is like 60%, year two 50% and year three payments completely removed. But then you could spin that again and say that's unfair on those relegated clubs as it makes it more difficult to compete with the PL clubs who will be taking in PL money.
There is no easy solution but certainly most people in football, including the clubs, governing bodies, fans etc agree that some kind of restriction on spend needs to be in place and a percentage of income is in my mind the most fair way, as long as some clubs aren't able to get around this by inflating their income.
posted 3 days, 13 hours ago
Kovacic out for city for 3/4 weeks. That game at Anfield can’t come soon enough.
posted 3 days, 11 hours ago
However when attempting to punish City with these rules, City won a legal case against them and therefore escaped punishment.
=====
Which case was this?
posted 3 days, 11 hours ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
However when attempting to punish City with these rules, City won a legal case against them and therefore escaped punishment.
=====
Which case was this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AI Overview
+1
In a recent legal battle, Manchester City was considered to have "won" their case against the Premier League regarding the "Associated Party Transaction" (APT) rules, with an arbitration panel ruling that the Premier League's regulations unfairly targeted City's sponsorship deals due to their ownership structure, essentially allowing City to claim a victory in the case; however, both sides technically claimed a win as the ruling also required adjustments to the APT rules to address concerns about procedural fairness.
Key points about the case:
What is APT:
The APT rules are designed to ensure that sponsorship deals between clubs and companies linked to their owners are at fair market value, preventing inflated deals.
City's argument:
Manchester City argued that the Premier League's application of the APT rules unfairly targeted them due to their ownership from Abu Dhabi, potentially limiting their ability to secure sponsorship deals at market rates.
Outcome of the case:
The arbitration panel found that the Premier League's APT rules were indeed discriminatory and needed to be adjusted, allowing City to claim a legal victory.
Both sides claim victory:
Despite the ruling largely favoring City, both the Premier League and Manchester City presented their own interpretations of the outcome as a win, highlighting different aspects of the decision.
posted 3 days, 11 hours ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP is a different topic altogether. ATP rules are about inflating sponsorship deals above market value, simply to enable you to be able to spend more which gives you an unfair advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
which is only an issue cos of ffp, falls into it. Without ffp forcing clubs into spending only what they generate thered be no need to inflate sponsorships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clubs aren't only allowed to spend what they generate though. They're allowed to make losses and many things aren't included in their spend, such as infrastructure. Many clubs who grew normally have great sponsorship deals, through their global appeal and rich history and yet somehow somebody like City dwarfs them in terms of sponsorships, how? Due to inflating their sponsorships. This absolutely should not be allowed.
I'm not a huge fan of FFP myself as it stops some clubs being able to take more risks which makes it difficult for clubs to compete with clubs already at the top or who inflate their sponsorships and can therefore spend more. However something had to happen with the amount of clubs going bust and if the laws are in place and agreed to, they need to be followed. City found a way around it which gave them an unfair advantage, which is partially what they're being investigated for in regards to FFP. This should be all but closed off with the APT amendments and clubs should be punished for circumventing the rules the clubs have signed up to, even if there are differing opinions are whether the rules are good for the game, they are still the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah no issue with any of this, just think ffp could be done a lot better. I dont buy the excuse of it being to stop clubs going bust, theres surely better ways to do that without stifling potential new and healthy competition as much as the current rules do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're argument don't make sense to me tbh. Without the doping of Chelsea and City clubs like Spurs would have won the league by now. There'd be many different league winners.
The doping of City and Chelsea has made it completely impossible for smaller clubs to challenge the elite established by the doping. Even big clubs like Liverpool been struggling and living hand to mouth just to keep up with City.
If that's your concern then you should be supporting these rules as smaller clubs have a better chance when the spending is controlled.
posted 3 days, 11 hours ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
However when attempting to punish City with these rules, City won a legal case against them and therefore escaped punishment.
=====
Which case was this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AI Overview
+1
In a recent legal battle, Manchester City was considered to have "won" their case against the Premier League regarding the "Associated Party Transaction" (APT) rules, with an arbitration panel ruling that the Premier League's regulations unfairly targeted City's sponsorship deals due to their ownership structure, essentially allowing City to claim a victory in the case; however, both sides technically claimed a win as the ruling also required adjustments to the APT rules to address concerns about procedural fairness.
Key points about the case:
What is APT:
The APT rules are designed to ensure that sponsorship deals between clubs and companies linked to their owners are at fair market value, preventing inflated deals.
City's argument:
Manchester City argued that the Premier League's application of the APT rules unfairly targeted them due to their ownership from Abu Dhabi, potentially limiting their ability to secure sponsorship deals at market rates.
Outcome of the case:
The arbitration panel found that the Premier League's APT rules were indeed discriminatory and needed to be adjusted, allowing City to claim a legal victory.
Both sides claim victory:
Despite the ruling largely favoring City, both the Premier League and Manchester City presented their own interpretations of the outcome as a win, highlighting different aspects of the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's correct. I was confused when you said "when attempting to punish City with these rules".
City initiated that case on their own, no?
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
However when attempting to punish City with these rules, City won a legal case against them and therefore escaped punishment.
=====
Which case was this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AI Overview
+1
In a recent legal battle, Manchester City was considered to have "won" their case against the Premier League regarding the "Associated Party Transaction" (APT) rules, with an arbitration panel ruling that the Premier League's regulations unfairly targeted City's sponsorship deals due to their ownership structure, essentially allowing City to claim a victory in the case; however, both sides technically claimed a win as the ruling also required adjustments to the APT rules to address concerns about procedural fairness.
Key points about the case:
What is APT:
The APT rules are designed to ensure that sponsorship deals between clubs and companies linked to their owners are at fair market value, preventing inflated deals.
City's argument:
Manchester City argued that the Premier League's application of the APT rules unfairly targeted them due to their ownership from Abu Dhabi, potentially limiting their ability to secure sponsorship deals at market rates.
Outcome of the case:
The arbitration panel found that the Premier League's APT rules were indeed discriminatory and needed to be adjusted, allowing City to claim a legal victory.
Both sides claim victory:
Despite the ruling largely favoring City, both the Premier League and Manchester City presented their own interpretations of the outcome as a win, highlighting different aspects of the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's correct. I was confused when you said "when attempting to punish City with these rules".
City initiated that case on their own, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and now the PL can't punish them as it was found to be discriminatory, so the PL had to amend the rules.
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
My point was theres tiers to it, below the top 6 the rest have reason to prevent others gaining an in. and it goes down. Spurs would have won the league when? idr when they last finished 2nd tbf. If there was no Chelsea and City itd likely still be utd and arsenal mopping up.
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
However when attempting to punish City with these rules, City won a legal case against them and therefore escaped punishment.
=====
Which case was this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AI Overview
+1
In a recent legal battle, Manchester City was considered to have "won" their case against the Premier League regarding the "Associated Party Transaction" (APT) rules, with an arbitration panel ruling that the Premier League's regulations unfairly targeted City's sponsorship deals due to their ownership structure, essentially allowing City to claim a victory in the case; however, both sides technically claimed a win as the ruling also required adjustments to the APT rules to address concerns about procedural fairness.
Key points about the case:
What is APT:
The APT rules are designed to ensure that sponsorship deals between clubs and companies linked to their owners are at fair market value, preventing inflated deals.
City's argument:
Manchester City argued that the Premier League's application of the APT rules unfairly targeted them due to their ownership from Abu Dhabi, potentially limiting their ability to secure sponsorship deals at market rates.
Outcome of the case:
The arbitration panel found that the Premier League's APT rules were indeed discriminatory and needed to be adjusted, allowing City to claim a legal victory.
Both sides claim victory:
Despite the ruling largely favoring City, both the Premier League and Manchester City presented their own interpretations of the outcome as a win, highlighting different aspects of the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's correct. I was confused when you said "when attempting to punish City with these rules".
City initiated that case on their own, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and now the PL can't punish them as it was found to be discriminatory, so the PL had to amend the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't punish them for what? City were not charged under ATP rules. They initiated this case just to confuse or get back at the Prem for the FFP case. Unless I'm missing something.
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
Your point doesn't make much sense. On one side you're saying it's unfair on clubs who can't pump money in to compete with the already established clubs and then on the other sides you're saying they're happy with this arrangement as it makes it difficult for the clubs below them to compete with them for a PL place.
__________
The unambitious clubs are happy with ffp, it keeps them in their place with the least risk of them being pushed down the pecking order.
I on the other hand think in order to topple city or to disrupt the top 6 you need your new city/chelseas pretty much. And its hard to do that when most owners are happy milking the cown like ours and the few who prob want to can't because these owners vote in these rules like the APT sponsorship stuff to stop clubs getting around ffp and pushing them further down the pecking order.
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
How many clubs can win the lottery? You can't risk the ruination of the game just so one or two clubs in future can be bought out and doping football.
It's a system that locks out not just the small clubs, but the rest of the big clubs as well.
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
However when attempting to punish City with these rules, City won a legal case against them and therefore escaped punishment.
=====
Which case was this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AI Overview
+1
In a recent legal battle, Manchester City was considered to have "won" their case against the Premier League regarding the "Associated Party Transaction" (APT) rules, with an arbitration panel ruling that the Premier League's regulations unfairly targeted City's sponsorship deals due to their ownership structure, essentially allowing City to claim a victory in the case; however, both sides technically claimed a win as the ruling also required adjustments to the APT rules to address concerns about procedural fairness.
Key points about the case:
What is APT:
The APT rules are designed to ensure that sponsorship deals between clubs and companies linked to their owners are at fair market value, preventing inflated deals.
City's argument:
Manchester City argued that the Premier League's application of the APT rules unfairly targeted them due to their ownership from Abu Dhabi, potentially limiting their ability to secure sponsorship deals at market rates.
Outcome of the case:
The arbitration panel found that the Premier League's APT rules were indeed discriminatory and needed to be adjusted, allowing City to claim a legal victory.
Both sides claim victory:
Despite the ruling largely favoring City, both the Premier League and Manchester City presented their own interpretations of the outcome as a win, highlighting different aspects of the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's correct. I was confused when you said "when attempting to punish City with these rules".
City initiated that case on their own, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and now the PL can't punish them as it was found to be discriminatory, so the PL had to amend the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't punish them for what? City were not charged under ATP rules. They initiated this case just to confuse or get back at the Prem for the FFP case. Unless I'm missing something.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge them for breaking ATP rules?
We have to remember that the FFP case only covers up to 2018.
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
moneys been the biggest factor in success of clubs long before city and chelsea tbf. If a club comes along pumping money in aslong as theyre not putting the future of the club in danger crack on as far as im concerned.
I dont care if that costs the big teams ours included. Its up to them and us to respond and do the best we can or find new owners who can compete etc. Not to vote in rules that stifles any future competition because you're greedy and not up for the fight, just happy to plod along picking up prem money and top 4 cl money or w.e.
Sign in if you want to comment
LFC Tranny Thread
Page 8346 of 8355
8347 | 8348 | 8349 | 8350 | 8351
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 4 minutes ago
sounds like its to keep clubs where they are, anti competition. If City have done wrong than punish them but i dont like ffp how its used to keep clubs from winning the lottery or w.e and provide competition to the elite clubs. Dont like stae owned sportswashing clubs though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see it more for a measure for state owned clubs who use families and made up companies to pump money into a club. We all know the billions Newcastle are dying to spend.
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
I read Villa voted against it as well
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
comment by Michael Edwards FC 2.0 loading…{Proud o... (U2720)
posted 3 seconds ago
I read Villa voted against it as well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Villa aren't in a great position in terms of what they can spend. They have spent a lot of money recently. If they fail to make CL this season they may have to sell players, or pump money in at an amount the rules don't allow. Therefore understandable if they didn't vote in favour of it, however kind of short term thinking for me as if clubs with bigger backing such as City are able to pump money in, they will only be further behind.
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted about a minute ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those individuals do not exist in 2024. It is a billionaire playground now
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP is a different topic altogether. ATP rules are about inflating sponsorship deals above market value, simply to enable you to be able to spend more which gives you an unfair advantage.
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
Problem with allowing one rich owner to bankroll a club is if they go bust then the club is screwed.
It happened to my local non-league club 20 odd years ago. They were owned by a local businessman who would keep the club afloat, his business went bust so the club couldn't pay wages and eventually liquidated.
I think owners should be allowed to put money in but only for club infrastructure so the club can grow naturally.
If they want to fund a 100k stadium so they get more match day revenue then no issue, but they shouldn't be allowed to use their money to buy players.
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP is a different topic altogether. ATP rules are about inflating sponsorship deals above market value, simply to enable you to be able to spend more which gives you an unfair advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
which is only an issue cos of ffp, falls into it. Without ffp forcing clubs into spending only what they generate thered be no need to inflate sponsorships.
posted 3 days, 15 hours ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted about a minute ago
Problem with allowing one rich owner to bankroll a club is if they go bust then the club is screwed.
It happened to my local non-league club 20 odd years ago. They were owned by a local businessman who would keep the club afloat, his business went bust so the club couldn't pay wages and eventually liquidated.
I think owners should be allowed to put money in but only for club infrastructure so the club can grow naturally.
If they want to fund a 100k stadium so they get more match day revenue then no issue, but they shouldn't be allowed to use their money to buy players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yh but they can implement rules surely to safeguard that without hamstringing clubs challenging the establish elite.
posted 3 days, 14 hours ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP is a different topic altogether. ATP rules are about inflating sponsorship deals above market value, simply to enable you to be able to spend more which gives you an unfair advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
which is only an issue cos of ffp, falls into it. Without ffp forcing clubs into spending only what they generate thered be no need to inflate sponsorships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clubs aren't only allowed to spend what they generate though. They're allowed to make losses and many things aren't included in their spend, such as infrastructure. Many clubs who grew normally have great sponsorship deals, through their global appeal and rich history and yet somehow somebody like City dwarfs them in terms of sponsorships, how? Due to inflating their sponsorships. This absolutely should not be allowed.
I'm not a huge fan of FFP myself as it stops some clubs being able to take more risks which makes it difficult for clubs to compete with clubs already at the top or who inflate their sponsorships and can therefore spend more. However something had to happen with the amount of clubs going bust and if the laws are in place and agreed to, they need to be followed. City found a way around it which gave them an unfair advantage, which is partially what they're being investigated for in regards to FFP. This should be all but closed off with the APT amendments and clubs should be punished for circumventing the rules the clubs have signed up to, even if there are differing opinions are whether the rules are good for the game, they are still the rules.
posted 3 days, 14 hours ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP is a different topic altogether. ATP rules are about inflating sponsorship deals above market value, simply to enable you to be able to spend more which gives you an unfair advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
which is only an issue cos of ffp, falls into it. Without ffp forcing clubs into spending only what they generate thered be no need to inflate sponsorships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clubs aren't only allowed to spend what they generate though. They're allowed to make losses and many things aren't included in their spend, such as infrastructure. Many clubs who grew normally have great sponsorship deals, through their global appeal and rich history and yet somehow somebody like City dwarfs them in terms of sponsorships, how? Due to inflating their sponsorships. This absolutely should not be allowed.
I'm not a huge fan of FFP myself as it stops some clubs being able to take more risks which makes it difficult for clubs to compete with clubs already at the top or who inflate their sponsorships and can therefore spend more. However something had to happen with the amount of clubs going bust and if the laws are in place and agreed to, they need to be followed. City found a way around it which gave them an unfair advantage, which is partially what they're being investigated for in regards to FFP. This should be all but closed off with the APT amendments and clubs should be punished for circumventing the rules the clubs have signed up to, even if there are differing opinions are whether the rules are good for the game, they are still the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah no issue with any of this, just think ffp could be done a lot better. I dont buy the excuse of it being to stop clubs going bust, theres surely better ways to do that without stifling potential new and healthy competition as much as the current rules do.
posted 3 days, 14 hours ago
The issue is these things are voted on by the established. Not just the top 6... The established prem clubs and ones who yoyo up and down for the prem money wont vote in something that risks new competition for their places.
posted 3 days, 14 hours ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 54 seconds ago
The issue is these things are voted on by the established. Not just the top 6... The established prem clubs and ones who yoyo up and down for the prem money wont vote in something that risks new competition for their places.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules are voted on by the clubs who are in the league.
Your point doesn't make much sense. On one side you're saying it's unfair on clubs who can't pump money in to compete with the already established clubs and then on the other sides you're saying they're happy with this arrangement as it makes it difficult for the clubs below them to compete with them for a PL place.
The relegation payments have been greatly reduced to improve competition also. I think year one is like 60%, year two 50% and year three payments completely removed. But then you could spin that again and say that's unfair on those relegated clubs as it makes it more difficult to compete with the PL clubs who will be taking in PL money.
There is no easy solution but certainly most people in football, including the clubs, governing bodies, fans etc agree that some kind of restriction on spend needs to be in place and a percentage of income is in my mind the most fair way, as long as some clubs aren't able to get around this by inflating their income.
posted 3 days, 13 hours ago
Kovacic out for city for 3/4 weeks. That game at Anfield can’t come soon enough.
posted 3 days, 11 hours ago
However when attempting to punish City with these rules, City won a legal case against them and therefore escaped punishment.
=====
Which case was this?
posted 3 days, 11 hours ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
However when attempting to punish City with these rules, City won a legal case against them and therefore escaped punishment.
=====
Which case was this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AI Overview
+1
In a recent legal battle, Manchester City was considered to have "won" their case against the Premier League regarding the "Associated Party Transaction" (APT) rules, with an arbitration panel ruling that the Premier League's regulations unfairly targeted City's sponsorship deals due to their ownership structure, essentially allowing City to claim a victory in the case; however, both sides technically claimed a win as the ruling also required adjustments to the APT rules to address concerns about procedural fairness.
Key points about the case:
What is APT:
The APT rules are designed to ensure that sponsorship deals between clubs and companies linked to their owners are at fair market value, preventing inflated deals.
City's argument:
Manchester City argued that the Premier League's application of the APT rules unfairly targeted them due to their ownership from Abu Dhabi, potentially limiting their ability to secure sponsorship deals at market rates.
Outcome of the case:
The arbitration panel found that the Premier League's APT rules were indeed discriminatory and needed to be adjusted, allowing City to claim a legal victory.
Both sides claim victory:
Despite the ruling largely favoring City, both the Premier League and Manchester City presented their own interpretations of the outcome as a win, highlighting different aspects of the decision.
posted 3 days, 11 hours ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
I dont agree with state owned clubs. But if a rich individual wants to invest heavily in a club, so long as he can front up all the money there and then ive no issue. Including covering entire contract costs of new signings etc and not held against the club. Put a limit of 150-200m a season or sumin on it so teams have tot improve gradually. Competition is healthy. FFP forcing teams to generate what they can spend pretty much secures the already established top clubs at the top with next to no competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP is a different topic altogether. ATP rules are about inflating sponsorship deals above market value, simply to enable you to be able to spend more which gives you an unfair advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
which is only an issue cos of ffp, falls into it. Without ffp forcing clubs into spending only what they generate thered be no need to inflate sponsorships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clubs aren't only allowed to spend what they generate though. They're allowed to make losses and many things aren't included in their spend, such as infrastructure. Many clubs who grew normally have great sponsorship deals, through their global appeal and rich history and yet somehow somebody like City dwarfs them in terms of sponsorships, how? Due to inflating their sponsorships. This absolutely should not be allowed.
I'm not a huge fan of FFP myself as it stops some clubs being able to take more risks which makes it difficult for clubs to compete with clubs already at the top or who inflate their sponsorships and can therefore spend more. However something had to happen with the amount of clubs going bust and if the laws are in place and agreed to, they need to be followed. City found a way around it which gave them an unfair advantage, which is partially what they're being investigated for in regards to FFP. This should be all but closed off with the APT amendments and clubs should be punished for circumventing the rules the clubs have signed up to, even if there are differing opinions are whether the rules are good for the game, they are still the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah no issue with any of this, just think ffp could be done a lot better. I dont buy the excuse of it being to stop clubs going bust, theres surely better ways to do that without stifling potential new and healthy competition as much as the current rules do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're argument don't make sense to me tbh. Without the doping of Chelsea and City clubs like Spurs would have won the league by now. There'd be many different league winners.
The doping of City and Chelsea has made it completely impossible for smaller clubs to challenge the elite established by the doping. Even big clubs like Liverpool been struggling and living hand to mouth just to keep up with City.
If that's your concern then you should be supporting these rules as smaller clubs have a better chance when the spending is controlled.
posted 3 days, 11 hours ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
However when attempting to punish City with these rules, City won a legal case against them and therefore escaped punishment.
=====
Which case was this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AI Overview
+1
In a recent legal battle, Manchester City was considered to have "won" their case against the Premier League regarding the "Associated Party Transaction" (APT) rules, with an arbitration panel ruling that the Premier League's regulations unfairly targeted City's sponsorship deals due to their ownership structure, essentially allowing City to claim a victory in the case; however, both sides technically claimed a win as the ruling also required adjustments to the APT rules to address concerns about procedural fairness.
Key points about the case:
What is APT:
The APT rules are designed to ensure that sponsorship deals between clubs and companies linked to their owners are at fair market value, preventing inflated deals.
City's argument:
Manchester City argued that the Premier League's application of the APT rules unfairly targeted them due to their ownership from Abu Dhabi, potentially limiting their ability to secure sponsorship deals at market rates.
Outcome of the case:
The arbitration panel found that the Premier League's APT rules were indeed discriminatory and needed to be adjusted, allowing City to claim a legal victory.
Both sides claim victory:
Despite the ruling largely favoring City, both the Premier League and Manchester City presented their own interpretations of the outcome as a win, highlighting different aspects of the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's correct. I was confused when you said "when attempting to punish City with these rules".
City initiated that case on their own, no?
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
However when attempting to punish City with these rules, City won a legal case against them and therefore escaped punishment.
=====
Which case was this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AI Overview
+1
In a recent legal battle, Manchester City was considered to have "won" their case against the Premier League regarding the "Associated Party Transaction" (APT) rules, with an arbitration panel ruling that the Premier League's regulations unfairly targeted City's sponsorship deals due to their ownership structure, essentially allowing City to claim a victory in the case; however, both sides technically claimed a win as the ruling also required adjustments to the APT rules to address concerns about procedural fairness.
Key points about the case:
What is APT:
The APT rules are designed to ensure that sponsorship deals between clubs and companies linked to their owners are at fair market value, preventing inflated deals.
City's argument:
Manchester City argued that the Premier League's application of the APT rules unfairly targeted them due to their ownership from Abu Dhabi, potentially limiting their ability to secure sponsorship deals at market rates.
Outcome of the case:
The arbitration panel found that the Premier League's APT rules were indeed discriminatory and needed to be adjusted, allowing City to claim a legal victory.
Both sides claim victory:
Despite the ruling largely favoring City, both the Premier League and Manchester City presented their own interpretations of the outcome as a win, highlighting different aspects of the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's correct. I was confused when you said "when attempting to punish City with these rules".
City initiated that case on their own, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and now the PL can't punish them as it was found to be discriminatory, so the PL had to amend the rules.
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
My point was theres tiers to it, below the top 6 the rest have reason to prevent others gaining an in. and it goes down. Spurs would have won the league when? idr when they last finished 2nd tbf. If there was no Chelsea and City itd likely still be utd and arsenal mopping up.
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
However when attempting to punish City with these rules, City won a legal case against them and therefore escaped punishment.
=====
Which case was this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AI Overview
+1
In a recent legal battle, Manchester City was considered to have "won" their case against the Premier League regarding the "Associated Party Transaction" (APT) rules, with an arbitration panel ruling that the Premier League's regulations unfairly targeted City's sponsorship deals due to their ownership structure, essentially allowing City to claim a victory in the case; however, both sides technically claimed a win as the ruling also required adjustments to the APT rules to address concerns about procedural fairness.
Key points about the case:
What is APT:
The APT rules are designed to ensure that sponsorship deals between clubs and companies linked to their owners are at fair market value, preventing inflated deals.
City's argument:
Manchester City argued that the Premier League's application of the APT rules unfairly targeted them due to their ownership from Abu Dhabi, potentially limiting their ability to secure sponsorship deals at market rates.
Outcome of the case:
The arbitration panel found that the Premier League's APT rules were indeed discriminatory and needed to be adjusted, allowing City to claim a legal victory.
Both sides claim victory:
Despite the ruling largely favoring City, both the Premier League and Manchester City presented their own interpretations of the outcome as a win, highlighting different aspects of the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's correct. I was confused when you said "when attempting to punish City with these rules".
City initiated that case on their own, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and now the PL can't punish them as it was found to be discriminatory, so the PL had to amend the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't punish them for what? City were not charged under ATP rules. They initiated this case just to confuse or get back at the Prem for the FFP case. Unless I'm missing something.
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
Your point doesn't make much sense. On one side you're saying it's unfair on clubs who can't pump money in to compete with the already established clubs and then on the other sides you're saying they're happy with this arrangement as it makes it difficult for the clubs below them to compete with them for a PL place.
__________
The unambitious clubs are happy with ffp, it keeps them in their place with the least risk of them being pushed down the pecking order.
I on the other hand think in order to topple city or to disrupt the top 6 you need your new city/chelseas pretty much. And its hard to do that when most owners are happy milking the cown like ours and the few who prob want to can't because these owners vote in these rules like the APT sponsorship stuff to stop clubs getting around ffp and pushing them further down the pecking order.
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
How many clubs can win the lottery? You can't risk the ruination of the game just so one or two clubs in future can be bought out and doping football.
It's a system that locks out not just the small clubs, but the rest of the big clubs as well.
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Disband the PGMOL (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
However when attempting to punish City with these rules, City won a legal case against them and therefore escaped punishment.
=====
Which case was this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AI Overview
+1
In a recent legal battle, Manchester City was considered to have "won" their case against the Premier League regarding the "Associated Party Transaction" (APT) rules, with an arbitration panel ruling that the Premier League's regulations unfairly targeted City's sponsorship deals due to their ownership structure, essentially allowing City to claim a victory in the case; however, both sides technically claimed a win as the ruling also required adjustments to the APT rules to address concerns about procedural fairness.
Key points about the case:
What is APT:
The APT rules are designed to ensure that sponsorship deals between clubs and companies linked to their owners are at fair market value, preventing inflated deals.
City's argument:
Manchester City argued that the Premier League's application of the APT rules unfairly targeted them due to their ownership from Abu Dhabi, potentially limiting their ability to secure sponsorship deals at market rates.
Outcome of the case:
The arbitration panel found that the Premier League's APT rules were indeed discriminatory and needed to be adjusted, allowing City to claim a legal victory.
Both sides claim victory:
Despite the ruling largely favoring City, both the Premier League and Manchester City presented their own interpretations of the outcome as a win, highlighting different aspects of the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's correct. I was confused when you said "when attempting to punish City with these rules".
City initiated that case on their own, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and now the PL can't punish them as it was found to be discriminatory, so the PL had to amend the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't punish them for what? City were not charged under ATP rules. They initiated this case just to confuse or get back at the Prem for the FFP case. Unless I'm missing something.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge them for breaking ATP rules?
We have to remember that the FFP case only covers up to 2018.
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
moneys been the biggest factor in success of clubs long before city and chelsea tbf. If a club comes along pumping money in aslong as theyre not putting the future of the club in danger crack on as far as im concerned.
I dont care if that costs the big teams ours included. Its up to them and us to respond and do the best we can or find new owners who can compete etc. Not to vote in rules that stifles any future competition because you're greedy and not up for the fight, just happy to plod along picking up prem money and top 4 cl money or w.e.
Page 8346 of 8355
8347 | 8348 | 8349 | 8350 | 8351