comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that we lost 2 sponsorship deals due to the APT rules as it stood. Maybe melton can confirm?
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't make sense does it for many reasons.
As you correctly pointed out....they have benefited from the rule that City want to be changed which is hilarious. But what's worse is they have faced the punishment of the PL whilst City have kicked their far more serious charges into the long grass for as long as they possibly
could.
I suppose they are thinking about their future now under new owners and being massive hypocrites about it all though.
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that we lost 2 sponsorship deals due to the APT rules as it stood. Maybe melton can confirm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You did.
And the reaction of the City fans over the last 24 hours has only confirmed what everyone is saying about you. You're all happy because you're going to benefit from money that isn't anything to do with City as a club.
You don't care about Newcastle or anyone else. It's all because you need those extra hands outs from associated parties to continue as you are.
Basicully
Man Cs* donet want uther clubs gettin free munny from ownets etc
Incredybubble hipocracy n phranqly disgustin behavior from em
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 14 minutes ago
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
=====
No it doesn't. The rules that are not unlawful will remain in place. Those couple or so found to be unlawful will be removed or replaced with better wording.
This decision is more an order to amend the APT rules than an order to bin them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There wouldn’t be an order to bin them! Why do you think the PL are having an emergency meeting about it? Even though they’re apparently appallingly awful at being a regulator, even they wouldn’t be stupid enough to continue processing APTs until they make the rules lawful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did the tribunal recommend a change to all the rules? They haven't as far as I've seen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No of course they haven’t! I don’t understand where you think I’ve suggested they would have? That’s not what the tribunal is there for, they can’t give an order to do anything.
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that we lost 2 sponsorship deals due to the APT rules as it stood. Maybe melton can confirm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not lost as such, one was delayed and the other wasn’t ratified. Those decisions have now been set aside.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that we lost 2 sponsorship deals due to the APT rules as it stood. Maybe melton can confirm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not lost as such, one was delayed and the other wasn’t ratified. Those decisions have now been set aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Understood. Thanks.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty understandable for those two clubs to be fair!
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
An interest free loan it is 100% that the loanee is getting a significant benefit that can be quantified versus a typical market rate for a business with a similar credit rating. Hint, football clubs, especially distressed ones have to pay extortionate interest rates. By contrast and by definition, the loaner is getting nothing. It really is pretty black and white.
However, with a sponsorship it is 100% clear that the sponsor is getting a return. You can argue over the value of that return but it can be quite fuzzy to value with accuracy especially when you are associating with the top performing team which, because of results, is another inarguable. It is also difficult to argue that the top club couldn't get that same sponsorship from other companies. Other clubs will claim that but then if they aren't the top club, how would they know?
I'm neutral on all this sh.t BTW but my wife is a regulation & contracts lawyer I know how these guys work.
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 27 minutes ago
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has been the loser ever since nation states decided to buy football clubs in Europe. You've just been blind to it all because you have benefited from joining the big boy's club.
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 27 minutes ago
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has been the loser ever since nation states decided to buy football clubs in Europe. You've just been blind to it all because you have benefited from joining the big boy's club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course Stretty.
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 27 minutes ago
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has been the loser ever since nation states decided to buy football clubs in Europe. You've just been blind to it all because you have benefited from joining the big boy's club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I was thinking the very same thing in Istanbul last year.
EXCLUSIVE: Man City director of football Txiki Begiristain set to leave role at end of season. Long planned to step down aged 60 + club fully endorsed. #MCFC believed to have agreement for successor to start early 2025 with 6mnth handover @TheAthleticFC
https://x.com/david_ornstein/status/1843695366442758546?s=46&t=bPTrpdgNggCdz9igvhmVyw
The exodus begins
Manchester City director of football Txiki Begiristain is expected to leave the club at end of this season.
The Spaniard originally planned to step back from day-to-day operations when he turned 55 but was so invested in the City project and working alongside manager Pep Guardiola that he extended that to his 60th birthday.
He reached that age in August and the decision was made with full knowledge and endorsement of the club hierarchy.
City are believed to have reached an agreement to appoint a replacement, who is due to start in early 2025.
Begiristain played a leading role in the recruitment of his successor and will continue with his duties during a handover period for the first six months.
--------------------------------------------
Such a young man. who's achieved nothing in the sport too.
Rats leevin sinkin ship innit
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In real life application it makes no difference to them. As I said earlier, this case was out of frustration after being unable to quietly settle the 115 charges thing. A distraction, an expense. It's how they operate.
With the government threatening an independent regulator, the block is too hot and people aren't touching the brown envelopes with a barge pole. They know what's coming.
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In real life application it makes no difference to them. As I said earlier, this case was out of frustration after being unable to quietly settle the 115 charges thing. A distraction, an expense. It's how they operate.
With the government threatening an independent regulator, the block is too hot and people aren't touching the brown envelopes with a barge pole. They know what's coming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lol!
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 27 minutes ago
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has been the loser ever since nation states decided to buy football clubs in Europe. You've just been blind to it all because you have benefited from joining the big boy's club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They try to make out like the rules are designed to stop smaller clubs from challenging the rich clubs and that smaller clubs should support City's cause.
But if you look at the impact and consequences of their actions they are actually ruining football and the smaller clubs have never had less of a chance. They have literally no chance now.
Leave alone the smaller clubs, even clubs like Spurs have next to no chance. City have won 4 in a row in theor quest to fight for the smaller clubs to have a chance
The only beneficiary is them and no one else. Football as a whole has gotten worse. I'm sure PL clubs will understand this when voting.
Pep rumoured to be leaving too. Not looking good for City this.
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 27 minutes ago
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has been the loser ever since nation states decided to buy football clubs in Europe. You've just been blind to it all because you have benefited from joining the big boy's club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They try to make out like the rules are designed to stop smaller clubs from challenging the rich clubs and that smaller clubs should support City's cause.
But if you look at the impact and consequences of their actions they are actually ruining football and the smaller clubs have never had less of a chance. They have literally no chance now.
Leave alone the smaller clubs, even clubs like Spurs have next to no chance. City have won 4 in a row in theor quest to fight for the smaller clubs to have a chance
The only beneficiary is them and no one else. Football as a whole has gotten worse. I'm sure PL clubs will understand this when voting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
Mamba knows
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 27 minutes ago
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has been the loser ever since nation states decided to buy football clubs in Europe. You've just been blind to it all because you have benefited from joining the big boy's club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They try to make out like the rules are designed to stop smaller clubs from challenging the rich clubs and that smaller clubs should support City's cause.
But if you look at the impact and consequences of their actions they are actually ruining football and the smaller clubs have never had less of a chance. They have literally no chance now.
Leave alone the smaller clubs, even clubs like Spurs have next to no chance. City have won 4 in a row in theor quest to fight for the smaller clubs to have a chance
The only beneficiary is them and no one else. Football as a whole has gotten worse. I'm sure PL clubs will understand this when voting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
Mamba knows
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 6 minutes ago
Pep rumoured to be leaving too. Not looking good for City this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's currently in Abu Dhabi. I guess he's topping up his vitamin D 🤔
Sign in if you want to comment
City win APT case
Page 9 of 16
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 8/10/24
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
posted on 8/10/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that we lost 2 sponsorship deals due to the APT rules as it stood. Maybe melton can confirm?
posted on 8/10/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't make sense does it for many reasons.
As you correctly pointed out....they have benefited from the rule that City want to be changed which is hilarious. But what's worse is they have faced the punishment of the PL whilst City have kicked their far more serious charges into the long grass for as long as they possibly
could.
I suppose they are thinking about their future now under new owners and being massive hypocrites about it all though.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that we lost 2 sponsorship deals due to the APT rules as it stood. Maybe melton can confirm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You did.
And the reaction of the City fans over the last 24 hours has only confirmed what everyone is saying about you. You're all happy because you're going to benefit from money that isn't anything to do with City as a club.
You don't care about Newcastle or anyone else. It's all because you need those extra hands outs from associated parties to continue as you are.
posted on 8/10/24
Basicully
Man Cs* donet want uther clubs gettin free munny from ownets etc
Incredybubble hipocracy n phranqly disgustin behavior from em
posted on 8/10/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 14 minutes ago
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
=====
No it doesn't. The rules that are not unlawful will remain in place. Those couple or so found to be unlawful will be removed or replaced with better wording.
This decision is more an order to amend the APT rules than an order to bin them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There wouldn’t be an order to bin them! Why do you think the PL are having an emergency meeting about it? Even though they’re apparently appallingly awful at being a regulator, even they wouldn’t be stupid enough to continue processing APTs until they make the rules lawful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did the tribunal recommend a change to all the rules? They haven't as far as I've seen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No of course they haven’t! I don’t understand where you think I’ve suggested they would have? That’s not what the tribunal is there for, they can’t give an order to do anything.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that we lost 2 sponsorship deals due to the APT rules as it stood. Maybe melton can confirm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not lost as such, one was delayed and the other wasn’t ratified. Those decisions have now been set aside.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that we lost 2 sponsorship deals due to the APT rules as it stood. Maybe melton can confirm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not lost as such, one was delayed and the other wasn’t ratified. Those decisions have now been set aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Understood. Thanks.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City successfully argued owner loans without interest being unfair whilst being backed by two clubs, Chelsea & Everton, reliant on zero interest owner loans in the recent past.
The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty understandable for those two clubs to be fair!
posted on 8/10/24
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
posted on 8/10/24
An interest free loan it is 100% that the loanee is getting a significant benefit that can be quantified versus a typical market rate for a business with a similar credit rating. Hint, football clubs, especially distressed ones have to pay extortionate interest rates. By contrast and by definition, the loaner is getting nothing. It really is pretty black and white.
However, with a sponsorship it is 100% clear that the sponsor is getting a return. You can argue over the value of that return but it can be quite fuzzy to value with accuracy especially when you are associating with the top performing team which, because of results, is another inarguable. It is also difficult to argue that the top club couldn't get that same sponsorship from other companies. Other clubs will claim that but then if they aren't the top club, how would they know?
I'm neutral on all this sh.t BTW but my wife is a regulation & contracts lawyer I know how these guys work.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 27 minutes ago
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has been the loser ever since nation states decided to buy football clubs in Europe. You've just been blind to it all because you have benefited from joining the big boy's club.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 27 minutes ago
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has been the loser ever since nation states decided to buy football clubs in Europe. You've just been blind to it all because you have benefited from joining the big boy's club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course Stretty.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 27 minutes ago
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has been the loser ever since nation states decided to buy football clubs in Europe. You've just been blind to it all because you have benefited from joining the big boy's club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I was thinking the very same thing in Istanbul last year.
posted on 8/10/24
EXCLUSIVE: Man City director of football Txiki Begiristain set to leave role at end of season. Long planned to step down aged 60 + club fully endorsed. #MCFC believed to have agreement for successor to start early 2025 with 6mnth handover @TheAthleticFC
https://x.com/david_ornstein/status/1843695366442758546?s=46&t=bPTrpdgNggCdz9igvhmVyw
The exodus begins
posted on 8/10/24
Manchester City director of football Txiki Begiristain is expected to leave the club at end of this season.
The Spaniard originally planned to step back from day-to-day operations when he turned 55 but was so invested in the City project and working alongside manager Pep Guardiola that he extended that to his 60th birthday.
He reached that age in August and the decision was made with full knowledge and endorsement of the club hierarchy.
City are believed to have reached an agreement to appoint a replacement, who is due to start in early 2025.
Begiristain played a leading role in the recruitment of his successor and will continue with his duties during a handover period for the first six months.
--------------------------------------------
Such a young man. who's achieved nothing in the sport too.
posted on 8/10/24
Rats leevin sinkin ship innit
posted on 8/10/24
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In real life application it makes no difference to them. As I said earlier, this case was out of frustration after being unable to quietly settle the 115 charges thing. A distraction, an expense. It's how they operate.
With the government threatening an independent regulator, the block is too hot and people aren't touching the brown envelopes with a barge pole. They know what's coming.
posted on 8/10/24
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In real life application it makes no difference to them. As I said earlier, this case was out of frustration after being unable to quietly settle the 115 charges thing. A distraction, an expense. It's how they operate.
With the government threatening an independent regulator, the block is too hot and people aren't touching the brown envelopes with a barge pole. They know what's coming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lol!
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 27 minutes ago
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has been the loser ever since nation states decided to buy football clubs in Europe. You've just been blind to it all because you have benefited from joining the big boy's club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They try to make out like the rules are designed to stop smaller clubs from challenging the rich clubs and that smaller clubs should support City's cause.
But if you look at the impact and consequences of their actions they are actually ruining football and the smaller clubs have never had less of a chance. They have literally no chance now.
Leave alone the smaller clubs, even clubs like Spurs have next to no chance. City have won 4 in a row in theor quest to fight for the smaller clubs to have a chance
The only beneficiary is them and no one else. Football as a whole has gotten worse. I'm sure PL clubs will understand this when voting.
posted on 8/10/24
Pep rumoured to be leaving too. Not looking good for City this.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 27 minutes ago
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has been the loser ever since nation states decided to buy football clubs in Europe. You've just been blind to it all because you have benefited from joining the big boy's club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They try to make out like the rules are designed to stop smaller clubs from challenging the rich clubs and that smaller clubs should support City's cause.
But if you look at the impact and consequences of their actions they are actually ruining football and the smaller clubs have never had less of a chance. They have literally no chance now.
Leave alone the smaller clubs, even clubs like Spurs have next to no chance. City have won 4 in a row in theor quest to fight for the smaller clubs to have a chance
The only beneficiary is them and no one else. Football as a whole has gotten worse. I'm sure PL clubs will understand this when voting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
Mamba knows
posted on 8/10/24
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 27 minutes ago
What really should be under discussion here is the competence of the PL regulator - (Those costs will be taken out of grassroots football) and the impact of FMV on the 'soft' loans by shareholders (Will there be retrospective action?). The only winners in this are the lawyers and football in general is the loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has been the loser ever since nation states decided to buy football clubs in Europe. You've just been blind to it all because you have benefited from joining the big boy's club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They try to make out like the rules are designed to stop smaller clubs from challenging the rich clubs and that smaller clubs should support City's cause.
But if you look at the impact and consequences of their actions they are actually ruining football and the smaller clubs have never had less of a chance. They have literally no chance now.
Leave alone the smaller clubs, even clubs like Spurs have next to no chance. City have won 4 in a row in theor quest to fight for the smaller clubs to have a chance
The only beneficiary is them and no one else. Football as a whole has gotten worse. I'm sure PL clubs will understand this when voting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
Mamba knows
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 6 minutes ago
Pep rumoured to be leaving too. Not looking good for City this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's currently in Abu Dhabi. I guess he's topping up his vitamin D 🤔
Page 9 of 16
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14