We are the ‘smaller teams’ in this context.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th Sep 2024 | Concluded 9th Dec 2024 - Awaiting outcome
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
We are the ‘smaller teams’ in this context.
Who cares? It’s not just about us. They’ve broken the PL completely and are allowed to cheat for fun.
Unfortunately INEOS are a real company, and Sir Jim isn't a stock image, so nothing like City's sponsors.
probably the most easily corruptible part of football finances has just been given the all clear for citys rotten regime to continue their bogus deals.
They really are the worst thing that has ever happened British football.
Exactly. It's not sport anymore at this point.
Per the BBC
City will be hoping that their PR wing in the media do their bit now. Not a word that comes out of that club should be taken at face value.
So wait, are the APT rules dead or not?
You don't, really. It's absolutely shit.
It doesn't matter - if it's bad for football (and if the APT rules are dead, then it's bad), it's bad for us too.
They're basically City and Newcastle-light. I like the team and Emery but the club is just as shit as those other 2.
I was about to say! Posting a link to an article behind a paywall on what seems to be a very industry-specific website is interesting!Full statement from the Premier League
Can anyone explain the implications of the shareholder loans ruling?
As I understand it, the tribunal have said that shareholder loans should not be excluded from the scope of APT rules. What I'm struggling with, is how that benefits city and which deals or charges it would impact.
Perhaps I'm being dense, but it appears to me that City have argued the league should be imposing these rules to greater effect and that they've been successful in that challenge, while being unsuccessful in all the challenges where they were arguing the league should be imposing the rules to lesser effect?
As I understand it, the tribunal have said that shareholder loans should not be excluded from the scope of APT rules. What I'm struggling with, is how that benefits city and which deals or charges it would impact.
Perhaps I'm being dense, but it appears to me that City have argued the league should be imposing these rules to greater effect and that they've been successful in that challenge, while being unsuccessful in all the challenges where they were arguing the league should be imposing the rules to lesser effect?
What the fugg is going on?
PR wars
Can you summarize the summary?
Essentially it won't affect the 115 (Above 130 now) as they failed in their main argument that FMV was illegal.
They won over a few minor points associated with interest over loans (Coming from SH loans) not included in P&L and this essentially isn't that big as majority of the SH loans are converted to equity so interest is irrelevant.
They managed to argue the burden of proof as essentially a club can put forward a sponsorship for consideration to PL for it to be refused with little recourse but now the burden is on the PL to explain why it's rejecting it if it is to make it a bit clearer which is a good idea.
Just above me, it's nothing major to be honest it means sections of the rules need to be re-written slightly to make it a bit fairer concerning SH loans (and associated interest) and to do with burden of proof over FMV.
City's big point was to challenge how the FMV is applied (Basically trying to rework what we consider fair market value in a bid to use voodoo maths to overvalue what FMV is and get bigger deals through) and that was thrown out, which if they had won they could use in tandem with the 115 charges and state the standards they are held against not complying with weren't lawful but it's moot as they lost that section of the argument.
So it means nothing so? The 115 is the main issue, not this? I've seen a dozen clickbait headlines about City winning their case.
PL is a dead competition, this is a joke, how can they allowed to get away with this, that's football done for me, corruption, back-handers, City are scum blah blah blah....
Oh wait, it's got nothing to do with the 115 charges? Sorry I was too busy being furious to actually read it.
I don't believe the majority of journalists even understand FFP or basic finances but they saw "City won certain sections of their case" so they run off and try to whip up a frenzy
Probably pro city journalists.
Saw Everton, Newcastle, and Chelsea were involved as witnesses for City too.
Yeah, deliberately click baity and misleading. The media know what people want (punishment for City) so putting out the opposite is an easy rage bait click for them.
The outcome of this as far as the 115/130 charges is actually a defeat for City. If they had succesfully had the fair market value bit defeated here it could have had a significant impact on the potential punishments for dodging / hiding it historically. Fair market value was upheld as a principle, which is bad news for them.
The idea you can just make up sponsorship and that be legal is ludicrous.
Overused phrase but Game’s definitely gone.
Surely City pursuing this AND claiming some sort of victory when it isn’t really a victory, makes the Premier League more determined that the 130+ charges are properly punished?!
Looks like a bit of give and take on both sides, neither side looks to have won or lost.
I suppose when City claim compensation for having two sponsorship deals unfairly vetoed there will be more wailing and gnashing of teeth from the witnesses to the PL.
I suppose when City claim compensation for having two sponsorship deals unfairly vetoed there will be more wailing and gnashing of teeth from the witnesses to the PL.
The clickbait on show here is truly shameless.