City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024

I just think a body like the Premier League, whose purpose should be administrating football for the good of all it's clubs, is wholly unequipped to take on a wealthy nation state in court - nor should it be expected to. This should've been nipped in the bud at the first sniff of a rumour that a country was interested in buying a club, but they didn't do that and now they're trying to apply rules designed for football clubs to bodies beyond their ability to govern. I don't see a way for the clubs to extract themselves from this now, other than scrapping what's in place and starting again.

I don't think they're wholly unequipped for the court, the PL funds a bunch of very expensive lawyers that will handle it. What I do think is that they've completely fecked up everything related to ownership and making sure they have the right tools available. The case against Leicester, which completely collapsed, is a decent example. You just have to laugh at how stupid it actually is.

Just consider Manchester City delaying the PL again and again by fighting the PL's right to the documents. It should be fairly easy and standard to being a part of any league. Here's an official request for these documents, you either provide them in time or we start with pre-agreed punishments for scenarios like this. Fine, point deduction plus fine, increased point deduction and increased fine etc. Now it's too late, there's enough ownerships in the league that will obviously be thinking about their own situation rather to vote in favor for a change that will give the PL more power in cases like this.

When BSkyB wanted to take over Manchester United in the late 90's we had a motion in parliament to prevent it from happening on the basis that it would overall be negative. Heck, even Manchester United supporters protested against it.

"That this House objects to the agreement where BSkyB Television will purchase Manchester United Plc; feels that this will create a unacceptable situation where BSkyB becomes both the biggest purchaser of televised football and also the owner of Europe's largest football club; is certain that this is not in the best public interest of fans, clubs or television viewers and sport in general; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to refer the proposed takeover to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in addition to setting up a full inquiry into the funding of football by television, in all its aspects."

The takeover was blocked from happening.

What has followed has been a fairly useless fit and proper test. No questions over the sustainability of the leveraged takeover of Manchester United, where the entire debt became Manchester United's problem, no discussion of how it could create a situation where one of Europe's largest football clubs could completely collapse simply due to a leveraged take over where the owners themselves couldn't fund the purchase. Where was the concerns when a Russian oligarch wanted to buy a club, which resulted in a pretty much unprecedented spending spree. Thaksin at Manchester City, Saudis at Newcastle, Qatar and Manchester City.

Now you have an unprecedented situation where the common sense perspective of the majority in the Premier League can easily go out the window, and any attempts at introducing rules to tighten control can be blocked. At the end of the day, the Premier League is one of the UK's biggest exports, it's an insanely big product. There isn't going to be any alternative leagues, what we'll be stuck with is a PL that isn't really a competition but mostly just a show. A show generating so much money that no one is going to be interested in doing much about it.
 
Doesn’t bode that well though if we are being honest.
I'm not sure it has any bearing at all?

From what I can see online it's not really a win for anyone, City basically successfully challenged the newer wording but everything else was dismissed. The PL apparently took too long on deciding on some of the loans in question (which are all self sponsored) but their main framework for how clubs have to operate was upheld.
 
City will now try multiple sponsorship deals from groups within Abu Dhabi to get whatever amount they want to spend.
The only way to stop these cheats is to kick them out with the 130 charges.
It must be done or the game is ruined beyond the last decade they’ve spoiled it for everyone else.
 
Abu Dhabi have said previously that would rather spend what it takes to hire 50 of the best lawyers in the world to spend the next 10 years sueing UEFA, rather than accept punishments for rule breaking.
I guess it'll be nice when they get the 3rd option and do both, with some extra punishments for being dickheads.
 
The fact we need such rules is an admission by the EPL that the owners of City, Newcastle, Villa, etc. are unsuitable.

We didn't need these complex rules to prevent money laundering, corruption and financial doping prior to allowing murderous state regimes own English football clubs. Maybe they should have just prevented that in the first place...
 
What did people expect? Bang to rights?

You have corrupt organisations fighting other corrupt organisations. Big meh.

The real reason anyone should be against city is their owners being a hard to far-right dictatorship, with a derisory record on human rights, and the club being used for them to inure 'soft power'.

Of course, we just avoided similar ownership but many on here wanted it no matter what.

The major reason we want city bang to rights is because they are a rival and would love the bantz. Now it won't happen (many expected little to happen anyway), the 'game is gone'.

Time to reassess priorities.
 
Somehow I fear it won't stop here. Regardless of what happens with the 115 charges, City will carry on dragging the PL and anyone else they feel like taking aim at through lengthy and costly legal arguments.

I don't think they'll ever accept they should be bound by rules that doesn't allow them to do what they want.The PL opened Pandoras box the moment they allowed states to own football clubs.

This.

The game is dead.
 
City will now try multiple sponsorship deals from groups within Abu Dhabi to get whatever amount they want to spend.
The only way to stop these cheats is to kick them out with the 130 charges.
It must be done or the game is ruined beyond the last decade they’ve spoiled it for everyone else.
From my reading it was the fact that the PL blocked a couple of ridiculously large sponsorship deals under rules that were said to be unlawful but that judgement from the IC wasn’t negative about the PL principle of APT it was the process deployed to reach such a decision particularly around the inability of clubs to have access to data.

I would imagine that the emergency meeting being held this week isn’t so much for the PL to lick its wounds but I suspect it’s about 1) The principal of APT. 2) What changes will be needed to those rules . 3) Timetable for those changes 4) How to deal with deals that have been or are currently being assessed under the now flawed ( sorry but that’s what they are) PL rules.

One issue that will be centre to all of that is soft loan my guess is that there will need to be an immediate update of those rules around the impact of interest on those non interest bearing loans. I personally can’t see how there will be any retrospective calculations but almost certainly there will be a requirement to either assess interest from a point probably from 1/7/25 which will almost certainly mean that most if not all clubs that shown soft loans will convert such loans into equity

Lets be honest most of these type of loans already have been written off by club owners the likelihood is that there is little expectation that the loans will be repaid from running costs they will either be written off or converted into equity.

Bluemoon subscribers have totally missed the consequences or indeed impact of the ruling or indeed the fact that the majority of clubs subscribe to the need for APT even clubs like mine who gave evidence on behalf of City no doubt have done so because of a beef about a particular issue that could be something around the sale of assets and the burden of proof re valuation of those assets it could be the way in which the PL blocked the Paramount + front of shirt deal
 
I'm not sure it has any bearing at all?

From what I can see online it's not really a win for anyone, City basically successfully challenged the newer wording but everything else was dismissed. The PL apparently took too long on deciding on some of the loans in question (which are all self sponsored) but their main framework for how clubs have to operate was upheld.

This very much is how I see it . City effectively went to war I would imagine hoping that this case would impact significantly the bigger case which it hasn’t.
City have won the case re wording and process and of course re the matter of soft loans but these almost certainly will now be addressed and unless 7 clubs vote against the APD amended rules then there will be a process in place which the PL will be pretty confident will stand up to judicial scrutiny.
 
The only thing City have achieved is to create a civil war in the Premiership - with 7 or 8 sides (including Arsenal, Liverpool and United against them) - 4-5 teams on their side (including Chelsea and Newcastle surprise surprise) - and the rest somewhere in the middle.
 
How does this affect teams in europe? would they already have to pay interest on shareholder loans to abide by UEFA FFP?

So this would only affect teams who have shareholder loans but are not in europe?
 
Not on their payroll I guess


On my (admittedly brief) going over of the verdict, it seems like City just threw whatever they could at the wall, and the main thing that stuck was that every club who's ever had an interest-free loan now hates them more. And these are clubs that are assisting the PL in these cases with supporting evidence.

I know there's also the potential for City to seek damages over a couple of deals being delayed by the PL, but that seems a bit nutty considering City's own delaying tactics which continue on after years.

I'm not sure it has any bearing at all?

From what I can see online it's not really a win for anyone, City basically successfully challenged the newer wording but everything else was dismissed. The PL apparently took too long on deciding on some of the loans in question (which are all self sponsored) but their main framework for how clubs have to operate was upheld.
Me neither. The 115 charges are way broader than ATP sponsorships and a lot more insidious. I mean we're talking fraud there, among other things. Had City been successful in undermining the whole PSR system as a concept, it could have been useful to them, but that hasn't happened.

Still, it seems that a verdict on that won't be coming until well into next year and once it does, there'll be an appeals process to go through as well. And that's all just more time for City to continue to defraud the league while this mess carries on in the background.
 
The only thing City have achieved is to create a civil war in the Premiership - with 7 or 8 sides (including Arsenal, Liverpool and United against them) - 4-5 teams on their side (including Chelsea and Newcastle surprise surprise) - and the rest somewhere in the middle.
In fairness, it's not the only thing they've achieved.
 
I know there's also the potential for City to seek damages over a couple of deals being delayed by the PL, but that seems a bit nutty considering City's own delaying tactics which continue on after years.

They've taken it this far, it would be weird not to seek damages over those deals
 
What did people expect? Bang to rights?

You have corrupt organisations fighting other corrupt organisations. Big meh.

The real reason anyone should be against city is their owners being a hard to far-right dictatorship, with a derisory record on human rights, and the club being used for them to inure 'soft power'.

Of course, we just avoided similar ownership but many on here wanted it no matter what.

The major reason we want city bang to rights is because they are a rival and would love the bantz. Now it won't happen (many expected little to happen anyway), the 'game is gone'.

Time to reassess priorities.
No. The major reason we want City brought to justice is because they are alleged to have been cheating for over a decade, which had led to the Premier League being a false league, with potentially the biggest cheats in world football winning repeated titles.

Over the last 10 years, think of the clubs who have been relegated after being beaten by City (losing valuable points in the relegation battle), or the clubs that have missed out on top 4 or even winning the league, because they've been competing against cheats.

This is bigger than any perceived rivalry, it is a question on the integrity of the whole league.

The "game is gone" if they get away with this. But it is not gone yet.
 
In fairness, it's not the only thing they've achieved.

In the bigger picture - yeah it is. They have won a small victory. If they continue with seeking damages - this will basically be telling the other clubs in the P.L to pay City....then we will have a REAL war.
 
No. The major reason we want City brought to justice is because they are alleged to have been cheating for over a decade, which had led to the Premier League being a false league, with potentially the biggest cheats in world football winning repeated titles.

Over the last 10 years, think of the clubs who have been relegated after being beaten by City (losing valuable points in the relegation battle), or the clubs that have missed out on top 4 or even winning the league, because they've been competing against cheats.

This is bigger than any perceived rivalry, it is a question on the integrity of the whole league.

The "game is gone" if they get away with this. But it is not gone yet.

Not to mention all the players who missed out on winning a P.L medal.....
 
In the bigger picture - yeah it is. They have won a small victory. If they continue with seeking damages - this will basically be telling the other clubs in the P.L to pay City....then we will have a REAL war.

Maybe i’ve misunderstood, but won’t this make it a lot more complicated for the PL to reject sponsorship deals?

I can’t imagine they won’t be seeking damages, doesn’t fit with the story they are selling
 
Maybe i’ve misunderstood, but won’t this make it a lot more complicated for the PL to reject sponsorship deals?

I can’t imagine they won’t be seeking damages, doesn’t fit with the story they are selling
They're very obviously going to sue the PL for damages (otherwise, what was the point of all this), what I'm curious about is the criteria that will form the test for ATP sponsorship deals going forward, i.e. what's the benchmark for market fair value going to be? Other industries? Sponsorship deals in foreign leagues? Expected ROI not meeting a certain threshold according to the PL?

I don't know if this is more detailed in the judgment or if it will be up to the PL to establish this, and then have it be clarified by courts should it be challenged?
 
This.

The game is dead.
The nuclear option is the fans. Real fan outrage across the board (well not Chelsea and Newcastle fans it seems) If City prevails, start walking out of the stadiums after kickoff and make every City game a soulless, empty shell save for some token away fans. It's not like they could force the PL to sell the tickets to someone else because they don't have fanbase to sell them too anyway.
After 5 or 10 games the embarrassment would start being unbearable for everyone involved and force some change.
 
Anyone else think that, whatever the outcome of the 115 hearing, this is the thing which precipitates a breakaway league? If city are relegated/expelled they won't just disappear unless they are forced to give up control of the club, and now we know there are clubs sympathetic to them who might follow them out of the door.

Sort of like what has happened to golf and there is definitely an appetite for it on the continent with the Italian teams and Barcelona seemingly struggling financially.
 
Anyone else think that, whatever the outcome of the 115 hearing, this is the thing which precipitates a breakaway league? If city are relegated/expelled they won't just disappear unless they are forced to give up control of the club, and now we know there are clubs sympathetic to them who might follow them out of the door.

Sort of like what has happened to golf and there is definitely an appetite for it on the continent with the Italian teams and Barcelona seemingly struggling financially.

No club in the league would follow a relegated City to a breakaway league.
 
They're very obviously going to sue the PL for damages (otherwise, what was the point of all this), what I'm curious about is the criteria that will form the test for ATP sponsorship deals going forward, i.e. what's the benchmark for market fair value going to be? Other industries? Sponsorship deals in foreign leagues? Expected ROI not meeting a certain threshold according to the PL?

I don't know if this is more detailed in the judgment or if it will be up to the PL to establish this, and then have it be clarified by courts should it be challenged?

I'd suppose the main point was to stick a proper boot in the side of the PL, hoping to dent their ability to control the clubs income, but what they're left with is making it more complicated to prevent obviously blown up sponsorship deals. Not sure what they felt they had realistic chances of achieving, if they consider this a loss or pretty much a win just because they got something out of it.
 
No club in the league would follow a relegated City to a breakaway league.

Really? We almost had a European Super League not long ago which was only prevented by fan backlash. Now you've got fans brainwashed by sportswashing and who view the big clubs of PL as some sort of cartel who are rigging the league so no "small little oil states" can compete with them. Just seems like the ingredients are all there for a fissure to open up plus if city are expelled/relegated/whatever you have an extremely motivated trillionaire despot.

If City are punished appropriately I don't think the story ends with the sheikh leaving town quietly. They need to force the sale of the club as they did with Chelsea.
 
They're very obviously going to sue the PL for damages (otherwise, what was the point of all this), what I'm curious about is the criteria that will form the test for ATP sponsorship deals going forward, i.e. what's the benchmark for market fair value going to be? Other industries? Sponsorship deals in foreign leagues? Expected ROI not meeting a certain threshold according to the PL?

I don't know if this is more detailed in the judgment or if it will be up to the PL to establish this, and then have it be clarified by courts should it be challenged?
I'd read that the ruling on ATP sponsorships was deemed "broadly fair" and it was just the fact that two of City's deals were held up, which is how they could pursue damages. In which case, they'd likely be relatively minimal, as "the panel concluded there was no evidence that City lost an APT transaction because of these delays."

The major rule change that will come off the back of the verdict is that shareholder loans will now be integrated into the "fair market value" calculations procedure that ATP sponsorships are subject to.

Clubs like Arsenal and Brighton - who have borrowed significant sums from their owners interest-free - will be affected in a big way, with their PSR calculations now having to be re-evaluated, as interest-free loans are obviously not fair market value in these cases.
 
I'd read that the ruling on ATP sponsorships was deemed "broadly fair" and it was just the fact that two of City's deals were held up, which is how they could pursue damages. In which case, they'd likely be relatively minimal, as "the panel concluded there was no evidence that City lost an APT transaction because of these delays."

The major rule change that will come off the back of the verdict is that shareholder loans will now be integrated into the "fair market value" calculations procedure that ATP sponsorships are subject to.

Clubs like Arsenal and Brighton - who have borrowed significant sums from their owners interest-free - will be affected in a big way, with their PSR calculations now having to be re-evaluated, as interest-free loans are obviously not fair market value in these cases.
It's retroactive, or just for the future? Also thinking of Chelsea, didn't Roman "lend" the club like 2bn?
 
It's retroactive, or just for the future? Also thinking of Chelsea, didn't Roman "lend" the club like 2bn?
Dunno; I imagine that'll be part of what the PL clubs will vote on, as they need to do for any rule change. It will still presumably have a sizeable affect on any club for whom those interest-free loans have been part of the plan. Tony Bloom has been lending Brighton money on such terms since 2009, and we're talking about over £400m there alone.
 
Talksport clickbait "CITY WIN LEGAL BATTLE OVER PREMIER LEAGUE!!!"

Guessing they have a lot of shareholders from the middle east, as I am guessing do Sky who tried to spin it the same way yesterday.

City have 'won' a couple of very minor points and lost on every major element of the APT rules according to pretty much every non-city journalist and expert. Even their shill who always goes on talksport admitted last week that had city won anything major, the PL would have had to change the rules completely last week - and the fact they didn't do that was a sign that City hadn't won any kind of major element of their case.
 
Really? We almost had a European Super League not long ago which was only prevented by fan backlash. Now you've got fans brainwashed by sportswashing and who view the big clubs of PL as some sort of cartel who are rigging the league so no "small little oil states" can compete with them. Just seems like the ingredients are all there for a fissure to open up plus if city are expelled/relegated/whatever you have an extremely motivated trillionaire despot.

If City are punished appropriately I don't think the story ends with the sheikh leaving town quietly. They need to force the sale of the club as they did with Chelsea.

A number of reasons.

The super league was in large part driven by La Liga sides to combat or at least level state backed clubs. No club of significance would go along with a league that would plant a known rule breaking club in such a position of influence.

Also there would be little or no motivation for clubs like say Brighton or Forrest to go along with it.

The European Super League will rear it's head again at some point but it will have nothing to do with this and won't be City/Abu Dhabi lead.
 
The more I think about it the more I believe the whole thing should be nuked.
The game is fecked.
Chelsea are clearly cheating too, they’ve spent over a billion in about 12 months.
Newcastle, murderous state owned.

The Super League is looking a lot more palatable now, but only if the cheats/state owned scum teams are excluded, which probably wouldn’t happen.
 
Problem is, there are many owners in the premier league who may not themselves be nation states, but whose personal wealth may be greatly reliant upon the deals they do with such nation states... and these are the ones siding with City against the PL

This case and the outcome of the 115 (129?) charges case against City are going to be a major turning point. Even if City win, they may find themselves not being invited to a brand new league where state ownership (even the ones that seemingly hide in plain sight like Newcastle) are not permitted and neither would be doing transfer exchange deals between two PL clubs for arguably inflated fees; nor selling hotels and women's teams to yourselves etc etc. I can but dream.
 
Litigation FC.

Game is gone. PL let the fox in the chicken coop back in 08.
 
That letter from Simon Cliff to the clubs last night... fecking hell. This is going to go on forever, imagine how the verdict into 115 charges will go.

feck it all at this stage. I'm at the stage where I only watch United games, following the actual league just doesn't appeal at all. If I was young again I wouldn't bother getting into it at all.

Game is gone.