I asked Gemini when the tribunal starts for the 115 charges..it said December 12th. Take that as you will. 
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
Who the feck is Gemini?I asked Gemini when the tribunal starts for the 115 charges..it said December 12th. Take that as you will.
The tribunal has already started hasn’t it?
Not sure we should read anything Keegan posts as anything other than City PR, he's quite clearly on the payroll.
I asked Gemini when the tribunal starts for the 115 charges..it said December 12th. Take that as you will.
Probably a City “ expert “ who claims to know everything but basically hasn’t a clue.
The consequences of allowing states to buy clubs. EPL laid its bed.
I mean, it's not. The judgment does say that the rules as they are currently drafted are unlawful, that they break competition law and that the PL abused its dominant position. Which doesn't mean they'll strike them, they do agree that they make sense in an effort to regulate football and the income in the sport, but there's a lot of work to do.The entirety of that article stems from this point;
Which, as we know, is utter shite. The Mail are just stirring up drama for drama's sake
I’ve got complete apathy towards this now.
It’s a ridiculous situation that we’ve talked about for years. The implosion of football. We’re witnessing it play out
It’s a ridiculous situation that we’ve talked about for years. The implosion of football. We’re witnessing it play out
Comments on that tweet are insufferable.
I would expect them to take the time they need to rewrite any badly worded rules/laws. No lawyer in the world would rush something like this. So what they are saying is entirely normal in my opinion and certainly no reason for the City/Geordie fans to be bashing themselves silly
I would expect them to take the time they need to rewrite any badly worded rules/laws. No lawyer in the world would rush something like this. So what they are saying is entirely normal in my opinion and certainly no reason for the City/Geordie fans to be bashing themselves silly
Manchester City have already made threats about future lawsuits, so its perfectly normal to make sure that the new rules are solid.
However, if Masters/PL are telling half thruths then we’re in for an absolute shitshow
I have same feeling towards them. I don’t take anything serious. They could win every trophy in every season for 1000 years and my reaction would be the same. Non existent because of everything. Trophies they already won means zero to me.
What I don’t understand is them taking on Premier League. I have no idea what their goal is. This is just getting ugly.
These are multi billionaires not used to being told no and having to follow rules, this is a textbook response. They will adopt scorched earth before admitting wrongs.
Yep their response is to try and burn it all down rather than fess up.
I don’t think there is any possible way back for them unless they do a complete u turn.
Which they won’t.
Low end DJ gear manufacturer turned oracle
The arbitration between Manchester City Football Club (MCFC) and the Premier League (PL) centered on the legality and fairness of the Associated Party Transactions (APT) rules. MCFC challenged the APT and Amended APT rules, arguing they violated UK competition law and procedural fairness. The tribunal found the rules partially unlawful, as they breached the Competition Act by unfairly excluding shareholder loans. Additionally, MCFC's claims of procedural unfairness were upheld, particularly concerning the Premier League's lack of transparency in providing access to key comparable transaction data used in Fair Market Value (FMV) assessments for sponsorship deals with First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB) and Etihad Aviation Group (EAG).
However, MCFC’s broader challenges on other grounds were mostly rejected. The tribunal upheld the PL’s FMV assessments of these sponsorships, though it criticized the process for delays and insufficient data sharing. The decision on the Emirates Palace (EP) transaction was reversed after further review, concluding it was not above FMV. Ultimately, the tribunal granted declaratory relief on these points, while reserving any potential further remedies like injunctive relief or damages for future consideration.
However, MCFC’s broader challenges on other grounds were mostly rejected. The tribunal upheld the PL’s FMV assessments of these sponsorships, though it criticized the process for delays and insufficient data sharing. The decision on the Emirates Palace (EP) transaction was reversed after further review, concluding it was not above FMV. Ultimately, the tribunal granted declaratory relief on these points, while reserving any potential further remedies like injunctive relief or damages for future consideration.
I’m just wondering are there City fans who are actually crapping themselves and know full well that they could possibly be expunged from any meaningful football for quite some time? Or is it a hive mentality taken to extremes and they’re completely innocent of any wrongdoing? I know @padr81 is a genuinely honest poster whom, if I remember correctly says he thinks they could be hit hard, I’m guessing he’s not very popular over at blue moon
Their fans are cultish (damn autocorrect!).
It’s flat Earth, sun goes around the earth, Elvis is alive levels… and Martin Samuels is the media sell out pumping out their sh!te
It’s flat Earth, sun goes around the earth, Elvis is alive levels… and Martin Samuels is the media sell out pumping out their sh!te
Can't wait for these cnuts to get relegated. A stain on football.
I know that 90% of users in here are negative, just in case if it doesn't go the way they want, they don't feel defeated. But I'm positive that city will get what they deserve and they'll be out of the PL.
In fairness I know plenty who a, think we're guilty but won't say it out loud or b, don't know the real answer but will accept the judgement whatever it may be ( a few of whom do post on BM). They're kinda in the "If we did it, we deserve it" but sceptical of whether we did it. Even on BM there was a thread of things in football you believe to be true and a couple of people were like "I think we did it".
I don't know many who are bricking it, the ones I know who are like "not guilty, no way" don't think losing is even a possibility and the ones who think it is are like "oh well, do the crime do the time". I think most City fans just want it done.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think FFP is rotten and should have had a way better implementation in the first place, but 2014 was when City should have made a stand. Instead we were super happy to take a slap on the wrist, cut a deal and become pretty much another big club exploiting it to gatekeep and who use FFP as a shield to keep others down. So if we did break the rules, its hilariously stupid on a crazy amount of levels and probably the most City thing in the history of City (Siding with rules your actively breaking that inevitably gets you relegated). Or at least since the 2-2 draw with Liverpool that saw us relegated cause we kept the ball in the corner time wasting when we needed a goal.
The only thing I want from this if guilty is new owners, forced sale or whatever and everyone at boardroom level banned from football forever. The rest doesn't really matter. PL, Conference, Pep or Pulis it's all the same to me. We've been shit before and we will be again at some stage even if we win the ffp stuff. Era's and cycles end regardless.
Built in ai that sits in the messaging app on android.
There’s been a bit of a shift in The Guardian’s reporting on the situation of late. Article below one of a few starting to appear
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-league-wealthiest-owners-could-kill-football
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-league-wealthiest-owners-could-kill-football
I read Martin Samuels articles, but i'm not really sure i understand his main points.
I also thought this introduction was hysterical:
While some elements of City’s claim were dismissed, the 175-page partial final award, which has been seen by The Times, found that:
• Some of the new rules brought in by the Premier League earlier this year, which include placing the burden of proof onto clubs to show that deals are of fair market value, are unlawful
• The rules are also unlawful because they do not take into account interest-free loans that shareholders use to inject funds into their clubs
• Both the original and amended rules are procedurally unfair because a club is not given access to comparable deals the Premier League can use to determine fair market value.
Apparently, some elements is another word for the vast majority and key elements.
As far as i understand, the key thing for Manchester City was proving that the APT was simply a result of the Premier League, and the cartel, wanted to prevent fair competition from gulf states, thus illegal. But the tribunal didn't agree. Manchester City also failed in the claim of tyranny of the majority can cause a competitive detriment of minority clubs, also significant for anyone that remotely likes football. Martin Samuel spends a long time beating around the bush on those claims, by writing up a lot of his personal opinion on the matter, before neatly mentioning that the tribunal knocked that back.
He keeps highlighting how Manchester City wanted to release the result, but the PL pushed back to delay it, then tries to make a point in regards to the other hearing, and how by itself is damning for the PL's case that they wanted to delay the publishing of the outcome. I don't really understand the supposed significance. Even if the result was an astounding victory for Manchester City, which it wasn't, where they managed to win on the key elements, which they didn't, it's not like it would be impossible for them to bring that to the other hearing until they went public with it. The time of making the results known to the public has no implication at all. It does however hold PR significance.
Also, it's fairly obvious that the PL wouldn't be interested in instantly releasing it, as they don't yet fully understand/know how they will alter the rules in terms of interest-free loans from shareholders. It makes sense that they'd prefer to wait with a statement until they know more. Especially when they're dealing with a state funded opponent that will happily continue to aim lawsuits at the PL.
Manchester City are shouting a lot, but unless someone is keeping very quiet about some important details, it seems like more of a PR bluff than anything else.
What have i misunderstood?
I also thought this introduction was hysterical:
While some elements of City’s claim were dismissed, the 175-page partial final award, which has been seen by The Times, found that:
• Some of the new rules brought in by the Premier League earlier this year, which include placing the burden of proof onto clubs to show that deals are of fair market value, are unlawful
• The rules are also unlawful because they do not take into account interest-free loans that shareholders use to inject funds into their clubs
• Both the original and amended rules are procedurally unfair because a club is not given access to comparable deals the Premier League can use to determine fair market value.
Apparently, some elements is another word for the vast majority and key elements.
As far as i understand, the key thing for Manchester City was proving that the APT was simply a result of the Premier League, and the cartel, wanted to prevent fair competition from gulf states, thus illegal. But the tribunal didn't agree. Manchester City also failed in the claim of tyranny of the majority can cause a competitive detriment of minority clubs, also significant for anyone that remotely likes football. Martin Samuel spends a long time beating around the bush on those claims, by writing up a lot of his personal opinion on the matter, before neatly mentioning that the tribunal knocked that back.
He keeps highlighting how Manchester City wanted to release the result, but the PL pushed back to delay it, then tries to make a point in regards to the other hearing, and how by itself is damning for the PL's case that they wanted to delay the publishing of the outcome. I don't really understand the supposed significance. Even if the result was an astounding victory for Manchester City, which it wasn't, where they managed to win on the key elements, which they didn't, it's not like it would be impossible for them to bring that to the other hearing until they went public with it. The time of making the results known to the public has no implication at all. It does however hold PR significance.
Also, it's fairly obvious that the PL wouldn't be interested in instantly releasing it, as they don't yet fully understand/know how they will alter the rules in terms of interest-free loans from shareholders. It makes sense that they'd prefer to wait with a statement until they know more. Especially when they're dealing with a state funded opponent that will happily continue to aim lawsuits at the PL.
Manchester City are shouting a lot, but unless someone is keeping very quiet about some important details, it seems like more of a PR bluff than anything else.
What have i misunderstood?
I haven't read much from The Guardian so no idea what they've been writing in the past, but:
The broader issue now is whether they have isolated a procedural flaw that could undermine the Premier League’s 130 charges against them
How would they have discovered a procedural flaw for matters that are dated before the APT was even in place? My understanding is that the only significant outcome for the other hearing would be if Manchester City managed to prove the "tyranny of the majority" and the APT only being a witch hunt for the gulf state, essentially that the PL is only going after Manchester City because of it's gulf state owner, they have a thing for us but we're all innocent.
I’m long past poring over the minutiae of guardian football articles, have found them either factually ‘loose’ or boringly opportunistic for a long time.
I do think the change in mood music is interesting though, from radio silence to the headline and general tone is quite a shift. There has also been more of the same in the Telegraph of late.
Not far back in this thread there were loads of people accusing journalists of deliberately avoiding the subject / being bought off.
Just wondering, would you rather there was no cost controls and owners can spend what they want?
The thinky pieces tend to come out a bit after the PR pushers. That's kind of just the nature of the industry, especially when it's dealing with 170-page documents.
I mean, Samuel was fairly quick off the mark with his very pro-Manchester City article, where he had very little positive to say about the PL. He’s been very eager to support their, ehm, «challenge of the established powers» without ever really diving into what the critics are actually saying. In general, i just find it a bit odd when journalists write something one-sided without much to back up their claims. So yeah, i find it rather dodgy when Samuel writes that he’s read the entire thing and then describes the vast majority of claims as «some claims». It’s not like it’s problematic by definition that he’s supportive of Citys case, but i do think he’s strangely biased based on his articles where some things are being completely blown out of proportion, while key bits are sort of brushed under the carpet. Like essentially shouting that City have a major victory on shareholder loans before proceeding to barely mentioning that they lost on every major claim they had. There’s no balance too it.
I thought Delaney had an overall fair take: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league-man-city-apt-verdict-b2627105.html
FFP should not really have even a necessity, and yes when it was conjured up, the way it was implemented was terrible. Football lived on fine for so long without it. It is because we started accepted all these half baked owners including states owning clubs. This is not limited to football clubs of course, so I also blame our governments for not stepping in. It was bad enough having Roman filth up the place with his crooked money, they let it go even further down the toilet before they even did anything worthwhile by allowing states to own clubs. I would be quite happy with football clubs returning to ownership limited to the leagues' nations. That is in my opinion the true problem here.
There has been zero benefit to football for having shady foreign ownership. Look at football since Roman....massively inflated fees, wages, and of course ticket prices. Is the football any better? Nope.
There has been zero benefit to football for having shady foreign ownership. Look at football since Roman....massively inflated fees, wages, and of course ticket prices. Is the football any better? Nope.
Oh please just nuke them
I fear where the sport I once heavily loved is going to end up, fifa is just as corrupt as it was under blatter by happily selling out to oil rich states, they have already done damage in domestic leagues and can see the sport becoming even more diluted as seen with this stupid fifa world club cup thing to appease these oil rich states wishes and the sport ending up only being championed as a great sport to watch still on social media by people desperate for views and likes in the hope of making themselves career on social media like we already see with the cringe fest on those overlap fans episodes.
Absolutely not, there has to be regulation but the way FFP was implemented was poor because if gave the haves a huge leg up on the have nots.
Personally I'd like to see but know it would have to be world wide so likely impossible.
Salary Caps, Transfer Fee Caps, 5 HG players in every starting XI and 10 in a 23 man squad. But also a total spending limit thats in or around a division average so lets say no more than £50m net instead per season etc... I don't know exact numbers I feel that kinda thing would leave to a more competitive Europe where the best players aren't shared between 6 Englsih, 3 Spanish, 1 French, 1 German and a couple of Italian teams.
The best football journalist at the grauniad is the cartoonist who regurgitates thirty-year old Simpson's gags.
These cretins would see the complete destruction of the League over admitting they did any wrong. They are scum and the whole world knows it.
I think he’s the only football journalist if I’m honest!
The irony of UAE trying to sports wash their global image of corruption resulting in their image of corruption being reinforced is hilarious.
That’s pretty much my take. Bluster and more bluster with thinly veiled threats regarding legal action.
The worrying thing is if they are attempting this amongst the clubs what are they saying in business and political circles. I imagine the lobbyists are working overtime
Gregor Robertson is one of the most balanced talking heads in football.
Martin Samuel is one of the least balanced. He also looks dusty as Fcuk without his beard. But that’s by the by.
How on earth did City ‘win’? Their win was through two items being set aside for further reassessment.
The notable ‘wins’ relate to them ensuring that they impact other clubs loans through associated parties. I’ll freely support them on that. But that part doesn’t absolve City. It just punishes other clubs.
The Premier League needs to get its shit together. They have a set of rules that have been drafted with miles of daylight between intent and application. They’re shit. Really shit. They need to at least quintuple their legal drafting budget. Not because their drafting is bad. It’s that they seek to be existing in this idea that clubs are honest.
They manage a set of 20 teams that are akin to F1 teams. Millions spent on analysing the legal minutiae to exploit rules to their own benefit.
It’s not even sport anymore. It’s completely ok to accept that City were ‘right’ over APT rules. But insane to believe that City were even 1% vindicated with regards to how they managed their own accounts. They look worse, not better, after this ruling. It’s golf clap, not applause.
Personally? I think that them shafting several clubs and causing them to be fecked through FFP will backfire. They’ll surely lose the votes of those clubs.
It’s such a circus.
Agree with all of this (and really hoping City’s actions/gamble backfires on them with other PL clubs).
For clarity, I was aiming post at Samuels (and City fans broadly… not the lad in the vid who did seem calm).