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

[rimaldo]

Yep, this fella definitely has the scoop.

yeah but his saying the things that we want to here.

 

[thisisnottaken1]

You're joking, right?

No. I’m saying that City’s continued success could unfortunately become self sustaining as they gain plenty of new fans.

 

[Sassy Colin]

No. I’m saying that City’s continued success could unfortunately become self sustaining as they gain plenty of new fans.

I must have miss understand something in your post then.

 

[NotChatGPT]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-Premier-League-civil-war-rules-unlawful.html

The letter goes on to highlight three issues. The first is that City consider the proposed amendments are also ‘unlawful’ because they would introduce a retrospective exemption for shareholder loans from December 2021 until the new rules come into effect.

‘This exemption is one of the very things that was found to be illegal in the recent arbitration,’ Cliff writes. ‘It is not lawful to re-introduce it into the rules.’

The City executive also says that the proposal does not strike the right balance as it allows certain clubs to benefit from shareholder loans, and also claims addressing that issue is unfair because the clubs who took them did not know that the exemption was unlawful.

His final point is that the Premier League is rushing its consultation and that it is ‘essential’ to have the tribunal’s verdict before any next steps. ‘One very possible outcome,’ he says, ‘is that the tribunal will declare that all of the APT Rules are void and always have been. How can the clubs meaningfully discuss amendments to rules without knowing if those very rules even exist?’

I’m confused.

Regarding the exemption, obviously Cliff could very well be right that it’s unlawful to introduce a retrospective exemption until the new rules come into effect.

But i don’t really understand the second point about not knowing that the exemption was unlawful. I mean, these are rules clubs voted for/against. The majority voted for the APT. Newcastle voted against, Manchester City abstained from voting. The vast majority of the league already thought the right balance was found and they were happy with the suggestions. For the majority of the clubs, it’s how they want the league to be run.

Also, why would it be a very possible outcome that the tribunal declare that all of the APT rules are void when they’ve essentially concluded the opposite? Why would the whole thing be declared void on the basis of that exemptions of shareholder loans was unlawful

 

[DarkLord1984]

Good grief.

Perhaps we should just all sit back and let City run the league and makes the rules for everyone, as that's clearly what they want.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-Premier-League-civil-war-rules-unlawful.html


I’m confused.

Regarding the exemption, obviously Cliff could very well be right that it’s unlawful to introduce a retrospective exemption until the new rules come into effect.

But i don’t really understand the second point about not knowing that the exemption was unlawful. I mean, these are rules clubs voted for/against. The majority voted for the APT. Newcastle voted against, Manchester City abstained from voting. The vast majority of the league already thought the right balance was found and they were happy with the suggestions. For the majority of the clubs, it’s how they want the league to be run.

Also, why would it be a very possible outcome that the tribunal declare that all of the APT rules are void when they’ve essentially concluded the opposite? Why would the whole thing be declared void on the basis of that exemptions of shareholder loans was unlawful

It’s City talking bollocks and Mike Keegan cheer leading for City. Again.

 

[Berbaclass]

 

[NotChatGPT]

Masters better not feck this up.

 

[RedRocket9908]

 

[Berbasbullet]

Course the short sighted clubs with hugely rich owners want to change the rules.

Yeah let’s just make the premier league ‘who has the richest owner’, because that’s going to make it easier for clubs to grow (spoiler it means you have to win the lottery to go anywhere).

 

[croadyman]

Course the short sighted clubs with hugely rich owners want to change the rules.

Yeah let’s just make the premier league ‘who has the richest owner’, because that’s going to make it easier for clubs to grow (spoiler it means you have to win the lottery to go anywhere).

Yeah Villa and Newcastle clearly happen to ensure the Premier League gets bullied by them and City