• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Football Finance

I've said it before, I'll say it again, 15 clubs need to grow a pair and threaten to kick these twats out of the league if they don't fall into line. They have the power, they need to wield it.
The most significant thing in that article for me is that there were 10-12 clubs throwing their weight behind the PL, and that's probably the problem - they can't get to 15.
Also interesting to see a date suggested for the 115.
The idea that those rules are anti-competitive? Fuck me, the whole point of those rules is to level the playing field, they are the total opposite of anti-competitive.
This is like all those Eton and Oxbridge educated melts complaining they can't ruin the country because of the influence of "metropolitan elites".
Fuck these cunts.
Anything less than permanent exclusion from the league for as long as ADUG owns them won't be sufficient punishment. They can fuck off and play endless round-robin games agains Real and Barca in the Superleague.
Yep, this bigger than the ESL fight.
PL and gov let this happen, the PL has become the most single club thing it has ever been and the rest all seem to have accepted this as long as the CL money is there.
 
Pre
It’s an utter fucking joke that Forrest can get done for holding off selling a player for a few months and getting done for bit, while Chelsea can tip-toe round it all by selling themselves their own assets to book a profit.

The next stage is selling key players to their other teams and loaning them back - they’ll be doing that next, no question.

Wait till Strasbourg suddenly buy Conor Gallagher for £200m and loan him back on zero wages.
Pretty prophetic given the legal case City have launched today...
 
My old boss is a City ST holder. He thinks de Bruyne is majorly pissed off at dog shagger for forcing to play when not ready following injury and making things worse. He was always off this summer.
"At my age, you have to be open to everything. You talk about unbelievable amounts in what may be the end of my career. Sometimes you have to think about that."
 
Manchester City’s legal dispute with the Premier League has put the £900million funding deal for the EFL at risk.


As The Times revealed on Tuesday, City have launched an unprecedented legal action in a bid to scrap rules that limit how much companies linked to club owners can pay them in sponsorship. Their case will be heard at a hearing starting on Monday and is expected to last a fortnight.


Many rival clubs fear that if City are successful it will have a devastating impact on the competitiveness of the Premier League because teams with the greatest access to sponsorship funds from linked companies will gain a huge advantage in the transfer market. Between ten and 12 clubs have provided letters or witness statements in support of the Premier League’s defence of its rules.


Now The Times can reveal that senior Premier League club sources are also citing City’s legal claim as one factor in their failure to agree on a deal vital to the financial future of the 72 clubs in the three divisions below the Premier League, despite pressure from the government and a new £6.7billion top-flight domestic broadcasting deal.


They say they are reluctant to commit extra funds to the EFL if the financial rules limiting spending in the Premier League are deemed unlawful. “If we have to spend more to even try to keep pace with clubs like City, we might need to hold on to that money,” one prominent Premier League source said.


As the fallout continued over City’s legal attack on the Premier League, which includes a claim for damages and describes the present system as a “tyranny of the majority” based on “discrimination” towards clubs from the Middle East, The Times can now disclose further details of the civil war in English football’s top flight:


• Some clubs may pursue compensation claims totalling more than £1billion against the English champions if they are found guilty of any or all of 115 Premier League charges for breaches of financial regulations. The clubs have sought legal advice and could pursue what they call “placing claims”, meaning compensation for not finishing above City in the league. The 115 charges are due to be heard at separate hearing in November; City deny any wrongdoing relating to the charges.


There is an appetite among some clubs for the independent tribunal hearing the case concerning the 115 charges to not only sanction City with a heavy points deduction but also apply rules that enable the league to expel a club from membership. Clubs have no real desire to see City stripped of previous titles (they have been champions eight times since 2011-12), but they do expect an appropriate level of punishment should there be a guilty verdict.


Clubs are furious with City for launching this claim against the Premier League when, The Times can reveal, in November 2021 City initially approved recommended changes to the same Associated Party Transactions (APT) rules they are now claiming are unlawful and anti-competitive.


Next week’s hearing has huge implications for the English game, with the potential impact extending to EFL clubs still sweating on extra Premier League funding that many consider vital for their own survival. EFL clubs are hoping to receive an extra £150million per season over six years from the Premier League under the so-called “New Deal For Football”, in addition to the existing £110million in solidarity payments and £40million in youth development funding. But the negotiations among top-flight clubs collapsed in March, only a few weeks after City filed their claim against the Premier League on February 16.


Kevin Plumb, general counsel for the Premier League, notified clubs of City’s claim on March 1, and by mid-March it had emerged that they had failed to agree on a new funding package for the EFL. It was reported that as many as ten clubs opposed the new deal for the lower divisions.


It did represent a dramatic shift. In January the Premier League’s chief executive, Richard Masters, had told a parliamentary committee he had been assured that “the vast majority of clubs want to do a deal, provided it’s right for both parties”.


The Premier League’s board then emerged from a meeting on February 29 hopeful that an agreement could be reached. Plumb’s letter landed the next day, however, and by the emergency meeting on March 11 the clubs were said to be hopelessly divided on a new deal.


Indeed it was reported at the time that clubs had argued that they first needed to resolve issues with the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules. It now appears the situation with City was central to those concerns.


On Thursday, all 20 Premier League clubs will meet in Harrogate for their annual summer meeting, and it is sure to be tense. Many clubs feel they have to work particularly hard to raise extra revenue, staging music concerts and alternative sporting events in the closed season. At the same time, they question how rules that demand that sponsorship deals are of a fair market value are stifling a club such as City when they recently celebrated a record fourth consecutive Premier League title.


They also note City’s soaring commercial revenue since the Abu Dhabi takeover in 2008. It has risen from about £22million in the season before Sheikh Mansour bought the club to £340million in their most recent audit — just shy of Real Madrid at the top of world football’s money league.


Some clubs suspect next week’s hearing was scheduled for June because City are keen to secure further sponsorship income before the start of next season, while noting that a delay until November for the hearing into the 115 charges means City would have already embarked on another Champions League campaign.


They also point to the fact that City were initially in favour of the sponsorship rules. According to documents seen by The Times, City were among 19 clubs who approved the 17 recommendations set out for new APT rules on November 11, 2021. The one abstention was Newcastle United, who had been the subject of a recent Saudi Arabia-led takeover.


In the meeting that followed on December 14, however, both City and Newcastle United voted against the new APT rules, with the other 18 in favour.


City published an interview with their chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak, on Wednesday in which he said he was frustrated by the 115 charges hanging over the club.


In the interview, which was recorded before The Times revealed details of their legal action against the league, he said of the 115 charges: “Of course, it’s frustrating. I think the reference is always frustrating. Having it being talked about the way it’s being talked about, I can feel, of course, for our fan base, for everyone associated with the club, to have these charges constantly referenced.


“We as a club have to respect that there’s a process that we have to go through, and we’ll go through it. It’s taking longer than anyone hoped for but it is what it is. I hope there’s a bit more sensibility in regulating, [that there is] always a balanced approach.


“This is good for all the leagues, be it in England or the rest of Europe. I think you won’t see the same level [of transfer spending] as we’ve seen in the past few years because of the level of regulations that have come into place over the last 12 months.”

 
attack the best form of defense, eh?
things must be coming to a head
horrible pricks

was thinking this myself watching goldbridge a few minutes ago. they must have a feeling something bad isn’t too far down the line
 
I like Villa.......I really hope they don't start giving me more reasons for that to change.

They’re close to failing FFP aren’t they.

Obviously Chelsea & Newcastle will support City and Everton will do it out of spite - the Premier League should have fucked them out when they had the chance.

Forest & Leicester will be next out in support of City because they’re financially fucked too.
 
I don’t understand why Villa or Everton would support it. It’s not like if an owner could pump in whatever they wanted they’d become competitive.

All that would happen is City and Newcastle would brandish “behead all infidels” on their shirts for a billion quid a year and nobody else would ever get a look in.

FFP needs more time to bed in with these serious punishments to help drive down the biggest costs to clubs, wages and transfers, to a more manageable level. Taking that away makes it a more serious threat clubs could go under.
 
I don’t understand why Villa or Everton would support it. It’s not like if an owner could pump in whatever they wanted they’d become competitive.

All that would happen is City and Newcastle would brandish “behead all infidels” on their shirts for a billion quid a year and nobody else would ever get a look in.

FFP needs more time to bed in with these serious punishments to help drive down the biggest costs to clubs, wages and transfers, to a more manageable level. Taking that away makes it a more serious threat clubs could go under.

Because if successful they could circumvent PSR rules very easily.
 
Not in Everton’s case. Their owner has no money. And Villa’s owner isn’t as rich as Saudi or Abu Dhabi.
 
I thin it’s not so much the thought that they could pump more money in, more that they would be off the hook for future charges based on what they’ve already done if the whole house of cards collapses.
Villa are probably stuffed this year without player sales and they’ll be nowhere near qualifying for UEFA rules, so will likely get fines deducted from their CL money.
 
That’s the only benefit I can see. Be more attractive to sell to an oil state and become a plaything.

Otherwise they’re voting to keep the status quo.
 
I don’t think the quota is in play here. It’s about teams supporting the current rules to the courts. City won’t have more than half supporting them.
 
Still not enough, as @Beamrider corrected me, there needs to be six dissenting votes (or abstentions). Pretty certain Leicester will be the sixth
It's not a numbers game in this case. To clarify how this would work WITHIN the PL rules:

City could bring the APT rules to a vote, but they would lose. The motion would be to over-turn the rule and they would need a 2/3 majority (14 clubs) which they clearly don't have. To defeat such a motion, you would need 7 (not 6) dissenting votes, and if there are 10-12 clubs supporting the PL then there would be at least 7 ready to vote down a change.

For clubs to kick another team out of the League, they need a 75% vote (15 clubs). I think this is too big an ask at present.

But this is a legal dispute, so the numbers don't really matter, except that it bolsters the PL's case to be able to say most of the clubs continue to support the rules that they (or their predecessors) voted for. The PL would argue that under it's rules City could bring a motion to change the rules (like Wolves have done with VAR) and the reason they haven't done so is that the majority of clubs agree the rules are fair.

The arbitration is an independent process and the chair of the arbitration panel will seek to help the parties come to a solution and if no compromise can be reached (going out on a limb here, but I reckon that's unlikely), the panel will make a ruling which is imposed on the parties.

The question of arbitration is provided for in the PL rules and by signing up to the rules clubs agree to be bound by that process (and indeed all the other PL rules, including APT). The arbitration process provides that it can be invoked for "disputes arising from [the Premier League's] Rules or otherwise" so City are, technically, within their rights to request a process.

They each appoint one arbitrator, and those arbitrators in turn appoint a third person - so as with previous hearings there is a risk of bias towards City if the PL appointee is not strong enough to resist an unsuitable third appointee. This is what happened with the CAS appeal against UEFA's decision.

The rules provide that there is no right of appeal on "a point of law", but I'm sure City will try to appeal if they lose (they could, theoretically, appeal to an arbitration panel that the arbitration rule denying the right of appeal is unfair).

I don't know the technical ins and outs of City's case, but fundamentally the Premier League is a joint venture. By accepting their shares in the company, and by committing to follow the rules, PL clubs are voluntarily signing up to a code of conduct. This is necessary as the specific rules of the "business" are not set out in law, so you need a rule book. The question to be decided is whether the closed-shop nature of that agreement is in some way breaching other legal rights, most likely "restraint of trade" will be invoked. But I think that "closed shop" is inherent in the League's structure. You have to move up the pyramid into the top division to participate - is it restraint of trade that a team has to adhere to those principles? Of course not. On any common sense reading, this should fail. But if City manage to tilt the panel in their favour like they did at CAS then all bets are off.

And if they win this, it will trigger a meltdown in the League. Various articles are talking about clubs wanting City to be expelled from the League if found guilty of some or all of the 115. I'd imagine there are some who will want them kicked out for initiating this process too. It's instructive to read the mailbox at Football365 over the last couple of days to see what FANS of other clubs think of this - hint, no-one is speaking up for City. I think comparing City to Thanos was my favourite bit.
 
They’ll all be game for kicking them out if it means they get a slice of the compensation package. If there is one. Obviously after the 115 hearing.
 
The clubs providing evidence 𝐀𝐆𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐓 Manchester City include Manchester United, Arsenal, Fulham, Wolves, Brighton and Tottenham.
@MikeKeegan_DM
 
Is this endgame stuff for City - piss us off and we’ll press the nuclear button and blow everything up - because we’ll survive - you won’t?

Is it a well timed shot across the bows to say to the PL - pull back or this is what your future looks like, endless legal challenges?

There’s going to be a compromise - what is that going to look like?
 
Is this endgame stuff for City - piss us off and we’ll press the nuclear button and blow everything up - because we’ll survive - you won’t?

Is it a well timed shot across the bows to say to the PL - pull back or this is what your future looks like, endless legal challenges?

There’s going to be a compromise - what is that going to look like?
City playing in the 12th tier.
 
Back
Top Bottom