The Great Big FFP Debate

[BaZ87]

The scale of City's victory really hinges on the club's objectives. If the goal was to dismantle APT (which I strongly doubt), then it's fair to say the victory is somewhat limited, albeit still significant. However, if the aim was to realign the rules (which seems more likely), then the result must be seen as a major success.

What is beyond debate, though, is the extent of the Premier League’s defeat. Having a public authority essentially rule that its regulations were unlawful, as was their enforcement, is monumental. Equally significant are the findings of procedural irregularities and unfairness.
That should be the real story, yet we are seeing people contort themselves to claim that neither side truly won—when one side clearly lost.

Following the Leicester debacle, this only reinforces the notion that the Premier League is nowhere near capable of overseeing a multi-billion-pound industry of such strategic and commercial significance to the UK imo.
There is of course the whole timing of the 115 charges as well, just days (iirc) before the white paper was about to be released by the government on independent regulators being involved in the premier league, the charge sheet was full of errors and looked rushed and published just to try and get it out before the gov did, a brash attempt at trying to prove the league can run everything fine themselves, "look we just found loads of things with City so we obvs are capable boss".

The entire thing is a mess from the premier league in all honesty.

I'll come back to their objectives later but what has or will be 'realigned' that would constitute a success for City, let alone a major success? Beyond the wording of a relatively minor point, something that quite possibly will be redrafted to meet competition law, the only tangible change that we're likely to see is the change to an element of a rule that City voted in favour of and something that will have little to no consequence for any club. I appreciate you're a City fan but in what world is could that be seen as a victory for City?

Regarding your point about the Premier League. Firstly it's important to remember that the clubs are the League. Sometimes we talk about the PL as if it's some sort of independent body separate from the clubs when in reality Richard Masters is nothing more than an employee of the clubs. The clubs set the rules for their competition, which are often a massive compromise in an attempt to suit everybody (or at least 14 clubs), leaving Masters and co with a near impossible task of formalising what the clubs want. As I saw a sports lawyer quoted on the BBC saying, it will be an embarrassment for the PL however I don't think the clubs will care. We've seen similar procedural errors from the League in respect to PSR cases against Everton but just like in this case, ultimately the League won the argument so the clubs won't mind. They'll make some minor changes and the rules will be, give or take, the same as before.

City launched this case because of the 130 charges they face. They wanted to muddy the waters and undermine the PL as much as they could, even resorting to arguing against rules they voted for. We're talking about this case because it's been out in the public but City have been launching legal challenges to the PL's charges against them from day one (and like this, losing them). They'll crow about their minor victory (and ignore the fact that the vast majority of their case was dismissed) when in reality they'll be no better for it but they undermined the League and that was their objective.

You mention that the entire thing is a mess from the Premier League - I accept it's a mess but it's not just a Premier League thing. Football has been a lawless industry for too long and we're seeing the challenges Leagues are now facing in trying to implement proper rules and regulations. Again it's not just the PL - look at the mess with Barca where La Liga have implemented their rules. I'm not legal expert and have no idea how successful the PL will be with their 130 charges against City but one thing is for certain, the worst thing that can happen to football is if the PL don't win that. Even as a City fan, whether you'd admit it or not, you know full well that City have broken the rules (whether you agree with the rules is another matter) on a mass scale and if they were to be cleared, particularly with all the public evidence against them (you've seen the emails I'm sure), what would be the point of having any rules?

 

[Bigpig]

Well you seem to be claiming it as tiny minor win. When one of the best Sports Lawyers going says it’s extremely significant and will have ramifications.

You are also dismissing “burden of proof” it will be a lot easier for PL clubs to challenge any decision a panel makes around FMV.

Some of the rules that were voted in was ridiculous and the length clubs had to go to prove deals will have to scrapped.

There was a 6month band stoping any club from doing any sort of business to vote in Unlawful rules. That could very well open the gate for a few more cases.

The result will probably end in much fairer rules to work within than it being extremely one sided as it is now.

The PL rule was thought to be absolute and untouchable.

It has been challenged and been given a bloody nose. They are accountable.

 

[the wopster]

Well you seem to be claiming it as tiny minor win. When one of the best Sports Lawyers going says it’s extremely significant and will have ramifications.

You are also dismissing “burden of proof” it will be a lot easier for PL clubs to challenge any decision a panel makes around FMV.

Some of the rules that were voted in was ridiculous and the length clubs had to go to prove deals will have to scrapped.

There was a 6month band stoping any club from doing any sort of business to vote in Unlawful rules. That could very well open the gate for a few more cases.

The result will probably end in much fairer rules to work within than it being extremely one sided as it is now.

The PL rule was thought to be absolute and untouchable.

It has been challenged and been given a bloody nose. They are accountable.

From another forum, with reference to NUFC
The bad:

In relation to whether the changes to the rules were unfairly targeted at gulf state own clubs and unfairly made in response to our takeover, they found that was not the case and it was appropriate for the PL to change the rules.

They fundamentally found that the PSR and APT are lawful in principle in terms of competition law. This seems to make it unlikely that PSR and APT are going anywhere.

The good:

The amendments to the APT rules were found to be unlawfully anti-competitive pretty much in their entirety (other than around changes to deadlines for making FMV decisions). The changes in the wording and reversal of the burden of proof from the PL to the club was found to be unlawfully anti-competitive.

Basically, PSR and APT are here to stay but Man City did exactly what they set out to do, get rid of the amendments to the rules, and as a bonus they ****** over some of their main rivals with the interest free shareholder loans.

 

[C Kent]

Basically, PSR and APT are here to stay but Man City did exactly what they set out to do, get rid of the amendments to the rules

did they? I mean every other point of their challenge failed essentially. Their 'big win' seems to me that the rules around apt will be expanded upon and strengthened by the pl?

 

[the wopster]

did they? I mean every other point of their challenge failed essentially. Their 'big win' seems to me that the rules around apt will be expanded upon and strengthened by the pl?

Seems otherwise to me, but we shall see

 

[BaZ87]

Well you seem to be claiming it as tiny minor win. When one of the best Sports Lawyers going says it’s extremely significant and will have ramifications.

You are also dismissing “burden of proof” it will be a lot easier for PL clubs to challenge any decision a panel makes around FMV.

Some of the rules that were voted in was ridiculous and the length clubs had to go to prove deals will have to scrapped.

There was a 6month band stoping any club from doing any sort of business to vote in Unlawful rules. That could very well open the gate for a few more cases.

The result will probably end in much fairer rules to work within than it being extremely one sided as it is now.

The PL rule was thought to be absolute and untouchable.

It has been challenged and been given a bloody nose. They are accountable.

Can you provide a link to somebody saying it's extremely significant? I've seen a Times journalist, who wrote the initial City propaganda piece quote a sports lawyer who claims not to have read the ruling (and all the replies to that tweet were rightly mocking him). All others I've seen quoted by various outlets are saying the same thing - City's won on nothing more than minor details and this was principally a win for the PL.

And I'm not dismissing burden of proof. The ruling found that burden of proof, along with removing the word 'evidently' combined was the problem - therefore the League would only have to change one of the two things for the rules to be fine (+ add directors loans to the rules, which nobody really cares about). Furthermore, if you read the ruling in relation to the two blocked City deals, even adding back in the wording evidently to the rules, City challenged the PL's decision that their deals were not 'evidently' FMV and that was dismissed. Those two deals were only set aside on the basis of procedural errors.

I get it, like a City fan you want to believe this is a win because you think Newcastle will be able to cheat the system too but fundamentally little has changed. The principle of APT rules, how FMV is calculated and even putting those calculations to the test with City's 2 rejected deals, was entirely supported. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, regardless of what minor alterations to the rules will have to be made, Newcastle still won't be able to sign deals above FMV.

 

[Bigpig]

De Marco.

 

[BaZ87]

De Marco.

I assume you didn't link to anything because he doesn't say City's win was 'extremely significant' nor mentions ramifications?

He makes a general statement that the parts of the rules being unlawful is significant but he's making the point in relation to a wider topic, citing numerous other cases against governing bodies. He makes no comment on the details of the case and what exactly resulted in the rules being found unlawful. But you're clutching so you'll take anything you can and add things to it that were never said.

 

[the wopster]

did they? I mean every other point of their challenge failed essentially. Their 'big win' seems to me that the rules around apt will be expanded upon and strengthened by the pl?

Those new rules will have to be voted on to pass and I don’t think the PL will have its 14 votes anymore, with at least 7 clubs likely to vote against it, Man City, NUFC, Aston Villa, Leicester City, Nottingham Forest, Everton and Chelsea.

 

[C Kent]

Those new rules will have to be voted on to pass and I don’t think the PL will have its 14 votes anymore, with at least 7 clubs likely to vote against it, Man City, NUFC, Aston Villa, Leicester City, Nottingham Forest, Everton and Chelsea.

Everton and Leicester wont be premier league clubs beyond this season (hopefully), tbh the only clubs in man city's pocket are yourselves, Chelsea and Everton.

 

[BaZ87]

Everton's position on APT rules will very likely change once their takeover is completed too. The PL have stated that APT rules are remaining in place so clubs will still be subject to them until they agree new rules to replace them.

 

[the wopster]

Everton's position on APT rules will very likely change once their takeover is completed too. The PL have stated that APT rules are remaining in place so clubs will still be subject to them until they agree new rules to replace them.

You aren’t subject and can’t be held to a rule that’s illegal

 

[C Kent]

You aren’t subject to a rule that’s illegal

The rule isn't illegal, its only the amendments made this year, and I think its only due to some possible vague wording on a couple of elements is my (very limited, the same as everyone here) understanding

 

[BaZ87]

You aren’t subject to a rule that’s illegal

That's not the view of the PL and I'd be intrigued to see a club attempt to challenge that if they have voted against amendments to make them lawful.

 

[the wopster]

The rule isn't illegal, its only the amendments made this year

So clubs aren’t subject to to the amendments to the rule

 

[C Kent]

So clubs aren’t subject to to the amendments to the rule

yes they still have to adhere to it as per the previous iteration. Its not like its been tossed aside regardless is it

 

[the wopster]

That's not the view of the PL and I'd be intrigued to see a club attempt to challenge that if they have voted against amendments to make them lawful.

And the view of the PL is gospel? You seem to be taking the PL’s view at face value and dismissing City’s view, I suspect that we will fall somewhere in the middle.

 

[the wopster]

yes they still have to adhere to it as per the previous iteration. Its not like its been tossed aside regardless is it

The illegal bits are now tossed aside, I repeat you can not be held to a rule that is fundamentally illegal.

 

[BaZ87]

So clubs aren’t subject to to the amendments to the rule

And the amendments were requiring directors of the sponsor to sign a statement regarding the value of the deal and removing the word 'evidently' from the rules.

As mentioned previously, City's two rejected commercial deals were put to the test in the hearing and with evidently added back into the rules, and the panel dismissed City's claim against the PL.

And the view of the PL is gospel? You seem to be taking the PL’s view at face value and dismissing City’s view, I suspect that we will fall somewhere in the middle.

In respect to what they're saying are the rules that are in place? Yes as it's not a matter of opinion. The PL are stating that clubs are still subject to APT rules.

 

[C Kent]

The illegal bits are now tossed aside, I repeat you can not be held to a rule that is fundamentally illegal.

again, the rule isnt fundementaly illegal, as Baz has said clubs are still subject to apt as per the Pl statement I know you guys are clinging onto anything in the vague hope you can break said rules but come on.