The Great Big FFP Debate

BaZ87 said:
Ok, so your interpretation of quickly is that it would be done in 5 minutes? I now understand why you think there's been some backtracking now but I'd suggest that's down to your interpretation not as you say, what anybody with a brain interpreted.

As for what has changed in regards to presenting options to the clubs - I'm not sure, has anything been reported to say that's not still the plan? And there's a difference between a PL statement to the public and a private communication to clubs - the PL sending a letter to clubs doesn't imply their position has changed to what they've put in their statement. And we've not even seen the entire letter, just the odd half sentence.

Please can you link to the report saying clubs have changed their stance on APT rules, as you've claimed. I've read the Independent article (which is by Delaney, who you just laughed at btw) and one source comments on clubs abstaining on other (not APT rule) votes. There is no comment on any club changing their stance on APT rules. Good try though.
Click to expand...
Everyone knew it would take a long time to solve this, its just the PL that had to come out with such arrogance of saying they will quickly remedy the situation like they just forgot to add milk to the shopping list. City's statement and further communications have clearly stirred the pot and the PL now realise its not "quick", hence more communications and the backtracking now. The PL aren't too clever with how they rush out statements though so hardly a surprise.

None of us are sure, thats what this forum is for, opinions on the information we do have available. We are all allowed to have an opinion on what we see and how we view it, no?
The PL sending a follow up letter to me indicates some change, using my sensible head, to me that comes off the back of the city letter and what that contained. Maybe its 2+2 = 6.

Lets see if this "plan" comes to fruition then, I will wager it doesn't and there are statements next week to that affect.

Yeah I don't read his articles, the guy is a complete charlatan who has been shown up on many occasions both publicly and privately.
You will forgive me for not trawling through the horrible indy website to find the specific article, I am sure we both have better things to do with our weekend.
 
Biz.Kid09 said:
....
Click to expand...
Quickly is a subjective term but you openly admit yourself that anybody with a brain knew it would take weeks and it can certainly be argued that weeks is quick for such a matter.

And I knew you'd taken your information from twitter :D I'm sorry to tell you this but that tweet is made up nonsense. There is no article on the Independent that makes any such claim. The only articles on the subject are from Miguel Delaney and he does not once claim any club has changed its view on APT. The closest thing to such a claim is actually the reverse of the above, with him stating that City's approach has infuriated other clubs and even ones who were supportive of City have been left surprised by their actions.

And sadly not. This is my first free weekend in a couple of months and it coinciding with no proper football has left me with far too much time on my hands.
 
BaZ87 said:
Quickly is a subjective term but you openly admit yourself that anybody with a brain knew it would take weeks and it can certainly be argued that weeks is quick for such a matter.

And I knew you'd taken your information from twitter :D I'm sorry to tell you this but that tweet is made up nonsense. There is no article on the Independent that makes any such claim. The only articles on the subject are from Miguel Delaney and he does not once claim any club has changed its view on APT. The closest thing to such a claim is actually the reverse of the above, with him stating that City's approach has infuriated other clubs and even ones who were supportive of City have been left surprised by their actions.

And sadly not. This is my first free weekend in a couple of months and it coinciding with no proper football has left me with far too much time on my hands.
Click to expand...
It's a news aggregator with 760k followers. Not some parody fan account so seems an unusual thing to make up and even reference IndyFootball. It's there if you want to add a community note for misinformation.

In fact I'd go as far as saying Miguel Delaney is a parody account himself, not sure id give much credit to his thoughts but whatever fits your opinion I guess.

Well I'll leave you to it, must be something you can fill your time with.
 
Biz.Kid09 said:
It's a news aggregator with 760k followers. Not some parody fan account so seems an unusual thing to make up and even reference IndyFootball. It's there if you want to add a community note for misinformation.

In fact I'd go as far as saying Miguel Delaney is a parody account himself, not sure id give much credit to his thoughts but whatever fits your opinion I guess.

Well I'll leave you to it, must be something you can fill your time with.
Click to expand...
I don't follow that account to be able to form an opinion of the accuracy of their tweets in general however if they're anything like Liverpool aggregators, it doesn't surprise me one bit that they're putting out made up nonsense. These types of accounts are notorious for lying, twisting words and or taking things out of context.

As for Delaney or any football journalist discussing this topic for that matter, I stick to what they're reporting City/the PL are briefing rather than their opinions.
 
Seems 4 of the 'big' boys made sure to lodge the right to seek compensation before the deadline should Abu Dhabi be found guilty of cheating. Courtesy of the times:

Four of Manchester City’s main rivals have lodged legal notices reserving the right to seek compensation if the club are found guilty of serious charges among the 115 alleged breaches of Premier League financial rules.

Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur have taken the step of formally registering possible compensation claims via arbitration before a potential statute of limitations deadline last week, sources have told The Times. The clubs involved all declined to comment.

The charges against City are still being heard by an independent regulatory commission, with the outcome not expected until the new year. The commission can make an order for compensation to be paid but it is understood that, because of laws around time limits to register such claims, there was concern among the clubs that it would be too late to wait until the case had been resolved.

Chelsea are not believed to have lodged a legal notice relating to compensation. They have their own Premier League investigation to contend with after they self-reported alleged irregular payments during the Roman Abramovich era. That could also lead to compensation claims from rivals but there is no looming deadline for the case.

The compensation notices were served after the four clubs were advised by lawyers there was a potential six-year statute of limitations period dating from November 5, 2018, when the German website Der Spiegel first published the Football Leaks documents.

Although City’s alleged rule breaches date from 2009, the 1980 Limitation Act’s six-year period for legal claims for breaches of contract in the UK allows an exception where that breach has been concealed. That would allow the six-year period to begin when details of the alleged breaches were made public.

If the charges against City are proven, clubs could claim for loss of income for missing out on the league title, qualification for the Champions League or other European competitions over the course of several seasons, which could total hundreds of millions of pounds.

Clubs cannot sue each other through the courts under Premier League rules but they can do so through arbitration under Rule X. Five clubs applied for compensation when Everton were sanctioned for breaching Profitability and Sustainability Rules last season — Leeds United, Leicester City, Nottingham Forest, Burnley and Southampton — but those claims have since been withdrawn or are still unresolved.

In the City case, lawyers are understood to have advised clubs that if they waited until the outcome of the hearing into the 115 alleged rule breaches then there was a risk any compensation claim could be deemed to be out of time.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

Greenlizard0 Premier League Football Thread ** spoilers ** [19th - 21st October 2024]

May as well be , newcastle fans are weird with man city as they seem to be all in and hope they win their lawsuits because they think it will somehow help them be able to spend billions. Ah, makes sense!
forums.overclockers.co.uk forums.overclockers.co.uk
If City are found guilty of cheating in any past season, then that means countless clubs and players have lost money and trophies. They would then sue and the whole thing would rumble on for decades. Very tricky situation all round.
Click to expand...

I said they would sue. Inevitable really. And what about all the players that have lost money?
 
Last edited:
GIBURROWS said:
What about people who had bets on....?
Click to expand...
Yes, those who lost money. What about those who won? This is a minefield. I understand that the clubs who have launched lawsuits are doing it because if they don't do it now they won't be able to do it in the future so they're really just placeholders but if City are found guilty, aside from their direct punishment (assuming there is any), what about compensation for all those who lost out? If they are fined, does that money get shared out to the other Premier League clubs?
 
MikeTimbers said:
Yes, those who lost money. What about those who won? This is a minefield. I understand that the clubs who have launched lawsuits are doing it because if they don't do it now they won't be able to do it in the future so they're really just placeholders but if City are found guilty, aside from their direct punishment (assuming there is any), what about compensation for all those who lost out? If they are fined, does that money get shared out to the other Premier League clubs?
Click to expand...
It's almost as if they should have some rules in place and some punishments if clubs break those rules.....
 
I suppose @Biz.Kid09 was right when he suggested clubs had changed their stance on APT rules, it just turns out they didn't change in the direction he was hoping or expecting. The PL's vote on the redrafting of the Feb 24 amendments and inclusion of shareholder loans passed with 16 votes in favour to 4 against. At the previous vote in February it was a lot closer with only 12 votes in favour with 2 abstaining and 6 against. Everton + at least one of Wolves & Chelsea had voted against previously but now back the League's position.

While shareholders loans will now be subject to fair market value interest, this won't be back dated beyond December 2021 and clubs can retrospectively convert them to equity for the period after then to today. And with the PL likely to be moving away from PSR to squad cost control rules from next season, any interest charges on shareholders loans will then become completely meaningless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom