The Great Big FFP Debate
- Thread starter Reuben klang
- Start date
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 4,449
Perfect excuse of owners to not spend.
They either need to uncap it and allow donations from wealthy owners to allow new money to overtake the old, or go American style and cap it to something everyone can afford and let the cream rise irrespective of how many titles you've won historically
Last edited:
Surely not!! Why would they do that?
Why? The premier league set the rules. The fact they have decided they are illegal now is kind of by the by. Unless the PL knew they were illegal at the time then why would they owe compensation?
Theoretically any side that had sponsorships reduced based on the old rules could make a claim but as with clubs trying to make claims re Everton’s PSR breach, proving their case will be far from straight forward and not likely to amount to a huge amount of money.
As I said when the first ruling came out, this doesn’t change much. The rules were unlawful due to fairly minor points and have already been amended. City claim they’re still unlawful but we saw at the last vote, there is now a clear majority voting with the League so one way or another these rules will be worded in a way that’s legal.
Why? This ruling only changes the overall lawfulness of the previous rules, it doesn’t impact on what needed changing in order to make the rules lawful moving forwards. They knew what needed changing from the last arbitration. The exclusion of shareholder loans needed addressing and the wording of the latter amendments.
They’ve changed those and City are now arguing that they shouldn’t allow clubs to retroactively convert them to equity. Even if City are right on that point, which the PL disputes, and you don’t allow clubs to do that, even City’s biggest cheerleaders accept that any club that breached psr based on the change in how shareholder loans are treated would be able to claim 100% mitigation on any penalty they received due to those rules not being in place at the time.
Premier League statement
www.premierleague.com
@BaZ87 more legal battles damaging reputation more civil wars.
Ole Dickie Masters ain’t having a good time. This and the PA threatening to sue over the Ratio rules that have now been pushed back.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,333
- Location
- newcastle
Having read the article, it seems the rules that where created in December 2022 when the takeover over Newcastle united first happened, are by all accounts wrong/illegal , and should be declared null and void, and the Premier League is now open to being sued for loss of earnings between then and late last year, when the amended rules where introduced.
The amended rules still technically remain in effect, but Man City have another legal case for the same reason as the first, with the same panel, and it seems very likely that they will also be deemed null and void.
The three respects in which the APT Rules and Amended APT Rules were unlawful cannot be severed with the result that the APT Rules as a whole are void and unenforceable.
The amended rules still technically remain in effect, but Man City have another legal case for the same reason as the first, with the same panel, and it seems very likely that they will also be deemed null and void.
The three respects in which the APT Rules and Amended APT Rules were unlawful cannot be severed with the result that the APT Rules as a whole are void and unenforceable.
Last edited:
How would waiting until now and then making the same changes have made a difference @Bigpig? City would have still objected to them.
The issue is that we have a club that have been breaking rules for fun for years and taken exception to being charged and are now wanting to muddy the waters as much as possible and generally be a pain in the arse to the PL. We know from the leaked emails that this would be City's tactic if and when they were charged.
And on the point about the PFA, what they're objecting to is an element of the proposed rules (now delayed until 26/27) that is to the benefit of the smaller clubs. If that part of the rule doesn't get implemented along with squad control rules, it will potentially make things even more uneven.
The issue is that we have a club that have been breaking rules for fun for years and taken exception to being charged and are now wanting to muddy the waters as much as possible and generally be a pain in the arse to the PL. We know from the leaked emails that this would be City's tactic if and when they were charged.
And on the point about the PFA, what they're objecting to is an element of the proposed rules (now delayed until 26/27) that is to the benefit of the smaller clubs. If that part of the rule doesn't get implemented along with squad control rules, it will potentially make things even more uneven.