6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Ruairi77]

I commented on this but I think it's a good idea.
It wouldn't mean franchise football or the end of the pyramid system, just the pooling of other deals along with TV rights.
There needs to be more done to level the playing field or the league will eat its self.

On the city thing. If they win, it's the beginning of the end.
There will be open season on crazy spending. Eventually the mega rich owners will vote to end Pro/Rel and start voting to move clubs and games around.
If they couldnt go to the super league, theyll bring it to them.

 

[MACCA75]

I commented on this but I think it's a good idea.
It wouldn't mean franchise football or the end of the pyramid system, just the pooling of other deals along with TV rights.
There needs to be more done to level the playing field or the league will eat its self.

On the city thing. If they win, it's the beginning of the end.
There will be open season on crazy spending. Eventually the mega rich owners will vote to end Pro/Rel and start voting to move clubs and games around.
If they couldnt go to the super league, theyll bring it to them.

Yep. It’s naive to be backing City on this one.

 

[WestStandLower]

City must be pretty sure that they’ll be found guilty by the panel so they’re taking it to a real court instead

The hearing isn’t in a Civil Court it’s an Arbitration hearing being conducted under PL Section X

 

[WestStandLower]

Agree. But what they are fighting for has nothing to do with our rediculous made up PSR punishments. They simply want related companies in their group to be able to sponsor each turnstile for £4trillion pounds and make that a legitimate increase in their revenue, which spending limits will be based on. Only a couple of clubs will benefit from that change, and whilst most billionaire club owners have other businesses that might say sponsor your training ground for £15m for no good reason at all (ahem), they won’t be able to stick in £500m a year without blinking, and have no intention to ever recoup it.

If they win though, a regulator will have no choice but to base future spending rules on something other than revenue/profit unless they want it to be literally impossible for any non-sovereign state owned team to get within 20 points of the title, forever. Would seem obvious, but where there are palms to be greased….

The Regulator, based on the suspended proposals won’t have any input into such matters.

 

[kenada_blue]

I don’t care what Man City have done, if there’s a battle between City and the Premier League then I’m on Team City.

The PL are a much bigger threat to our existence than City. I want to see them neutered.

Nah. Proves City are guilty as sin while everyone else at some point had to walk a tightrope.

City have got to a position where they don't have to sell anyone to balance a book. The rest of the league had to.

 

[kenada_blue]

What's our boy Stefan have to say?

 

[kenada_blue]

At next week’s hearing, which has provoked bitter divisions between clubs, City will attempt to end the league’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, which they claim are unlawful, and seek damages from the Premier League.

Introduced in December 2021 in the wake of the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle United, the rules are designed to maintain the competitiveness of the Premier League by preventing clubs from inflating commercial deals with companies linked to their owners. The rules dictate that such transactions have to be independently assessed to be of “fair market value” (FMV).
But within an 165-page legal document City argue that they are the victims of “discrimination”, describing rules they say have been approved by their rivals to stifle their success on the pitch as a “tyranny of the majority”.

If City are successful in their claim — and some rival clubs fear they will be — it could enable the richest clubs to value their sponsorship deals without independent assessment for the league, vastly boosting the amount of money they can raise and therefore giving them far greater sums to spend on players.

The argument there would be what is the point of sponsorship and let them spend what they want?

Always amused me with Newcastle's new sponsor deal is that went from £6mill to £25mill. Their "reasoning" was that it reflected a club in the champions league.

6months later they're out the champs league and European football all together. Full season they finish 7th with no European football next season.

Justifiable as you can tell

 

[WestStandLower]

Separate this matter from the 115 historic Charges they are completely separate matter .

The historical charges we now learn are scheduled to be heard over a 6week period in the Autumn.

This latest matter is no more than City challenging a rule voted on by the majority of clubs. What it is simply put is City don’t believe that they should have to prove that their dealings with entities with links to Cities owners or the like should be assessed to see if they are fair value or are simply a way of introducing extra money into the club which let’s face it is the basic concept of PSR/FFP

Those that want PSR to be got rid of this potentially will lead to that happening and if it does it will change football at PL level beyond doubt. But I hasten to add the gulf between clubs will grow even further

This challenge has another twist to it in that they City, don’t believe that rules should be determined by a 2/3 majority they believe that say in a vote where it fails because clubs haven’t voted 14/6 but say in a 13/7 vote they believe that the minority (7) are blocking the majority view.

 

[Librarian]

I thought the purpose of the rules was to stop clubs going bust, not sure how curbing sponsorship deals helps with that.

 

[Bez2k2k]

Leicester ?

Yup

 

[mahermi1]

Yup

Sorry mate did they get a deduction ? Serious question.

 

[Neiler]

It’s in bad taste when you see multi million pound sports club talking about in house rules as tyranny of the majority, when you consider other things going in in the world particularly Gaza.

Poor PR.

 

[Neiler]

That phrase “tyranny of the majority” should worry everyone, essentially it’s a challenge to collective bargaining and 14 majority rule, be the end of the game in the U.K. if that goes, remember these are the lads that wanted to leave this league and join a ESL.

Was that not tyranny of the minority.

 

[kenada_blue]

Separate this matter from the 115 historic Charges they are completely separate matter .

The historical charges we now learn are scheduled to be heard over a 6week period in the Autumn.

This latest matter is no more than City challenging a rule voted on by the majority of clubs. What it is simply put is City don’t believe that they should have to prove that their dealings with entities with links to Cities owners or the like should be assessed to see if they are fair value or are simply a way of introducing extra money into the club which let’s face it is the basic concept of PSR/FFP

Those that want PSR to be got rid of this potentially will lead to that happening and if it does it will change football at PL level beyond doubt. But I hasten to add the gulf between clubs will grow even further

This challenge has another twist to it in that they City, don’t believe that rules should be determined by a 2/3 majority they believe that say in a vote where it fails because clubs haven’t voted 14/6 but say in a 13/7 vote they believe that the minority (7) are blocking the majority view.

They're basically throwing their [Poor language removed] on the table and saying "We're the biggest club in the league with the best lawyers and an endless pit of money. We want to decided the rules, not you, let's get in a legal tangle over it and see who wins".

It's absurd. It's a fight no one real fan wants to see because it's showing that 1 club is ruling over the entire league.

It's also another deflection by City to make the PL heads spin which they've already spent 3 years doing

 

[RomanReigns]

Explains why masters was at the emirates and not the etihad on the final day of the season