6 + 2 Point Deductions

[GrandOldTeam]

That highlighted passage is why it wouldn't be voted through. There's too much risk it destroys 'the product'.

It'd have to be imposed - either by the government (which I think is unlikely) or by UEFA / FIFA (and I think that's also unlikely).

American professional sports have been able to get the whole drafting system working chiefly because there's never been any international competition. It's just not the same with football.

Even if this was UEFA-wide, you can imagine the Saudis and others - maybe even MLS - leaping at the opportunity to buy up all the best players.

It's the sort of thing that would need to be established at the FIFA-level. But as we know, they do nothing for the good of the game.

Something has to be done - football is on it's way to eating itself.

States owning clubs - which the UK Government forced through. And even with regards to Man City;

Man City's Premier League charges discussed by UK government and Abu Dhabi

The UK government has admitted its embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) in London have discussed the charges levelled at Manchester City by the Premier League, but are refusing to disclose the correspondence because it could risk the UK’s relationship...

www.nytimes.com

It all absolutely stinks.

 

[allen]

I predict City will lose the arbitration because its a members club that they originally signed up for.

They will then issue a civil case citing that the rules of the league breaches Competition Law, which will given them recourse to the civil case. That may take 1-2 years before it is resolved.

Because of the appeal, the league will have no option but to adjourn the 115 charges hearing in the Autumn until after the legal case.

This will result in a large part of the league setting up a new Super league because they are upset with the behavior of City.

Their whole case is that competition is being impeded because they can't spend what they want.

That doesn't sound especially compelling as an argument when you've just won your fourth title in a row.

I don't see how they get anywhere with this case.

 

[allen]

Something has to be done - football is on it's way to eating itself.

States owning clubs - which the UK Government forced through. And even with regards to Man City;

Man City's Premier League charges discussed by UK government and Abu Dhabi

The UK government has admitted its embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) in London have discussed the charges levelled at Manchester City by the Premier League, but are refusing to disclose the correspondence because it could risk the UK’s relationship...

www.nytimes.com

It all absolutely stinks.

I agree completely.

I don't feel much reflected glow from my team playing in the biggest league in the world.

I'd much rather it was a fair league than a rich league.

But I just don't see how the pieces move to give us what we want.

 

[ChrisPW75]

Their whole case is that competition is being impeded because they can't spend what they want.

That doesn't sound especially compelling as an argument when you've just won your fourth title in a row.

I don't see how they get anywhere with this case.

I think its a legal strategy to delay the 115 charges case. It's timed just before that hearing, and they know that there argument can be tested in the courts because there claim is that the members club agreement of rules is in breach of statute anti competition law. I don't think they care a great deal about winning it, i think they want the option of a further 2 years delay of the 115 charges case because that will have to be adjourned given the court in the court in the anti-competition case will supersede the the panel in the leagues case. Therefore the panel decision will have to wait.

It seems like a further strategic delay to the the main 115 charges issues.

 

[allen]

I think its a legal strategy to delay the 115 charges case. It's timed just before that hearing, and they know that there argument can be tested in the courts because there claim is that the members club agreement of rules is in breach of statute anti competition law. I don't think they care a great deal about winning it, i think they want the option of a further 2 years delay of the 115 charges case because that will have to be adjourned given the court in the court in the anti-competition case will supersede the the panel in the leagues case. Therefore the panel decision will have to wait.

It seems like a further strategic delay to the the main 115 charges issues.

Yes, I think you’re right.

But it seems so straightforward that I can’t imagine it taking especially long (in terms of legal timeframes) to be thrown out.

 

[Timbucktoo]

Rules were made in sport to try to keep a level playing field for every team to compete at. The best at the sport got to the top and had their success.
But when the tv money came in and attracted greedy business people the sports became businesses instead of sport teams. The likes of City are arguing about business laws not being adhered to while breaking the sporting rule that are there to try to keep something like a level playing field for teams to compete on.

 

[allen]

Rules were made in sport to try to keep a level playing field for every team to compete at. The best at the sport got to the top and had their success.
But when the tv money came in and attracted greedy business people the sports became businesses instead of sport teams. The likes of City are arguing about business laws not being adhered to while breaking the sporting rule that are there to try to keep something like a level playing field for teams to compete on.

I’d argue it’s not greedy business people that have distorted the league - it’s oligarchs wanting a plaything and nation states wanting good PR.

Football clubs have become money pits as much as anything else.

 

[Jacko93]

I predict City will lose the arbitration because its a members club that they originally signed up for.

They will then issue a civil case citing that the rules of the league breaches Competition Law, which will given them recourse to the civil case. That may take 1-2 years before it is resolved.

Because of the appeal, the league will have no option but to adjourn the 115 charges hearing in the Autumn until after the legal case.

This will result in a large part of the league setting up a new Super league because they are upset with the behavior of City.

But the 115 cases aren't criminal law, or even anything outside of what City agreed to while in membership. Surely they can hear and punish regardless of ongoing cases.

 

[windymiller]

If City win this, the competition ceases to be a competition.

If they get beaten, there may be way to restore some sort of feeling of a league worth partaking in. The development of the EPL had at least some sort of basis in democracy. What City want is to be able to act in sport how they do in domestic politics.

Giving state backed teams the ability to effectively spend whatever they want, would be like me or you going into auction against Elon Musk, for something he really wants. Teams like Everton will be left with cast offs and undesirables, Teams could stockpile players and have 3 or 4 squads for different competitions. If they win this argument, they win all sporting arguments based upon the same principles of restruction of competition. They can effectively attempt to rewrite the rulebook in their favour.

39th game? We want it, and if you don't its a restriction of trade. To the courts.

50% of games abroad? We want it, and if you don't its a restriction of trade. To the courts.

Jib off FA cup.participation for anybody who's in Europe...... you get the jist.

Siding with City on this case, in my opinion is a VERY risky, and maybe naive move. Unless you think Everton shouldn't be competing alongside them of course.

Agree totally with this.

However, a small part of me hopes that City burns the whole thing to the ground so I can sack the whole thing off and I can get my life back!

 

[Jarvick]

I see that the hearing on the 115 charges is now set for November. How ridiculous is that, I thought it had been scheduled to start over the summer.

 

[SerenityNigh]

It is about winning battles and setting precedents. Real can spend 750mill in La Liga, which means they can afford whoever they want. City need to make it possible for them to compete domestically at that level, to then win European comps more frequently.

At least that is my opinion!

*the relevant governing body of Champions League is UEFA, not PL

 

[msb]

*the relevant governing body of Champions League is UEFA, not PL

Sigh.

They need to comply with domestic legislation to be able beat Real in Europe, by outspending them. Hence the case against the EPL, impacts their European desires. If they get points deducted in England, they may not qualify for European competition, let alone compete against Real.

15 European cups cost a lot of money.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Sigh.

They need to comply with domestic legislation to be able beat Real in Europe, by outspending them. Hence the case against the EPL, impacts their European desires. If they get points deducted in England, they may not qualify for European competition, let alone compete against Real.

15 European cups cost a lot of money.

Point is that if MCFC have legitimate beef with RM because La Liga rules are too lax, they should partner with PL and target UEFA/La Liga. Going after PL isn't an honest move, it's a power/takeover move. Also, it's probably obfuscation/retaliation against forthcoming penalty anyway, but regardless if the problem were RM then MCFC would enlist allies not enemies.

 

[neil999]

Just all starting to feel like unsustainable rules, big split incoming/another super league feels inevitable

 

[Tin-Tin]

If City win this, the competition ceases to be a competition.

If they get beaten, there may be way to restore some sort of feeling of a league worth partaking in. The development of the EPL had at least some sort of basis in democracy. What City want is to be able to act in sport how they do in domestic politics.

Giving state backed teams the ability to effectively spend whatever they want, would be like me or you going into auction against Elon Musk, for something he really wants. Teams like Everton will be left with cast offs and undesirables, Teams could stockpile players and have 3 or 4 squads for different competitions. If they win this argument, they win all sporting arguments based upon the same principles of restruction of competition. They can effectively attempt to rewrite the rulebook in their favour.

39th game? We want it, and if you don't its a restriction of trade. To the courts.

50% of games abroad? We want it, and if you don't its a restriction of trade. To the courts.

Jib off FA cup.participation for anybody who's in Europe...... you get the jist.

Siding with City on this case, in my opinion is a VERY risky, and maybe naive move. Unless you think Everton shouldn't be competing alongside them of course.

And replace it with a league where City can spend whatever they want?

As much of a mess as the Premier League is, giving City what they want isn't a solution.

They have won 4 of the last 5 PL trophies anyway, even with these controls. The league is already done. Arsenal spending £200m and Chelsea £500m, selling hotels to themselves to get around rules and avoid punishment.

Lets not all act like the current set up is fit for any purpose. Its already geared towards teams that are already rich and have large fanbases and they want to keep it that way.

When you see a team in Leicester win a PL, play in the CL and win an FA Cup, yet still need to sell players then you know its not right

The PL have engineered this mess.