6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Rita_Poon]

With a new stadium on the horizon we are potentially only a few transfer windows of shrewd/lucky business away from being a club who might conceivably get in and around the European places. It's not entirely surprising the Premier league, which let's not forget is just the other premier league club owners, might be keen to stick the boot in. United and Chelsea have already been relegated to also rans, its not a good look for their business models.

Interesting mentioning them, they've had a succession of managers to pay off as well as coaching staffs, they've had various failed players on top money and for top fees, some of which have left for little if anything and they aren't under the microscope of financial chicanery?

 

[voodoobloo]

The premier league accused us of misleading them. They would not claim dishonesty or call it lying because that is much harder to prove. In the same way, when they charge a player with using racist language they make it clear that they are not calling the player a racist.

It is about using precise legal definitions that do not allow recourse to legal action.

There are not precise English law definitions for ‘misleading’ and ‘lying’. They are not ‘terms of art’ and the Courts seek to use the ordinary meaning of words. It has been determined (correctly or otherwise) that we were not frank because we didn’t go along with their characterisation of our actions - that’s not lying.

 

[Cjplennon]

We need the 6 to go away and then we can rebuild

Like ive said before maybe the 14 can break away from the 6 scabs who have done their best to ruin football and make sure all the money flows in only 6 directions!

 

[Gilbert..]

The commission called it being less than frank and stated that we failed to act in the utmost good faith. It then used it as an aggravating factor.

I can only guess then that they will liquidate manchester city and chelsea if they're taking that stance.

 

[Ferguson1878]

Honestly starting to believe this. Surely some of the stuff we are seeing, an excellent team of solicitors wins the argument.

 

[kenada_blue]

Wigan 12 points, Bolton 12 points, Bury 12 points, Coventry 10 points, Sheff Wed 12 points, Luton 30 points and Derby 21 points.

Wigan - Admin, Bolton - admin, Bury - admin, Coventry - admin, Wednesday - appealed reduced to 6, Luton - admin and player signings, Derby...ADMIN.

 

[Yarrgh]

Just easier when you block @radiostar @GP_Monty and @gwladysnight

I wonder which one has the pot noodle haircut?

 

[gwladysnight]

I can only guess then that they will liquidate manchester city and chelsea if they're taking that stance.

It was actually Chelsea's new owners who brought the transgressions of the previous regime to the attention of both UEFA and the Premier League.

 

[Iana]

That is why companies have a range of sponsors and a range of revenue streams. The idea is to protect yourself from unforeseen circumstances. We didn't do that because the USM sponsorships were not genuine. They were just a way of Usmanov pumping money into the club.

Companies sponsor high-profile sports teams to improve brand recognition. USM was a holding company that gained absolutely nothing from sponsoring Everton.

It is very telling that Arsenal's board did everything they could to prevent Usmanov-Moshiri from gaining a seat on the board and refused to sell their shares to them. We turned a blind eye and paid the price.

What’s Arsenal got to do with the price of fish?
The Kroenke family wanted maximum control via their ownership and there was no way they would allow a competing faction on the board…I think the Kroenke family had close to 70% of the shares either directly owned or though their place men.
What difference would it have made if Usmanov/Moshiri were on the board as they would have been out voted on everything based on what the Kroenkes had already put in place.

The statement that every business(not just football clubs) has a contingency for unforeseen circumstances such as a war in Ukraine and a player suspended by the FA, so he can’t play and whose charges were subsequently dropped,is fanciful.

If a company is turned down by a business for sponsorship(because there is already a deal in place with another company)they don’t sit around like a jilted boyfriend/girlfriend waiting for a sympathy s***g.In addition, the companies who want to sponsor a premier league club focus on the cartel 6 thus reinforcing the inequalities.
Any possible replacement for USM would have been always significantly inferior in the timescale involved.

 

[Gilbert..]

It was actually Chelsea's new owners who brought the transgressions of the previous regime to the attention of both UEFA and the Premier League.

Lol
What the new owner who splashed 800m in two transfer windows. That new owner.

 

[kenada_blue]

What’s Arsenal got to do with the price of fish?
The Kroenke family wanted maximum control via their ownership and there was no way they would allow a competing faction on the board…I think the Kroenke family had close to 70% of the shares either directly owned or though their place men.
What difference would it have made if Usmanov/Moshiri were on the board as they would have been out voted on everything based on what the Kroenkes had already put in place.

The statement that every business(not just football clubs) has a contingency for unforeseen circumstances such as a war in Ukraine and a player suspended by the FA, so he can’t play and whose charges were subsequently dropped,is fanciful.

If a company is turned down by a business for sponsorship(because there is already a deal in place with another company)they don’t sit around like a jilted boyfriend/girlfriend waiting for a sympathy s***g.In addition, the companies who want to sponsor a premier league club focus on the cartel 6 thus reinforcing the inequalities.
Any possible replacement for USM would have been always significantly inferior in the timescale involved.

Yep.

Every club should have contingencies apparently.

But not Newcastle and City when they're already sponsored by their owners.

 

[gwladysnight]

What’s Arsenal got to do with the price of fish?
The Kroenke family wanted maximum control via their ownership and there was no way they would allow a competing faction on the board…I think the Kroenke family had close to 70% of the shares either directly owned or though their place men.
What difference would it have made if Usmanov/Moshiri were on the board as they would have been out voted on everything based on what the Kroenkes had already put in place.

The statement that every business(not just football clubs) has a contingency for unforeseen circumstances such as a war in Ukraine and a player suspended by the FA, so he can’t play and whose charges were subsequently dropped,is fanciful.

If a company is turned down by a business for sponsorship(because there is already a deal in place with another company)they don’t sit around like a jilted boyfriend/girlfriend waiting for a sympathy s***g.In addition, the companies who want to sponsor a premier league club focus on the cartel 6 thus reinforcing the inequalities.
Any possible replacement for USM would have been always significantly inferior in the timescale involved.

Arsenal's boardroom is gripped by fresh tensions, with Alisher Usmanov set to confront Ivan Gazidis over claims that advisers to the club's directors ordered an investigation into Usmanov's prison past in the Soviet Union.

The Russian is the second-biggest shareholder at Arsenal, and his purchase of £75m-worth of the club's shares two years ago was met with resistance from fans, shareholders and directors alike. But despite that past hostility, revelations on Channel Four's Dispatches programme on Monday night that a private investigator was hired by a company working for the Arsenal board came as a shock to the oligarch.


The investigator visited Tashkent, where Usmanov spent six years in jail, while working on a brief to uncover details about his conviction and its subsequent annulment by Russian and Uzbek courts.



Arsenal wanted nothing to do with Usmanov. We now have fans whining because he was sanctioned and we lost out on his blood money. While crying about everyone else being corrupt.

 

[blulouie]

Can our Mods get rid of these Wind up Merchants pls
They are clogging up a really important thread .

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Like ive said before maybe the 14 can break away from the 6 scabs who have done their best to ruin football and make sure all the money flows in only 6 directions!

I'd be in favour now of getting rid of the 6. Yes they bring in lots of TV money to the league and the prize money would go down, but what good does that do when you need to spend more than you make just to tread water in this league? Yes, we've been mismanaged but we are paying the price of just trying to challenge them and they are sending a clear message.

As long as the big six continue to control the league for their own self-preservation there will always be a ceiling for the rest, and it makes it all feel a bit futile when even in a really good year the rest of the league are fighting over a couple of Europa spots. If they'd gone there'd have been an initial shock period but long term it would probably have benefitted the pyramid as a whole.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

Whether something is permissible or not is black and white. As you say we made fanciful deductions that were thrown out. It was only after we admitted our guilt that our claimed deductions became attempts at mitigation.

The sponsorship stuff, people will argue we were getting over market rate so it was dodgy anyway. That’s not under investigation, and is the norm. The “we could have sold players for more” attempts are massively unquantifiable. The player X one is ususual, but I think a very very reasonable stance. Not saying we sell him for £20m, but it is a fair point. In the end, I think the sheer number of arguable reasons do add up to enough that should have been considered.

The regs seemingly do not allow for subjective adjustments for unforeseen events which is always an issue, just as the FIA regs meant Carlos Sainz still got a penalty for a manhole cover on the Vegas strip destroying his engine and battery. As per the regs, but totally rediculous and unsporting in the extreme.

As appalling, contradictory and attacking as I think the report is, the fact is it says no deliberate attempt to breach (but maybe lazy presumption that everything would be ok), and no sporting advantage.

We’ve operated a salary cap! Never heard that mentioned until yesterday.

I’ve forgotten now what the P&S rules are supposed to achieve such is the misinformation. If it’s to stop billionaires ploughing money in to fast track up the table. Not guilty - because no sporting advantage per the findings. If it’s to stop going clubs going bust, then attempting to relegate a team operating on the breadline thus reducing the sale value of their players, sponsorship income, TV income, then it doesn’t achieve that sim either. Not sure anyone knows what it’s supposed to be for. Which is why they will bin it as soon as our appeal is finalised, new regulator will come in, who have hilariously already said no points deductions going forward.

I actually give up with it all now. Time to just watch football again which used to be the whole point.