Profit & Sustainability Rules Change/'Luxury Tax'

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 28/09/2024 at 02:44, Gunnersaurus said:

Man city are the kind of team that if they took performance enhancing drugs on tv they would get away with it.

See Pep’s playing history lol.

[Happy Blue]

Manchester City club statement

Manchester City has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules have been found to be unlawful and the Premier League’s decisions on two specific MCFC sponsorship transactions have been set aside

-          The Tribunal found that both the original APT rules and the current, (amended) APT Rules violate UK competition law and violate the requirements of procedural fairness.

-          The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position.

-          The Tribunal has determined both that the rules are structurally unfair and that the Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice.

-          The rules were found to be discriminatory in how they operate, because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans.

-          As well as these general findings on legality, the Tribunal has set aside specific decisions of the Premier League to restate the fair market value of two transactions entered into by the Club.

-          The tribunal held that the Premier League had reached the decisions in a procedurally unfair manner.

-          The Tribunal also ruled that there was an unreasonable delay in the Premier League’s fair market value assessment of two of the Club’s sponsorship transactions, and so the Premier League breached its own rules.

Click here to download page 164 of the judgment, which summarises the Tribunal’s decision.

https://www.mancity.com/news/club/club-statement-rule-x-arbitral-tribunal-award-63863904

[RandoEFC+]

How many of the 115 charges does this relate to?

[Happy Blue]

6 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

How many of the 115 charges does this relate to?

All the ones around sponsorship, the rules was unlawful under UK law 

[Happy Blue]

Man City WIN Premier League APT court case live updates and reaction from landmark result

Manchester City have secured a huge win in their legal challenge over the Premier League to overturn Associated Party Transaction rules

The victory in the APT case will now impact how clubs can secure sponsorships, and with it open up more avenues for generating revenue. City are now open to seek damages from the Premier League for lost income since the rules were introduced.

Both the Premier League and Manchester City are claiming victory in wildly contrasting statements from this verdict, but playing through the spin there seems to be no doubt that it is City who have chalked up a major win here.

Much of the 175-page document is dry and legal but page 164, carrying the summary of the judges, is particularly damning for the league. It says in no uncertain terms that the APT rules are unlawful, that the amended APT rules are unlawful and that the Premier League were 'procedurally unfair' over two specific deals with City where they also showed 'unreasonable delay'. The Premier League, and all those who rushed to condemn City when news of their legal challenge broke, have been made to look silly. 

the victory for City puts a chink in the authority of the Premier League, and with that perhaps the authority of those clubs most vocal about pushing through these deals that have now been judged to be against the law. The Blues may not have become more popular with certain rivals, yet they could have more allies after this result.

It is, surely, a good thing for everyone too for rules that are against the law to be corrected - although something suggests not everyone will see it that way...

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-city-win-premier-league-30088795

Edited October 7 by Happy Blue

[Dave]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

How many of the 115 charges does this relate to?

As the 115 charges are historic, this has no impact whatsoever.

The big winners in this appear to be Newcastle, as you can effectively circumvent financial rules now by sponsoring yourselves. 

[Stan]

8 minutes ago, Dave said:

As the 115 charges are historic, this has no impact whatsoever.

The big winners in this appear to be Newcastle, as you can effectively circumvent financial rules now by sponsoring yourselves. 

And funnily enough, Newcastle along with a few other clubs (Chelsea and Everton?) were 'witnesses' for the club against the PL. 

 

[Happy Blue]

37 minutes ago, Dave said:

As the 115 charges are historic, this has no impact whatsoever.

The big winners in this appear to be Newcastle, as you can effectively circumvent financial rules now by sponsoring yourselves. 

Wrong

[Happy Blue]

28 minutes ago, Stan said:

And funnily enough, Newcastle along with a few other clubs (Chelsea and Everton?) were 'witnesses' for the club against the PL. 

 

It's the red cartel owned by American's who are against other clubs gate crashing the party

[LFCMike]

https://www.premierleague.com/news/4144828

Both sides are claiming to have 'won' here aren't they? 

[Happy Blue]

1 hour ago, LFCMike said:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/4144828

Both sides are claiming to have 'won' here aren't they? 

Both the Premier League and Manchester City are claiming victory in wildly contrasting statements from this verdict, but playing through the spin there seems to be no doubt that it is City who have chalked up a major win here.

Much of the 175-page document is dry and legal but page 164, carrying the summary of the judges, is particularly damning for the league. It says in no uncertain terms that the APT rules are unlawful, that the amended APT rules are unlawful and that the Premier League were 'procedurally unfair' over two specific deals with City where they also showed 'unreasonable delay'. The Premier League, and all those who rushed to condemn City when news of their legal challenge broke, have been made to look silly. 

[RandoEFC+]

This is so boring now. City trying to get off with the charges regardless of their innocence as you'd expect. The Premier League trying to spin a narrative because their authority hits all-time lows every day. The rest of the clubs in the league lining up on one side or another depending on whether they want to undermine PSR or encourage it, none of them because it's what they actually believe in but all depending on what benefits them the most. Why other clubs are even getting involved in this is beyond me.

They honestly just need to introduce some sort of cost cap without all the grey areas or scrap the domestic financial restrictions altogether. Genuinely think I'd rather see Newcastle buy an elite squad and start competing for the title than have to try to read any more tweets about third party sponsorship deals, interest on stadium loans or amortisation.

[LFCMike]

 

 

[Happy Blue]

1 hour ago, LFCMike said:

 

 

The key points is the Prem will now give us 200+million in damages for Wirtz & Musiala   ...god knows what they are going to owe us after the false charges in the 115 slander case 

[Dave]

1 hour ago, LFCMike said:

 

 

You know what, I thought Man City were one of the ones that originally voted in favour of the rules. It felt like at the time a move to put a ceiling on a greedy six disruptor in Newcastle. I just assumed it would be absurd to fight something to this length that you voted in, but I guess desperate people do desperate things.

[RandoEFC+]

I have no sympathy for the Premier League after last season they appointed their own CEO to an "Independent Commission" to make a judgement on our first PSR case and then dished out a punishment larger than what you'd get for administration.

I have no problem for Man City either though. The rules were there. Teams that broken them should have received a punishment. Not as harsh as what Everton got originally last season.

If Man City actually have a valid point in calling these rules "illegal" then they should have appealed against them and gone through all this when they were initially implemented.

What needs to happen here is a sizeable punishment for Manchester City. What also needs to happen is that Richard Masters and everyone at the Premier League who has overseen the absolute shambles of these rules, from the politically-motivated heavy-handedness directed at Everton, the incredible technicality that let Leicester get off without any punishment, to this mess with Man City, all need to be removed and replaced with a new independent regulator as a matter of utmost urgency.

[Happy Blue]

Manchester City have accused the Premier League of being "misleading" over the verdict in its landmark legal case on rules over commercial deals.

City have written to top-flight clubs criticising the league's summary of the case verdict, saying it contains "several inaccuracies".

The letter to the 19 clubs and the league, seen by the BBC, was sent by City’s general counsel Simon Cliff on Monday.

 

What did the letter say?

In the letter, Cliff offered "clarifications" to "assist member clubs with their understanding" in response to a summary of the panel’s ruling by Premier League chief executive Richard Masters.

"Regrettably, the summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies," Cliff claims.

"The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC's position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void," the letter states.

"The decision does not contain an 'endorsement' of the APT rules, nor does it state that the APT rules, as enacted, were 'necessary' in order to ensure the efficacy of the League’s financial controls."

The Premier League, in its summary, said that the tribunal identified "a small number of discrete elements of the rules which did not in their current form comply with competition and public law requirements" and that these could "quickly and effectively be remedied".

However, the league's position that City were unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge is described by Cliff as "a peculiar way of looking at the decision".

He added: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."

Cliff added that it was "not correct that the tribunal’s decision identifies 'certain discrete elements' of the APT rules that need to be amended in order to comply with competition and public law requirements".

He added: "On the contrary: the APT rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law. This means that they are void and not capable of enforcement. This has very significant consequences for APTs that have been entered into to date and APTs that are currently being negotiated by clubs.

"Of even greater concern, however, is the PL's suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next 10 days."

The Premier League is seeking to amend its rules within the next fortnight so that they comply with competition law.

The tribunal - in a 175-page document - ruled that low-interest shareholder loans from owners to their clubs should not be excluded from the scope of APT rules, and that some amendments to toughen up the rules in February by should not be retained.

However Cliff warns that it is "remarkable that the Premier League is now seeking to involve the member clubs in a process to amend the APT rules at a time when it does not even know the status of those rules".

He added: "We will be writing separately about this to the Premier League but in the meantime, given the findings in the award, this is the time for careful reflection and consideration by all clubs, and not for a knee-jerk reaction.

"Such an unwise course would be likely to lead to further legal proceedings with further legal costs. It is critical for member clubs to feel that they can have trust in their regulator."

Edited October 8 by Happy Blue

[LFCMike]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/10/08/man-city-threaten-further-legal-action-premier-league/

Man City accused of trying to run Premier League themselves by rival clubs

Clubs in disbelief after champions sent them letter dismissing league’s view on tribunal verdict and urging them to contact City directly

[OrangeKhrush]

The premier league is a case of to many chiefs, not enough indians.  To many regulations create these loopholes and hijinxes which clubs are trying to get around them

Edited October 9 by OrangeKhrush

[Happy Blue]

The premier league have to pay our legal fee's and 180million we have lost in income, the rules are currently unlawful and void ..Richard Masters must step down, he's destroyed the league with unlawful rules and false charges which will come to light soon in the 115 case soon

[Happy Blue]

So the premier league have sat down and come up with a new version of the rules which are still unlawful  they have been warned if they go ahead with these changes Man City will take them to court again and City have informed the other 19 clubs that these new rules are still unlawful. Masters has to go, what a clown

[Devil-Dick Willie]

On 09/10/2024 at 19:25, OrangeKhrush said:

The premier league is a case of to many chiefs, not enough indians.  To many regulations create these loopholes and hijinxes which clubs are trying to get around them

What a brainless statement. Less regulations would mean more loopholes, or, more pointedly, just holes. 
Regulation makes systems function. I never jump in my car for a drive somewhere and think "man I wish driving was less regulated". Despite it being a system where who can and can't drive, what you can and cant drive, what direction, route and speed ect is regulated.

[OrangeKhrush]

8 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

What a brainless statement. Less regulations would mean more loopholes, or, more pointedly, just holes. 
Regulation makes systems function. I never jump in my car for a drive somewhere and think "man I wish driving was less regulated". Despite it being a system where who can and can't drive, what you can and cant drive, what direction, route and speed ect is regulated.

The Premier League has always had rules,  they have had to manufacture rules in the modern game where private ownership and investment has become a prominent thing.    The premier leagues only obligation is to create rules pertaining to football and not rules regarding financing and ownership,  that falls within the scope of legislative bodies. 

They could have just created rules on max spending (50m a season max per team) and/or salary limits per week/year,  that would have regulation enough and stopped sugar daddy spending sprees,  it would have driven the transfer market down to reality and clubs would not be paying the "rashfords" 350k a week unless they wanted to saturate the payroll on fewer players.    FFP was created as a means to keep the quote on quote "big teams" arses in the butter while making it look like it was a fair game but in reality it isn't. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

On 17/11/2024 at 20:33, OrangeKhrush said:

The Premier League has always had rules,  they have had to manufacture rules in the modern game where private ownership and investment has become a prominent thing.    The premier leagues only obligation is to create rules pertaining to football and not rules regarding financing and ownership,  that falls within the scope of legislative bodies. 

They could have just created rules on max spending (50m a season max per team) and/or salary limits per week/year,  that would have regulation enough and stopped sugar daddy spending sprees,  it would have driven the transfer market down to reality and clubs would not be paying the "rashfords" 350k a week unless they wanted to saturate the payroll on fewer players.    FFP was created as a means to keep the quote on quote "big teams" arses in the butter while making it look like it was a fair game but in reality it isn't. 

So now you're literally arguing for MORE regulation. While I agree that there needs to be more regulation regarding ownership, player contracts, wages, fees, agents, 3rd party deals ect, and agree that FFP is better at keeping the nerds out of the treehouse than it is at creating any kind of 'level' playing field, this is literally the opposite of your first post where you argue for less regulation 'because regulation makes loopholes' when in fact, the problem is clearly UNDER regulation. 

[Dave]

This feels more like tightening of wording to prevent another Leicester debacle than whole scale changes.

Based on previous voting patterns and comments it seems like the four clubs that voted against are the four that want the floodgates much more open: Man City, Newcastle, Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest.