Devil Posted June 5 Posted June 5 A few embarrassed City fans in work today, they know deep down this is a desperate move. Be interesting to see what clubs do if City get away with all this on technicalities like last time. You may very well see clubs hit back in other ways. Personally I'd love to see clubs refuse to play them. Quote
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted June 5 Subscriber Posted June 5 6 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said: Some say that clubs have the right to attach arbitrary values to players based on nothing other than "commercial value", by that token then why should the premier league or UEFA/FIFA have independent bodies valuate what a clubs sponsorship model can be? If Apple want to give Ipswich Town a 200 million a season sponsorship, is that wrong? I will however say that some of the things I heard about City having shell companies form to create artificial sponsorships is a bit sus and if true its unfair akin to rigging which is anti competitive very similar to AMD's multi billion dollar win against Intel Corp for unfair tactics. Whatever you think of whether or not the financial regulations should exist, if they say an owner isn't allowed to invest a gazillion pounds into a club and spend it immediately, then there's no point in having them if a club owner can set up a company and have them sponsor their club for a gazillion pounds which they can then spend. I think I mentioned this in another thread not long ago but if they're going to limit spending based on income then there just needs to be a limit on how much sponsorship income you can have to count towards what you're allowed to spend. It isn't on that a dumpster fire of a football club like Man Utd can still have a billion pound squad after being run like shit just because they built their brand 30 years ago and therefore have permanent access to massive sponsorship money, while a club like Brighton could be the best run country in the world for the next 100 years and still never be able to spend close to that sort of money even if they had it in their bank account. It just makes any pretence that this is still a meritocratic sport in some part and not just an out of control capitalist's wet dream quite laughable really. Quote
Happy Blue Posted June 5 Posted June 5 24 minutes ago, RandoEFC said: Whatever you think of whether or not the financial regulations should exist, if they say an owner isn't allowed to invest a gazillion pounds into a club and spend it immediately, then there's no point in having them The only thing that matters is what UK law says and these rules are illegal if the Prem and the other teams want them or not. it doesn't matter what a company wants or votes for if it's illegal in the country they want to impose them Quote
Spike Posted June 6 Posted June 6 Happy Blue knows what mancity did is bullshit but it's too good an opportunity not to WUM. Quote
Happy Blue Posted June 6 Posted June 6 44 minutes ago, Spike said: Happy Blue knows what mancity did is bullshit but it's too good an opportunity not to WUM. No, they owe us 200million in lost revenue, watch this video ..it's going to be the Etihad Premier League Quote
Spike Posted June 6 Posted June 6 9 minutes ago, Happy Blue said: No, they owe us 200million in lost revenue, watch this video ..it's going to be the Etihad Premier League You’re helping my case more than yours lol Quote
Happy Blue Posted June 6 Posted June 6 12 minutes ago, Spike said: You’re helping my case more than yours lol Quote
OrangeKhrush Posted June 6 Posted June 6 13 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Does Apple own Ipswich Town? There's a big difference from an unrelated corporate sponsor and a corporate sponsorship that's made by the owners of the club. City just made up companies, didn't bother to even give them a web presence that could have the appearance of legitimacy, and then said "oh yeah they're paying this much to be our sponsor. Even Newcastle getting that airline sponsor, even when that airline hadn't even made a single flight because it was still being set up, while still shady as fuck... has more of an appearance of legitimacy. But an owner creating a company and then making a ridiculously over the top sponsorship deal to get passed certain rules is always going to look shady when you compare it to a corporate sponsor unrelated to the club making any deal. City are in trouble because they faked shell companies all financed through their owners, it's very dubious and if they are punished for it, you cant argue that they wouldn't have deserved it. The question is, why isnt Mike Ashley charged, he plastered sports direct everywhere and took 600m out of the club. Basically he was sponsoring himself. He should thus be personally charged and prohibited from any form of ownership. Quote
OrangeKhrush Posted June 6 Posted June 6 8 hours ago, RandoEFC said: Whatever you think of whether or not the financial regulations should exist, if they say an owner isn't allowed to invest a gazillion pounds into a club and spend it immediately, then there's no point in having them if a club owner can set up a company and have them sponsor their club for a gazillion pounds which they can then spend. I think I mentioned this in another thread not long ago but if they're going to limit spending based on income then there just needs to be a limit on how much sponsorship income you can have to count towards what you're allowed to spend. It isn't on that a dumpster fire of a football club like Man Utd can still have a billion pound squad after being run like shit just because they built their brand 30 years ago and therefore have permanent access to massive sponsorship money, while a club like Brighton could be the best run country in the world for the next 100 years and still never be able to spend close to that sort of money even if they had it in their bank account. It just makes any pretence that this is still a meritocratic sport in some part and not just an out of control capitalist's wet dream quite laughable really. There has to be within reason that is assessed objectively on a case to case basis. This is where a look into the relationship of parties and the benefits can be determined. I do however feel the problem is a thing of the past as the amount of red tape we had to go through for the premier league to approve Sela over Fun88 took 18 months Quote
Subscriber Mel81x+ Posted June 6 Subscriber Posted June 6 7 hours ago, Happy Blue said: No, they owe us 200million in lost revenue, watch this video ..it's going to be the Etihad Premier League Somewhere around the 8th minute I got tired of the drivel coming out of his mouth. I hope the lawyers you'll have aren't anywhere as clueless as this guy because if they are God help you'll. I do think you'll will win this though it's just stacked up against the way the laws of the country are but a good set of lawyers on the other side could just as well turn this over. Quote
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted June 6 Subscriber Posted June 6 1 hour ago, OrangeKhrush said: There has to be within reason that is assessed objectively on a case to case basis. This is where a look into the relationship of parties and the benefits can be determined. I do however feel the problem is a thing of the past as the amount of red tape we had to go through for the premier league to approve Sela over Fun88 took 18 months I don't have any idea what the number should be but it should just be capped so that the first £200m (or whatever number) in sponsorship is allowed to count towards your PSR budget and if you make more than that then fine, you can pay it out to your shareholders. It needs to be a number that is achievable for most Premier League clubs but not guaranteed. A number that Brentford for example could realistically get to after 3-5 years of getting into the top flight and consolidating their position well. There should similarly be a number put on matchday revenue and other non-sporting forms of profit as well. If you want to spend more money than that on players and wages then you make it through player trading. This model is the only way that the PSR rules will achieve what they're supposed to achieve without destroying any sense of meritocracy or aspiration throughout the pyramid. The problem is, football clubs vote in their own interests and the Premier League clubs could never approve this if their European counterparts didn't do the same thing so it'll never happen. Quote
Happy Blue Posted June 6 Posted June 6 2 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said: I do however feel the problem is a thing of the past as the amount of red tape we had to go through for the premier league to approve Sela over Fun88 took 18 months You shouldn't have these problems soon if things go the right way in court. they saying 8 clubs support our action, thats almost half the league Quote
OrangeKhrush Posted June 6 Posted June 6 44 minutes ago, RandoEFC said: I don't have any idea what the number should be but it should just be capped so that the first £200m (or whatever number) in sponsorship is allowed to count towards your PSR budget and if you make more than that then fine, you can pay it out to your shareholders. It needs to be a number that is achievable for most Premier League clubs but not guaranteed. A number that Brentford for example could realistically get to after 3-5 years of getting into the top flight and consolidating their position well. There should similarly be a number put on matchday revenue and other non-sporting forms of profit as well. If you want to spend more money than that on players and wages then you make it through player trading. This model is the only way that the PSR rules will achieve what they're supposed to achieve without destroying any sense of meritocracy or aspiration throughout the pyramid. The problem is, football clubs vote in their own interests and the Premier League clubs could never approve this if their European counterparts didn't do the same thing so it'll never happen. There needs to be a real sit down and discussion where the end result is a consensus seeking process that benefits all EFL clubs and not just to protect the septic six. Quote
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted June 6 Subscriber Posted June 6 45 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said: There needs to be a real sit down and discussion where the end result is a consensus seeking process that benefits all EFL clubs and not just to protect the septic six. It needs to be at the European level really in my opinion. The six clubs in question have already shown that they can basically dictate what the FA and Premier League agree to. You can see that from the changes to the domestic cups. All this whinging about how they can't compete in Europe because the domestic schedule is too demanding just because we've had ONE year where all of the English clubs fell before the final stages. Anything like I'm suggesting won't get through because they'll point at what Real Madrid and PSG can do and what they can spend and insist that all the best players won't come to England anymore if we have new regulation to keep the rampant spenders more under control. They'd need a European consensus which just isn't realistic unfortunately. Our best chance to save football was to allow the clubs that tried to form their Super League to just fuck off and play all their matches in Dubai and the USA, leaving behind a somewhat level playing field. Would have been a tragedy for the genuine fans of those clubs but better for the rest of us and football at large. 1 Quote
Subscriber Mel81x+ Posted June 6 Subscriber Posted June 6 The only ones who can help right now are UEFA and FIFA. Both those federations are so corrupt you're not going to see them implement anything worthwhile because of how much money they make from tournaments like the Champions League in terms of ads, tv space, etc. And even if they weren't the soulless vessels they are, you'd get some serious opposition from clubs around Europe questioning how they are going to just magically start to achieve parity when the clubs in question who have unbalanced the pyramid will have zero ground to cover to continue doing what they are doing. Quote
Devil Posted June 6 Posted June 6 4 hours ago, Happy Blue said: You shouldn't have these problems soon if things go the right way in court. they saying 8 clubs support our action, thats almost half the league 8 clubs? Have you got a link for this? I heard it was 12 against you yesterday and the remainder refusing to show support or go against you. Quote
Cicero Posted June 6 Posted June 6 (edited) The 8 clubs that support City's actions are reported to show sympathy towards City given they all showed disagreements with the ATP rules. None of them are mad enough to join City's lawsuit. Edited June 6 by Cicero Quote
Devil Posted June 6 Posted June 6 I think it was pretty evident what the other Premier league clubs think of Man City when they won the Champions league. Not a single club reached out and offered their congratulations through their social media. Quote
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted June 6 Subscriber Posted June 6 There are clearly other clubs who are disgruntled with the rules because they aren't helping them to progress at this point in time. None of them have flagrantly run roughshod over those rules 115 times though and subsequently spend copious amounts of money on lawyers to use every trick in the book to avoid any retribution. Man City are owned by a state that violate actual human rights, their sporting operation has bent and broken the rules to financially dope up their club, they've made English football boring with their domination and smeared the history books with asterisks with success so plastic that it doesn't even mean anything. Love or hate the financial regulations, Man City and their owners are nobody's allies. Quote
Happy Blue Posted June 6 Posted June 6 3 hours ago, RandoEFC said: There are clearly other clubs who are disgruntled with the rules because they aren't helping them to progress at this point in time. None of them have flagrantly run roughshod over those rules 115 times though and subsequently spend copious amounts of money on lawyers to use every trick in the book to avoid any retribution. Man City are owned by a state that violate actual human rights, their sporting operation has bent and broken the rules to financially dope up their club, they've made English football boring with their domination and smeared the history books with asterisks with success so plastic that it doesn't even mean anything. Love or hate the financial regulations, Man City and their owners are nobody's allies. Everton are one of the clubs standing with us and not the Prem Quote
Happy Blue Posted June 6 Posted June 6 3 hours ago, Cicero said: The 8 clubs that support City's actions are reported to show sympathy towards City given they all showed disagreements with the ATP rules. None of them are mad enough to join City's lawsuit. Chelsea have refused to give a witness statement to the prem and stand with us Quote
Happy Blue Posted June 6 Posted June 6 (edited) 4 hours ago, Devil said: 8 clubs? Have you got a link for this? I heard it was 12 against you yesterday and the remainder refusing to show support or go against you. So... what's 12+8? i rest my case ...the clubs against us are mainly all the red scum Edited June 6 by Happy Blue Quote
Devil Posted June 6 Posted June 6 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Happy Blue said: So... what's 12+8? i rest my case ...the clubs against us are mainly all the red scum You are one of the 20 clubs in the Premier league, so its 7 clubs. So it's your math that's wrong. So it's nowhere near half the Premier League. It's also not support either as those 7 clubs have refused to get involved. It's all how you spin the story really isn't it, I prefer to go down the line of nearly two thirds of the Premier league have chosen to stand against City and the other 7 clubs have chosen to make no comment either way. Sounds much better than nearly half of the Premier league have shown you support. Which is total lie. Edited June 6 by Devil Quote
Happy Blue Posted June 6 Posted June 6 45 minutes ago, Devil said: You are one of the 20 clubs in the Premier league, so its 7 clubs. So it's your math that's wrong. 7+ City makes 8 clubs not siding with the premier league Quote
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted June 6 Subscriber Posted June 6 1 hour ago, Happy Blue said: Everton are one of the clubs standing with us and not the Prem Reportedly, yes. Not confirmed. But I disagree with them if so. Just like every other Premier League club, Everton will short-sightedly stand on whichever side benefits them in the immediate future. The people running the club probably think that if Man City can successfully undermine the PSR rules then we might be able to get away with not selling a player before June 30 at a knockdown price in order to avoid another charge next season. Pure self interest. That's what the league is now. Thankfully, as a mere fan, I'm not obliged to play these political games and can call out that from a moral perspective and for the betterment of the league and English football, every other club should be leaving Man City all the way out to dry, on their own. Fans don't have to blindly back the positions of their clubs at all times. A man can have his own opinion. You should try it some time. Quote
.thumb.jpeg.842282050184e1a055a60266c191ce72.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.