layman's terms summary .... Th . That’s because I still believe that Man City’s aim here was to undermine the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules altogether. i.e., that they should not need to be at Fair Market Value (FMV). That they should be able to pump as much money into the club as they like. I have explained in other threads how they could use such an outcome to argue that 115/130 breaches of PL rules they’ve been charged with should not be considered as severe if the underlying rules were unfair to begin with. It’s clear from the decision now that Man City sought to overturn APT rules altogether (I’m not expecting apologies from the Blue Goons who denied this was true and abused me for yonks for saying it). Man City lost though. The PL won. And that is the big outcome here. Absolutely what matters most. Everything else is minor or spin. On top of that, the PL has publicly stated that they’re both still operating the current rules and will adapt them in the very near term. This will prevent APTs being agreed at non-FMVs in the interim. The downside for the PL (and upside for Man City) is that it may need to pay Man City damages for APTs it denied them. It’s unclear whether they will or for how much given the Tribunal decided the FMV applied was not unreasonable. That’s TBC. If there is a significant claim for damages, then this will reflect badly on Masters and its legal advisors on the APT rules. But the rules will remain with some relatively minor changes that continue to prevent state-owned clubs with non-commercial aims from utilising limitless funds. It’s also worth highlighting that Man City argued against rules that they voted in themselves - which really shows Man City for what they are. Most definitely not a good actor in this. Man City also lost its arguments that it has been discriminated against by the PL. No such thing happened. Not a ‘blue vs red’ thing and neither were these rules discriminatory against Gulf state clubs. The changes in the rules will require clubs with low-cost shareholder loans to change practices - this is fairly neutral / immaterial for those clubs since they will likely just convert the debt to equity, removing financing costs and making PSR even easier to comply with.
One hopes that this means that legal stonewalling will not be allowed going forward... While APT has been largely upheld, the burden of proof has been left to the Premiere League, and that will only work if clubs can actually be forced to comply and provide honest documentation of agreements. The main issue with the 115 alleged breaches of FFP by Man City has been that they have completely failed to provide evidence. In essence, they stonewalled and it was only when internal documents that they themselves refused to provide were leaked that the information necessary to lodge these complaints was obtained.
this is a superb piece of writing and sums up the MC situation perfectly. https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/...-league-3314099?ito=twitter_share_article-top
here you go. Opinion By Sam Cunningham Chief Football Correspondent Man City should quit Premier League if they hate it – they wouldn’t be missed The way things are going, the top flight would be better off without them October 8, 2024 4:01 pm In the 1970s, the First Division title was fought primarily between the likes of Liverpool, Nottingham Forest, Leeds United and Derby County. In the 1980s, Liverpool vied with city rivals Everton. Aston Villa lifted it once, Arsenal popped up with a win. Ipswich Town – “plucky” Ipswich who this season many have destined to go down before a ball was kicked – were frequently in the mix. Liverpool were by far the dominant team of the two decades in the league. Forest also reached vast fame and fortune propelled by back-to-back European Cup wins. Strangely, though, they never took anyone to court attempting to further cement their status or supremacy. Then came the 1990s: the rise of the Manchester United vs Arsenal rivalry. Then Roman Abramovich came along and transformed Chelsea into regular challengers in the 2000s. You could go back further in time and find further examples of different clubs who have entertained the masses over the decades, but all this is merely to illustrate how rich English football’s tapestry is. In the modern era, there are big clubs with big fanbases not even in the top tier. Leeds United, Sunderland, Blackburn Rovers, Sheffield Wednesday, and so on. Aston Villa are the most recent reminder of how quickly things can turn: a sleeping giant getting its house in order and going from Championship club to beating Bayern Munich in the Champions League five years later. Yet since an entire country was allowed to buy Manchester City and turn them into the dominant dynasty of the recent decades, look where we are now: left with a game tied up by legal battles, arguing barristers, in-fighting, a top tier slowly eating itself from the inside out. Each time someone claims the latest victory in the courts, another tiny fragment of English football’s soul chisels away. After Monday’s claims from both the Premier League and City that they had scored a significant victory (rendering many legal experts unable to see how City had reached that conclusion) in a tribunal about Associated Party Transactions, City compounded the sense of a top flight in internal chaos by writing to the other 19 Premier League sides accusing the league of “misleading” everyone about the ruling. The letter, sent by City’s general counsel Simon Cliff and first revealed by The Times, claims that “the tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful”. This somewhat contradicts the Premier League’s summary that the tribunal upheld APT rules, rejected “the majority of Manchester City’s challenges” and identified only “a small number of discrete elements of the rules which do not, in their current form, comply with competition and public law requirements”. How has it reached this nadir that the crown of English football has become a plaything of the uber-wealthy, a rulebook to be toyed with by expensive lawyers, a set of values and procedures pulled apart by a football club unsatisfied with merely blowing away the competition on the pitch but wanting complete control off it? If Manchester City hate the rules so much, why don’t they leave the Premier League? They wouldn’t be missed. Honestly. It may be hard for some to see that right now. It may have felt over the last decade – certainly the last seven Premier League seasons, of which City have ended up champions in six – that they have stolen all the main character energy. But it will not be theirs forever. It may appear inconceivable that the Premier League could possibly exist without its Treble winners, without Erling Haaland or Kevin De Bruyne or Pep Guardiola. Of course it could. They are all replaceable. The way things are going, English football would be better off without them. Imagine if they were gone tomorrow. In the immediate future, football fans would happily watch Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Manchester United, Villa, Newcastle vying for the Premier League title, and not even notice City’s absence. Many City fans not bonded to the club by geography might gradually attach themselves to whichever club established a hold over the top next. In the longer term, who knows who that will be? That’s the exciting thing about English football. At least, it’s supposed to be. For far-flung Keyboard Fans who weren’t around before pre-2008 Manchester City, when Sheikh Mansour bought the club, you may be surprised to learn they almost pipped Liverpool to the First Division title in 1977. Seriously, go look it up on Wikipedia. It would be marvellous to see Brighton given a fair crack of the whip at the top table. Owner Tony Bloom and CEO Paul Barber have worked miracles with mediocre budgets – imagine what they could do with the kind of wealth that regular Champions League football delivers. Could Villa continue their trajectory and mount the serious title challenges they once did? Can the Saudis return Newcastle to the club of the late 1990s that briefly challenged for the Premier League? Can Tottenham Hotspur make another, more sustained push? Or could Everton even be restored to the club it once was? Without City, the Haaland and De Bruyne and Guardiola of the future would merely reappear at these new rulers of the pyramid, who have mostly, as time has gone on, been more than happy to coexist within the rules they have all, actually, created themselves. English football was here long before Sheikh Mansour decided he wanted to buy the Premier League, and it will be there long after has got bored and decided to direct his interest, and finances, elsewhere.
and here we go ...... MC are such deplorable tw@ts!!!! https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league-civil-war-man-city-court-b2626264.html The Premier League has descended into open civil war, with over half the clubs stunned by the nature of Manchester City's email following the judgment on their case against the competition's Associated Party Transactions. Some executives are particularly annoyed by threats of further legal action, and the situation has been described by numerous sources as "seriously escalating" ahead of next Thursday's meeting. City's general counsel, Simon Cliff, wrote in an email to all 19 clubs that the Premier League's 1,200-word summary of the judgment was "misleading" with "inaccuracies", while stating that City's "position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void, and have been since 2021". The Premier League's legal advice is that this is absolutely not the case, and the rules can be easily and quickly amended through forthcoming meetings, starting next Thursday. There, the clubs will discuss three potential changes to the laws. The mood is expected to be extremely tense, especially with City strongly resisting any attempt to push changes through in what they would see as a "knee-jerk" way. Cliff's email added: “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.” This is said to have infuriated a high number of clubs, while even causing surprise in some of those that had more sympathy to City's position. Clubs that acted as witnesses for the repeat champions were Chelsea, Newcastle United and Everton, with Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa known to be at least more understanding of their views. While Newcastle's stance is expected given that the disputed amendments were specifically brought in after the Public Investment Fund's takeover of the club in October 2021, the potential rule changes after Monday's judgment may affect Chelsea. There is also wonder in the Premier League over whether Everton's change of ownership to the Friedkin Group will alter the outlook at Goodison Park. All of Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, Brighton and West Ham United meanwhile offered witness testimony for the Premier League. Clubs will only discuss potential amendments next Thursday, with proposals then going to the league financial group and its legal advisory group before any final vote. City are understood to be highly resistant to changes that would rule out backdating fair market value tests to shareholder loans, which was one of the primary outcomes of Monday's judgment. While this will all take place behind closed doors, clubs have been worried that the "toxic" way much of this is playing out in public is damaging the reputation of the Premier League. "Clubs are fed up," were the words of one source. There is also a wider political context there, given that Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy will hold talks with Premier League clubs over the government's plans for an independent regulator on Wednesday. Some football officials feel the entire controversy – and especially how the Premier League was found wanting on process for the second successive judgment after Leicester City – only further illustrates a competition that "can't govern itself" and is "out of control". The strength of feeling has certainly never been higher, and all this with the actual outcome of the City hearing to come in the new year.
Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, Brighton and West Ham United ---- all US majority-owned, correct? Chelsea the only other PL team US-owned?
The scary thing about City is they'll blow up the prem before they admit defeat. If this is how they respond to losing a court case with no actual on field consequences what happens if there is a points deduction, titles taken away, or more severe?
it's hard to understand what they think the end game is. if they keep going, they will either get thrown out of the PL (yes!!!) or the PL will cease to exist as a competitive entity -- likely because the big clubs (us, MU, Arse etc) will walk away leaving them and Saudicastle with a meaningless "league" to contest because nobody will give a shit about what they do.
another excellent piece: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league-man-city-apt-verdict-b2627105.html includes this .... It is why there has been mirth about the idea that City are acting in the wider interest of the game. More executives are currently calling for expulsion if City are found guilty of the most serious charges in the hearing, and it probably indicates the strength of feeling that people have even speculatively wondered what it would take for the club to be kicked out of this members’ group now
I guess what people seem to fail to recall is that cities cheating was so obvious and so egregious that it allowed them to hyper speed their ascent to the top. They would not have been able to attract Guardiola as quickly as they did if not for already being in the stratosphere.
I've seen fans of other teams say that this would all be fixed once the UK government sets up a football regulator (news on that coming soon I believe). BUT -- a government regulator might be exactly what these bastards want to see. they'd win every UK football competition forever if that happens - much easier to "influence" (LOL) a few civil servants than a bunch of rich business people!
sorry lads, feels like I'm spamming the board these days .... but there's no real footie to discuss, and things are popping every day on the PL Civil War of 2024. today, this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/10/10/man-city-premier-league-rivals-damages-claims/ Manchester City rivals line up damages claims over Premier League charges The Premier League’s civil war will enter a new phase over the next month when Manchester City are expected to receive legal notices from rival clubs that reserve their rights to seek damages. Claims for breach of contract generally have a six-year limitation and, with allegations of Manchester City rule-breaking emerging in Der Spiegel in November 2018, there is a feeling inside the league that clubs must act to reserve their rights while football’s so-called ‘trial of the century’ continues. City have always denied breaking any rules but, such has been the time it has taken for the Premier League to investigate and bring charges, it is understood that clubs are taking legal advice on the issue before deciding how to proceed. Any eventual arbitration between Premier League clubs is private but City will soon have a much better idea of who intends to seek damages if an ongoing independent commission finds serious wrongdoing in its investigation of more than 100 alleged rule breaches. “It is not something clubs would want to do before knowing the outcome of the commission but they may very well feel that they have no choice,” said one lawyer, who has advised Premier League clubs. “Clubs who have been competing with City for major trophies and European qualification would potentially have most at stake but it all ultimately depends on what the commission finds and the result of any appeal, so this could go on for many months yet.”
I'm all for it. Sue them blue. Yes - they can afford it 10000000x times over - but just remind everyone how awful they are.
https://www.skysports.com/amp/footb...ters-after-fall-out-from-manchester-city-case Premier League clubs to rally behind chief executive Richard Masters after fall-out from Manchester City case Premier League clubs are meeting to address the fallout from the legal case against Manchester City, which found that some of the competition's financial rules were unlawful and procedurally unfair; "There is no civil war and most clubs are still backing Richard," one club owner said.
I think their end game is to escape serious punishments' and are leveraging blowing up the premier league to get it. This is why I don't think the "slap on the wrist" scenario makes any sense. Other clubs, were cheated, assuming city are guilty, out of titles and the financial gains that come with it. If the prem is intimidated into negotiating a slap on the wrist then they'll end up dealing with Liverpool and United's lawyers instead. Plus it feels like it's two late to negotiate.
me not too much either - well I trust the saner ones with the basics ...... but they are a necessity, unfortunately there's no better system available
I don’t know, the Eastern Europeans ran a very successful sports doping program. Still do where the Russians are concerned.