I meant that to read governments were a necessity - in society - not in sport. However, that said - it would be hard to run an organization involving lots of competitions and lots of money without some form of oversight.....which to me translates as governance....
It all depends on what you are trying to do when governing, and what the governed are willing or forced to put up with.... East Germany was an Elysian Field of Dreams for every skull-duggery of the unseen.....
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/58...league-who-do-lawyers-think-won-the-apt-case/ It's paywalled but it's a good article where they asked some actual Lawyers who actually read the whole decision who they thought won. It will probably come as no surprise to hear that there was a lot of "both sides got things" conclusions. But there did seem to be broad agreement that City would be the happier of the two sides, that this was a bigger deal than the prem is making it out to be, and will be harder to fix then the prem is saying it will be. The one bright spot was they all seemed to agree that this won't have much if any bearing on the 115 charges case.
The Premier League will update its proposals around rules governing commercial deals after a meeting of top-flight clubs on Tuesday. It was the first meeting of the 20 clubs since the verdict in Manchester City's legal case against the Premier League over the league's associated party transaction (APT) rules was announced earlier this month. APT rules are in place to ensure sponsorship deals with companies linked to clubs' owners represent fair market value. City had some complaints upheld, with two aspects of the rules deemed unlawful by the tribunal. The tribunal said low-interest shareholder loans should not be excluded from the scope of APT rules, and that changes made in February to toughen up the regulations also breached competition law. The Premier League is hopeful it can get an agreement from clubs on the new rules in the short to medium term, but City do not share the view that the matter can be resolved fairly quickly. There was never an intention to hold a vote at Tuesday's meeting. Premier League chiefs used the meeting, which officials attending said lasted just over an hour, to outline the situation from their perspective. The league will now use the feedback to update its proposals and recirculate to the clubs. Privately, it has been suggested this could be done in a matter of days. However, the whole issue will not be clarified until the league holds a vote, which would require 14 clubs to vote in favour.
Premier League clubs have voted to approve changes to rules governing commercial deals, despite opposition from Manchester City, Newcastle United, Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa. At a meeting in London on Friday, clubs took under 30 minutes to approve the changes to Associated Party Transaction regulations (APTs). Clubs voted 16 in favour and four against. Manchester City and Aston Villa had both written to rival clubs before the meeting to seek support. In a statement the Premier League said: “At a Premier League Shareholders’ meeting today, clubs approved changes to the League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules. The Premier League has conducted a detailed consultation with clubs - informed by multiple opinions from expert, independent Leading Counsel - to draft rule changes that address amendments required to the system. “This relates to integrating the assessment of Shareholder loans, the removal of some of the amendments made to APT rules earlier this year and changes to the process by which relevant information from the League’s ‘databank’ is shared with a club’s advisors.”
this is exactly what's needed. https://archive.ph/HW65E Proposed bill change would force out Man City and Newcastle owners Labour peer Lord Bassam of Brighton proposes amendment to Football Governance Bill that would prevent state ownership of clubs
so not 115, it's 129. good news on the schedule. https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...city-hearing-latest-charges-ffp-b2659323.html Man City financial charges hearing to end this week as timeline for long-awaited outcome revealed City have been charged for 129 alleged breaches of Premier League financial control rules between 2009 and 2018 in a case that has dragged on for years Lawyers have been making closing arguments in the Manchester City hearing, which is currently scheduled to conclude this week, with an outcome anticipated in February. Although there is the possibility for remaining delays, the case has gone to schedule so far, and is seen within the Premier League as having been run in a highly disciplined manner. There has been a considerable will in the competition to have it finally settled this season, but the likelihood of appeals from either side could mean it runs into the 2025-26 campaign. The hearing has gone exactly according to schedule so far, having started on 17 September. Very little information has come out due to the stakes and considerable discretion of all involved but one notable aspect has been the sheer number of lawyers involved. The hearing comes from the February 2023 announcement that City had been charged for 129 alleged breaches of financial control rules, after emails were revealed in Der Spiegel's Football Leaks cache in November 2018. The Premier League said the alleged breaches took place over a nine-season period, from 2009 to 2018, and relate to providing accurate financial information. City are also charged with failing to comply with the Premier League’s rules on profit and sustainability (PSR) and Uefa’s financial fair play regulations, and are alleged to have not cooperated with the Premier League over its investigation. Even if the most serious charges are not proven, however, there is an expectation that City will have to be punished on non-compliance given that Premier League regulations demand that clubs participate in investigations. This was what they were primarily punished for in the controversial Court of Arbitration case of June 2020, that saw an initial Uefa Champions League ban overturned due to technicalities. While a minority within the Premier League are pushing for expulsion if the most serious charges are proven, that is currently seen as an unlikely possibility. Such an outcome would require a special shareholders meeting and vote of 15. That is not expected to be a situation witnessed this season, however, due to the near certainty that one of the sides will appeal the outcome.
Mourinho weighs in. "Guardiola said something to me yesterday. He won six trophies and I won three, but I won fairly and cleanly. If I lost, I want to congratulate my opponent because he was better than me. I don't want to win by dealing with 150 lawsuits."
So disingenuous... Man City were largely emulating the Abramovic model when he took over Chelsea in 2003. He bought the club for £60M, wrote of £80M in club debt, and spent over £100M on players over the next two years alone. It wasn't until 2009 the FFP rules were starting to be put into place, so two of those three titles Mourinho won with Chelsea were with teams largely stacked with players purchased solely by the enormous investment that Abramovic was personally dumping into the club. I will give him his third Chelsea title in 2015, but that was still only 2-3 seasons after FFP enforcement went into effect in 2011/12. The first year Chelsea made a profit during the Abramovic era was 2012, when they turned a "massive" profit of £1.2M. And remember, this was after an entire decade of extravagant deficit spending on not only first team squad players, but also hoovering up tons of talent that they farmed off to feeder clubs, and then flogged off for profit if they didn't turn out to be good enough to actually crack into the first-team squad for Chelsea itself.
Very true, but some context to refresh memories is needed with that period of Chelsea history, perhaps. They finished above us (qualified for the CL) in 2003 before Abramovich. Next season they reached the CL SF, very unluckily losing to Monaco. If they’d’ve won that SF, ironically they’d’ve “only” needed to beat Mourinho’s Porto to become champions of Europe. So they brought Mourinho in and spent £250m to give him some astonishing players. Mourinho’s genius was in winning the title in his first year and gelling all those egos. Luckily they also lost in the CL SF that season too. But if you think about it, the difference between 2004/5 and 1994/5 was degree only. A rich man spent more money than anyone ever had before on a club he bought, employed a talented manager/coach and won the league. A decade earlier it was King Kenny’s Blackburn. Both sides fortunately at least temporarily stopped the United juggernaut, meaning they’re stranded on 20, not 23 or 24! But Abramovich bought a very good team and added to it. That’s often forgotten.
Daily Mail says the MC 115 charges hearing has concluded. https://xcancel.com/MikeKeegan_DM/status/1866137075562524749