LondonBlue

i think everton will be okay. didn't someone say that shareholder loans may need to be turned into equity and is that not the direction of everton anyway?

i suspect you're on a watch and see brief. But i would love it if you raised a compensation request the moment ours completes.

used to be football was beautiful all the time then came rules and regulation written by hundreds of monkeys on typewriters and now surprise surprise football is in turmoil maybe this is the NFL secretly buying into clubs, trying to destroy soccer, so that American Football can take over the world. nah despite the obvious existence of a cartel, i'm not a conspiracy theorist.

stefan borson on talksport now

who knows how they'll resolve it. it's a mess though. clubs with shareholder loans will quite reasonably say we followed the rules. clubs without shareholder loans will say they were disadvantaged. don't see how rules can be backdated. best guess is some sort of amnesty for the past and some sort of new rules. open warfare amongst the 20 PL clubs at their next meet up. maybe some fisticuffs. the premier league started this and only have themselves to blame.

interest free shareholder loans it transpires, are a form of financial doping. so thats, everton, arsenal, livarpool, brighton, bournemouth all cheating thanks to the tyranny of the majority. embarassing.

bottom line. the ruling shows that the premier league have been using underhand tactics.

Martin Samuel... - “The tyranny of the majority,” City argued, and everybody sneered. It’s called democracy, they chorused. Well, yes and no. First past the post is democracy too, yet the tyranny of the majority is why your vote will never count if you are a Labour voter in a safe Conservative seat, or vice versa. - It’s the ruination of football, the destruction of the English game, that will be the argument. No, it’s not. City’s dominance is still scheduled to end pretty much the year Pep Guardiola walks out the door - as of 2023, Brighton held shareholder loans of £302.8million. Charging interest at between eight and ten per cent would put £66-84million on their PSR calculation and will now have to be factored in going forward. - Everton, for instance, have £451million in shareholder loans, equating to as much as £104million on their PSR calculation. Arsenal have £258million, working out to a potential addition of £62.5million. - it was three judges, not City, who studied it and saw through it

shareholder loans are to be judged related-party deals everton have a 450m loan, arsenal 250m loan. oops.

Matt Lawton in the Times... It opens the door for the English champions, majority-owned by Abu Dhabi, to strike significantly higher sponsorship agreements with associated parties than previously allowed — including with Etihad, their stadium and shirt sponsor — and to pursue compensation and costs from the Premier League for abusing its position. Other clubs could also now seek damages should they believe they have been impacted. Martin Samuel in the Times ... link It’s a mess. Complex, perhaps incalculable. It always was. If Saudi Arabia are trying to get on the map with the Neom City project — estimated cost $1.5trillion — what is it worth to them to bring it to the world on the front of a football shirt or in a stadium naming-rights deal? And how can that investment be measured against Newcastle’s previous sponsors such as Fun88, Wonga or McEwan’s Lager? “This means more” used to be an advertising slogan around Anfield — but sponsorship does, to some companies. And fair market value was always a dubious, debatable concept, for that reason.

don't think City were ever challenging the rules in full. it was just certain aspects. but you know the press "oh its the end of the world, woe is us"

page 164 of the judegment FOR THE ABOVE REASONS WE, SIR NIGEL TEARE, CHRISTOPHER VAJDA KC AND LORD DYSON HEREBY AWARD ABD DECLARE: (i) that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason; (ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and because of the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules and for no other reason; (iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment upon the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV and for no other reason; (iv) that the PL’s decision with regard to the EAG Transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside because the PL did not give MCFC an opportunity to respond to the Benchmarking Analysis prior to reaching its decision and for no other reason; (v) that the PL’s decision with regard to the FAB Transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside because the PL did not provide MCFC, prior to the PL’s Final Determination, with the Databank transactions entered into by other clubs, which the Board referred to in its Final Determination and for no other reason; (vi) that in making its decision with regard to the FAB Transaction there was an unreasonable delay of about 3 months and thereby a breach of Rule E.64; (vii) that in making its decision with regard to the EP Transaction there was an unreasonable delay of about 2 months and thereby a breach of Rule E.64.

so you don't have to sully your browser visiting our site... Following today’s publication of the Rule X Arbitral Tribunal Award, Manchester City Football Club thanks the distinguished members of the Arbitral Tribunal for their work and considerations and welcomes their findings: - The Club 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.

or the Premier League have stripped themselves naked and run through the streets of their own accord.

how the heck would i know. i do see something about interest free shareholder loans. but not looked long enough to see if its allowed or not. someone said arsenal have £250m in shareholder loans and they might be in trouble. but i'm too dumb to know why. for that read still scanning for easy to read headlines.

MCFC - Club statement reads like a full on victory to me. the judgement can be downloaded from the city website

"City had some complaints upheld, with two aspects of the APT rules deemed unlawful by a tribunal." "But the Premier League says the tribunal rejected the majority of Manchester City's challenges and "endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system". As far as i was aware all that city were challenging was the legality of some aspects of APT (as per the first quote), they were not challenging APT itself. The second quote looks to be about making it look like the PL won a significant victory, even though that wasn't the challenge. not heard anything on compo yet.

funny how Stefan Borson references Newcastle a fair bit so posting here

Verdict announced in Man City's Premier League legal case

less detail from Stefan Borson but nicely summarized EXPLAINED: How the Diarra case could end Chelsea's and other team's "Bomb Squads"

city bias but there was no tackle, no foul, walker just muscled joelinton out if that had been given then i think footballl would be done not heard any pundit think that was a penalty. of course i've not been listening for that point of view. on the gordon one, if you watch it in slow motion gordon starts diving before contact was made. i'd have been proud if it was a city player but less so an opponent.

walker still has plenty of pace, but we see him beaten more often than we used to.

Honestly, I think Rodri will cost us the title too. but Pep has a track record for being inventive. no-one saw rodri's potential but pep. even in his first year at city everyone was saying too slow and cumbersome. i suspect we'll change our tactics such that we don't need a number 6. Maybe pep will invent the false 6 (if it hasn't been already). Like you say we could spend in january (we have loads of psr leeway thanks to all the sales), but it's not our style (short term solutions). and we don't often splurge in january. Hope you're comparing me to dead bruce and not fat bruce

i think we were unlucky to concede even the one penalty. it was debated in the media. most said penalty but plenty said he dived. they don't debate when its clear cut. but it's not mine or your opinions that count. its the refs and it was given so thats that.

enjoyed saturdays game. it was much more enjoyable than the arsenal game. thought 1-1 was the right scoreline. thought it was a penalty but also that he dived. but ederson gave him the opportunity so no complaints had thought gordon wasted down the middle until he scored. he has terrorized us down the left before now so expected that again. still think he should have played on the wing where the pace could expose walkers aging legs. favourite moment of the game, without a doubt was edersons back heel. he's rubbish at penalties but his assists and calmness under pressure make him a massive fan favourite. early days in the title race but we just might have our work cut out staying in the top four this season. as always anything will be a bonus. there will be new legs in midfield next summer. not sure we missed rodri. we won the first 4 without him. pep needs to be pep regarding rodri. Burns a big fu#ker so i liked the commentator line "Haaland has rag dolled Burn there", made me chuckle ( more than Burns studs in Haalands ankle. ) good game, good game.