Generic small time football blather thread FOREVER

[Alex 35062]

I’m fucking generation x, y’all

[Howmanheyman 33128]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

“Oh look at me! I have a life.”

 

Pathetic.

 

 

Modern football and everything surrounding it pisses me off but I also don't have a life so watch it but mostly us religiously. 

[Christmas Tree 4725]

I watch every game, press conference, various NUFC journalists videos and YouTubers and still know fuck all   

 

 

[Alex 35062]

19 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

I watch every game, press conference, various NUFC journalists videos and YouTubers and still know fuck all   

 

 

There’s a lesson in there somewhere  

[Toonpack 9385]

Uh Oh, Bosman did for out of contract players, seems Diara has done for contracted players !!!
 

 

 

Edited October 4 by Toonpack

[ewerk 30554]

I think that may be a bit sensationalised.

[RobinRobin 11258]

10 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

i'm the same on that point. i pretty much still dress like i did in my 20s, listen to the same music, have the same interests etc so in that sense i'm stuck in the past - i haven't adopted any age-appropriate hobbies either. a lot of people my age seem to be into gardening, golf and cycling, but i'm not interested in any of that. 

 

football has been a constant since i was a kid. i don't care as much as i did in the 80s/90s but i care more than at any point since then. the ashley era combined with the sky obsession with the "big six" etc almost turned me off but i still kind of enjoy our status as underdogs, despite having the richest owners going. 

[LondonBlue 753]

On 04/10/2024 at 18:56, Toonpack said:

Uh Oh, Bosman did for out of contract players, seems Diara has done for contracted players !!!
 

 

 

 

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

 

 

[Dazzler 9716]

1 minute ago, Craig said:

Interesting to note who sided with Manchester City, and who sided with the Premier League on this one. From the BBC:
 

In this arbitration process, Chelsea, Newcastle, Nottingham Forest and Everton all acted as witnesses for City.

Witnesses for the Premier League were Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Brighton and West Ham.

Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs are about to get the shits.

[Gemmill 44805]

Everton must not have read the section of City's* case that referred to shareholder loans. 

 

*I'm not writing Man every time when we all know which City I'm talking about, so FUCK. OFF. 

[thebrokendoll 9188]

10 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Everton must not have read the section of City's* case that referred to shareholder loans. 

 

*I'm not writing Man every time when we all know which City I'm talking about, so FUCK. OFF. 

 

sky boy.

[Howmanheyman 33128]

14 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Everton must not have read the section of City's* case that referred to shareholder loans. 

 

*I'm not writing Man every time when we all know which City I'm talking about, so FUCK. OFF. 

 

 

🎵

Man, I feel like a City."

🎶

[LondonBlue 753]

Verdict announced in Man City's Premier League legal case

[LondonBlue 753]

funny how 

1 minute ago, LondonBlue said:

Verdict announced in Man City's Premier League legal case

Stefan Borson references Newcastle a fair bit so posting here

[LondonBlue 753]

 

"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.

[LondonBlue 753]

MCFC - Club statement

 

reads like a full on victory to me. 

 

the judgement can be downloaded from the city website

[Dazzler 9716]

3 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

MCFC - Club statement

 

reads like a full on victory to me. 

 

the judgement can be downloaded from the city website

 

Man City are dragging the Premier League naked through the streets like Cersei Lannister

[Dr Gloom 21912]

5 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

MCFC - Club statement

 

reads like a full on victory to me. 

 

the judgement can be downloaded from the city website

cut to the chase then, what does it mean for us? Can we legally start spending Saudi dollars off the back of this? 

[LondonBlue 753]

Just now, Dr Gloom said:

cut to the chase then, what does it mean for us? Can we legally start spending Saudi dollars off the back of this? 

 

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.

 

[LondonBlue 753]

3 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

 

Man City are dragging the Premier League naked through the streets like Cersei Lannister

 

 

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

 

 

 

[LondonBlue 753]

9 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

MCFC - Club statement

 

reads like a full on victory to me. 

 

the judgement can be downloaded from the city website

 

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.

 

 

[LondonBlue 753]

6 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

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.

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

[Dazzler 9716]

So basically, why is it fine for owners to give interest free loans to the club but it’s not okay for a club to receive money from a related party for sponsorship?

 

Solid argument tbf.

[Dazzler 9716]

The former is a propping up exercise and the other is a legitimate exchange of goods and services for cash.

[NJS 4377]

So not as complete a takedown of the APT rules as first thought. 

 

Theyll have to include the shareholder loans for them to continue though.