Football club finances / FFP

[moomba]

If you were to drill down into every rule and regulation there would be the potential for slight amendments needed in law.


Pre Brexit your club receiving substantial state based aid was probably a breach of the law too.

Ha ha.

 

[Zidane98]

Ha ha.

An interesting response for someone allegedly concerned with the law. Doesn't apply to Man City now England is outside the Euro zone but PSG are getting done for this as we speak.

There may still be a case due to your participation in European tournaments too if it is determined European courts have jurisdiction.

A change in EU law is down to the introduction of the new EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation, which means the EC is no longer restricted to probing state aid that originates from within the EU.

 

[moomba]

An interesting response for someone allegedly concerned with the law. Doesn't apply to Man City now England is outside the Euro zone but PSG are getting done for this as we speak.

There may still be a case due to your participation in European tournaments too if it is determined European courts have jurisdiction.

A change in EU law is down to the introduction of the new EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation, which means the EC is no longer restricted to probing state aid that originates from within the EU.

You saying something is against the law isn't the same thing as something being against the law.

If a football rule is unlawful, and it's changed because it is unlawful I fully support it being changed.

I certainly won't moan about it as much as you are.

 

[moomba]

Wow.

 

[Zidane98]

What a shambles of a club trying to run the Premier League directly and for the benefit of themselves.


Man City wouldn't have done a thing if they got the result on the APT market valuations they wanted. All because they arse salty over not getting the result they wanted on their APT challenges and that the rule will mostly stay the same apart from minor modification.

These findings from the report are telling




Contacting clubs directly attempting to undermine the PL might also be a breach of shareholder rules. Farcical.

 

[Zidane98]

Also, being so willing to burn bridges with the PL and/or shareholders is a possible indicator of what is going to happen in the near future with the 115 charges.

 

[Zidane98]

https://www.thelawyer.com/in-depth-who-actually-won-the-manchester-city-case/

Pretty good summary from both perspectives this one.

 

[Zidane98]

It is noteworthy to point out in the case of the Etihad challenge City challenged the following:

• • that the League had erred in principle in applying the APT rules;
  • that it had not acted with procedural fairness;
  • that it had “reached a decision which could not have been reached by a reasonable Board which had applied its mind properly to the issues to be decided”; and
  • that the length of time taken to reach the two decisions did not comply with the rules.

They lost out on all of these challenges about from the time taken to reach the decision which was found to have taken too long. The valuation was actually found to be correct by the tribunal.

Also worth noting that City accused the PL of "discriminating against Gulf ownership". This challenge was absolutely dismissed by then tribunal.

 

[moomba]

Contacting clubs directly attempting to undermine the PL might also be a breach of shareholder rules. Farcical.

Ha ha, another Zidane98 charge against us.

 

[moomba]

Man City wouldn't have done a thing if they got the result on the APT market valuations they wanted. All because they arse salty over not getting the result they wanted on their APT challenges and that the rule will mostly stay the same apart from minor modification.

We initiated proceedings on January 24. The board made a decision on fair market value on April 25.

We must be smarter than I thought.