Football club finances / FFP

[moomba]

And yet you just bring the pro City propaganda over and over again. Do you think that changes anyone’s mind? What is the objective here?

It's a football forum. My objective is to talk about a football issue in a thread devoted to finances of football.

What's your objective here?

 

[Zidane98]

You thought that it was against the rules for us to take the league to tribunal. Against the shareholder agreement you said. Illegal you said. Sounds like the judges didn't get the memo.

You thought the only reason we took the league to tribunal was because we were upset that they rejected the Etihad deal. Despite the deal not being rejected until months after we initiated the case.

You thought that the league won despite their rules being deemed unlawful, and both decisions on sponsorships being set aside.

You thought that it would be quick and easy to amend the rules. Now we hear the league admit that it's going to take a lot longer than their initial statement suggested.

It must be hard to be you right now.

Any club can take an association to court. Nearly all don't because a smart club values a relationship with the league that governs them and the other shareholders. Almost like you don't expect to be dealing with them much longer.

You thought your club would win the valuations argument which is the only aspect your club is really interested in.

You lost that emphatically and spectacularly despite you thinking their FMV rule was against your club.

 

[moomba]

Any club can take an association to court. Nearly all don't because a smart club values a relationship with the league that governs them and the other shareholders. Almost like you don't expect to be dealing with them much longer.

Do I really need to go back through your posts from when the case was initiated?

You thought your club would win the valuations argument which is the only aspect your club is really interested in.

You lost that emphatically and spectacularly despite you thinking their FMV rule was against your club.

I didn't have any opinion on the case and whether we would win or lose. In fact at the time, I referred to someone (a blue) that does know a lot about that side of football and who's opinions I value, that thought it would be very difficult for us to win the case.

We were fine with RPT rules and APT rules for 7 years. We took the legal option after the February amendments were first voted on. Pretty much all of those amendments will have to be scrapped.

And of three sponsorships that were rejected, two of them will have to be re-assessed by the league and the third has already been approved.

Pretty good result from my point of view.

 

[Bostonian]

Thank god my club doesn't side with these turds.

 

[moomba]

Thank god my club doesn't side with these turds.

Defending an unlawful rule just because Man City don't like it is such a noble thing to do.

 

[Bostonian]

Defending an unlawful rule just because Man City don't like it is such a noble thing to do.

Oh please. We can all see what you're dodgy club is trying to do.

You have one vote like every other club but you want more power than that.

 

[moomba]

Oh please. We can all see what you're dodgy club is trying to do.

You have one vote like every other club but you want more power than that.

We want the rules to comply with the law of the land.

As should we all. I guess wanting to "get City" is more important to some.

Very revealing.

 

[Zidane98]

We want the rules to comply with the law of the land.

As should we all. I guess wanting to "get City" is more important to some.

Very revealing.

No you dont.

Your only concern is being able to put us much Abu Dhabi govt money into the club through Abu Dhabi govt owned income as you please.

If that wasn't under threat your club wouldn't have cared one iota.

 

[moomba]

No you dont.

Your only concern is being able to put us much Abu Dhabi govt money into the club through Abu Dhabi govt owned income as you please.

If that wasn't under threat your club wouldn't have cared one iota.

If that was the case we wouldn't have waited until 7 years after the rules were introduced to do anything about it.

 

[Zidane98]

If that was the case we wouldn't have waited until 7 years after the rules were introduced tomorrow anything about it.

As soon as more stringent valuation testing of associated parties came in (not related parties) your mob complained . Which makes sense with the Abu Dhabi government running your club (effectively) and the commercial partners you rely on also owned by Abu Dhabi investment funds.

 

[moomba]

As soon as more unlawful valuation testing of associated parties came in (not related parties) your mob complained.

Correct.