Yes cos your club has already baked in the fake revenue and is trying to pull up the ladder behind you. The scenario where your club has declared world's highest revenues for some years is utterly hilarious.
https://www.thelawyer.com/in-depth-who-actually-won-the-manchester-city-case/ A completely unbiased, subjective take on it all.
Coming from such a bastion of integrity such as yourselves then I'm sure they will all find the receptacle that most aligns with your club as a fitting place to put said letter.
I'd agree with this, it's ridiculous that United can have £700 million debt and remain within the rules whilst other clubs' owners aren't allowed to invest their own cash.
What wins? According to your boy Borson, who you're always quick to point people towards when he's backing City, has said it's not a win for either party?
Premier League admitted after the Leicester case that the rules were far from ideal and needed sorting. Fact here is that both the Premier League and City had wins and losses during this case, as I'm sure will be the case with the 115. Not all charges will stick of course. Painting this as a huge City win is disingenuous as it seems most people with an actual legal background are suggesting it's nowhere near as simple as that.
I said from the start we wouldn't be the winners in this case. Newcastle and Villa were the ones who'd make best of it.
Not sure how much it would benefit them though. It wasn't found unlawful to have such rules in place, just that they were implemented poorly. From what I can gather, it just means the rules need to be rewritten and could result in them being even stricter in the long run but I'm certainly no expert so we will just need to wait and see. What definitely won't happen though, is that clubs like Newcastle will just be able to have a Saudi launderette sleeve sponsor for £800m per year like I've seen some people suggest. There will still be regulations in place and in terms of PSR, they may end up being even tighter. These sponsorship deals will still need to represent fair market value.
It looks increasingly like the PL will step away from this as quickly as possible. The people that run this organisation shouldn't be in charge of a sweet shop nevermind one of the biggest leagues in the world..
It was obviously tongue in cheek. The point I'm making is that clubs like Newcastle won't have a free reign to inflate their sponsorships to whatever they want, so I'm not sure how it's going to be make a huge difference to them. Their sponsorships will still need to represent fair market value.
I'm sure they would argue that it's become 'one of the biggest leagues in the world' under their stewardship?
Yes rampant litigious cheats who have forced the league to act to curb their antics. We should also thank Ben johnson for forcing authorities to strengthen drug texting in Athletics or lance Armstrong for single handedly cleaning up cycling?
Nobody should get the point that they should thank a club that's cheated prolifically and is now attempting to pull the ladder up behind them to prevent others from following suit. It'd literally the equivalent of thanking lance Armstrong for making cycling a bigger sport globally by winning tours time and again while doped to the eyeballs