Think we're one of the 'greenest' clubs in the league tbf. Says it all about us though. Probably more bothered about the lost revenue rather than the on-pitch success we might have had if it weren't for City.
I think about 10 billion shared equally between all clubs in the premier league during city's 5 years of ffp breaches would be egalitarian and rather fair.
Just kick them out of the League, they clearly don't agree with any of the rules or principles behind the Premier League structure.
The Premier league and its members are a bunch of shithouses. This should have already happened, but never will.
Nice sideshow to our shite form haha. This is usually the time Peps announcement gets announced as well.
In a robust defence against Man City's complaints on Thursday, the Premier League asserted: "Throughout the consultation, the league has reflected upon all feedback provided by clubs, including from MCFC, and sought the opinion of leading counsel to consider the proposals. "That MCFC does not agree with the proposed amendments, or with the timing of the process being undertaken, does not mean the consultation itself is deficient or that the league has failed to comply with its obligations as a regulator." The Premier League, meanwhile, accused Man City of "a tendentious and inaccurate interpretation" of the recording of minutes from a meeting with clubs the previous month. It said that just because Man City "does not agree with the process does not provide a credible basis to impugn it". When addressing the potential for more legal disputes, the league rebuffed that "such threats are meritless, and advanced without any attempt to articulate a credible ground on which MCFC could seek to restrain the consultation process". Man City court case takes new twist as 'unlawful' letter sent to rivals Kick. Them. Out.
Yup. It's simple. You don't like the rules and you don't respect the authorities or the other clubs you're competing with, kindly f**k the f**k off then continue to f**k off when you get there.
Honestly I kind of see man city's point from what I understand of the case. From memory the ruling said that it wasn't legal to exclude shareholder loans from being treated as APTs, which is fair enough The premier league wants to update the rules going forwards and ignore the last few years, which is likely due to a desire not to re-review the PSR accounts for the last 3 seasons (and because anyone who would be in trouble if the last 3 seasons were re-reviewed would obviously vote against any rule changes in that case, making it unlikely to go through anyway) Man city are saying it's unfair to only half enforce the legally valid version of the APT rules for the last 3 years. I don't think that's necessarily wrong, and the simplest and probably fairest solution would be for the league to offer a bit of compensation for any teams that had sponsorship deals refused or revised down during the period. Of course, I'm fully aware that man city are only making this an issue to try to drown the premier league in legal challenges and fees rather than because they actually care. I just also don't think their complaint is entirely groundless
Just delay then expell the trouble makers for their other charges then bring in any desired rules they want. Simple really.
I'm confused by the term "wasn't legal". The Premier League is a private company and sets its own laws/rules, approved by its members, who must agree any changes with a 60/40 majority. Legality shouldn't come into it, the League is invitation only, and all members agree to abide by the League's rules when they sign up?
"Not legal" might not be the correct term (I'm by no means an expert and also just going off my memory) but didn't the tribunal say that excluding shareholder loans from the APT rules was in breach of competition law? Assuming I'm not misremembering that I'd also assume that any laws applied by the tribunal do need to be considered by the league when drafting their rules, simply based on the fact that the members of the tribunal were presumably experts and specialists who know what they're talking about
the rules they set still have to fit within the laws of the land though I'm not sure which law they would be breaking, UEFA already included shareholder loans in the way the Prem looks like it will now have to. As we saw in the Leicester case the Prem isn't great at writing its own rules down so its probably something along those lines again
I'm no expert either, but I'm mystified why "competition law" is relevant when we're talking about a closed competition that makes up its own rules and regulations. city aren't operating in the free market, they are operating (at the moment) in a closed, private members club.
