No idea mate, they’ve not rocked the boat yet. PL doing a grand job at oissing everyone else off though on their own
APT rules
- Thread starter Fox Mulder
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
To be honest this almost feels like the PL has to come to an end. It’s got itself into so many knots because as I said during the takeover it’s a glorified marketing department that has far over-reached its competence or purpose.
I think it’s just sad that they are spinning ever more ways to stifle competition then portraying it as the right thing to do for the integrity of the competition. I mean who gives a **** where investment comes from as long as it secures a club, its employees and so on. I agree don’t let them become burdened with debt (ironically, exactly what the likes of Man U have been allowed to do) but nobody is trying to do that. Why can’t we have Mbappe at Villa or Vinicius at Newcastle? Why are only six clubs allowed to do what they want??
The PL has long failed to be fit for purpose and our takeover was the thing that finally broke it all.
I think it’s just sad that they are spinning ever more ways to stifle competition then portraying it as the right thing to do for the integrity of the competition. I mean who gives a **** where investment comes from as long as it secures a club, its employees and so on. I agree don’t let them become burdened with debt (ironically, exactly what the likes of Man U have been allowed to do) but nobody is trying to do that. Why can’t we have Mbappe at Villa or Vinicius at Newcastle? Why are only six clubs allowed to do what they want??
The PL has long failed to be fit for purpose and our takeover was the thing that finally broke it all.
Yep - but flying back on Tuesday then will be back here permanentlyish from end November.
Been busy every weekend since season started but up for games from start of December onwards.
Yeah no need to until the time is right... when you're looking to defeat an enemy it's best to wait for the opportunity to rip out their heart completely.
Chippy has bagged the Leicester game but other will be available afterwards.
The Premier League is defeated! Masters will hide like a fat termite waiting for the invading army of ants to remove his head because thats his only option in such circumstances.
What a surprise the underhand premier league caught telling lies again.
What did the letter say?
In the letter, Cliff offered "clarifications" to "assist member clubs with their understanding" in response to a summary of the panel’s ruling by Premier League chief executive Richard Masters.
"Regrettably, the summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies," Cliff claims.
"The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC's position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void," the letter states.
"The decision does not contain an 'endorsement' of the APT rules, nor does it state that the APT rules, as enacted, were 'necessary' in order to ensure the efficacy of the League’s financial controls."
The Premier League, in its summary, said that the tribunal identified "a small number of discrete elements of the rules which did not in their current form comply with competition and public law requirements" and that these could "quickly and effectively be remedied".
However, the league's position that City were unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge is described by Cliff as "a peculiar way of looking at the decision".
He added: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."
Cliff added that it was "not correct that the tribunal’s decision identifies 'certain discrete elements' of the APT rules that need to be amended in order to comply with competition and public law requirements".
He added: "On the contrary: the APT rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law. This means that they are void and not capable of enforcement. This has very significant consequences for APTs that have been entered into to date and APTs that are currently being negotiated by clubs.
"Of even greater concern, however, is the PL's suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next 10 days."
The Premier League is seeking to amend its rules within the next fortnight so that they comply with competition law.
The tribunal - in a 175-page document - ruled that low-interest shareholder loans from owners to their clubs should not be excluded from the scope of APT rules, and that some amendments to toughen up the rules in February by should not be retained.
However Cliff warns that it is "remarkable that the Premier League is now seeking to involve the member clubs in a process to amend the APT rules at a time when it does not even know the status of those rules".
He added: "We will be writing separately about this to the Premier League but in the meantime, given the findings in the award, this is the time for careful reflection and consideration by all clubs, and not for a knee-jerk reaction.
"Such an unwise course would be likely to lead to further legal proceedings with further legal costs. It is critical for member clubs to feel that they can have trust in their regulator."
What did the letter say?
In the letter, Cliff offered "clarifications" to "assist member clubs with their understanding" in response to a summary of the panel’s ruling by Premier League chief executive Richard Masters.
"Regrettably, the summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies," Cliff claims.
"The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC's position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void," the letter states.
"The decision does not contain an 'endorsement' of the APT rules, nor does it state that the APT rules, as enacted, were 'necessary' in order to ensure the efficacy of the League’s financial controls."
The Premier League, in its summary, said that the tribunal identified "a small number of discrete elements of the rules which did not in their current form comply with competition and public law requirements" and that these could "quickly and effectively be remedied".
However, the league's position that City were unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge is described by Cliff as "a peculiar way of looking at the decision".
He added: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."
Cliff added that it was "not correct that the tribunal’s decision identifies 'certain discrete elements' of the APT rules that need to be amended in order to comply with competition and public law requirements".
He added: "On the contrary: the APT rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law. This means that they are void and not capable of enforcement. This has very significant consequences for APTs that have been entered into to date and APTs that are currently being negotiated by clubs.
"Of even greater concern, however, is the PL's suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next 10 days."
The Premier League is seeking to amend its rules within the next fortnight so that they comply with competition law.
The tribunal - in a 175-page document - ruled that low-interest shareholder loans from owners to their clubs should not be excluded from the scope of APT rules, and that some amendments to toughen up the rules in February by should not be retained.
However Cliff warns that it is "remarkable that the Premier League is now seeking to involve the member clubs in a process to amend the APT rules at a time when it does not even know the status of those rules".
He added: "We will be writing separately about this to the Premier League but in the meantime, given the findings in the award, this is the time for careful reflection and consideration by all clubs, and not for a knee-jerk reaction.
"Such an unwise course would be likely to lead to further legal proceedings with further legal costs. It is critical for member clubs to feel that they can have trust in their regulator."
It's like one Emile Smith-Rowe or whatever the next one off the Arsenal youth conveyer belt is for them - Everton on the other hand would have to sell all their best players and get relegated....
That's like kerb stomping them after they've already been knocked out
Notice Masters is mentioned by name the dribbling little twat that he is.
That's like kerb stomping them after they've already been knocked out
Notice Masters is mentioned by name the dribbling little twat that he is.
Interestingly the people above him in the PL you can literally google and the head lady and it comes up as a "lifelong Man U fan" and one of the others was a season ticket holder at Arsenal. It's almost like they wanted to do their clubs a favour...
The problem with the fans of such club is that they believe they are special clubs that earned the right to have all the rules in their favour.
On one hand they welcome unlawful rules that are massively stacked in their favour regarding finances and in the other hand they cry out how unfair it would be if one or two other clubs had a financial advantage.
They're entitled delusional smooth brains that firmly believe their clubs grew their success organically.
Meanwhile we're all supposed to be impressed when they win competitions when the rest of the field is handicapped.
All City did was win the lottery. Like Chelsea did in 2002 or whenever Putins mate turned up with his vast blood money. And like we did. But 7 into 6 doesn’t go (European places) so they need to kick a couple of us back.
I can understand Brighton being miffed. Bloom has created a football model utopia but is being elbowed out by bigger clubs with stronger backing. The other 5 of the “big 6” can **** off.
I can understand Brighton being miffed. Bloom has created a football model utopia but is being elbowed out by bigger clubs with stronger backing. The other 5 of the “big 6” can **** off.
And yet Brighton lead the way in "ownership loans" as they've been propt up by the owner due to them being in a **** area for football.
https://x.com/City_Xtra/status/1843...://x.com/City_Xtra/status/1843691326375870696
"This is damaging the Premier League"
"This is damaging the Premier League"
You must log in or register to see images
You can guarantee the unnamed figure is a ****house club.
It's such an interesting take isn't it? The amazing mental gymnastic involved in finding out the rules are illegal and to simply side step that and express concerns about the damage man city are doing rather than the damage the unlawful rules are doing.
I've not read this whole thread, but one thing I din't understand is if the current rules are 'unlawful, why does it need 14 clubs to vote to change them?
If they are unlawful, they need changing, end of.
Or is it that as of now, the rules are totally void and the vote is purely for creating something brand new from a future date? If so, right now, there are no APT rules in force? Soooo..... Saudiaaaaa
If they are unlawful, they need changing, end of.
Or is it that as of now, the rules are totally void and the vote is purely for creating something brand new from a future date? If so, right now, there are no APT rules in force? Soooo..... Saudiaaaaa
This is fantastic, the house of cards is collapsing in front of our eyes.