I know this refers to previous rules and there are new ones in place now but some quotes from the actual judgement that I'm just reading through now: "We went on to conclude that the justification advanced by the PL for the exclusion of shareholder loans “is a justification that is at odds with the whole rationale of PSR, and namely to ensure that a club operates in a sustainable way and does not rely on shareholder support. It is also at odds with the proposal to tighten up the PSR to prevent avoidance of those rules.” (ibid. para. 250.) We found that “a limitation in the scope of the APT Rules so as to cover only certain APTs is discriminatory” and that such a limitation is “an obvious distortion of competition as it permits one form of subsidy, namely a noncommercial loan, but not another, a non-commercial sponsorship agreement. Both are equally injurious to the objective of the PSR.” "a change in legal effect, namely from a position of zero scrutiny to full scrutiny. We consider that this is a very significant expansion in the legal effect of the APT and Amended APT Rules. Moreover, since the different treatment of shareholder loans as compared with other APTs is an obvious distortion of competition as it permits one form of subsidy but not another" And the conclusion is a nice thing to look forward to: "69. However, there remains for decision (in the fresh arbitration commenced on 20 January 2025) whether the November 2024 Amended APT Rules are valid and effective."
This is separate to PSR. The idea of PSR wasn't challenged (it's wider than just the PL anyway), only the fact that the PL was suddenly deciding to vet all APT's and say they had full discretion to decide if they were at a fair market value. In theory, without regulation on APT's then you can still bankroll your club as a way around PSR - or at least that's my understanding of the situation.
But if we can still only spend however much it is in 3 seasons, then how is this gonna change anything, we can get the sponsorship money, but we still can't spend it? (I'm thick when it comes to this stuff)
It's not the spend alone over 3 years, it's the difference beween spend vs revenue. This now allows to boost the revenue - big time.
There is no way for the PL or cartel to win. The Saudis can boost revenue via sponsorship and comply with PSR. It's crumbling and is beautiful.
Basically PSR is rules based on revenue and APT is a way to stopping clubs increasing revenue via sponsorships. They may be separate, but they're absolutely related. PSR or the proposed SCR rules, would be meaningless if clubs can sponsor themselves massive amounts.
Just watching a few videos on YouTube about this and the worry on their faces is absolutely fantastic. They're all ****eing it.
There is a rumour that legal action for compensation from clubs affected by blocked sponsorship could lead to awards equal to around £2-3 billion for total financial loss. If that is true then the Premier League is finished.
I hope that we will look at being compensated for lost earnings and simultaneously announce a new sponsorship deal worth millions per season. Our owners appear to be keeping their council and not publically fighting our corner against Masterson and the other 16 Premier League clubs who voted for tightened restrictions.
Villa, Everton, Forest, City and Newcastle will be lining up to sue for lost income. The harder thing to establish is effect on competitive performance.
Well at least one of those must have voted it in if there were 16 clubs in favour. So I can't see how they should be allowed to claim against something they voted for.
Agreed. I personally still don’t think the recent events makes a difference. I don’t see us making massive multi million pound deals with Saudi companies. But I might be wrong.
Ask yourself why Newcastle haven't got sponsorship on the stadium, training ground and training kit? For 3 years?
I would be very surprised if much bigger deals with the likes of Saudia haven't already been attempted. Or have at least been sitting in waiting for the outcome of City's case. If such deals haven't been negotiated already, then the commercial team at the club haven't been doing their jobs very well. Adidas is is all well and good, but alone it won't change things enough.
