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
-
Lost 16 to 4.
Turkey's will never vote for Christmas unfortunately...Newcastle can always be voted into oblivion.
Turkey's will never vote for Christmas unfortunately...Newcastle can always be voted into oblivion.
I suspect we knew this was happening, hence the single share £35m transaction. Wasnt even close, 16 to 4 (City, Villa and presumably Newcastle and Chelsea?)
In a way, I kind of empathise a bit with clubs like Brighton, Brentford and Bournemouth who are creating very sustainable business models based on clever recruitment. If it was 10 years ago, this board would be screaming things like "how dare these lucky, sugar daddy clubs abuse their position just go get even further ahead". The issue I have it's all so, so late. The lack of control over the loan system, Chelsea selling itself its' womens team, the hoovering of the youth talent through another pathetic scheme about academy status, etc., it's just shutting the barn door after 6 horses have already bolted. It's only really Newcastle and Villa who are being blocked.
Still, it is what it is. Hopefully the slightly more flexible language will allow us to keep creeping up the deals. We have a squad that could be top 10 in value globally within a year, with just a couple of additions. Our spend and wage bill means we will be in and around a European place challenge. And football is cyclical. Yes, Man U and Chelsea will come again, but Spurs are still uncertain, Arsenal seem to be finding it harder, as do City and eventually a lot of big players will need to be seemlessly replaced - we've already seen with Rodri that's not a foregone conclusion, and the list is long - De Bruyne, Silva, Ederson, then the likes of Salah, VVD, TAA, and so on.
In a way, I kind of empathise a bit with clubs like Brighton, Brentford and Bournemouth who are creating very sustainable business models based on clever recruitment. If it was 10 years ago, this board would be screaming things like "how dare these lucky, sugar daddy clubs abuse their position just go get even further ahead". The issue I have it's all so, so late. The lack of control over the loan system, Chelsea selling itself its' womens team, the hoovering of the youth talent through another pathetic scheme about academy status, etc., it's just shutting the barn door after 6 horses have already bolted. It's only really Newcastle and Villa who are being blocked.
Still, it is what it is. Hopefully the slightly more flexible language will allow us to keep creeping up the deals. We have a squad that could be top 10 in value globally within a year, with just a couple of additions. Our spend and wage bill means we will be in and around a European place challenge. And football is cyclical. Yes, Man U and Chelsea will come again, but Spurs are still uncertain, Arsenal seem to be finding it harder, as do City and eventually a lot of big players will need to be seemlessly replaced - we've already seen with Rodri that's not a foregone conclusion, and the list is long - De Bruyne, Silva, Ederson, then the likes of Salah, VVD, TAA, and so on.
They'll just go legal again... the full ruling of the last rules will come and this aggressive vote essentially puts up another challenge to prove the amendments are unlawful.I mean it's possible the findings say city are wrong, but I don't think they will.
I'd ask any doubters why the Premier League didn't just wait for the full verdict if they knew they were correct and City were making baseless claims?
These particular rules aren't the worst of them, but for the fact the bigger clubs can keep getting more and more money.. the bigger clubs are allowed vastly higher sponsorships.
Football was better without financial rules. Sustainability? A load of nonsense most prem clubs are owned by billionaires.. the problem was the owners buying clubs without any money.
Perhaps people will now warm to the idea of a new ground and more revenue to but better players... the gap is always going to grow otherwise.
I'd ask any doubters why the Premier League didn't just wait for the full verdict if they knew they were correct and City were making baseless claims?
These particular rules aren't the worst of them, but for the fact the bigger clubs can keep getting more and more money.. the bigger clubs are allowed vastly higher sponsorships.
Football was better without financial rules. Sustainability? A load of nonsense most prem clubs are owned by billionaires.. the problem was the owners buying clubs without any money.
Perhaps people will now warm to the idea of a new ground and more revenue to but better players... the gap is always going to grow otherwise.
It boils down to two things. Should a club's owners be allowed to "invest" freely in the team? Yes. Should a club be allowed to have unsustainable wage bills? No. You have to avoid a situation where, say, NUFC are given free reign on transfers and have a squad bill of £500m a year (propped up by PIF money) and profit of £10m. So there probably should be a balance. But the PL could ask for cast iron written assurances that any debt will be settled by the owners at point of sale, so the club has no liability.
In short, there's much, much better ways, but all of them involve potentially harming the elite. We ALL know this, every club, every fan, every lawyer. It's in plain sight.
I actually agree and always suspected the vote would be lost. The proposed voiding of previously made shareholder loans stacked the vote against even further than normal.
What will be interesting now is whether the clarity sought on the old rules shows if city or the Pl was correct... was it the whole thing void or just elements that needed amending? one party was being dishonest.
It's at least another legal case and the Pl kicking the can down the road, or it could be that these rules are actually now lawful, but that has to be proven.. if they didn't get these in place before the verdict and the old rules were deemed completely unlawful they'd be void and it would be open season for some clubs almost overnight.... this imo explains the rush.
Last edited:
We are breaking into their ****ty top 4 again this season anyway, **** em.
You must log in or register to see images
The club really just isn't.
The gulf is huge.... the worst problem the toon have is the fans wanting to stay at St James Park and having to sell isak to buy Calvert lewin.
There's a side and then there's the club ! landing 4th isn't in truth breaking into the top 4... it's a good season at this juncture.
The club is 100s of millions behind in revenue.
I'm just enjoying us not being **** anymore tbh, i can't be bothered to get worked up about financial stuff.
That's fair enough yes it's better than the last 15 years that's for sure.
I want to win the conference League and that will do me.
I imagine a club voted against as it had a deal for naming rights at £30m agreed. So the sky would be the limit for a new stadium
You must log in or register to see images
Assurances on debt are without the doubt the solution and not difficult, but you know as well as I do that there's a reason why they won't do that.
Yes and its why Newcastle are looking at building one.
While I hate your club (hate all clubs) I do genuinely hope something gives in the future to allow great historic clubs before TV money to being able to compete again.