City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th Sep 2024 | Concluded 9th Dec 2024 - Awaiting outcome

So Ineos can sponsor United for silly money now then?

Or is this going to be like United not being able to sign a player from Nice even though every other club can buy players from their sister clubs?
 
Anyone mentioned yet if Ineos can do this now?
 
LawCharltonBest said:
So Ineos can sponsor United for silly money now then?

Or is this going to be like United not being able to sign a player from Nice even though every other club can buy players from their sister clubs?
Click to expand...
No. But not because of the rules. :(
 
I presume city will have used that angle in their defence, that the sponsorship rules are void and unlawful anyway.
Not a great sign.
 
So the Premier League are basically claiming that the tribunal have ruled the APT1 laws as void and unlawful, but they actually haven't done that yet for the amended laws that APT Case 2 is about so until then these rules remain in place until that hearing.

So again both sides are coming out claiming different things. There's a lot of bright people in that room, so how hard is it just to come out with a definitive ruling on APT's in general?!
Honestly, the Premier League aren't evoking much confidence that their strategy and judgements have been right through all this.
 
I keep seeing these city idiots going on about a red cartel that's been conspiring to keep them down.... not done a very good job of it these past 12 years have they?

Also, when Newcastle blow them away financially and replace them at the top, will they still be celebrating this?
 
Sooner or later City are going to have all the financial rules thrown out, the Premier League simply aren’t equipped to stop them.

Whatever happens with the 115 charges it will only motivate City more and they will get their way in the end.
 
GoonerBear said:
So the Premier League are basically claiming that the tribunal have ruled the APT1 laws as void and unlawful, but they actually haven't done that yet for the amended laws that APT Case 2 is about so until then these rules remain in place until that hearing.

So again both sides are coming out claiming different things. There's a lot of bright people in that room, so how hard is it just to come out with a definitive ruling on APT's in general?!
Honestly, the Premier League aren't evoking much confidence that their strategy and judgements have been right through all this.
Click to expand...
Yeah it seems it's not that big an update given the new rules are still being assessed?

I feel like this isn't that relevant to the 115 + case in honesty, maybe APT needs it's own thread. I guess without linking it to City the story doesn't really get much traction given so many people dislike City.
 
Maybe there is a solution to letting the PL continually mismanage football, we could have a government appointee set rules and guidelines for the administration of the game. We need a catchy title though? Radiator? Refrigerator? Regulator?
 
Gandalf said:
Maybe there is a solution to letting the PL continually mismanage football, we could have a government appointee set rules and guidelines for the administration of the game. We need a catchy title though? Radiator? Refrigerator? Regulator?
Click to expand...
If the first thing they do is kick out the state owned clubs, I'm all for it.
 
steeeb said:
Wasn't this already said months ago hence the amendments made?
Click to expand...

Not really, it was said that it as only a partial win for City as the overall rules were intact, which turned out to be not so intact

"The three respects in which the APT rules and amended APT rules were unlawful cannot be severed with the result that the APT rules as a whole are void and unenforceable."
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Not sure this is relevant to 115 but maybe a broader sign of how little power the PL has over sponsors nowadays.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's a decent sign of how naive they were in the first place and how little it matters that clubs agree on a set of rules when those rules can always be challenged and dismissed afterwards.
 
NotChatGPT said:
I suppose it's a decent sign of how naive they were in the first place and how little it matters that clubs agree on a set of rules when those rules can always be challenged and dismissed afterwards.
Click to expand...
Which is a nonsense because it’s a voluntary group and democratically voted rules.
 
I do wonder whether the Premier League could re-brand and create a new league where as the poster above says - entry for non state owned clubs only.

Surely there would be no stopping that and would work if there were enough members?
 
Oranges038 said:
I thought it was relevant because it was one of the complaints City were putting in about the league rules?
Click to expand...
In a separate case from my understanding. If they could somehow do this for the years they are under investigation for I guess it would be relevant.
 
That's the Premier League done then. You can't get rinsed in court like they've done and come out of it looking at all credible.

Also it's obvious they will get away with the other charges VERY lightly. We'll apparently know in about a month. Anyway it's nearly time to pack it in for good. Bent refs, state owned clubs, such a shit sorry state of affairs what's happened to football.
 
City do realise that they are just laying the foundations for Newcastle blowing them out of the water, and then the likely demise of the PL.
 
I know ones things for sure, Manchester United will never win the title again now. It will be a lovely little win for Liverpool if they can do it this year, but then I think it's a sky blue/barcode League from here on out (barring the very rare exception)
 
tomaldinho1 said:
In a separate case from my understanding. If they could somehow do this for the years they are under investigation for I guess it would be relevant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's separate, but it still came from City complaining about the rules not allowing them to pump in sponsorship money from made up deals that have no rational financial basis.
 
McTerminator said:
Let’s hope. I’d take the Geordies over City any day and the league is in its death throes anyway!
Click to expand...

I'd rather hope for the PL growing a pair of testicles and fighting this tooth and nail.

The death of the PL because of State ownership will be a very sad thing.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
I'd rather hope for the PL growing a pair of testicles and fighting this tooth and nail.

The death of the PL because of State ownership will be a very sad thing.
Click to expand...
I’d say it’s inevitable now. We are one more news headline away from football being dead and I will be damned if I will support a league that’s nothing but a toy for the mega rich.

It’s all terrible news really.
 
I’m getting very close to giving up on football, I was 19 when we won the treble , good times not just because we were good, but teams won on merit , dark times
 
You must log in or register to reply here.