Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] Associated Party Transactions (APT) ruling



Dick Knights Mumm

Take me Home Falmer Road
Jul 5, 2003
19,736
Hither and Thither
Why though?

There is nothing fair about Financial Fair Play, there is no profitability or sustainability commitment in the Profitability and Sustainability rules.
They clearly don’t like the way the League is run. They are not interested in the League (or the game) beyond their own interests.

Difficult to see how this ends other than our game being run by nation states for their own, often malign, purposes. Lance the boil.
 




Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
12,105
They clearly don’t like the way the League is run. They are not interested in the League (or the game) beyond their own interests.

Difficult to see how this ends other than our game being run by nation states for their own, often malign, purposes. Lance the boil.
I think it's more likely that they flounce off and start a super league, when they get kicked out/relegated.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
 


















Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
13,433
Central Borneo / the Lizard
That's good. Suprising that Chelsea voted for it. Now watch the City legal onslaught to challenge it all again.
Not sure it is surprising. The owners of the established traditional big 5 don't want to spend money keeping up with City, Newcastle, and other clubs with potential to spend big. They already have huge commercial revenue which lets them stay at the top, they already spent a lot buying the club, so restricting investment by other owners suits them and means they don't need to keep putting money in. City have got to the point where they should probably side with them in reality, but they seem to like being disruptors and are upset by the charges against them.

Interesting graph that demonstrates this..

WhatsApp-Image-2024-11-18-at-17.10.58_b3d3f8e7.jpg
 


schmunk

Why oh why oh why?
Jan 19, 2018
10,338
Mid mid mid Sussex
That's good. Suprising that Chelsea voted for it. Now watch the City legal onslaught to challenge it all again.
"Sources have told BBC Sport that representatives from Chelsea and Manchester United both spoke at the meeting before the vote, urging clubs to vote through the changes.

Manchester City's representative declined to speak."

 


Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
12,105
Not sure it is surprising. The owners of the established traditional big 5 don't want to spend money keeping up with City, Newcastle, and other clubs with potential to spend big. They already have huge commercial revenue which lets them stay at the top, so restricting investment by other owners suits them. City should probably side with them in reality, but they seem to like being disruptors and are upset by the charges against them.
I suspect that the strategy was to undermine Fair Market Value, and get 80 or so charges dismissed alongside it.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here