General Premier League Thread 2023-24 Mod Note in op 27/6/23 And 21/05/24

That has been an option for a long time. You take the risk of an Injury in your final year meaning you'll end up with no club, a long-term injury and no support. It's a risk for sure.

Football really needs to look at the role of agents in the game as well. They are getting far too much of the pie for what they do. Deals like the Haaland deal are mental.
A % of a player's wage and a wage cap would be sensible to stop things spiralling out of control down the line

https://twitter.com/lawton_times/status/1797998795084423191?s=46

Watershed moment for the premier league coming their way

Man City launch unprecedented legal action against Premier League. Has sparked civil war among clubs with hearing due to start on June 10. City describing PL financial rules as ‘tyranny of the majority’. Full story here on ⁦
@TimesSport

behind a paywall. im sure other outlets will run it soon.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sport/football/article/man-city-legal-action-premier-league-hearing-7k6r5glhq

launching that legal action would seem to indicate they are bang to rights on the FFP charges.

last roll of the dice.

Imagine if City win the case. The amount of sponsorship they will be able to give themselves would be unlimited. Newcastle will also be keeping a close eye.

I think we already knew that! City’s owners are probably wondering why they simply can’t murder a few EPL administrators to get their way!

I wonder will people stop watching in protest if this happens. My guess would be no.

they might just stop watching, or watch less, cause it’s shïte though

I have pretty much given up watching if a game is on free to I might watch but since the World Cup in Qatar and with Saudi odds on the get it at the next round of bidding I just don’t really care about it anymore. I know plenty who used to pay for Sky/BT who no longer pay and only watch MOTD now. More and more people are just going to drop away and younger generations only want bite size clips of goals and. contentious issues and they definitely won’t pay sky rates for that.

Regards,

P.

Any chance that Man City could be suspended from the league because they are bringing legal action against it, or is this due process?

Anyone who thought they could be found innocent on the basis of 'well let's wait and see what the courts say' need to give themselves a good fúcking shake.

City fans included.

Was it not the Saudis who met with the British government?

If City win this case then that's football done and dusted.

People cancelling their sky subscriptions etc en masses might have some effect in that instance.

Eventually this ball will end up in the court of football fans because City leveraging their financial clout to get away with everything must be the biggest foregone conclusion in history.

Tyranny.....I especially like the last one.... probably how dictators and monarch's work...no?

• a state under cruel and oppressive government.
• cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control."the tyranny of her stepmother"
• (especially in ancient Greece) rule by one who has absolute power without legal right.

It's quite clear why City's Khaldoon has been so confident in any interview he's had on this.

He fully knows that he and his colleagues are willing to financially destroy the Premier League over this, and he does not believe the Premier League will stay the course for that reason.

Their only tactic all along has been to keep it in the courts as long as possible, because their pockets are bottomless. And they know it.

Shame on the PL letting them buy a club in the first place.

If Liverpool, Man Utd or Arsenal were thrown out of the PL, either of the other two winning the PL would be demeaned by the absence of the 3rd.

If City or Newcastle were thrown out, Liverpool, Man Utd or Arsenal winning it wouldn’t be demeaned one bit.

the neck on them! but if they win, thats the end of it.

The newspaper reports City are attempting to end the Premier League's Associated Party Transaction (ATP) rules.

Those rules regard commercial and sponsorship deals with companies owned or associated with the same club's owners.

As things stand, those rules dictate such transactions have to be independently assessed to be of fair market value.

The Times reports that City believe the rules are "unlawful" and they want to seek damages for revenue lost by preventions made by those rules.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11679/13147867/man-city-launch-legal-action-against-premier-league-over-financial-rules-ahead-of-their-own-115-charge-hearing

on the original 115:

"The hearing into those charges is set for November but obviously, a lot of those charges are also to do with sponsorship deals, deals that were done with companies that are connected to the owners of Manchester City.

"So, if Man City win this case, which starts next week, that would blow a big hole in the Premier League's case at the hearing in November about the 115 charges because Man City would have argued successfully next week that some of these rules are unlawful and incompatible with UK competition law."

But the charges are that the lied about the source of the sponsorship funds, not that they were inflated. In fact the charges say the sponsors were only paying a fraction of what city claimed.

The third party stuff has no bearing on any of it.

Genie is out of the bottle in that one, and both would claim they are not state backed. Newcastle especially.

The only counter is the ffp rules, and this anchoring idea the most powerful tool in that. They could see that thrown out, I think the PFA will oppose it on principle.

Villa seem pretty determined to remove any financial rules

Man United, Man City and Aston Villa voted against the proposed payroll cap.

Maybe Man U want to open the door to Ineos sponsorship that's actually Ratcliffe pouring money directly into it? I'm sure it'll come out in time.