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

Seems really short sighted from any non state owned club to support this? Sure they may have more money to spend short term but there’ll come a time that they’ll want to kick on, only to find the 2 clubs above them can spend a significant amount more.

You think no one would question would they have still won if City wasnt in.

All the big clubs.

I'd be a lot closer to guaranteeing that each of Liverpool, Arsenal, Man Utd & Spurs are on the side of the PL, and do not want to allow associated party funding permanently.

Liverpool & Arsenal are somewhat rare in that both have voted in favour of the PL rules in nearly every vote in recent times around associated party funding, inter-group transfers etc. I think that transfer one had a lot more backing from other clubs.

The manager and his tactics never cheated, the players never cheated. Without City it would be a very boringm League .

Its basically over 90 points to win the league now, this was a great season , 3 teams where in it.

Last season it went clopse aswell but City took over at the end. The season before that it was the last day of the season and 30 minutes before the final whistle it was with Liverpool.

They won’t get City or Newcastle money is exactly the point. Sponsors aren’t trying to throw as much money as is possible at teams, they’re trying to get the best deal possible for their brand/company.

And what if one team somehow managed to get a deal worth more than City or Newcastle? We’d see a pretty swift renegotiation of terms to put the state clubs back on top.

Without these rules, you’re basically guaranteeing state-owned clubs financial superiority by allowing them to act in a way its simply not possible for 99% of clubs to replicate.

If City broke the rules and it's almost certain they did then they should answer for it. That works both ways though because if the PL broke the law by having these rules then they should answer for it and the rules are void.

Big test for the premier league over the next 12 months or so really, to see whether it survives or not imo. If a club, any club, are not held to the same rules as all clubs signed up to and agreed to follow because they can afford better legal teams than the actual league itself the entire concept is done for.

The European super league/NFL style franchise model will be another big step closer too, a closed shop for the bigger clubs who get in.

Still, it might make football in the top league in England more competitive again, the gap between the top and bottom actually start to move closer rather than further apart as has been happening for many years at this point.

As a LOI follower also I can say that the passion involved in supporting something you feel more of a connection to does offset some of what's missing in terms of high quality play.

City threatening to withdraw funding in the community being one of the lower lows of their lawsuit? Despicable entity.

I said "if". My understanding is City claim the PL breaks competition law by having these rules and the law trumps any rules that a club signs up for.

This is a poor take IMO, Arsenal dropping 5 points since the new year and still coming up short, Liverpool getting 90+ points twice and coming up short is just not good for football. Basically says unless you’re near perfect you haven’t a hope of winning, where’s the excitement in that? It’s beyond boring seeing city go on these win streaks like it’s nothing to them, there’s no excitement in the league anymore despite some absolutely quality teams in it because it runs to script so much.

Define cheating?

There's plenty of under-hand tactics being employed by the current manager and players. Let alone the actions of Man City & their previous managers being paid off the books to skirt around FFP rulings. Which they are currently under investigation for.

I'm sure you're well aware of Fernandinho telling the story of Bayern Munich asking Pep for his recommendation of signing KDB while Pep was there. But Pep kept saying no don't sign him as he won't fit into the team etc. Man City signed KDB and then Pep rocks up to Man City the following summer with his main man waiting for him.

Good piece in todays Times on City.

It is but 2½ weeks since we were digesting the reality that Manchester City had won their fourth consecutive Premier League title and thus established themselves as statistically the most dominant club in English football history. That is not enough, though. This latest news tells us that from this position of unprecedented dominance, they actually intend to run away from the rest of the pack.

In the midst of the legalese, the endgame here is frightening. It is not about being frontrunners in the Premier League competition, it is more about rendering the competition redundant because if you lift financial constraints, which is what they are fighting for in court, then you create a two-horse race for nation state-owned clubs, with Chelsea, whose owners are partly Saudi-funded, trundling along in third.

Managing the financial disparity among its 20 clubs is a complicated game which the Premier League has been attempting to play. On the one hand, it wants to reward the well-off and ambitious yet, simultaneously, it wants to limit the possibility of this disparity killing the competition. It could be argued — and it has been in these pages — that the balance isn’t quite right at present. No, it probably isn’t. However, this is the nuclear option.

This legal challenge by City is a battle about cutting loose from the rules and in so doing, it would cut them loose from the other 19 clubs. Sorry, the other 18 clubs. Newcastle United will have a fingers-crossed front-row seat in the gallery.

There are some elements to this legal challenge that are staggering in their audacity. City are challenging the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules that the Premier League signed up to in December 2021. Yet, like all the clubs, City had themselves signed off on the new rules. They may not have voted for them but as signatories to the Premier League agreement, they nevertheless put their name to them and agreed to abide by them. That is how the Premier League works; it is a private club governed by the majority vote.

City’s legal challenge is about both the past and the future. For the past, this attempt to determine that the rules regarding financial constraints have been unlawful, could have a significant impact on the 115 charges against them. It asks the question: were some of those charges based on rotten law?

For the future, it says: can we now use the freedom of our financial muscle to do whatever we like?

Those 115 charges — still just charges — are a portrayal of a club allegedly breaking the rules (that they had signed up to) in order to accelerate their commercial power and thus to achieve spending parity with the market leaders, the Manchester Uniteds and the Chelseas.

That parity was achieved with impressive speed. This lawsuit, however, is an attempt to accelerate beyond parity and to leave the rest of the game in their wake.

Somewhere in all this there is surely a deal to be made. You drop the charges, we’ll drop the lawsuit. And then it may all go away. But City will have gamed the system. Whichever way you look at it, City are trying to beat the system.

Within its 165-page legal document, City argue that the rules approved by their rivals were implemented to stifle their success; they call this a “tyranny of the majority”. What they mean is that they cannot live with a democracy.

Yet the success of the Premier League is founded on the principles of democratic decision-making. A system of majority-agreement governance ensures that the Premier League remains a competition that the majority want to compete in.

It is this that Manchester City are seeking to detonate in court next Monday. My colleague Matt Lawton reports that this has sparked “civil war in English football’s top flight”. Indeed, the clubs must fight tooth and nail; they have everything to fight for.

Its very clear City feel that they are going to get walloped by the 115 charges so are trying to circumvent them and essentially obliterate the notion of any sort of a level playing field. Everything about them is hollow, from the hyper inflated sponsorship to the complete apathy their winning the treble last season or the league this season was met with from everyone, including their own fans.

If they win this case they the PL may as well pull down the shutters because the league is completely bricked.

This is also the first time I can recall a journo in a major publication criticising them in any way. Id expect to see more as the potential ramifications and their intentions become clearer.

The thing that really stands out for me is that the very idea of competition is of no importance to them whatsoever. They don’t care about the integrity of the leagues or cups they compete in.

The APT rules as they are would still have them at the very top end of sponsorship revenue, and they would still be able to compete for big trophies, sign great players etc. It’s outrageous really that that’s not enough. They’re seemingly happy to burn football to the ground as long as they’re standing on top of the ashes.

It must be immensely frustrating for people who are so used to just using money to get their way to have to deal with a democratic organisation, but really, tough shít, that’s what they signed up to. They can pump all the money into City that they like but City will never be too important to placate - they could be relegated tomorrow and wouldn’t impact the value of the PL in the slightest. If the PL loses this fight and City are placated, well as you say, may as well shut up shop at that point.

City can of course challenge any rule they feel is illegal. But they shouldn’t break them all, deny breaking them all, and then challenge their legality.

“We are innocent and we have proof”

“Your rules are illegal”

“We are suing you for making us defend ourselves after breaking rules that we should never have had to follow and didn’t anyway”

Edited out cause of mod comment.

In a way, he's always been 32

A club not offering new multi-year contracts to players who will be 33 for the new season, after back are coming back from serious injuries, is not exactly a big deal externally. It certainly is not an indication of their opinion of their abilities. It's just a data-led decision and while being cold about it, probably the smart thing to do.