3 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

Is it just me that hopes Mbappe never wins the CL while at Madrid. Comes across as an entitled little prick.  Always want PSG to fail too buy them winning it before Mbappe would be funny also.

I don't mind Mbappe that much, it's Neymar I can't stand.

On 02/06/2024 at 05:09, Sconnie Blue said:

That is wild from Ancelotti. 5 European cups lmao to think we sacked him. . 

Carlo is pure class, no touchline ranting and hysteria from him. Just a raised eyebrow!

Was reading that although he imposes a tactical structure he also trusts players to unlock their talents to work out their own solutions on the pitch .

The new breed are all Pep devotees , Carlo is an antidote to that endless,boring, ball recycling, possession based football.

With José and Carlo we really did have world class managers.

Someone said winning the Champions League with Real Madrid is like losing your virginity to a prostitute. 

16 hours ago, PloKoon13 said:

Nobody presents like this guy. There's a reason I still love him at the age of 61 even after he managed Tottenham. I hope Fenerbahçe win whatever tournaments we're not in.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c1een240ql1o

 

 

 

 He's great isn't he, always gets it.

Mind you , he'll have to go some to beat Graham Souness in Turkey , planting his club's flag on the centre circle of another club followed by a riot ! Can't recall the teams but wouldn't be surprised if José did similar!

37 minutes ago, Valerie said:

I don't mind Mbappe that much, it's Neymar I can't stand.

You don't like all that " rolling around" ??

🤣

2 hours ago, Valerie said:

I don't mind Mbappe that much, it's Neymar I can't stand.

Think he learned a lot from Neymar in the time they played together, but yeah Neymar is next level.  Don’t think Neymar can stand himself he’s always on the floor.

2 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

You don't like all that " rolling around" ??

🤣

Years of watching football must have numbed me 🤢

Quote

Manchester City have launched an unprecedented legal action against the Premier League in a move that has sparked civil war in English football’s top flight.

The dispute, which has become a battle between the most powerful clubs in the country, will be settled after a two-week private arbitration hearing starting on Monday.

The outcome could dramatically alter the landscape of the professional game and have a significant impact on a separate hearing set for November into City’s 115 alleged breaches of the Premier League’s regulations and financial rules. That hearing, expected to last six weeks, could lead to massive fines for the club owners and possibly even relegation for Pep Guardiola’s all-conquering side.

At next week’s hearing, which has provoked bitter divisions between clubs, City will attempt to end the league’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, which they claim are unlawful, and seek damages from the Premier League.

Introduced in December 2021 in the wake of the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle United, the rules are designed to maintain the competitiveness of the Premier League by preventing clubs from inflating commercial deals with companies linked to their owners. The rules dictate that such transactions have to be independently assessed to be of “fair market value” (FMV).

But within an 165-page legal document City argue that they are the victims of “discrimination”, describing rules they say have been approved by their rivals to stifle their success on the pitch as a “tyranny of the majority”.

If City are successful in their claim — and some rival clubs fear they will be — it could enable the richest clubs to value their sponsorship deals without independent assessment for the league, vastly boosting the amount of money they can raise and therefore giving them far greater sums to spend on players.

The league’s other 19 clubs have been invited to participate in the legal action and The Times understands between ten and 12 have stepped forward, providing either witness statements or a letter detailing evidence in support of the Premier League’s defence against the claim. Those who have provided witness statements may be called by the tribunal to give evidence at the hearing.

As well as the impact it could have on the Premier League as a competition, clubs fear City’s claim could also be key to the outcome of the hearing into their 115 alleged breaches between 2009 and 2023, with sponsorship deals funded by companies linked to Abu Dhabi central to the accusations against them.

It has been alleged that City concealed payments made by their owner Sheikh Mansour through third parties and disguised them as sponsorship revenue, which in itself was inflated. Even before the more recent moves by the Premier League to tighten regulation around APTs, there was a requirement under the league’s rules that related party transactions must be of fair market value. If such rules are now deemed unlawful, it could significantly strengthen City’s defence at the hearing later this year. City have denied any wrongdoing relating to the 115 charges.

Now, The Times can confirm, City carried out that threat, filing their claim on February 16, with the Premier League informing its member clubs in March that a date of June 10 had been set for the hearing.

City are suing the Premier League for damages, while arguing that the league’s democratic system of requiring at least 14 clubs, or two-thirds of those who vote, to implement rule changes gives the majority unacceptable levels of control. They accuse rival clubs of “discrimination against Gulf ownership”, citing the comments of one particular senior club executive.

City argue that sponsors linked to club owners — City’s are in Abu Dhabi — should be allowed to determine how much they want to pay, regardless of independent valuation. Four of City’s top ten sponsors have ties to the United Arab Emirates, including stadium and shirt sponsor Etihad Airways.

Newcastle, which is majority-owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, have a shirt sponsorship deal with Sela, a Saudi sports rights company. Chelsea have a shirt deal with Infinite Athlete, a leisure company which counts the joint-Chelsea owners Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali among its investors.

While The Times knows of at least one club that has submitted a witness statement in support of City for next week’s arbitration hearing, sources believe more than half have sided with the Premier League. The Premier League invited clubs to submit their statements in a letter from their general counsel, Kevin Plumb, on March 1.

Despite just winning a record fourth successive Premier League title, City claim rules introduced two and a half years ago are restrictive and anti-competitive.

Their rivals believe what City are doing will actually destroy the competitiveness of the world’s most popular league, allowing clubs with super-rich owners to spend unlimited amounts of money on their playing squads and infrastructure and nullify Financial Fair Play rules.

Millions are being spent on legal fees to fight this case. One senior club source says the Premier League’s legal bill has more than quadrupled in the past year, from about £5million to north of £20million. They also point to the fact that since February the Premier League’s own legal department has been forced to shift its focus to this claim when it is also trying to prepare for the hearing into City’s 115 charges. “This is clearly a tactic,” the source said.

City have certainly spared no expense in their potentially groundbreaking legal fight. They have appointed three KCs, with Lord Pannick supported by Paul Harris and Rob Williams. A fourth senior barrister who specialises in competition and regulatory law, David Gregory, is also on City’s team.

In their claim City are seeking “damages for the losses which it has incurred as a result of the unlawfulness of the FMV [fair market value] rules”, in particular for costs resulting from delays, sums they claim were not paid under agreed deals and additional costs, including the club’s inability to generate revenue from delayed or cancelled projects. This, clubs believe, could potentially amount to tens of millions.

Indeed, City’s claim says the club are seeking a split trial, with the first part focused on the APT rules followed by a second to then determine damages.

In his letter to clubs on March 1, Plumb detailed the nature of City’s legal challenge under Section X of the Premier League rules.

Plumb explained how the Premier League had to secure an order that enabled it to disclose the details of the arbitration to its member clubs and confirm that it was indeed City who had filed a claim. “The purpose of this letter is to provide those further details, within the bounds of the confidentiality of the proceedings, and to confirm the process by which any club may participate in the arbitration,” Plumb states.

He explained to clubs the detail of City’s claim that the rules are contrary to the Competition Act 1998.

Plumb then said the Premier League’s independent legal counsel believes the rules are compatible with English law and that they will fight the legal action.

On February 26 a directions hearing in the arbitration took place, with the tribunal appointed to hear the case giving the Premier League permission to provide a redacted copy of City’s statement of claim to other clubs, because they may be affected by the outcome of the challenge.

The tribunal set a date for the final hearing to take place from June 10 to June 21, with all witness statements due to be submitted by March 28 in line with the deadline for the Premier League’s statement of defence.

Clubs were given the option of either intervening formally in the proceedings, upon receiving permission from the tribunal, or submitting factual evidence on relevant matters.
Within the City claim is a challenge to the voting system upon which the Premier League’s decision-making process has long been built, which requires two-thirds of clubs to support a rule change. They say this allows a majority of clubs to exert a “tyranny” that damages the minority.

City also claim the fair market value rules are intended to be discriminatory towards clubs with ties to the Gulf region.

The claim says the rules were imposed at the instigation of certain rival clubs reacting to the Saudi takeover of Newcastle, with the aim to “safeguard their own commercial advantages”. They say rivals were seeking to limit deals from companies in the Gulf region, citing a quote from a senior executive from another club.

They claim the rules were “deliberately intended to stifle commercial freedoms of particular clubs in particular circumstances, and thus to restrict economic competition”.

City also complain that, when it comes to negotiating any form of sponsorship agreement, clubs in the north are at a disadvantage to those in London, saying they can charge higher ticket prices. However, rival clubs estimate that, based on median ticket prices at the Etihad Stadium and the seven Premier League clubs in London, City are ranked third.

City blame the Premier League for not regulating spending when clubs such as Manchester United were more dominant, arguing they have been prevented from monetising their brand in the way United did. City also say the rules penalise clubs who have “lower-profile sporting histories”.

In their claim, City also dismiss concerns that an inflated sponsorship deal with a company linked to the club’s ownership could be vulnerable to a change of ownership.

“There is no rational or logical connection between a club’s financial non-sustainability and its receipt of revenues from entities linked to ownerships,” City’s claim states. They say companies would honour sponsorships even if the club was sold to new owners.

As one Premier League source observed, this overlooks the fact it is common for sponsorship contracts to have clauses that mean the terms change under new ownership.

City argue that the Premier League have failed to provide evidence that sponsorship deals with related parties give clubs an unfair advantage or distort the league’s competitive balance.

They also say that the Premier League, as an organisation, is a direct competitor for sponsorship and therefore claim they have a conflict of interest.

Further to that, City question the independence of Nielsen Sports, the data analytics company used to determine the fair market value of sponsorship deals, because it has been retained by the Premier League for more than two years.

City complain that FMV rules discriminate against clubs who form part of a multi-club ownership group, and only apply to commercial deals and not shareholder loans.

Ultimately, City stand accused of breaking financial rules to spend close to £2billion building a team that now dominates the Premier League and in the 2022-23 season won a European and domestic Treble.

In their claim, City argue that the current rules will limit their ability to buy the best players and force them to charge fans more for tickets. They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.

Premier League clubs have a scheduled meeting in Harrogate on Thursday.

Manchester City did not respond when contacted for comment. The Premier League has declined to comment.

 

Not unrelated to several of the 115 charges against them. Along with obfuscation, withholding evidence, etc, they are charged with disguising ownership funding as sponsorship. 

If they win this, it will ruin the PL - no doubt about it. Imagine City and Newcastle being able to use their unlimited resources against the 18 clubs. It will make a complete mockery of the league. 
 

I am amazed that 10 other clubs support City as well. What on earth are they thinking?

1 hour ago, JM7 said:

If they win this, it will ruin the PL - no doubt about it. Imagine City and Newcastle being able to use their unlimited resources against the 18 clubs. It will make a complete mockery of the league. 
 

I am amazed that 10 other clubs support City as well. What on earth are they thinking?

I think City know they are done for. Pep leaving next summer and the charges against them are too much to disprove. 

What they are doing right now is what they've been doing since UEFA first charged them.  Delaying tactics. 

2 hours ago, JM7 said:

If they win this, it will ruin the PL - no doubt about it. Imagine City and Newcastle being able to use their unlimited resources against the 18 clubs. It will make a complete mockery of the league. 
 

I am amazed that 10 other clubs support City as well. What on earth are they thinking?

We're lucky to have been able to use our owners unlimited wealth  before spending regulations were put in place.

Those rules stop clubs from living the dream that we lived, and protects the club's with the most wealth .

They don't want another Chelsea crashing the party, or Newcastle,.

f**k em, I hope City win

 

2 hours ago, JM7 said:

If they win this, it will ruin the PL - no doubt about it. Imagine City and Newcastle being able to use their unlimited resources against the 18 clubs. It will make a complete mockery of the league. 
 

I am amazed that 10 other clubs support City as well. What on earth are they thinking?

We're definitely one of those clubs supporting it (unfortunately) especially given the struggles getting Clearlake tied sponsors over the line. 

26 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

I think City know they are done for. Pep leaving next summer and the charges against them are too much to disprove. 

What they are doing right now is what they've been doing since UEFA first charged them.  Delaying tactics. 

This doesn't delay it I don't think.

It's a 2 week hearing, the big one is November. Might be just flexing their muscles.

I agree with you, there should be no way they escape without major penalties on the big case..

When's the decision on our case due ? ( The Roman off the books payments)

1 minute ago, Term_X said:

We're definitely one of those clubs supporting it (unfortunately) especially given the struggles getting Clearlake tied sponsors over the line. 

We Supporting City or the PL mate ?

Just now, The Rising Sun said:

We Supporting City or the PL mate ?

Sorry just got what you mean 

1 minute ago, The Rising Sun said:

We Supporting City or the PL mate ?

City. 

Allows our Clearlake linked sponsorship deals to increase without scrutiny. 

15 minutes ago, Term_X said:

City. 

Allows our Clearlake linked sponsorship deals to increase without scrutiny. 

PL blocked our shirt sponsorship deal with Paramount because they didn't want to upset their current broadcasters by showing games with a rival's name on our shirts.

Todd and the legal team must be looking at it ?

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

PL blocked our shirt sponsorship deal with Paramount because they didn't want to upset their current broadcasters by showing games with a rival's name on our shirts.

Todd and the legal team must be looking at it ?

Yea, that was a loss, as the deal with Infinite was strategically reduced due to the size of the company post-merger/Clearlake stake. We’re also dodgy now, and if the selling off of hotels etc is anything to go by, we will do exactly what City want to do, regarding inflating sponsorship deals with companies that have Clearlake ties. 

As much as I want to put a dent in City & Newcastle’s plans personally, now Roman’s gone, we’re begrudgingly going to be on the same side as them. 

I like to think that we’re not as dodgy as City. Yes we will exploit loopholes legally but we don’t seem to have crossed any lines - so far. 
 

Bohley etc need to look at the bigger picture. Are they really saying they’re happy for City and Newcastle to spend what they want or remove any restrictions? It would be disastrous and they are living in dream land if they think they can compete with them. 

Most of the commentators are saying it’s bully boy tactics and tieing up PL’s limited lawyers in this case rather than the 115 chargers case. I.e. wasting their time and resources

As if todays football couldn’t get anymore depressing, we now have the richest, most powerful, most bent and most successful club using their state wealth to change the rules in the courts to guarantee they win every year. It’s that ONE season out of the last SEVEN where they didn’t win the league that must have really pissed them off.

They won't win, it's just a legal intimidation tactic. Their basis is limited at best but given the Gulf State influence in UK politics I would not rule out government intervention.

Clubs enter the league under contract with the EPL. There is no restriction on trade because clubs willingly agree to the rules of the competition. If you don't like the rules you can play in a different league and currently there is no restriction on Man City or any other club starting their own domestic English league.

Man City's argument is akin to going to a steakhouse and complaining that there are no vegan options. In court.

City will soon join Barca and Real in spearheading the Super League. 

8 hours ago, Snedger said:

As if todays football couldn’t get anymore depressing, we now have the richest, most powerful, most bent and most successful club using their state wealth to change the rules in the courts to guarantee they win every year. It’s that ONE season out of the last SEVEN where they didn’t win the league that must have really pissed them off.

I hope they win, the current rules are just about keeping the historical big boys at the top, unreachable. Keep the majority of money flowing there way, same as G14 group was, same as it always is.