Football Finance
- Thread starter King Binny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
It's occurred to me that IF City are found guilty, and are to be relegated as part of their punishment, they should be deducted a symbolic 115 points. 115 for the number of charges, and 115 because it's one point more than they could gain if they won every game, so they'd be guaranteed to be relegated even if three other teams didn't manage to secure a single point.
And I quite like the idea of them playing out a whole season knowing it won't make any fucking difference what they achieve. Because that's how it's been for the rest of us for most of the last 15 years.
And I quite like the idea of them playing out a whole season knowing it won't make any fucking difference what they achieve. Because that's how it's been for the rest of us for most of the last 15 years.
No.
6 Pts per transgression, in line with Everton's punishment - so a total of 690 Pts. They get used over multiple seasons to leave them on 0 Pts each year.
So if they get 90 points in the PL this season, they get 90 deducted, leaving 600 Pts in the deficit bank, relegation and start again in the Championship.
That way they are guaranteed multiple successive relegations, while their motivation to win matches is just to slow down the slide a teensy bit
And by the time they’re back in credit, in 8 years time, they can start their climb back up from the 9th tier… which would be North West Counties Division 1.
That’d be great for them and the entire world can piss themselves at the irony of Man City’s new derby being against a team called Maine Road… from Chorlton-cum-Hardy… which sounds like Moron with his hands on a bag of frogs.
Should be about 20+ years before they get back to the top.
Just read a rumour that the Friedkjn takeover of Everton is valued at around £400m. What isn't clear is whether this is what Moshiri / Usmanov get in total, or whether their loans (£447m at June 2023) will be repaid too.
If it's the latter, the loss is a mere £100m (based on June 2023 figures). If it's the former, the loss is £547m. Over half a billion quid.
Either way, great work lads.
If it's the latter, the loss is a mere £100m (based on June 2023 figures). If it's the former, the loss is £547m. Over half a billion quid.
Either way, great work lads.
The club has made a filing with Companies House that indicates it has just renewed / extended its banking facilities. The filing doesn't give details about how much the facility is for, but in recent years we have built in more flexibility on each renewal (we had capacity to draw down up to £300m under the old deal). The way we use our facilities, there is generally a (fairly small) amount that is effectively a loan (i.e. we rarely have a zero-balance on the facility) but it is generally used to navigate the lumpy cash flow profile of the business through the year.
It's just housekeeping really, no drama. All under control. The new deal will probably be for 3-4 years.
It's just housekeeping really, no drama. All under control. The new deal will probably be for 3-4 years.
Are you saying we’re renewing our overdraft facility because we’re not confident this is the year Barca finally pay us the money they owe for Coutinho???!
Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. But it’s Villa who owe us the money now (astonishingly, he’s still a Villa player).
The durty hallions!!!!
You may have seen some talk in the media about a case brought by Lassana Diarra which challenges FIFA's transfer rules.
The case itself concerns a specific set of circumstances which are so unusual that they don't, on the face of it, seem to present much of an issue. Basically, Diarra was alleged to have breached his contract by his club, and the courts found in the club's favour. That meant that if the player were to sign for another club, his existing club could sue him and his new club for damages. This essentially meant he wasn't free to move within the EU and he argued that was a breach of his right to free movement. The ECJ found in his favour and said FIFA's transfer rules are incompatible with EU law. The EU law aspect of this means that, post Brexit, a UK club wouldn't be affected by the principle in law, but it means that FIFA needs to fix its rules so that they are compatible for EU countries, which collectively are the financial powerhouse of global club football. And those changes would apply globally, so they would affect us, regardless of Brexit.
The issue with the decision is how far it goes. The specific circumstances of Diarra's case are rare, perhaps even unique. But what if a player were to argue his club had breached the terms of his contract with them (for example, a Chelsea player arguing that demotion to a B squad, rather than being available for first team selection, constitutes breach of contract terms)? If that were held to be the case, he could move on a free transfer, and that would torpedo Chelsea's business plan of harvesting players for re-sale.
But more than that, and I may be taking this out of context because I haven't read the decision, the judgment states:
"First, the rules in question are such as to impede the free movement of professional footballers wishing to develop their activity by going to work for a new club, established in the territory of another Member State of the European Union...Those rules impose considerable legal risks, unforeseeable and potentially very high financial risks as well as major sporting risks on those players and clubs wishing to employ them which, taken together, are such as to impede international transfers of those players.”
This could be read as to say the obligation to pay a transfer fee where a player wants to move from one EU country to another is a breach of EU law. You could still make an argument for transfer fees domestically, but not between EU countries. So FIFA could leave the rules the same, but with a get-out for intra-EU deals, or they could change them for everyone. The former option would be anti-competitive. It would mean, for example, Real could sign Leroy Sane on a free, but an English could not. And no-one could sign an LFC player on a free unless he is out of contract. And, more troublingly, European clubs could poach promising youth players from lower-league clubs in other EU countries without paying a fee (e.g. Dortmund could have signed Haaland on a free).
EDIT - on the LFC point, it's arguable that EU players at LFC should still benefit from the freedoms (so, for example, Ryan could move to Madrid on a free as he is an EU citizen, but Harvey couldn't because he isn't an EU citizen).
So there might be a lot of hand-wringing about this, but it looks like FIFA will need to change the rules. At the more extreme end of things, this could spell the end of the transfer fee system, which means higher wages and massive agent fees (in effect, clubs will end up paying transfer-fee level of fees to agents to get them to persuade their clients to sign).
Potentially seismic, unless the context of that quote above is restricted specifically to Diarra's circumstances. Even then, I think it's only one more step to apply that principle to transfer fees.
The case itself concerns a specific set of circumstances which are so unusual that they don't, on the face of it, seem to present much of an issue. Basically, Diarra was alleged to have breached his contract by his club, and the courts found in the club's favour. That meant that if the player were to sign for another club, his existing club could sue him and his new club for damages. This essentially meant he wasn't free to move within the EU and he argued that was a breach of his right to free movement. The ECJ found in his favour and said FIFA's transfer rules are incompatible with EU law. The EU law aspect of this means that, post Brexit, a UK club wouldn't be affected by the principle in law, but it means that FIFA needs to fix its rules so that they are compatible for EU countries, which collectively are the financial powerhouse of global club football. And those changes would apply globally, so they would affect us, regardless of Brexit.
The issue with the decision is how far it goes. The specific circumstances of Diarra's case are rare, perhaps even unique. But what if a player were to argue his club had breached the terms of his contract with them (for example, a Chelsea player arguing that demotion to a B squad, rather than being available for first team selection, constitutes breach of contract terms)? If that were held to be the case, he could move on a free transfer, and that would torpedo Chelsea's business plan of harvesting players for re-sale.
But more than that, and I may be taking this out of context because I haven't read the decision, the judgment states:
"First, the rules in question are such as to impede the free movement of professional footballers wishing to develop their activity by going to work for a new club, established in the territory of another Member State of the European Union...Those rules impose considerable legal risks, unforeseeable and potentially very high financial risks as well as major sporting risks on those players and clubs wishing to employ them which, taken together, are such as to impede international transfers of those players.”
This could be read as to say the obligation to pay a transfer fee where a player wants to move from one EU country to another is a breach of EU law. You could still make an argument for transfer fees domestically, but not between EU countries. So FIFA could leave the rules the same, but with a get-out for intra-EU deals, or they could change them for everyone. The former option would be anti-competitive. It would mean, for example, Real could sign Leroy Sane on a free, but an English could not. And no-one could sign an LFC player on a free unless he is out of contract. And, more troublingly, European clubs could poach promising youth players from lower-league clubs in other EU countries without paying a fee (e.g. Dortmund could have signed Haaland on a free).
EDIT - on the LFC point, it's arguable that EU players at LFC should still benefit from the freedoms (so, for example, Ryan could move to Madrid on a free as he is an EU citizen, but Harvey couldn't because he isn't an EU citizen).
So there might be a lot of hand-wringing about this, but it looks like FIFA will need to change the rules. At the more extreme end of things, this could spell the end of the transfer fee system, which means higher wages and massive agent fees (in effect, clubs will end up paying transfer-fee level of fees to agents to get them to persuade their clients to sign).
Potentially seismic, unless the context of that quote above is restricted specifically to Diarra's circumstances. Even then, I think it's only one more step to apply that principle to transfer fees.
That will totally fuck clubs who operate on a development model though, no?
Potentially, if I'm reading the scope correctly. I've always thought the whole transfer system was vulnerable to EU law on freedom of movement it feels like this case (or the next one that pushes things further) may be the tipping point. It may even require the EU to intervene and change the law for football.
And it's funny in the case of a club like Chelsea. Less so for the Red Bull clubs who I feel do a good job of introducing overseas talent into European football in a less cynical manner (including allowing their players to have sensible buy-out clauses).
It's not even remotely funny for the lower league clubs who rely on bringing talent through their academies and selling those players on to keep them going.
So if FIFA is forced to abandon the transfer fee model all together, they're going to need to find a new model for supporting grass roots football.
I actually think a change to EU law to make an exception for football, whilst highly unlikely politically, is not as wild as it sounds, because strict application of the freedoms could really end up shafting smaller clubs.
A change in the law seems the most sane option. The United States has allowed American sports to have select antitrust exemptions in order to maintain the controlled landscape they enjoy. A similar arrangement seems possible here.
The USA where socialism is communism except when it comes to sports.
View: https://x.com/Lawton_Times/status/1843279614845870303
Well, football was funny as long as it lasted.
Club statement
Mon 07 Oct 2024, 14:30
Following today’s publication of the Rule X Arbitral Tribunal Award, Manchester City Football Club thanks the distinguished members of the Arbitral Tribunal for their work and considerations and welcomes their findings:
- The Club has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules have been found to be unlawful and the Premier League’s decisions on two specific MCFC sponsorship transactions have been set aside
- The Tribunal found that both the original APT rules and the current, (amended) APT Rules violate UK competition law and violate the requirements of procedural fairness.
- The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position.
- The Tribunal has determined both that the rules are structurally unfair and that the Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice.
- The rules were found to be discriminatory in how they operate, because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans.
- As well as these general findings on legality, the Tribunal has set aside specific decisions of the Premier League to restate the fair market value of two transactions entered into by the Club.
- The tribunal held that the Premier League had reached the decisions in a procedurally unfair manner.
- The Tribunal also ruled that there was an unreasonable delay in the Premier League’s fair market value assessment of two of the Club’s sponsorship transactions, and so the Premier League breached its own rules.
Mon 07 Oct 2024, 14:30
Following today’s publication of the Rule X Arbitral Tribunal Award, Manchester City Football Club thanks the distinguished members of the Arbitral Tribunal for their work and considerations and welcomes their findings:
- The Club has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules have been found to be unlawful and the Premier League’s decisions on two specific MCFC sponsorship transactions have been set aside
- The Tribunal found that both the original APT rules and the current, (amended) APT Rules violate UK competition law and violate the requirements of procedural fairness.
- The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position.
- The Tribunal has determined both that the rules are structurally unfair and that the Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice.
- The rules were found to be discriminatory in how they operate, because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans.
- As well as these general findings on legality, the Tribunal has set aside specific decisions of the Premier League to restate the fair market value of two transactions entered into by the Club.
- The tribunal held that the Premier League had reached the decisions in a procedurally unfair manner.
- The Tribunal also ruled that there was an unreasonable delay in the Premier League’s fair market value assessment of two of the Club’s sponsorship transactions, and so the Premier League breached its own rules.
I think City’s “win” is against interest free loans requiring a commercial interest being applied in the accounts for PSR. They still can’t over inflate sponsorship deals. Maybe we need Beamy’s big brain to go through it.
REVEALED: Clubs who gave evidence IN FAVOUR of the #PL against #ManCity over Associated Party Transaction rules:
Arsenal Manchester United LIVERPOOL West Ham Brentford Bournemouth Fulham Wolves
@MailSport
Arsenal Manchester United LIVERPOOL West Ham Brentford Bournemouth Fulham Wolves
@MailSport
So what does this mean for the 115? @Beamrider - please explain it in depth to everyone & then summarise it for me in no more than four words, like "City are still fucked"
Spurs are pussies
So are the other teams.
I'm out tonight but press reporting suggests people have seen the written judgement. It wasn't expected to be published. If it is publicly available then I'll take a look and give you my take, but it won't be until late tonight / tomorrow.
This might just be the longest night of your lives.
If anyone finds a link to the judgement then please let me know - usually the PL puts out a statement with a link but they haven't this time.
This might just be the longest night of your lives.
If anyone finds a link to the judgement then please let me know - usually the PL puts out a statement with a link but they haven't this time.
Similar threads
