Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
StanSP

Premier League 2024/25

By StanSP, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Fox85 said:

Wasn't sure where to put this but is this going to have any effect on Leicester 

Screenshot_20241007_203925_X.jpg

We already swapped that debt for equity 

not sure how much owner debt is left. (If at all)

They wont be able to apply retrospective interest costs because clubs have been following the rules as they were understood 

 

I reckon things will change for season ending 25/26 ref commercial interest costs being applied to owner debt 

Edited by st albans fox
South Notts NFFC

South Notts NFFC

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

 

He's a ****ing literal crime lord not to mention match fixer. He's ****ing nuts. 

 

I know you can't help who owns your club and it's not quite as ugly as, say, Newcastle but have some self awareness and shame. 

 

There are a few alleged offences back in Greece but that's all they are. You asked me what I thought about our owner (presumably so you could respond with this) and I've told you.

 

I can only comment about how he's been as an owner for Forest.

  • Like 3
trugerkem

trugerkem

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Fox85 said:

Wasn't sure where to put this but is this going to have any effect on Leicester 

Screenshot_20241007_203925_X.jpg

Leeds?… premier league …. I don’t think so 

  • Haha 2
filbertway

filbertway

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just been reading up on the APT rulings.

 

Man City arguing against interest free shareholder loans when they were 1 of 19 teams that voted in favour of it lol

 

Edited by filbertway
  • Haha 1
PhillippaT

PhillippaT

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, filbertway said:

Just been reading up on the APT rulings.

 

Man City arguing against interest free shareholder loans when they were 1 of 19 teams that voted in favour of it lol

 

The worm that turned...

davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-city-write-leicester-city-9614513

 

Man City write to Leicester City as they level 'misleading’ accusation against Premier League
Latest Leicester City news form LeicestershireLive as fallout continues from tribunal ruling with Man City now claiming rules are void


ByKeith WalesCVS Editor - Midland SportBy Jamie GardnerPA Chief Sports Reporter
13:46, 8 OCT 2024
Man City have questioned the Premier League interpretation of the associated party transaction ruling.
Battle lines drawn... Man City have questioned the Premier League interpretation of the associated party transaction ruling. (Image: PA Wire/PA Images)

Manchester City have accused the Premier League of “misleading” clubs over the legal case the champions fought over top-flight rules governing commercial deals.

City wrote to the other 19 clubs and the league on Monday night - including Leicester City - to challenge the interpretation of the outcome and insisting that all associated party transaction (APT) rules were now void.

“Regrettably, the summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies,” the club’s general counsel Simon Cliff wrote in an email seen by the PA news agency.

“Of even greater concern, however, is the Premier League’s suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next 10 days.


“When the Premier League consulted on and proposed the original APT Rules in late 2021, we pointed out that the process (which took several weeks) was rushed, ill-thought-out and would result in rules that were anti-competitive. The recent award has validated those concerns entirely.

“The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC’s position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void, and have been since 2021.”

City launched a legal challenge to the APT rules earlier this year on the grounds that they breached competition law. The APT rules are designed to ensure that to ensure commercial deals with entities linked to a club’s owners are done for fair market value and not artificially inflated.

City declared victory after the arbitration panel found the rules to be unlawful because they excluded shareholder loans. Cliff told clubs it was “peculiar” that the league had said in its summary that City were unsuccessful in the majority of their challenge.

“While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason. In the event, the tribunal found the APT rules are unlawful for three different sets of reasons,” Cliff wrote.

The league said changes to the rules arising from the tribunal judgement could be made “quickly and effectively” and is understood to have called a clubs meeting to discuss making those changes.

However, Cliff said this was not the time for a “kneejerk reaction” in revising the rules, which he warned could lead to further legal proceedings. He said there needed to be “careful reflection” on how to proceed.


The Premier League declined to comment but stands by its summary, and rejects any assertion that it was either inaccurate or misleading.

Sources close to the league also stressed that the clubs meeting called for next Thursday will simply be an opportunity to discuss the rules and that no votes on amendments to the rules will be taken.

The league’s summary said the tribunal ruling had “endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system” and only found “discrete elements” of the rules to be unlawful, which could be “quickly and effectively remedied” by clubs.

“Manchester City brought a wholesale challenge to the legality, design, framework and implementation of the APT rules,” the summary read.

“The club was unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge. Significantly, the Tribunal determined that the APT rules are necessary, pursued a legitimate objective and were put in place to ensure that the Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) are effective, thereby supporting and delivering sporting integrity and sustainability in the Premier League.”

As well as finding the rules unlawful because of the exclusion of shareholder loans, the tribunal also found them unlawful because they were procedurally unfair, in that clubs are unable to comment on the data the league relies upon when it makes decisions about whether a deal has been done for fair market value.

Decisions made by the Premier League board on the value of sponsorship deals with Etihad Airways and First Abu Dhabi Bank were also set aside by the tribunal on the grounds that City were unable to see, or respond to, the data used in making those decisions, prior to the decisions being relayed to the club.

  • Popular Post
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
41 minutes ago, sharpylcfc said:

Wonder how long it will be before this independent regulator comes in?

I dunno, I don't think we need one. The Premier League is doing a pretty excellent job of governing itself if you ask me.

  • Haha 10
  • Popular Post
Fox92

Fox92

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Wasn't it great when we could just watch football without all this PSR, FFP and clubs taking other clubs to court.

  • Like 5
TheStig

TheStig

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Think Pep will go too, knowing that 💩 might hit the fan..

Give him a real challenge. Come to Leicester and prove your worth without billions!

Jobyfox

Jobyfox

Posted
Posted

We might be the club who put the first nail into the coffin that is the PL’s PSR rule book. The damage that Man City could do may make the whole thing unravel. I’m not sure how sustainable it’s going to be for the PL to spend all its time in court fighting case after case while lawyers get rich interpreting the fine print of a rule book that already appears to be ambiguous. Will the clubs themselves vote it down? 
 

I still think that the way forward might be for owners to pay a bond that is recoverable if the club goes belly up. I’m not, however, knowledgeable enough in the world of finance to know whether that is really a practical suggestion.
 

Either way I’d like the ethos of the rules to be tested one day. They should always have been to prevent owners from taking clubs into financial peril and not to restrict competition and protect the status quo. I’m not convinced that the intent isn’t the latter. The big six will not, therefore, vote for anything that doesn’t protect their status 

ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted
On 07/10/2024 at 22:01, Chrysalis said:

This is what happens when a sport is governed by its participants instead of independent rule makers, and the laws of the country are not taken into account.

 

All they need to do is a fixed spending limit equal for each club, but the league just keeps resisting, its desperate to lock in advantages to the status quo.

Can Of Worms Cartoon Character Stock Illustration - Download Image Now - Can of Worms, Fishing Hook, Aluminum - iStock

 
  • Haha 1
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted

Some chat in the media that a few clubs were happy to be able to stick to the narrative that they couldn’t spend any more than they were due to PSR 

 

now concerned that Man City’s challenge to APT, if successful to the extent that rules are changed, could cause fanbases to wonder why their owners aren’t putting more of their dosh into the club. 

foxile5

foxile5

Posted
Posted

What a dystopian horror when this is what sport has become - a race to the bottom for equity over competition. 

 

This is so far divorced from what I fell in love with at Filbo. So ****ing grubby.

  • Like 2
  • Popular Post
ajthefox

ajthefox

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, FoxesTez said:

£750k fine for Forest for their rants about refs. 

 

https://www.thefa.com/news/2024/oct/07/nottingham-forest-sanctioned-071024

Amusing though it is that this is Forest, I think this is a joke frankly.

 

Forest's didn't go about things how they probably should have but the standard of refereeing is shite and there's never any accountability for bad decisions. This is more evidence that those running the show are looking after themselves and not the game.

  • Like 9

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...