It is kinda hilarious how the old school big clubs all rushed these rules in only to end up being the ones with a gun pointed at them, now that they've found interest free loans should count under these rules too 😂 How was that not always the case? Surely giving free money with no intent to repay a loan is worse than small inflation to a sponsor deal?
The loans rates are low cause it's a small interest rate of 3.5 or 2 percent interest rate to pay back. It's the same when owners take a loan to buy a club they go on low interest rates to pay back but put the debt on the club like the glazers did and have done with man utd the club has that debt not the owners of the club but the low payment are 2 to 3 percent interest rates.
@@mattieharris3747 What the Glazers has been banned for a long time & is something only they did, I'm not talking about United here cause it would imply the glazers put money into the club which they never have. This is about all the other owners who pumped money into the club with loans often never designed to be paid back, only if they sell their shares which they never do. The point is you can't moan about slightly inflated sponsor deals & apply to many tight checks as you think it's owners pumping money into the club....and then apply 0 checks to owners loaning the club money which is a similar thing? Also mate...Glazers rates where not 2 or 3%, if that was case club wouldn't have made almost £1bn just in interest payments since 2004...whilst the debt still stands at $600m...which is same as it was 20 years ago.
Unlawful, unlawful, unfair, unfair and unreasonable. These are the findings of the tribunal. This confirms that some clubs are corrupted and aided by the PL.
@@juliusoba6488 What the Premier League says: The Premier League's statement said that Manchester City "brought a wholesale challenge" to the APT rules and were "unsuccessful in the majority" of the challenge. It added the tribunal deemed the APT rules to be necessary and that if prices above fair market value were paid then "competition will be distorted as the club would be benefiting from a subsidy". The league also said the tribunal had "rejected Manchester City's argument that the object of the APT rules was to discriminate against clubs with ownership from the Gulf region". Its statement also said that, except in the two respects where City won, the tribunal found that City's arguments were "unfounded, including on any alleged inconsistency in approach as between certain types of clubs".
The rules prove it's unfair for example Mike Ashley had sports direct sponsorships all over st James park and newcastle didn't make a penny from them so obviously now the new sponsorships they get now are going to be a lot higher the premier league shouldn't base it ion previous income deals as some previous owners we clueless in regards to the commercial side of things
United earn their money. United, Liverpool and arsenal have to go through decades to build the revenue that comes in through earning fans, trophies along the way. We aren't fake clubs with oil money.
FFP is there to draw a line between owners & clubs . They partly there to stop clubs from going bankrupt from owners moving on or themselves going bankrupt. They are there to stop another Leeds or Portsmouth
23 of the 25 charges against the league were thrown out. 2 of them need a slight adaptation. Apparently that's a win for City. Well, thats what sky were reporting yesterday 🤷♂️🤦♂️😂
Aapparently premier league won...that's wwhy they are calling an emergency meeting next week to rewrite the rules which they have won 😂😂😂@@matthewbaker2573
They only help competition. If these “anti competitive laws” go and clubs can spend as much as they like the league gets less competitive. Small clubs like Southampton and Bournemouth won’t be able to compete.
@olliec1429 the league is not competitive now as ffp rules only benefits the top 6 clubs so no matter what every season the top 6 is out spending everyone else and keeping them in the top 6 now tell me how is that competitive?
That's your own fiction mate, the rules were upheld. Sports leagues don't operate in the same way as free markets. You should educate yourself before speaking.
@@paulstones1451 You're just making things up and regurgitating uneducated talking points. The rules exist to create a ceiling on spending, inequality in football was not caused by FFP/PSR rules, it was caused due to their absence. Over time these rules will reduce inequality in football, thereby helping smaller teams to compete with the bigger teams, any credible economist will tell you that. Spinning this as a Big 6 conspiracy is brain dead, you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.
@@paulstones1451 So you want to increase the increase that gap? How is that fair on the other clubs? How are any of the lower clubs of promoted championship sides supposed to compete with the top 6 if they’re allowed to spend as much money as they want? At this point in time, there are match ‘upsets’ but that won’t be the case and smaller clubs beating larger clubs will become much rarer thus, making the league less competitive.
@@victormuchori4042 Eventually, it won't happen for a while. They'll lose, they'll appeal, they'll fail the appeal and then challenge the rules themselves.
Any Premier League claim of victory is crazy... In any legal argument, all you have to do is find one part to be unlawful to bring the whole lot down... That is how legal argument works and this out of control Premier League statement may well find themselves in court again. City warned the Premier League at the time not to push the rules through as they were unlawful and that they would legally challenge them... Premier League truly are now showing desperation and my thought would be that more trouble lays ahead for them, as trying to claim any victory at this point is brainless and more proof of "Abusing its dominant position!"
@@matthewbaker2573 They brought it in under pretence. Of stopping clubs going bust. But the red shirted american owned clubs did not want debt included.. so blab about that when the 115 are looked at and see what comes out! Emails were demanded from the Premier League. They painted a disgraceful picture which bodes well for our 115 case.
There are a couple of points. The value of a sponsorship deal is what a company is prepared to pay. The EPL's perception of value can be biased. Also, some shirt sponsors of some clubs are from companies that don't really exist, and in Chelsea's case last year, the value was deemed okay at many times the company's annual turnover, which sounds questionable. Bottom line is the red cartel don't want anyone gate crashing their party.
I can understand why the fa put the rules in place. It's to stop over inflation of sponsorship and transfer deals but to have those deals be based on proper market deal on transfers and sponsorships to keep clubs based on proper inflation rate
We've all seen the emails football leaks hacker made public. Who is currently in prison for....... hacking city's network. You have to be a complete thicko to believe that they will get away with it. Both forest and Everton will have serious legal cases against the league where they could sue them for MILLIONS in damages if they aren't charged accordingly 👍
What do you propose? PL goes bankrupt, loses all their TV deals, so the big six clubs + Newcastle and Aston Villa can join a super league, while the other teams in England can disappear?
Chelsea have been doing that for ages under the oligarch Roma since early 2000s, he changed the game. Chelsea owed his shell companies like $1.5bn+ by time he sold in interest free loans that were never meant to be repaid
Nobody can stop honesty and clean money from being given to the company from fans or sponsorship deals. The money should not have any mortgage or loans attached to it?
One easy way to end all these back-door financing and legal issues is to accept match-day gate proceeds and player sales as a club's only true financial power. A club can have sponsorship and others but should be excluded from overall wealth. It will be fair play for all clubs, and we can keep track of money.
I'm deeply suspicious of these 'Independent' tribunals where City are concerned. If I ran the PL, I'd be onto the Lawyers that drafted the rules in the first place for my money back. The clubs play in the PL by consent not by right, this ruling will be the death of the PL. Newcastle have more money than City by some margin and will blow them out of the water come transfer market which means the rest will just hand onto their coat tails. Etihad lost Billions and Billions for years but could still bung City 100's of millions over those years. That isn't normal.
@@Adam-f9b To be fair Chelsea where hardly that 'flagship' once until 2 decades ago. Overtime things change, you see city shirts everywhere, kids grown up following etc. It's how clubs become 'big' overtime, sure to those of us old enough we still recall the thomas cook days, but times change fast
How many times do you have to explain this story we all agree money will be exchanged and city will receive the minimum punishment for the highest amount of corruption in football history
City went into the case trying to get rid of APT (associated party transaction) and FMV (fair market value) rules, in the end the rules were upheld AND strengthened. City lost.
So arsenal. Have 250 million in owner interest free loans! Say you put just 5% on these. Thats say 12.5 million a year interest. Or 37 million över 3 years... how much did forest & Everton löses över 3 years. And lost points för? Think the 2 clubs should sue Arsenal
Even if they were interest free loans which by the sounds of it they are not. They were not in the rules at the time. Moving forward they won’t be able to continue doing this and I’m sure the clubs involved will adjust their methods
@@richardf766 I mean owner loans with NO interest Just say your owned lends the club 200 mil. No interest. Now. He will have to charge market place interest. And that will go on the account balansen sheets as a cost. Say 15 million per year As a by.. see this Emails were demanded from the Premier League. They painted a disgraceful picture which bodes well for our 115 case.
@@richardf766 @richardf766 I mean owner loans with NO interest Just say your owned lends the club 200 mil. No interest. Now. He will have to charge market place interest. And that will go on the account balansen sheets as a cost. Say 15 million per year As a by.. see this Emails were demanded from the Premier League. They painted a disgraceful picture which bodes well for our 115 case.
@@jakecollett4184 The 115 is not about fair market value. It’s much worse than that. You should read the case so you have an understanding of what is at stake.
@@juliusoba6488what about the payments to managers and players from outside the club. The refusal to access of their accounts. We all saw the files football leaks hacker rui pinto made public, who is currently in prison for hacking city's system. You have to be a complete thicko if you think they are innocent
It is kinda hilarious how the old school big clubs all rushed these rules in only to end up being the ones with a gun pointed at them, now that they've found interest free loans should count under these rules too 😂 How was that not always the case? Surely giving free money with no intent to repay a loan is worse than small inflation to a sponsor deal?
The loans rates are low cause it's a small interest rate of 3.5 or 2 percent interest rate to pay back. It's the same when owners take a loan to buy a club they go on low interest rates to pay back but put the debt on the club like the glazers did and have done with man utd the club has that debt not the owners of the club but the low payment are 2 to 3 percent interest rates.
Small inflation 😂😂😂😂
@@mattieharris3747 What the Glazers has been banned for a long time & is something only they did, I'm not talking about United here cause it would imply the glazers put money into the club which they never have. This is about all the other owners who pumped money into the club with loans often never designed to be paid back, only if they sell their shares which they never do. The point is you can't moan about slightly inflated sponsor deals & apply to many tight checks as you think it's owners pumping money into the club....and then apply 0 checks to owners loaning the club money which is a similar thing? Also mate...Glazers rates where not 2 or 3%, if that was case club wouldn't have made almost £1bn just in interest payments since 2004...whilst the debt still stands at $600m...which is same as it was 20 years ago.
@@mattieharris3747 interest free loans we’re talking about
Muslims aren't allowed to charge or accept interest on loans.
Unlawful, unlawful, unfair, unfair and unreasonable. These are the findings of the tribunal.
This confirms that some clubs are corrupted and aided by the PL.
@@juliusoba6488 What the Premier League says:
The Premier League's statement said that Manchester City "brought a wholesale challenge" to the APT rules and were "unsuccessful in the majority" of the challenge.
It added the tribunal deemed the APT rules to be necessary and that if prices above fair market value were paid then "competition will be distorted as the club would be benefiting from a subsidy".
The league also said the tribunal had "rejected Manchester City's argument that the object of the APT rules was to discriminate against clubs with ownership from the Gulf region".
Its statement also said that, except in the two respects where City won, the tribunal found that City's arguments were "unfounded, including on any alleged inconsistency in approach as between certain types of clubs".
@@matthewbaker2573 Lol, we need to see the actual judgement
The rules prove it's unfair for example Mike Ashley had sports direct sponsorships all over st James park and newcastle didn't make a penny from them so obviously now the new sponsorships they get now are going to be a lot higher the premier league shouldn't base it ion previous income deals as some previous owners we clueless in regards to the commercial side of things
imagine city sue premier league for 500 million unless they drop 115
If your clubs not in jeopardy you should be able to spend what u want like Man U do
United earn their money. United, Liverpool and arsenal have to go through decades to build the revenue that comes in through earning fans, trophies along the way. We aren't fake clubs with oil money.
FFP is there to draw a line between owners & clubs . They partly there to stop clubs from going bankrupt from owners moving on or themselves going bankrupt. They are there to stop another Leeds or Portsmouth
The haters are mad!!
23 of the 25 charges against the league were thrown out. 2 of them need a slight adaptation.
Apparently that's a win for City.
Well, thats what sky were reporting yesterday 🤷♂️🤦♂️😂
Aapparently premier league won...that's wwhy they are calling an emergency meeting next week to rewrite the rules which they have won 😂😂😂@@matthewbaker2573
@@matthewbaker2573The tribunal said UNLAWFUL.
@@matthewbaker2573Go and read page 164 of the judgement.
Who are skysports trying to fool? City won the cases that matter
Sky sports news have deleted their video from yestetday that said man city won this case 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yeah they got a call from the prem telling them to remove it. The prem is trying to change the narrative
The rules go against anti competitive laws and need to change
They only help competition. If these “anti competitive laws” go and clubs can spend as much as they like the league gets less competitive. Small clubs like Southampton and Bournemouth won’t be able to compete.
@olliec1429 the league is not competitive now as ffp rules only benefits the top 6 clubs so no matter what every season the top 6 is out spending everyone else and keeping them in the top 6 now tell me how is that competitive?
That's your own fiction mate, the rules were upheld. Sports leagues don't operate in the same way as free markets. You should educate yourself before speaking.
@@paulstones1451 You're just making things up and regurgitating uneducated talking points. The rules exist to create a ceiling on spending, inequality in football was not caused by FFP/PSR rules, it was caused due to their absence. Over time these rules will reduce inequality in football, thereby helping smaller teams to compete with the bigger teams, any credible economist will tell you that. Spinning this as a Big 6 conspiracy is brain dead, you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.
@@paulstones1451 So you want to increase the increase that gap? How is that fair on the other clubs? How are any of the lower clubs of promoted championship sides supposed to compete with the top 6 if they’re allowed to spend as much money as they want? At this point in time, there are match ‘upsets’ but that won’t be the case and smaller clubs beating larger clubs will become much rarer thus, making the league less competitive.
This is a witch hunt
Been Stockport for life
Yes agreed. Man City should leave the Premier League alone and stop cheating
What's the matter. Upset you support cheaters. I'm sure you'll find another team to hop to. Whoever is winning no doubt
How dare the premier league single out a club just for breaking rules, 115 times.
@@a-walpatches6460 the funny part is......
They stopped at 2018.
There is still a few years to announce 🤷♂️😂
Man city winning matches and cases..a sight to behold😊
No the premier league definitely did not win !
2 aspects need to be adjusted 23/25 actions were upheld. How did they not?
@@user-zr6ee6lb9mso if City get found guilty on 10 out of the 115 charges you'd say City had won?
Would love to hear from the tribunal cuz someone is lying
HOLD THAT STUPID PREMIER LEAGUE, WE OWN THIS LEAGUE 😂😂😂
This has nothing to do with the 115-130, charges, you're still getting kicked out of the league.
@@a-walpatches6460 you really think that🤣
@@victormuchori4042 Eventually, it won't happen for a while. They'll lose, they'll appeal, they'll fail the appeal and then challenge the rules themselves.
U bought the league lol
@@a-walpatches6460 I think the premier league made huge claims they just can't prove
Manchester City in there minds 24/7
Any Premier League claim of victory is crazy... In any legal argument, all you have to do is find one part to be unlawful to bring the whole lot down... That is how legal argument works and this out of control Premier League statement may well find themselves in court again.
City warned the Premier League at the time not to push the rules through as they were unlawful and that they would legally challenge them...
Premier League truly are now showing desperation and my thought would be that more trouble lays ahead for them, as trying to claim any victory at this point is brainless and more proof of "Abusing its dominant position!"
Can we turn football back into an actual sport instead of a global money laundering operation please?
Good luck with that 😂. Money is root of evil.
So basically City won but Premier League are trying to show face by making up excuses
i dont know whats the issue of investing more money . big name players doesnt mean success
What a lovely outcome. 2 competitors, but both won. We need more of this in life.
So owners going forward will have to charge interest on their loans to their club?
Cuts out another abramovich.
how can unlawful be a win?lol
PSR/ FFP. Should take DEBT INTO ACOUNT
NO MORE THAN 50 MILLION för any club
@@stanh8071 it's to do with income and outgoings.
If a club is in debt, they have loan repayments. That's all that counts.
Your blabbering 😂😂😂😂
@@matthewbaker2573
They brought it in under pretence. Of stopping clubs going bust. But the red shirted american owned clubs did not want debt included.. so blab about that when the 115 are looked at and see what comes out!
Emails were demanded from the Premier League. They painted a disgraceful picture which bodes well for our 115 case.
There are a couple of points. The value of a sponsorship deal is what a company is prepared to pay. The EPL's perception of value can be biased. Also, some shirt sponsors of some clubs are from companies that don't really exist, and in Chelsea's case last year, the value was deemed okay at many times the company's annual turnover, which sounds questionable. Bottom line is the red cartel don't want anyone gate crashing their party.
How can both claim victory lol, we know PL lost and will lose the 115/130 charges too
Everton will pay for it : - 10 points again.
Everton supported MC over this😊
where is it online send a link anyone
I can understand why the fa put the rules in place. It's to stop over inflation of sponsorship and transfer deals but to have those deals be based on proper market deal on transfers and sponsorships to keep clubs based on proper inflation rate
I expect City to spew their wrath on the other clubs who went against them through sheer jealousy!
▪︎If PL Charges proved
▪︎City to be Relegated
▪︎If PL Charges unproven
▪︎Nothing to happen,PL to get away?😂
We've all seen the emails football leaks hacker made public. Who is currently in prison for....... hacking city's network.
You have to be a complete thicko to believe that they will get away with it.
Both forest and Everton will have serious legal cases against the league where they could sue them for MILLIONS in damages if they aren't charged accordingly 👍
What do you propose? PL goes bankrupt, loses all their TV deals, so the big six clubs + Newcastle and Aston Villa can join a super league, while the other teams in England can disappear?
The loaning of finance without interest to clubs,came after man city started getting under the table,why kaveh didn't you bring in your statement?
Under table finance
Chelsea have been doing that for ages under the oligarch Roma since early 2000s, he changed the game. Chelsea owed his shell companies like $1.5bn+ by time he sold in interest free loans that were never meant to be repaid
How do you know this?
@@hussienjammal2254 evidence? whoops no
There can be only one winner
Nobody can stop honesty and clean money from being given to the company from fans or sponsorship deals. The money should not have any mortgage or loans attached to it?
I can taste ur tears Kaveh 😂😂😂😂😂.
Apt rule cannot mix up with ffp. They are not link together no matter what .
I have never seen so much tears from sky sports😭
If city get away with it, makes a mockery of the Everton and forest points deduction for only 1 offence
The rule of the Red Cartel criminals is over
1 down. Hold onto your pants Red Cartel aka EPL
Clear as mud to me...
One easy way to end all these back-door financing and legal issues is to accept match-day gate proceeds and player sales as a club's only true financial power. A club can have sponsorship and others but should be excluded from overall wealth. It will be fair play for all clubs, and we can keep track of money.
Hahaha yes City 💙...PL in dirt 🤡
This has nothing to do with the 115 charges tho…
😂😂
Where’s the relegation?
I'm deeply suspicious of these 'Independent' tribunals where City are concerned. If I ran the PL, I'd be onto the Lawyers that drafted the rules in the first place for my money back. The clubs play in the PL by consent not by right, this ruling will be the death of the PL. Newcastle have more money than City by some margin and will blow them out of the water come transfer market which means the rest will just hand onto their coat tails. Etihad lost Billions and Billions for years but could still bung City 100's of millions over those years. That isn't normal.
Even with all these rules the league is not competitive enough as the top 6 will always dominate and you will never see clubs like wolves win it
Er what? Villa and Newcastle are better then Man Utd and a lot better than Chelsea have been until this season.
Leicester City: “Am i a joke to you?”
@@a-walpatches6460 true but I just want the small to win the premier league more often it’s always the big 6 I love and respect the small clubs too
Wolves??? Lol 😂 they want to protect the red cartel clubs!
But they will punish Everton again 😂
Poor man united, arsenal and liverpool can't handle City on the pitch 😂😂
Changed your tune now! Deleting tweets city won the case yesterday when the lost 23 out of 25 😂 Your absolute gutter press
Proves the level of reporting from sky.
Even funnier the people that listen to them
Proper divs 😂
And won 2 that really matter..
@@GermanChickenwing the two they "won" need tweeking. That's it 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@matthewbaker2573 Cool with it if lawful and fair ..City would sue again if not
@GermanChickenwing city will be in league 2 by then
Money talks .
You can't deny that
More like influence
Stop behaving as if the PL isn't the richest league in the world!!!!
*Nothing is going happen* to Manchester City, a fine at most. They're the flagship team of UK⚽and a big part of its revenue and branding.
Flagship 😂😂😂
I've got shirts older than man city's "flagship"
@Adam-f9b best team in England by far. Most successful in Europe In the last 10 years. Do you have something to say?
@@Adam-f9b To be fair Chelsea where hardly that 'flagship' once until 2 decades ago. Overtime things change, you see city shirts everywhere, kids grown up following etc. It's how clubs become 'big' overtime, sure to those of us old enough we still recall the thomas cook days, but times change fast
@@trevorstatham4451in every other sport, cheaters have their titles stripped.
Last I checked. Football is a sport 🤷♂️
Why talk so slow omg
Being owned by a country should be unlawful. Such a plastic club.
Corruption😂😂😂
How many times do you have to explain this story we all agree money will be exchanged and city will receive the minimum punishment for the highest amount of corruption in football history
Highest amount of corruption? There’s literally no proof at this moment in time. And Italian match fixing is far worse
HIP HIP HOORAY ! 🙌🎉
City went into the case trying to get rid of APT (associated party transaction) and FMV (fair market value) rules, in the end the rules were upheld AND strengthened. City lost.
Deluded 😂😂
@@aaront8614 Read the judgement, it's publicly available.
City city city
So arsenal. Have 250 million in owner interest free loans!
Say you put just 5% on these. Thats say 12.5 million a year interest. Or 37 million över 3 years... how much did forest & Everton löses över 3 years. And lost points för?
Think the 2 clubs should sue Arsenal
Even if they were interest free loans which by the sounds of it they are not. They were not in the rules at the time. Moving forward they won’t be able to continue doing this and I’m sure the clubs involved will adjust their methods
You do know Everton have over 400mil of these loans
loans are paid back, but sponsorship deals are not.Theres about 16 other clubs with loans, why single out Arsenal?
@@richardf766
I mean owner loans with NO interest
Just say your owned lends the club 200 mil. No interest. Now. He will have to charge market place interest. And that will go on the account balansen sheets as a cost. Say 15 million per year
As a by.. see this
Emails were demanded from the Premier League. They painted a disgraceful picture which bodes well for our 115 case.
@@richardf766
@richardf766
I mean owner loans with NO interest
Just say your owned lends the club 200 mil. No interest. Now. He will have to charge market place interest. And that will go on the account balansen sheets as a cost. Say 15 million per year
As a by.. see this
Emails were demanded from the Premier League. They painted a disgraceful picture which bodes well for our 115 case.
Witch hunt
🔝
Booo
Guess this will be just a slap on the wrist
First!
That Man City sponsorship deal with Etihad was completely over valued in 2009 and 2011
That’s what you and other rival fans think. The problem is that you don’t get to determine what is valuable to a sponsor.
@@juliusoba6488 guess we’ll wait to hear what the court case says later in the year
@@jakecollett4184 The 115 is not about fair market value. It’s much worse than that.
You should read the case so you have an understanding of what is at stake.
@@juliusoba6488what about the payments to managers and players from outside the club. The refusal to access of their accounts.
We all saw the files football leaks hacker rui pinto made public, who is currently in prison for hacking city's system.
You have to be a complete thicko if you think they are innocent
@@juliusoba6488 I mean part of the 115 is to do with the inflated sponsorship dealing, but I’m sure you’ll tell all about it if not
City wins the case....10 points from Everton