Generic small time football blather thread FOREVER

[wykikitoon 28542]

 

 

That chicken got destroyed last night

[thebrokendoll 14245]

about time our leaders stopped being such a bunch of tarts and wrote a few strongly worded letters of our own....

 

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/nswe-join-forces-man-city-30404174

[PaddockLad 22498]

 

 

[Optimistic Nut 496]

9 hours ago, PaddockLad said:

 

 

 

I know they spend bucket loads but I reckon there's at least 2 recent titles they don't win if it's not for him, like. 

[LondonBlue 1141]

On 16/11/2024 at 06:51, RobinRobin said:

@LondonBlue

Not going away 🙂 

 

 

 

maybe it's an age thing but i find myself confused by a big white rectangle

 

 

 

[RobinRobin 14503]

9 hours ago, LondonBlue said:

 

 

maybe it's an age thing but i find myself confused by a big white rectangle

 

 

 

Not sure what has happened there since I posted. Looks as though @toonotl could see something. 

Was a BBC Sport link about city's lawyer's response to the proposed news rules with the threat of further legal action. 

New Premier League APT rules 'unlawful' - Man City - https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c8rlm680j0mo

Probably this. 👍 

[LondonBlue 1141]

9 hours ago, RobinRobin said:

Not sure what has happened there since I posted. Looks as though @toonotl could see something. 

Was a BBC Sport link about city's lawyer's response to the proposed news rules with the threat of further legal action. 

New Premier League APT rules 'unlawful' - Man City - https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c8rlm680j0mo

Probably this. 👍 

 

ah yes. beggars belief that they're looking to bring in amended rules just before the tribunal outcome is announced.

 

i suspect they'll get voted in and city will look at it carefully then restart court proceedings. 

 

[RobinRobin 14503]

14 hours ago, LondonBlue said:

 

ah yes. beggars belief that they're looking to bring in amended rules just before the tribunal outcome is announced.

 

i suspect they'll get voted in and city will look at it carefully then restart court proceedings. 

 

Especially around the suggestion that previous shareholder loans issues would be ignored. 

Sounds as though the Villa owner is going to vote against as well. 

[toonotl 4681]

I'm hoping this whole shareholder loan debacle sees the entire system crumble. Doubt it. But one can dream. It's remarkable that shareholder loans were excluded in the first place and only came to be challenged on the back of the PL, acting as the personalised attack dog of the "big club" establishment", in trying to fuck over City. It's as Gemmers has said on numerous occasions: this is a situation in desperate needed of independent regulation.

 

On the topic of rules introduced to fuck us over by the way, does the club own St. James' Park? If so it'd be just tops if the Saudi's injected some cash to help the club purchase new land for a new stadium, a purchase exempt from PSR considerations, if I'm not mistaken, since land purchase would be capital expenditure, and then immediately sold St. James' Park to a PIF subsidiary for massive "profit" before the PL could rush through a new rule to stop us doing exactly what Chelsea did in selling off their own hotels to themselves to raise a few hundred million worth of PSR headroom. That would be just peachy.

 

So long as I'm understanding this racket correctly, there is nothing to stop us doing such a thing. Is that correct, so-called accountants?

Edited November 22, 2024 by toonotl

[RobinRobin 14503]

41 minutes ago, toonotl said:

I'm hoping this whole shareholder loan debacle sees the entire system crumble. Doubt it. But one can dream. It's remarkable that shareholder loans were excluded in the first place and only came to be challenged on the back of the PL, acting as the personalised attack dog of the "big club" establishment", in trying to fuck over City. It's as Gemmers has said on numerous occasions: this is a situation in desperate needed of independent regulation.

 

On the topic of rules introduced to fuck us over by the way, does the club own St. James' Park? If so it'd be just tops if the Saudi's injected some cash to help the club purchase new land for a new stadium, a purchase exempt from PSR considerations, if I'm not mistaken, since land purchase would be capital expenditure, and then immediately sold St. James' Park to a PIF subsidiary for massive "profit" before the PL could rush through a new rule to stop us doing exactly what Chelsea did in selling off their own hotels to themselves to raise a few hundred million worth of PSR headroom. That would be just peachy.

 

So long as I'm understanding this racket correctly, there is nothing to stop us doing such a thing. Is that correct, so-called accountants?

Leased from the city council so can't sell St James' Park. 

[ewerk 39233]

We can sell the stadium, just not the ground it sits on.

[LondonBlue 1141]

or do a chelsea and build a hotel and sell it to yourselves

 

oh don't know if it's connected but our new stand will have a hotel attached 😏

[LondonBlue 1141]

 

if this vote doesn't go City's way, and you'd expect the premier league not to hold the vote if they didn't think they have 14 in the bag, then i'd expect City to immediately take it to a new tribunal (assuming the "unlawful" aspects are still present). if that happens and City win again then the premier league will look very very bad.

 

everton should vote with us but they might not be able to given the whole shareholder loans aspect.

 

i worry about what happens if City lose and the american owned clubs grow in number

 

actually nah i don't do worry, i'll always have Agueroooooooooo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LondonBlue 1141]

the new rules have been voted through

 

Edited November 22, 2024 by LondonBlue

[LondonBlue 1141]

The Premier League shareholders meeting in London started at 9AM and an outcome on the vote communicated at 9:24AM with the result being 16 clubs in favour, and four against.

[ewerk 39233]

Man City to Masters on the way out of the meeting.

 

[LondonBlue 1141]

"IF" the rules are still unlawful then is this a case of the tyranny of the majority

[LondonBlue 1141]

Of course the new rules might be golden but it just seems silly when the outcome of the tribunal is due

[LondonBlue 1141]

City
Villa
Newcastle
Forest

Clubs who voted against. (Ben Rumsby, telegraph).

[wykikitoon 28542]

So has fuck all changed and we are still being bummbed by the Red CUnts etc

[LondonBlue 1141]

4 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

City
Villa
Newcastle
Forest

Clubs who voted against. (Ben Rumsby, telegraph).

 

welcome to the Rebel Alliance

 

[LondonBlue 1141]

7 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

So has fuck all changed and we are still being bummbed by the Red CUnts etc

 

I hope City wait on the outcome of the Tribunal before deciding on any course of action. 

We should take our own advice or we look dumb.

 

[Gemmill 63200]

The situation is so ludicrous man. Would you like the rules to change so they are fairer, but they would become fairer by removing a loophole that a majority of the league has benefited from? 

 

Yes that sounds like it would be a good thing to do.

 

Ok let's just run that by the majority of clubs....

 

Yeah, they said no, so we'll need to come up with a set of rules that they like because they get to vote on them, and we won't get them through otherwise. 

 

This is a multi billion pound operation being run like a mafia round table. 

Edited November 22, 2024 by Gemmill

[wykikitoon 28542]

Imagine the likes of Sainsburys and ASDA etc doing the same to Barrys mini market on the corner.  

[Sonatine 13479]

Says a lot about the clubs outside of the so called "Top 4 or Top 6" who seem just content to display no ambition other than just staying in the league and pocketing the money