Derby

[SteMiS]

So Derby counted has now accumulated a 21 point deduction for breaching Profit and Sustainability rules, together with an effective ban on transfers for the rest of the season and a salary cap. As a result, they are almost certain to be relegated.

In contrast the big six get a light slap on the wrist (£3.5m each, probably a few months salary for one of their players) for basically trying to undermine the Premier League for their own financial benefit. No hint of a point deduction because that would be unfair on the fans and players.

I think we all know who runs the Premier League...

[Stan]

Feel sorry for the Derby fans with the pathetic way the club has been used and abused by those upstairs.

[BobbyD]

In contrast the big six get a light slap on the wrist (£3.5m each, probably a few months salary for one of their players) for basically trying to undermine the Premier League for their own financial benefit. No hint of a point deduction because that would be unfair on the fans and players.

I think we all know who runs the Premier League...

The clubs in the PL own the league, the League doesn't own the clubs. The fact that independent businesses were in any way sanctioned for exploring potential opportunities outside the auspices of an international body which does nothing but leach off the club game and get investigated for corruption is shocking and should in itself constitute a restraint of trade.

The PL is owned and run by, the 20 clubs in the PL.

[SteMiS]

In contrast the big six get a light slap on the wrist (£3.5m each, probably a few months salary for one of their players) for basically trying to undermine the Premier League for their own financial benefit. No hint of a point deduction because that would be unfair on the fans and players.

I think we all know who runs the Premier League...

The clubs in the PL own the league, the League doesn't own the clubs. The fact that independent businesses were in any way sanctioned for exploring potential opportunities outside the auspices of an international body which does nothing but leach off the club game and get investigated for corruption is shocking and should in itself constitute a restraint of trade.

The PL is owned and run by, the 20 clubs in the PL.

So not the big 6 then. Strange how the rules don't seem to apply to them then... - viewtopic.php?p=455103#p455103

[BobbyD]

In contrast the big six get a light slap on the wrist (£3.5m each, probably a few months salary for one of their players) for basically trying to undermine the Premier League for their own financial benefit. No hint of a point deduction because that would be unfair on the fans and players.

I think we all know who runs the Premier League...

The clubs in the PL own the league, the League doesn't own the clubs. The fact that independent businesses were in any way sanctioned for exploring potential opportunities outside the auspices of an international body which does nothing but leach off the club game and get investigated for corruption is shocking and should in itself constitute a restraint of trade.

The PL is owned and run by, the 20 clubs in the PL.

So not the big 6 then. Strange how the rules don't seem to apply to them then... - viewtopic.php?p=455103#p455103

Literally as a point of fact,no. If there really were a big 6 and they ran it then the Premier, like responsible leagues, would have maintained the 5 sub rules after the allowance was made permanent, and whatbtge he'll have Newcastle got to do with a 'big 6'?

[SteMiS]

The clubs in the PL own the league, the League doesn't own the clubs. The fact that independent businesses were in any way sanctioned for exploring potential opportunities outside the auspices of an international body which does nothing but leach off the club game and get investigated for corruption is shocking and should in itself constitute a restraint of trade.

The PL is owned and run by, the 20 clubs in the PL.

So not the big 6 then. Strange how the rules don't seem to apply to them then... - viewtopic.php?p=455103#p455103

Literally as a point of fact,no. If there really were a big 6 and they ran it then the Premier, like responsible leagues, would have maintained the 5 sub rules after the allowance was made permanent, and whatbtge he'll have Newcastle got to do with a 'big 6'?

Total diversion

[BobbyD]

So not the big 6 then. Strange how the rules don't seem to apply to them then... - viewtopic.php?p=455103#p455103

Literally as a point of fact,no. If there really were a big 6 and they ran it then the Premier, like responsible leagues, would have maintained the 5 sub rules after the allowance was made permanent, and whatbtge he'll have Newcastle got to do with a 'big 6'?

Total diversion

How so? The prem is, as I already said and I'm sure you are aware, literally owned by the 20 clubs in it.

The Premier League is a private company wholly owned by its 20 Member Clubs who make up the League at any one time.

- https://www.premierleague.com/about

Not entirely sure what point you are trying to make, but you are making it badly.

[SteMiS]

Literally as a point of fact,no. If there really were a big 6 and they ran it then the Premier, like responsible leagues, would have maintained the 5 sub rules after the allowance was made permanent, and whatbtge he'll have Newcastle got to do with a 'big 6'?

Total diversion

How so? The prem is, as I already said and I'm sure you are aware, literally owned by the 20 clubs in it.

The Premier League is a private company wholly owned by its 20 Member Clubs who make up the League at any one time.

- https://www.premierleague.com/about

Not entirely sure what point you are trying to make, but you are making it badly.

The point I was making related to the fact that the 'Big 6' were in clear breach of rule L9 yet no action was taken. Instead they received a paltry fine (which actually wasn't a fine, but was a 'settlement' they themselves proposed). In contrast, when a team like Derby breaches the rules of their league, they get literally hung, drawn and quartered. Your 'defence' was an irrelevant reference to the 5 sub rule and some sort of dig at Newcastle United. As I said; diversion.

[dealtn]

Total diversion

How so? The prem is, as I already said and I'm sure you are aware, literally owned by the 20 clubs in it.

The Premier League is a private company wholly owned by its 20 Member Clubs who make up the League at any one time.

- https://www.premierleague.com/about

Not entirely sure what point you are trying to make, but you are making it badly.

The point I was making related to the fact that the 'Big 6' were in clear breach of rule L9 yet no action was taken. Instead they received a paltry fine (which actually wasn't a fine, but was a 'settlement' they themselves proposed). In contrast, when a team like Derby breaches the rules of their league, they get literally hung, drawn and quartered. Your 'defence' was an irrelevant reference to the 5 sub rule and some sort of dig at Newcastle United. As I said; diversion.

"No action was taken" and yet action was taken. There was a settlement (the exact terms of which aren't fully public) determined by the other 14 members, and individuals from the other 6 had contracts and appointments within the Premier League terminated. That might not be the response you wanted, but it was the path the member clubs (who make and enforce the rules) thought most appropriate and in the long term interests of the company.

Derby (and Reading) are members of a similar company representing the clubs of their League competition. The member clubs similarly looked at the breaches of their rules and applied a punishment accordingly.

The rules breached, and consequences to the Leagues whose rules they are, are quite different. It's not difficult to see why the punishments are also different (and in the case of Derby the Club and its owners are no more, so the legal implications are you can't "punish" the offender in the same way).

In both situations actions were taken, but with sufficiently different offences, across two different sets of rules, involving two different leagues, it isn't a surprise the outcomes are different. It is hard to argue in practice there has been inconsistency applied here.

[SteMiS]

How so? The prem is, as I already said and I'm sure you are aware, literally owned by the 20 clubs in it.

- https://www.premierleague.com/about

Not entirely sure what point you are trying to make, but you are making it badly.

The point I was making related to the fact that the 'Big 6' were in clear breach of rule L9 yet no action was taken. Instead they received a paltry fine (which actually wasn't a fine, but was a 'settlement' they themselves proposed). In contrast, when a team like Derby breaches the rules of their league, they get literally hung, drawn and quartered. Your 'defence' was an irrelevant reference to the 5 sub rule and some sort of dig at Newcastle United. As I said; diversion.

"No action was taken" and yet action was taken.

No action was taken against the directors. The Premier League handbook says that a person shall be disqualified from acting as a director of a club if, without the prior written approval of the Board, s/he is found by a commission to have entered into any agreement of any kind (whether by correspondence, heads of terms or memorandum of understanding) whether legally binding or otherwise, which includes an intention that the Club will participate in an Unapproved Competition or publicly announce (or approve a third party to publicly announce) the intention of the Club to participate in any Unapproved Competition.

Perhaps you could let me know the names of the disqualified directors of the clubs concerned?

[dealtn]

The point I was making related to the fact that the 'Big 6' were in clear breach of rule L9 yet no action was taken. Instead they received a paltry fine (which actually wasn't a fine, but was a 'settlement' they themselves proposed). In contrast, when a team like Derby breaches the rules of their league, they get literally hung, drawn and quartered. Your 'defence' was an irrelevant reference to the 5 sub rule and some sort of dig at Newcastle United. As I said; diversion.

"No action was taken" and yet action was taken.

No action was taken against the directors. The Premier League handbook says that a person shall be disqualified from acting as a director of a club if, without the prior written approval of the Board, s/he is found by a commission to have entered into any agreement of any kind (whether by correspondence, heads of terms or memorandum of understanding) whether legally binding or otherwise, which includes an intention that the Club will participate in an Unapproved Competition or publicly announce (or approve a third party to publicly announce) the intention of the Club to participate in any Unapproved Competition.

Perhaps you could let me know the names of the disqualified directors of the clubs concerned?

None that I am aware of, but in truth I haven't looked.

Since we asking each other questions can you inform of the commission that has been tasked with looking into this, such that the outcome you seek is possible?

[SteMiS]

"No action was taken" and yet action was taken.

No action was taken against the directors. The Premier League handbook says that a person shall be disqualified from acting as a director of a club if, without the prior written approval of the Board, s/he is found by a commission to have entered into any agreement of any kind (whether by correspondence, heads of terms or memorandum of understanding) whether legally binding or otherwise, which includes an intention that the Club will participate in an Unapproved Competition or publicly announce (or approve a third party to publicly announce) the intention of the Club to participate in any Unapproved Competition.

Perhaps you could let me know the names of the disqualified directors of the clubs concerned?

None that I am aware of, but in truth I haven't looked.

Since we asking each other questions can you inform of the commission that has been tasked with looking into this, such that the outcome you seek is possible?

No commission has been appointed which is interesting in itself. A serious breach of the rules has occurred and yet the Premier League has decided not to investigate it. How strange....

[dealtn]

No action was taken against the directors. The Premier League handbook says that a person shall be disqualified from acting as a director of a club if, without the prior written approval of the Board, s/he is found by a commission to have entered into any agreement of any kind (whether by correspondence, heads of terms or memorandum of understanding) whether legally binding or otherwise, which includes an intention that the Club will participate in an Unapproved Competition or publicly announce (or approve a third party to publicly announce) the intention of the Club to participate in any Unapproved Competition.

Perhaps you could let me know the names of the disqualified directors of the clubs concerned?

None that I am aware of, but in truth I haven't looked.

Since we asking each other questions can you inform of the commission that has been tasked with looking into this, such that the outcome you seek is possible?

No commission has been appointed which is interesting in itself. A serious breach of the rules has occurred and yet the Premier League has decided not to investigate it. How strange....

No the 14 members did investigate it. They decided it wasn't appropriate, for the collective good of the League, to appoint a commission. That doesn't sound strange to me.

I am sure there are many thousands of rules broken every day that don't result in the strictest punishment of the rule book.

I am fairly certain (although without public sight of the full settlement we don't know) this is still "open", so potentially not over. I think I am right in saying the 6 English Clubs remain members of the European Super League. I don't think they can resign and can only leave at the unanimous decision of the other 14(?) according to its constitution - which is potentially problematic.

I'm not sure what you are wanting, or expecting, as an outcome here.

[SteMiS]

No commission has been appointed which is interesting in itself. A serious breach of the rules has occurred and yet the Premier League has decided not to investigate it. How strange....

No the 14 members did investigate it. They decided it wasn't appropriate, for the collective good of the League, to appoint a commission. That doesn't sound strange to me.

They didn't investigate the breach of rule L9, otherwise they would have appointed a commission.

I am sure there are many thousands of rules broken every day that don't result in the strictest punishment of the rule book.

Bit of a cop out that. Undermining the structure of competitions at the highest level, for the sole financial interest of those involved, seems quite a serious breach of the rules wouldn't you say?

I'm not sure what you are wanting, or expecting, as an outcome here.

I'd quite like the rules to be applied equally and not to depend on who has broken them

[dealtn]

No commission has been appointed which is interesting in itself. A serious breach of the rules has occurred and yet the Premier League has decided not to investigate it. How strange....

No the 14 members did investigate it. They decided it wasn't appropriate, for the collective good of the League, to appoint a commission. That doesn't sound strange to me.

They didn't investigate the breach of rule L9, otherwise they would have appointed a commission.

They did investigate a breach of L9. They choose not to appoint a commission.

I am sure there are many thousands of rules broken every day that don't result in the strictest punishment of the rule book.

Bit of a cop out that. Undermining the structure of competitions at the highest level, for the sole financial interest of those involved, seems quite a serious breach of the rules wouldn't you say?

Yes, a very serious breach. Their serious response was to consider what should happen (and what still might). Their answer, disappointingly to you, was not the ultimate sanction, which might lead to the break up of the Premier League - hardly achieving that "structure of competitions at the highest level". There is precedent, ironically, in how the Premier League came into existence.

They decided not to ban individual Directors from their Clubs although it would have been interesting to see how they could enforce this (the FA has much more power here). They did insist on removing them from any Premier League role.

I'm not sure what you are wanting, or expecting, as an outcome here.

I'd quite like the rules to be applied equally and not to depend on who has broken them

They did apply the rules equally as far as I can tell. All 6 clubs were sanctioned. The other 14 didn't break any rules (as far as we know). What inequality are you referring to?

[SteMiS]

No the 14 members did investigate it. They decided it wasn't appropriate, for the collective good of the League, to appoint a commission. That doesn't sound strange to me.

They didn't investigate the breach of rule L9, otherwise they would have appointed a commission.

They did investigate a breach of L9. They choose not to appoint a commission.

Which is necessary for a formal investigation of a breach of L9, otherwise no sanction (under F1) could be levied.

I am sure there are many thousands of rules broken every day that don't result in the strictest punishment of the rule book.

Bit of a cop out that. Undermining the structure of competitions at the highest level, for the sole financial interest of those involved, seems quite a serious breach of the rules wouldn't you say?

Yes, a very serious breach. Their serious response was to consider what should happen (and what still might). Their answer, disappointingly to you, was not the ultimate sanction, which might lead to the break up of the Premier League - hardly achieving that "structure of competitions at the highest level". There is precedent, ironically, in how the Premier League came into existence.

So we are back to where we started. The 'Big 6' can do what they like, without serious consequences, because the Premier League are scared of the power they think they hold. However if the 6 thought they'd be better off leaving the Premier League, they would have. They didn't...

They decided not to ban individual Directors from their Clubs although it would have been interesting to see how they could enforce this (the FA has much more power here). They did insist on removing them from any Premier League role.

Certainly without appointing a Commission, which the Premier League failed to do

I'm not sure what you are wanting, or expecting, as an outcome here.

I'd quite like the rules to be applied equally and not to depend on who has broken them

They did apply the rules equally as far as I can tell. All 6 clubs were sanctioned. The other 14 didn't break any rules (as far as we know). What inequality are you referring to?

The rules in total. You've already agreed that it was a serious breach. The Premier League no doubt enforces breaches that are less serious for the game as a whole. Not enforcing more serious breaches because they are committed by a priviledged few isn't applying the rules (as whole) equally

[BobbyD]

What did or didn't happen, and whether it is a full enactment of company policy is completely irrelevant. The pl is in law and in fact owned by the 20 clubs in thebpl, and run according to their wishes. They may or may not run it as you see fit, but that is a matter for them as owners to jointly decide, and not a sign that it is actually run by a secret cabal of lizards from the planet zog.

I didn't introduce Newcastle, and pointing out that they aren't 't a part of the fictional big 6 is a statement of fact not a dig. It's also a terrible example of 'big 6' hegemony and a good example of corporate incompetence since the member clubs are widely at odds with the decision of their own ethics comittee and have moved to change the regulations with regard to future takeovers.

[SteMiS]

What did or didn't happen, and whether it is a full enactment of company policy is completely irrelevant. The pl is in law and in fact owned by the 20 clubs in thebpl, and run according to their wishes. They may or may not run it as you see fit, but that is a matter for them as owners to jointly decide, and not a sign that it is actually run by a secret cabal of lizards from the planet zog.

Once again, just full of diversion. I've never claimed the Premier League wasn't owned by the 20 current clubs (unless you can link to where I did?). Similarily, whether the rest of the Premier League do anything to stop it being effectively run by the Big 6 is a different matter from whether it is actually run by the Big 6. Parodying that as 'being run by a secret cabal of lizards from the planet zog' is more guff...

I didn't introduce Newcastle, and pointing out that they aren't 't a part of the fictional big 6 is a statement of fact not a dig. It's also a terrible example of 'big 6' hegemony and a good example of corporate incompetence since the member clubs are widely at odds with the decision of their own ethics comittee and have moved to change the regulations with regard to future takeovers.

You've literally contradicted yourself in the same sentence. You didn't 'introduce Newcastle' but 'you pointed out...'. I didn't introduce Newcastle into this thread (it was you, unless you can link to where I did?) and I've never claimed they are part of the Big 6. It's an irrelevance which is simple part of your attempt to divert.

The reason the PL consented to the takeover of NUFC is because they had no basis in law to prevent it. The PL may be able to turn a blind eye to it's rules when it suits the Big 6 but they can't just make up new ones retrospectively when the existing ones don't...

[BobbyD]

You've literally contradicted yourself in the same sentence. You didn't 'introduce Newcastle' but 'you pointed out...'. I didn't introduce Newcastle into this thread (it was you, unless you can link to where I did?) and I've never claimed they are part of the Big 6.

With pleasure:

So not the big 6 then. Strange how the rules don't seem to apply to them then... - viewtopic.php?p=455103#p455103

[SteMiS]

You've literally contradicted yourself in the same sentence. You didn't 'introduce Newcastle' but 'you pointed out...'. I didn't introduce Newcastle into this thread (it was you, unless you can link to where I did?) and I've never claimed they are part of the Big 6.

With pleasure:

So not the big 6 then. Strange how the rules don't seem to apply to them then... - viewtopic.php?p=455103#p455103

Eh? The quote doesn't even mention Newcastle...