|
|
Post by danceswithclams on Oct 7, 2024 17:54:15 GMT
You do realise we are a wanky yo-yo club? Yo-Yos go back up. |
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Oct 7, 2024 17:58:10 GMT
You do realise we are a wanky yo-yo club? Yo-Yos go back up. Hmmm. I could never manage it.  |
|
|
|
Post by st3mark on Oct 7, 2024 18:11:12 GMT
This is nothing to do with the 115 charges then?
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 7, 2024 18:27:14 GMT
“ Within the ruling it also emerged that Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, and West Ham gave evidence in favour of the Premier League, along with Brentford, Bournemouth, Fulham, and Wolves.” Big clubs who don’t want outside investment to compete with them and mostly wankey clubs likely to yo-yo who don’t want the rest of the championship competing with them financially when they inevitably plummet. Fairly transparent You do realise we are a wanky yo-yo club? We would have definitely been one of clubs giving evidence in favour of the PL if we were still in the league. We've never been a yo yo club |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 7, 2024 18:27:29 GMT
This is nothing to do with the 115 charges then? No |
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Oct 7, 2024 18:33:49 GMT
You do realise we are a wanky yo-yo club? We would have definitely been one of clubs giving evidence in favour of the PL if we were still in the league. We've never been a yo yo club We do go up every 3k years and down every 10 to be fair 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Oct 7, 2024 18:55:45 GMT
As I understand it , the judgement is consistent with FFP subject to the PL changing the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Oct 7, 2024 18:58:30 GMT
What's the bigger picture? Sustainability? Agreed if the vote was 15 years ago and Stoke were only sustainable by PL cash. Bigger picture being we do now have the money to blow those clubs out of the water should the Coates family want too. We aren’t where we used to be. I’d view it similar to Chelsea pre abramovich with Ken Bates. Should we ever be able to spend money this ruling makes it harder as any investment has to be equity immediately as debt now has to be market level interest bearing. Not a huge issue more technical |
|
|
|
Post by BrummiePotter on Oct 7, 2024 19:00:42 GMT
I cant see how this is going to make any difference to Stoke? Precisely. This is a Premier League rule that's being debated and we are nowhere near getting back into the PL. The EFL has different rules which constrain us, and their rules are even more bizarre by the fact that the Championship is different to League One and Two. What Birmingham City are currently spending just shows how ridiculous the Championship rules are - they're building a squad that will romp the League and probably get them promoted to the PL in a season or two and yet we're unable to spend the deposits from 2 bottles of Corona! |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Oct 7, 2024 19:04:59 GMT
Denise is brilliant at business. Who's to say she'd be happy giving Stoke city a few hundred million? When time Stoke spray money around like confetti it doesn't end well. Better the manager proves his worth by wheeling and dealing and earns a budget. |
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Oct 7, 2024 19:15:43 GMT
From the article in the Mail:
"In a statement of no fewer than 1,248 words, the Premier League said it 'welcomed' the panel's findings 'which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system'.
It added: 'The tribunal did, however, identify a small number of discrete elements of the rules which do not, in their current form, comply with competition and public law requirements. These elements can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs.'
The statement added that the APT system would continue to operate 'taking into account the findings made by the tribunal'. " [My bold]
Seems from that they've just identified a few loopholes which they've now going to close and it will be as you were?
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 7, 2024 19:35:01 GMT
From the article in the Mail: "In a statement of no fewer than 1,248 words, the Premier League said it 'welcomed' the panel's findings 'which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system'. It added: 'The tribunal did, however, identify a small number of discrete elements of the rules which do not, in their current form, comply with competition and public law requirements. These elements can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs.'The statement added that the APT system would continue to operate 'taking into account the findings made by the tribunal'. " [My bold] Seems from that they've just identified a few loopholes which they've now going to close and it will be as you were? Yes that's my understanding- no substantive changes, if anything it's just clarified and tightened the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Oct 7, 2024 19:38:12 GMT
From the article in the Mail: "In a statement of no fewer than 1,248 words, the Premier League said it 'welcomed' the panel's findings 'which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system'. It added: 'The tribunal did, however, identify a small number of discrete elements of the rules which do not, in their current form, comply with competition and public law requirements. These elements can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs.'The statement added that the APT system would continue to operate 'taking into account the findings made by the tribunal'. " [My bold] Seems from that they've just identified a few loopholes which they've now going to close and it will be as you were? Yes that's my understanding- no substantive changes, if anything it's just clarified and tightened the rules. Yeah, exactly my thoughts, from reading that article. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 7, 2024 19:43:00 GMT
From the article in the Mail: "In a statement of no fewer than 1,248 words, the Premier League said it 'welcomed' the panel's findings 'which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system'. It added: 'The tribunal did, however, identify a small number of discrete elements of the rules which do not, in their current form, comply with competition and public law requirements. These elements can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs.'The statement added that the APT system would continue to operate 'taking into account the findings made by the tribunal'. " [My bold] Seems from that they've just identified a few loopholes which they've now going to close and it will be as you were? A couple of words of advice/caution on this. Like all such judgements, you are advised to read the judgment itself, and if necessary take informed advice on its implications, rather than accept simplistic newspaper headlines or message Board interpretations which may not have done that. The judges tested the current PL rules against the current law. Both of those things can be altered. The PL can alter its rules to take account of this judgement. The new football regulator will have a duty to promote sustainability in the game. Whatever view is taken of the current rules (either those of the PL or the EFL) I hope that we support measures to promote fairness sustainability in the game, and not reach judgements based on assumptions ( which might be false) about how Stoke City might benefit because our (current) owners are (relatively) rich. |
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Oct 7, 2024 20:29:41 GMT
From the article in the Mail: "In a statement of no fewer than 1,248 words, the Premier League said it 'welcomed' the panel's findings 'which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system'. It added: 'The tribunal did, however, identify a small number of discrete elements of the rules which do not, in their current form, comply with competition and public law requirements. These elements can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs.'The statement added that the APT system would continue to operate 'taking into account the findings made by the tribunal'. " [My bold] Seems from that they've just identified a few loopholes which they've now going to close and it will be as you were? A couple of words of advice/caution on this. Like all such judgements, you are advised to read the judgment itself, and if necessary take informed advice on its implications, rather than accept simplistic newspaper headlines or message Board interpretations which may not have done that. The judges tested the current PL rules against the current law. Both of those things can be altered. The PL can alter its rules to take account of this judgement. The new football regulator will have a duty to promote sustainability in the game. Whatever view is taken of the current rules (either those of the PL or the EFL) I hope that we support measures to promote fairness sustainability in the game, and not reach judgements based on assumptions ( which might be false) about how Stoke City might benefit because our (current) owners are (relatively) rich. I agree with you. I guess that's why I put my interpretation with a question mark. And I agree that fairness and sustainability in the game is more important than how Stoke City as an individual club might benefit. That broader perspective is what we should all be thinking of really. |
|
|
|
Post by BristolMick on Oct 7, 2024 20:44:33 GMT
From the article in the Mail: "In a statement of no fewer than 1,248 words, the Premier League said it 'welcomed' the panel's findings 'which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system'. It added: 'The tribunal did, however, identify a small number of discrete elements of the rules which do not, in their current form, comply with competition and public law requirements. These elements can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs.'The statement added that the APT system would continue to operate 'taking into account the findings made by the tribunal'. " [My bold] Seems from that they've just identified a few loopholes which they've now going to close and it will be as you were? A couple of words of advice/caution on this. Like all such judgements, you are advised to read the judgment itself, and if necessary take informed advice on its implications, rather than accept simplistic newspaper headlines or message Board interpretations which may not have done that. The judges tested the current PL rules against the current law. Both of those things can be altered. The PL can alter its rules to take account of this judgement. The new football regulator will have a duty to promote sustainability in the game. Whatever view is taken of the current rules (either those of the PL or the EFL) I hope that we support measures to promote fairness sustainability in the game, and not reach judgements based on assumptions ( which might be false) about how Stoke City might benefit because our (current) owners are (relatively) rich. Blackburn Rovers won the league when Jack Walker decided he’d pour in his personal wealth to compete with the big clubs. The big clubs didn’t like that. The big clubs with their millions of glory hunting parasites funding them will always be the big winners from the so say FFP rules. Financial fair play sounds great but presently the only thing it achieves or probably even wants to achieve is to keep the big clubs big and make sure that they always have the best chance of winning all the trophies! As a Stoke fan I detest any regulation that is designed to stop my club from competing at the highest level other than as a make weight every now and then! BM |
|
|
|
Post by J-Roar on Oct 7, 2024 20:59:02 GMT
You do realise we are a wanky yo-yo club? We would have definitely been one of clubs giving evidence in favour of the PL if we were still in the league. We've never been a yo yo club Disagree. We're just on a 20 year long string. |
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Oct 7, 2024 23:45:08 GMT
We've never been a yo yo club Disagree. We're just on a 20 year long string. A Foucault pendulum club. |
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Oct 8, 2024 1:34:07 GMT
From the article in the Mail: "In a statement of no fewer than 1,248 words, the Premier League said it 'welcomed' the panel's findings 'which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system'. It added: 'The tribunal did, however, identify a small number of discrete elements of the rules which do not, in their current form, comply with competition and public law requirements. These elements can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs.'The statement added that the APT system would continue to operate 'taking into account the findings made by the tribunal'. " [My bold] Seems from that they've just identified a few loopholes which they've now going to close and it will be as you were? A couple of words of advice/caution on this. Like all such judgements, you are advised to read the judgment itself, and if necessary take informed advice on its implications, rather than accept simplistic newspaper headlines or message Board interpretations which may not have done that. The judges tested the current PL rules against the current law. Both of those things can be altered. The PL can alter its rules to take account of this judgement. The new football regulator will have a duty to promote sustainability in the game. Whatever view is taken of the current rules (either those of the PL or the EFL) I hope that we support measures to promote fairness sustainability in the game, and not reach judgements based on assumptions ( which might be false) about how Stoke City might benefit because our (current) owners are (relatively) rich. ‘Fairness and sustainability’ that means clubs with the most supporters always get to spend the most and win everything ? I can’t understand why we should support any sort of system that limits the chances of a club such as ours breaking the ‘glory hunter’ monopoly. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Oct 8, 2024 4:11:29 GMT
Fairness? What’s fair about Birmingham being allowed to spend what they want? What’s fair about the clubs coming down from the prem having a big advantage on spending power competing in the same league as the rest?
What’s fair about owners wanting to spend their own money in a local business that doesn’t reflect as a debt not being able to do so?
What’s fair about owners who suffer on the income trying to help fans out by keeping season ticket prices frozen for about 16 years and free away travel when clubs have to have as much coming in as they can?
They can shove their fairness
|
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Oct 8, 2024 6:42:26 GMT
Denise is brilliant at business. Who's to say she'd be happy giving Stoke city a few hundred million? When time Stoke spray money around like confetti it doesn't end well. Better the manager proves his worth by wheeling and dealing and earns a budget. since we’re not owned by Bet365 anymore Denise won’t be giving us money anyway , it’s all out of JC’s pocket now |
|
|
|
Post by J-Roar on Oct 8, 2024 6:44:22 GMT
Disagree. We're just on a 20 year long string. A Foucault pendulum club. There's no need for that. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 8, 2024 7:36:20 GMT
We've never been a yo yo club We do go up every 3k years and down every 10 to be fair 😉 Well depends on definition of yo yo club To me it means a relegation followed by a promotion (or the other way around) the following season We have done it once 100 years ago when we slipped down to Div 3 north and won it at a canter |
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Oct 8, 2024 8:00:47 GMT
Disagree. We're just on a 20 year long string. A Foucault pendulum club. We are just a YO club. |
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on Oct 8, 2024 8:20:39 GMT
A Foucault pendulum club. We are just a YO club. Which bit though the YO or the YO? |
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Oct 8, 2024 10:29:50 GMT
Denise is brilliant at business. Who's to say she'd be happy giving Stoke city a few hundred million? When time Stoke spray money around like confetti it doesn't end well. Better the manager proves his worth by wheeling and dealing and earns a budget. since we’re not owned by Bet365 anymore Denise won’t be giving us money anyway , it’s all out of JC’s pocket now I wonder where JC's money comes from ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Linx on Oct 8, 2024 11:22:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Oct 8, 2024 11:34:25 GMT
since we’re not owned by Bet365 anymore Denise won’t be giving us money anyway , it’s all out of JC’s pocket now I wonder where JC's money comes from ?? obviously his wages and dividends from bet365 , that doesn’t mean they’ll be funding us from now on |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 8, 2024 11:46:27 GMT
A couple of words of advice/caution on this. Like all such judgements, you are advised to read the judgment itself, and if necessary take informed advice on its implications, rather than accept simplistic newspaper headlines or message Board interpretations which may not have done that. The judges tested the current PL rules against the current law. Both of those things can be altered. The PL can alter its rules to take account of this judgement. The new football regulator will have a duty to promote sustainability in the game. Whatever view is taken of the current rules (either those of the PL or the EFL) I hope that we support measures to promote fairness sustainability in the game, and not reach judgements based on assumptions ( which might be false) about how Stoke City might benefit because our (current) owners are (relatively) rich. Blackburn Rovers won the league when Jack Walker decided he’d pour in his personal wealth to compete with the big clubs. The big clubs didn’t like that. The big clubs with their millions of glory hunting parasites funding them will always be the big winners from the so say FFP rules. Financial fair play sounds great but presently the only thing it achieves or probably even wants to achieve is to keep the big clubs big and make sure that they always have the best chance of winning all the trophies! As a Stoke fan I detest any regulation that is designed to stop my club from competing at the highest level other than as a make weight every now and then! BM And when Walker's money ran out Blackburn Rovers went into decline. That's the problem with a sugar daddy owner - if they pump money in beyond what the club itself can sustain when the money runs out the club is screwed. FFP is there to stop clubs getting screwed by both unscrupulous owners and those with more money than sense. |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 8, 2024 11:47:08 GMT
I’m not convinced the Daily Mail even read the findings before they published their article!!! Seems a strange headline though typically misleading for them. The headline seems a bit off the mark. This seems to mean that the PL will mainly tighten up a lot of existing rules, where there were loopholes.
Another example of don’t just read the headlines!
|
|
