Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
EFL fixtures are out before 30th June so that must've put them under the EFLs jurisdiction then (otherwise why would they create a seasons worth of EFL fixtures for them)?You must be logged on to see media items
Hope they gan down. Another load of cheats.
I think this is one of the saddest posts I’ve ever seen on here.
All a bit to technical for me, But seems like their lawyers have played a blinder and its a farcical loop hole if ever their was one.EFL fixtures are out before 30th June so that must've put them under the EFLs jurisdiction then (otherwise why would they create a seasons worth of EFL fixtures for them)?
Man City’s lawyers will be a lot more expensive as well…All a bit to technical for me, But seems like their lawyers have played a blinder and its a farcical loop hole if ever their was one.
Yep but you feel on their 110 charges some of them will have stick otherwise its all one big jokeMan City’s lawyers will be a lot more expensive as well…
Give over man, let’s not pretend we wouldn’t be laughing our balls off if we were in the same position.I think this is one of the saddest posts I’ve ever seen on here.
I pity you.
Enjoy your relegation.You must be logged on to see media items
And horrible fansThey’ll get relegated anyway because they are absolutely shite.
Judgement doesn’t say the Premier League couldn’t charge them because they weren’t members at the point they were charged it says they didn’t break the rules for 22/23 in the first place because they weren’t members at the point the rules applied and the rules weren’t written to cover the possibility they might need to apply to clubs that weren’t members anymore (which looks a bit of a basic schoolboy error to me and doesn’t fill me with hope that the same rules will cover the much more subtle tricks Man City have been accused of).So the premier league couldn’t charge them because they had been related. Ok, I get it.
They are now back in the premier league so why can’t they charge them again now?
But they would then argue there was a large part of that accounting period where they were outside EFL jurisdiction and it's therefore impossible to tell which period they overspent. It will be the same argument - which is going to cause massive problems. What this ruling is effectively saying, is you can spend whatever you want in the premier league and ignore PSR as long as you are relegated within 3 seasons of being in the premier league.So if they weren’t in the PL jurisdiction at year end then they must have been in the EFL jurisdiction which means that their PSR / FFP breach is greater based on EFL rules.
So if/when they get relegated then the EFL should be able to punish them accordingly.