FPL Meatball

Turned down the bao buns initially. The people wanted two bao buns. Upgraded the order to include four bao buns. No hesitation. Adapted and unfazed. Man of the people. True leadership.

@VincentVerhei youtu.be/rWD1yVLqbpY?si… Worth a watch V

My favorite sport in the Winter Olympics and maybe in the world.

@TalkinTactics Villa targets for Summer? How much is the clause in Rogers contract? He's expecting to move on I think, UCL or not.

I’ve got 20 mins for a Q+A if anyone is interested 👇🏻

@DV1874 Arsenal, Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool all given two home games over Christmas. How interesting.

Totally understand our manager. Why EPL brings a match day from 2nd half of season before matchday 19 has not a clear explanation. I asked to EPL people and they didn’t tell us. So it is a mystery. The fact is that willing or not this makes more convenient the fixtures for certain clubs that are not travelling on this very busy Christmas period. I let you take a look which clubs are playing home both last and next match. To make us play 2 away games in less than 72 hours will be never an excuse but we agree that is much better on the recovery side play twice at home and not travel. We are not, for sure, as it is obvious, having any influence. It would be a disgrace if the fixtures become a political territory.

The hidden rule is that they can manipulate the market whenever they feel it

@themagic_tophat Not surprised at all. Expecting minimal punishment bearing in mind the crimes. Fully expect government/regulator involvement stopping major action.

𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗹𝘂𝗯𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗟 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲? Until today, I had been working under the assumption that the independent Commission appointed to oversee Man City’s 130+ charges has already made an initial decision on liability, shared with the parties but not publicly. That’s because we are not supposed to hear about interim decisions - the process is to remain private & confidential until its conclusion - and it was unthinkable that the decision could still be ongoing more than a year after the hearing concluded. (>2y10m since the charges were imposed and >7y since the emails were first leaked). However, in its 2024/25 accounts that were published today, Man City revealed that the independent Commission was still “in the process of reviewing the matter” as of this date. Some have asked me if this could be a carefully worded statement to misdirect despite a decision having been reached. This is not plausible. If a decision of no liability had been reached, it would be published per PL rules. If a decision of liability had been reached, it would need to be mentioned in Man City’s accounts. Neither their auditors nor the PL would permit such blatant misinformation. So it’s clear, Man City has revealed that no decision has been reached yet (ironically, in itself a breach of PL rule W.87 requiring the process remain private & confidential). Why is this so shocking? Because it absolutely should not be taking this long to reach a decision. In 2020, the Chancellor of the High Court asserted that decisions should be reached within 3 months, even in complex cases. When cases are long, highly complex and justices have a heavy caseload, it’s possible that decisions take longer than this. They have even taken as long as 12-18 months in the past. And the PL v Man City case was long (10-12 week hearing) and highly complex. However, if we examine a sample of recent comparators, we see it’s actually quite rare for a decision to take more than 6 months. Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov Farol Holdings Ltd v Clydesdale Bank plc Alta Trading UK Ltd v Bosworth IBM United Kingdom Ltd v LzLabs GmbH Official Receiver v Batmanghelidjh Highly technical cases that were heard over 10-12 weeks. Typically a decision was reached in 2-6 months. Median timeframe was 4-5. Longest ones were 7-8. Now, the Man City case was not heard in the High Court but in any event, the independent Commission should be faster than the High Court, not slower. That’s because although the Commission is independent of the PL in terms of who adjudicates and what decisions they make, it is still subject to PL rules (found in the handbook) that govern the disciplinary process. One of those rules is that a decision must be reached “as soon as practicably possible”. In the context of English Law, that means without delay unless such delays are necessary. The arbitrators having other work priorities is not a legitimate excuse when applied to such a requirement. As such, it seems wholly unreasonable that a decision is still being waited on at this point unless one or more of the arbitrators had a critical personal matter preventing them from undertaking their duties. But if this were the case, then that would have been communicated to the parties and they would not have been expecting the decision “imminently” for many months now, as reported. We’re at the point where, depending on the agreed process, the final outcome may not be arrived at and reported until next season. An outrageous failure by the PL and quite possibly a breach of contract too. There are mechanisms to force this matter out of arbitration and into the courts. If I were one of the four clubs with a compensation claim, I would be strongly considering this now. For one, it would force everything into the light with transparent proceedings - something this process sorely needs.

Words cannot express how much I hate this man.

@FPL_Harry @Ritz_JG Predicted by who? There has to be transparency on these changes, it's a joke that FPL can decide to hold or push players prices whenever they want.

@FPL_Meatball @Ritz_JG Timber was predicted to rise on Sunday? Anderson I have no idea as I bought him on Sunday as I needed the money

Gameweek 14 Team! 🔒 #FPL Sarr + Senesi OUT ❌ Anderson + Timber IN ✅ Haaland (C) (stresssssssed 🤣) Good luck everyone this week ❤️

@Ritz_JG @FPL_Harry Should be a great transfer.

@FPL_Meatball @FPL_Harry Got mine in even before Harry 😍 feels good

@Ritz_JG @FPL_Harry Quite a few people went up/down this week when only 75/80%. It's by a mile the biggest issue with FPL. Great for Harry he managed to stay ahead of it somehow.

@FPL_Meatball @FPL_Harry Not sure on anderson but Timber 100% was, I saw it myself on the site

@Ritz_JG @FPL_Harry No they weren't.

@FPL_Meatball @FPL_Harry they were predicted on livefpl

Fpl price rises and falls being random is such a fucking joke.

@themagic_tophat SCR more is restrictive. Super League will be up and running as soon as any rules introduced where an outsider can compete properly. Clubs too scared to have competition...the thing that built the PL. No wonder City cheated.

At least with this change, Newcastle and Villa fans can stop moaning about PSR. The new PL rules will be the same structure as Uefa’s but far more generous in terms of allowance.

@Lawton_Times @pmorganbentley

@FPL_Bateman One of your fans?

@FPL_Bateman @fantasyfooty Any news on this?

@PlanetFPLPod @FPLSeagull What's the deal with O'Riley? Why did he leave on loan having started and scored GW1? Just seems weird for an expensive signing.

🌍🎧 Bournemouth v Brighton 🥊 Clash of the Correspondents w/ 🍒 @AFCBNG & 🕊 @FPLSeagull We talk European hopes, defensive assets, rotation concerns, DEFCONs, Semenyo, Evanilson, Rutter, Minteh & more 👇 open.spotify.com/episode/2HDrgQ…

@themagic_tophat @Dpn76 That's insane isn't it. The clubs that could actually do with the money more didn't act. Is there no path for Forest, Newcastle, Villa... Ipswich, Southampton etc to go after City when they're found guilty?

@Dpn76 🤷‍♂️

𝗣𝗟 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗣𝗧 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 Note: This is a different case to the “115/130 charges” Quick recap: Premier League’s PSR had a requirement for any “Related Party Transactions” (RPTs) to be at Fair Market Value (FMV). i.e., they had to be legit and not inflated by the owner. Problem was that oligarchs and nation states could circumvent this easily by using networks of influence. So the PL amended the rules to mean that FMV needed to apply to any Associated Party Transactions (APTs). They basically widened the net to make it harder for nation states and oligarchs to break the rules. But then they made the rules even tougher again (required pre-approval, changed the burden of proof, etc) and did so in an unlawful way. The PL used the rules to block parts of Man City’s mega sponsorship deal with Etihad. Man City challenged the APT rules in arbitration. Many of their arguments were spurious and some were clearly targeted at undermining the rules they’re accused of breaching in the 115/130 case. Man City lost most of its arguments at the hearing but won a few. The Panel agreed that the recent rule changes were unlawful and that also, part of the original APT rule was too. The original rules had exempted owner contributions from APT assessment. Contributions made in the form of equity or shareholder loans were not assessed for FMV. The effect would be to void all the APT rules. However, the decision was released in parts, which gave the PL time to changes the rules and re-write them again, in order to make them lawful before Man City could act. This stopped Man City from being able to push through all parts of its mega sponsorship deal with Etihad. So Man City opted to challenge the new, updated rules again and a hearing was going to take place next month but the parties have just settled. What does that mean? Well for the PL, it means that Man City have not only dropped its challenge but also publicly asserted that they believe the new rules are lawful (which shows how entirely disingenuous their new claim was). For Man City, we don’t know what it means. Journalists have assumed a settlement means they “got something” and believe that something is consent to all parts of their Etihad deal. There is a logic to that, even for the PL. If the PL believes they will win the case on the 115/130 charges, they will likely be handing Man City a huge fine. Man City would also likely have to pay big compensation claims to Liverpool, Man Utd, Spurs and Liverpool. So getting additional revenue in will help them afford that without going bust. Not a bad thing for the PL. So on one level, it makes sense. But on another, it doesn’t. Because I think the PL would be in an awkward position if they simply waved through a deal in a settlement. The precedent it would set would be terrible. Instead, I suspect two things happened… 1., The PL recognised the impact of City’s new Puma sponsorship deal on an FMV assessment of the Etihad deal and conveyed this to Man City; and 2., The PL made clear to Man City that they had more to lose than anyone (bar Chelsea) if APT 2 happened. In APT 1, the Panel explicitly called out that they did not assess whether equity contributions should be subject to FMV assessment under APT rules. The way they called it out though… reading between the lines; it looked like they might say it should be assessed if asked. As you can see in the chart below, Man City may not have shareholder loans but it’s pumped in HUGE amounts of interest-free equity. If that suddenly incurred a PSR charge, they and Chelsea would be in BIG trouble. I actually wrote a thread in February suggesting such a tactic. So there’s reasons why Man City may have “settled” with very little on offer. The fact is, unless someone leaks the details, we might never know the terms. But this has no bearing on the 115/130 case.

Andres Garcia named on #avfc UEFA list A ahead of Ross Barkley. Helpfully, Bogarde qualifies for list B by 5 days.