mjslater.bsky.social
I cover the business & politics of football for The Athletic - basically, I do bad news.
đź”— https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/author/matt-slater/
115 posts
7,563 followers
876 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
I’m aware of the facts. 1) One club/one vote ignores the disparity in the size of those clubs, so this was a US Senate-style vote, not a more representative one 2) the “clear majority” most affected was disregarded in favour of a majority not affected. That’s like SNP voting on English matters.
comment in response to
post
It’s my tweet you object to - and that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with the article.
comment in response to
post
Oh, it was further away than that. Crusaders v Cliftonville.
comment in response to
post
Like, for example, Real’s support for the ESL, their rants about referees & attacks on LaLiga’s FFP regime? Yeah, he never talks about any of that….oh, hold on. He does. Sorry. It’s confusing, isn’t it? It’s almost like he’s able to think two different things are wrong at the same time.
comment in response to
post
Yes, we’ve established he’s a Real Madrid fan. Richard Masters supports Villa. Infantino supports Inter. Ceferin supports NK Olimpija. Is there a point?
comment in response to
post
And yet he’s in an endless battle with their owner. What’s your point?
comment in response to
post
I know, shocking, isn’t it? I wrote something similar. Can you imagine the front of Perez or Laporta if they accused City of taking state aid?!?
But they didn’t. The league boss did. And he filed a complaint with EC about it. But you’re right. Should have ignored him.
comment in response to
post
Blind eye or have I just decided the bloke’s politics aren’t that relevant to a story about the president of world’s 2nd biggest league filing a state-aid complaint against the winners of 6 of last 7 PL titles? Are Sheikh Mansour’s politics relevant?
comment in response to
post
Will put it in the suggestions box!
comment in response to
post
I did say enterprise value, Marcus, but it doesn’t really matter as the $1bn didn’t even get them 10% of the equity, apparently. Not yet, anyway.
comment in response to
post
But on what legal grounds would that claim be made? Everton didn’t breach the PSR threshold because certain APT deals between 2021-24 were downgraded. The only matter of dispute between EFC & PL is around when club could capitalise its building costs/debt. Nothing to do with this City case.
comment in response to
post
On what grounds would they seek compensation?
comment in response to
post
A PL win on APT2 wouldn’t also make APT1 a win, too. It would mitigate the embarrassment, though, & perhaps justify the rush to make new rules in Nov. APT2 won’t have any impact on potential claims from Dec 2021-Nov 2024. And APT2 won’t have anything to do with Everton/Forest PSR cases, either!
comment in response to
post
They might (although it’s hard to think of any APT deals Forest could have tried) but Everton’s Usmanov deals were approved, not rejected. And there’s no suggestion bigger deals were rejected by PL. So how could this ruling on APTs from 2021-24 have made their PSR positions worse? It’s a red herring
comment in response to
post
Ha! Yes, I expect so. Who does this on Valentine’s Day?!?!