Who is Mellstroy as £300k 'challenge' explains why pitch invaders halted Champions League final.
The Champions League final between Borussia Dortmund and Real Madrid was stopped in the opening minutes due to a pitch invasion. A social media influencer called Mellstroy reportedly offered his followers a cash prize to run onto the pitch at Wembley Stadium.
A number of people in white t-shirts, which read 'MELLSTROY' on the front, stormed the European stage with $350,000 reportedly on offer from the internet star for the first person to get onto the Wembley turf. Mellstroy broadcasts on a streaming platform called Kick, where he has 470,700 followers.
The 25-year-old also has three million followers on Instagram and 1.8 million followers on TikTok. He was born in Gomel, Belarus, in 1998, and began streaming in 2015, playing Minecraft, CS:GO, Dota 2, and other popular games on YouTube.
Mellstroy, whose real name is Andrey Burim, eventually decided to start streaming his day-to-day activities and betting on Kick. It is unclear whether the reports of a $350,000 prize are genuine.
However, the presence of multiple pitch invaders bearing the streamer's name on their clothing so soon after kick-off would suggest an element of premeditation on the pitch invaders' part. After a short break in play, the stage was cleared and the Champions League final resumed.
Man City 'sue Premier League' in discrimination case that could impact 115 charges hearing.
Manchester City are reportedly seeking damages from the Premier League as they look to throw out the league's 'unlawful' Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules.
The two organisations are already set for a game-defining hearing later this year over the 115 rule breaches that City have been accused of by the Premier League. And the Times reports that the Blues have put together a 165-page legal document in an attempt to overturn APT rules aimed to prevent sponsorship deals being agreed by associated parties that are above fair market value.
City are claimed to have argued that the rules - introduced in 2021 in the wake of the Newcastle United takeover - are against competition law, as well as being discriminatory to clubs with ties to the Gulf region and clubs that are based outside of London. As well as looking to end the rules, the club are also said to be seeking damages for money they have not been able to make since the 'unlawful' rules were brought in.
The two-week hearing starting on Monday will have ramifications across the Premier League and ups the stakes between City and the league before the pair battle it out in their charges hearing later this year. The most serious allegations the Blues are defending themselves against in that matter relate to whether or not they provided genuine details of sponsorship deals.
The hearing into their 115 alleged breaches between 2009 and 2023 is believed to be going ahead in the autumn. It has been alleged that City concealed payments made by their owner Sheikh Mansour through third parties and disguised them as sponsorship revenue, which in itself was inflated.
If rules around related party transactions are now deemed unlawful, it could significantly strengthen City’s defence at the hearing later this year. City have denied any wrongdoing relating to the 115 charges.
The report in The Times claims that City will argue that the Premier League have failed to provide evidence that sponsorship deals with related parties give clubs an unfair advantage or distort the league’s competitive balance.
Man City 'sue Premier League' in discrimination case that could impact 115 charges hearing.
Manchester City are reportedly seeking damages from the Premier League as they look to throw out the league's 'unlawful' Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules.
The two organisations are already set for a game-defining hearing later this year over the 115 rule breaches that City have been accused of by the Premier League. And the Times reports that the Blues have put together a 165-page legal document in an attempt to overturn APT rules aimed to prevent sponsorship deals being agreed by associated parties that are above fair market value.
City are claimed to have argued that the rules - introduced in 2021 in the wake of the Newcastle United takeover - are against competition law, as well as being discriminatory to clubs with ties to the Gulf region and clubs that are based outside of London. As well as looking to end the rules, the club are also said to be seeking damages for money they have not been able to make since the 'unlawful' rules were brought in.
The two-week hearing starting on Monday will have ramifications across the Premier League and ups the stakes between City and the league before the pair battle it out in their charges hearing later this year. The most serious allegations the Blues are defending themselves against in that matter relate to whether or not they provided genuine details of sponsorship deals.
The hearing into their 115 alleged breaches between 2009 and 2023 is believed to be going ahead in the autumn. It has been alleged that City concealed payments made by their owner Sheikh Mansour through third parties and disguised them as sponsorship revenue, which in itself was inflated.
If rules around related party transactions are now deemed unlawful, it could significantly strengthen City’s defence at the hearing later this year. City have denied any wrongdoing relating to the 115 charges.
The report in The Times claims that City will argue that the Premier League have failed to provide evidence that sponsorship deals with related parties give clubs an unfair advantage or distort the league’s competitive balance.
Like so many things, the finances surrounding Man City are not as simple as people would have you believe.
On the 1 hand, money has pretty much always been a major factor. As an example, various clubs were derided as the "Bank of England" club for their "excessive" spending. Before the 2nd World War.
Also true to say that FFP from 2008-20 was a fairly blunt tool. It's all very well providing a so-called "maximum" net loss figure. But that affected differently-sized clubs in different ways. The figures may have seen low to a Man City or a Chelsea. But beyond the means of a host of smaller PL clubs. And made the already-difficult task for newly promoted clubs in the PL (or the teams on the Champo not previously in the PL) next to impossible.
On the other side of the coin, some clubs like say Everton, exceeded the numbers. And, within a year, received points deductions for an open and admitted breach of the rules. Compare/contrast with Man City (who I am sure are not the only club in this position). 15 years. 115 charges. In relation to (amongst other things) hundreds of millions of pounds in relation to "sponsorship" that was no such thing. It was not an arms-length commercial transaction. It was just a means to pump hundreds of millions of pounds into a club that were not allowed under those Rules.
It seems to me that Man City are misreading the room in bringing this action. They are accused of breaking Financial Rules on a scale never seen before. They have spent the last 10-15 years seeking to delay and blur the lines. Very successfully. Now they are going on the attack. Claiming it is the Rules that are wrong.
I think the Rules were unfair. To both the very biggest, and the 50% smallest, PL clubs. But that doesn't give Man City the right to say they are entitled to break Rules. And sue the Rule makers.
Why Premier League’s 'swap weekend' could be another PSR loophole.
Everton, Aston Villa, Chelsea and Newcastle fans might have woken up on Saturday and mistakenly thought it was transfer deadline day.
Lesser-known academy products Tim Iroegbunam and Lewis Dobbin were exchanged in separate deals between Everton and Villa for a reported £9m each. Then BBC Sport reported Villa were close to selling another academy youngster - teenager Omari Kellyman - to Chelsea for a reported £19m.
Next, there was confirmation that going the other way is Chelsea’s homegrown Dutch defender Ian Maatsen for £37.5m, in another separate transaction.
Everton meanwhile, were also said to be interested in Newcastle United’s highly rated Gambian teenager Yankuba Minteh. At the same time, Newcastle were closing in on a deal to sign striker Dominic Calvert-Lewin from Everton.
But it wasn't 1 September, it was a normal Saturday in June. And one thing all four of these busy clubs have in common? Concerns over their Premier League 'Profit and Sustainability' (PSR) position as they approach the 30 June accounting deadline.
This flurry of transfer activity immediately drew scepticism, but has also annoyed some rival clubs.
And BBC Sport knows of at least one club that is so concerned it intends to raise the matter with the Premier League.
No-one is breaking the rules, but questions have been raised over valuations, the use of young players, and whether this has highlighted a loophole in the league’s PSR system which can be used to limit losses.
Fernandez live-streamed a video of him and some of his Argentina teammates singing what the French Football Federation (FFF) has labelled a ‘racist and discriminatory song’ following Argentina’s Copa America final win over Colombia on Sunday night. The FFF says it plans to lodge a legal complaint with FIFA and understandably so. The lyrics are offensive, mocking the background of French players and with an element of transphobia for good measure too.
The clip went viral for all the wrong reasons and anger was not just expressed by the FFF. Fernandez’s actions were viewed by his Chelsea colleagues and the reaction was bad. “Many people were really angry,” one person close to a senior player says. “They were asking, ‘Why would he do that?’
“There has always been a strong togetherness in the squad and the club just needed the right coach to make it work. But this incident has changed that. It will be interesting to see what happens when Fernandez goes back to the club.” Another individual familiar with the team environment described the situation as being even more dire, that the camp had initially been “fractured”.
An indication of the upset caused came on Tuesday when Chelsea’s French players unfollowed Fernandez en masse on Instagram. One player, defender Wesley Fofana, then posted a clip of Fernandez’s video on X with the caption ‘Football in 2024: uninhibited racism’. Fofana’s account was then subject to a flood of racist abuse.
Comments
Who is Mellstroy as £300k 'challenge' explains why pitch invaders halted Champions League final.
The Champions League final between Borussia Dortmund and Real Madrid was stopped in the opening minutes due to a pitch invasion. A social media influencer called Mellstroy reportedly offered his followers a cash prize to run onto the pitch at Wembley Stadium.
A number of people in white t-shirts, which read 'MELLSTROY' on the front, stormed the European stage with $350,000 reportedly on offer from the internet star for the first person to get onto the Wembley turf. Mellstroy broadcasts on a streaming platform called Kick, where he has 470,700 followers.
The 25-year-old also has three million followers on Instagram and 1.8 million followers on TikTok. He was born in Gomel, Belarus, in 1998, and began streaming in 2015, playing Minecraft, CS:GO, Dota 2, and other popular games on YouTube.
Mellstroy, whose real name is Andrey Burim, eventually decided to start streaming his day-to-day activities and betting on Kick. It is unclear whether the reports of a $350,000 prize are genuine.
However, the presence of multiple pitch invaders bearing the streamer's name on their clothing so soon after kick-off would suggest an element of premeditation on the pitch invaders' part. After a short break in play, the stage was cleared and the Champions League final resumed.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/graham-potter-snubs-two-premier-league-jobs-because-of-gareth-southgate/ar-BB1ntJ9X?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=3933fb28426143e69e91159fb8c1bfbb&ei=129#fullscreen
Manchester City are reportedly seeking damages from the Premier League as they look to throw out the league's 'unlawful' Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules.
The two organisations are already set for a game-defining hearing later this year over the 115 rule breaches that City have been accused of by the Premier League. And the Times reports that the Blues have put together a 165-page legal document in an attempt to overturn APT rules aimed to prevent sponsorship deals being agreed by associated parties that are above fair market value.
City are claimed to have argued that the rules - introduced in 2021 in the wake of the Newcastle United takeover - are against competition law, as well as being discriminatory to clubs with ties to the Gulf region and clubs that are based outside of London. As well as looking to end the rules, the club are also said to be seeking damages for money they have not been able to make since the 'unlawful' rules were brought in.
The two-week hearing starting on Monday will have ramifications across the Premier League and ups the stakes between City and the league before the pair battle it out in their charges hearing later this year. The most serious allegations the Blues are defending themselves against in that matter relate to whether or not they provided genuine details of sponsorship deals.
The hearing into their 115 alleged breaches between 2009 and 2023 is believed to be going ahead in the autumn. It has been alleged that City concealed payments made by their owner Sheikh Mansour through third parties and disguised them as sponsorship revenue, which in itself was inflated.
If rules around related party transactions are now deemed unlawful, it could significantly strengthen City’s defence at the hearing later this year. City have denied any wrongdoing relating to the 115 charges.
The report in The Times claims that City will argue that the Premier League have failed to provide evidence that sponsorship deals with related parties give clubs an unfair advantage or distort the league’s competitive balance.
On the 1 hand, money has pretty much always been a major factor. As an example, various clubs were derided as the "Bank of England" club for their "excessive" spending. Before the 2nd World War.
Also true to say that FFP from 2008-20 was a fairly blunt tool. It's all very well providing a so-called "maximum" net loss figure. But that affected differently-sized clubs in different ways. The figures may have seen low to a Man City or a Chelsea. But beyond the means of a host of smaller PL clubs. And made the already-difficult task for newly promoted clubs in the PL (or the teams on the Champo not previously in the PL) next to impossible.
On the other side of the coin, some clubs like say Everton, exceeded the numbers. And, within a year, received points deductions for an open and admitted breach of the rules. Compare/contrast with Man City (who I am sure are not the only club in this position). 15 years. 115 charges. In relation to (amongst other things) hundreds of millions of pounds in relation to "sponsorship" that was no such thing. It was not an arms-length commercial transaction. It was just a means to pump hundreds of millions of pounds into a club that were not allowed under those Rules.
It seems to me that Man City are misreading the room in bringing this action. They are accused of breaking Financial Rules on a scale never seen before. They have spent the last 10-15 years seeking to delay and blur the lines. Very successfully. Now they are going on the attack. Claiming it is the Rules that are wrong.
I think the Rules were unfair. To both the very biggest, and the 50% smallest, PL clubs. But that doesn't give Man City the right to say they are entitled to break Rules. And sue the Rule makers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cn00k4gkpz3o
The full list can be seen here.
https://www.skysports.com/premier-league-fixtures
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/alan-hansen-s-former-teammate-gives-health-update-on-liverpool-legend/ar-BB1on2l3?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=f680983cab5e463081704365053324a2&ei=90#fullscreen
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/alan-hansen-sounding-fabulous-as-graeme-souness-reveals-brilliant-phone-call/ar-BB1omBem?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=9b1f1320f0d541e987ed411f06a40106&ei=111#fullscreen
- Chelsea sells Maatsen to Villa.
- Chelsea buys Kellyman off Villa for £20m, despite his valuation being £1m and having played less than 150 mins of professional football.
- Villa signs Lewis Dobbin from Everton for £10m, though his valuation is £2m.
- Everton buys Tim Iroegbunam from Villa for £9m, despite his valuation being £4m.
- Newcastle is attempting similar deals with Everton for Dominic Calvert-Lewin and Yankuba Minteh.
Chelsea, Villa, Everton, and Newcastle need to sell players to stay within financial regulations by June 30th.
Academy players are being sold for inflated fees before the June 30th deadline.... we all know why.
Have Chelsea, Villa, Everton and Newcastle found a PSR loophole?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c5111jg2r3yo
Why Premier League’s 'swap weekend' could be another PSR loophole.
Everton, Aston Villa, Chelsea and Newcastle fans might have woken up on Saturday and mistakenly thought it was transfer deadline day.
Lesser-known academy products Tim Iroegbunam and Lewis Dobbin were exchanged in separate deals between Everton and Villa for a reported £9m each. Then BBC Sport reported Villa were close to selling another academy youngster - teenager Omari Kellyman - to Chelsea for a reported £19m.
Next, there was confirmation that going the other way is Chelsea’s homegrown Dutch defender Ian Maatsen for £37.5m, in another separate transaction.
Everton meanwhile, were also said to be interested in Newcastle United’s highly rated Gambian teenager Yankuba Minteh. At the same time, Newcastle were closing in on a deal to sign striker Dominic Calvert-Lewin from Everton.
But it wasn't 1 September, it was a normal Saturday in June. And one thing all four of these busy clubs have in common? Concerns over their Premier League 'Profit and Sustainability' (PSR) position as they approach the 30 June accounting deadline.
This flurry of transfer activity immediately drew scepticism, but has also annoyed some rival clubs.
And BBC Sport knows of at least one club that is so concerned it intends to raise the matter with the Premier League.
No-one is breaking the rules, but questions have been raised over valuations, the use of young players, and whether this has highlighted a loophole in the league’s PSR system which can be used to limit losses.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5644814/2024/07/18/chelsea-enzo-fernandez-song-fallout/
Fernandez live-streamed a video of him and some of his Argentina teammates singing what the French Football Federation (FFF) has labelled a ‘racist and discriminatory song’ following Argentina’s Copa America final win over Colombia on Sunday night. The FFF says it plans to lodge a legal complaint with FIFA and understandably so. The lyrics are offensive, mocking the background of French players and with an element of transphobia for good measure too.
The clip went viral for all the wrong reasons and anger was not just expressed by the FFF. Fernandez’s actions were viewed by his Chelsea colleagues and the reaction was bad. “Many people were really angry,” one person close to a senior player says. “They were asking, ‘Why would he do that?’
“There has always been a strong togetherness in the squad and the club just needed the right coach to make it work. But this incident has changed that. It will be interesting to see what happens when Fernandez goes back to the club.” Another individual familiar with the team environment described the situation as being even more dire, that the camp had initially been “fractured”.
An indication of the upset caused came on Tuesday when Chelsea’s French players unfollowed Fernandez en masse on Instagram. One player, defender Wesley Fofana, then posted a clip of Fernandez’s video on X with the caption ‘Football in 2024: uninhibited racism’. Fofana’s account was then subject to a flood of racist abuse.