New PL Commercial rule passed (pg4) | City rumoured to be questioning the legality

[HelloCity]

The ESL was never replacing domestic league structures. It was replacing UEFA competitions.

The original was.

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

The original was.

ESL was originally suggested to work alongside the EPL season from what I remember.

 

[give it to gordon]

This is a battle that the non American owned clubs have to win otherwise football is gone

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Expect nothing less of the Red Shites, but the rest of the short sighted, cowardly lemmings going along with everything they want, is mind boggling.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I'm worried. Does this mean that half of the expensive team of lawyers have been moved off the 115 charges case, or have we found some more?

Not a bad bargaining ploy this.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The ESL was never replacing domestic league structures. It was replacing UEFA competitions.

For about 12 months.

 

[Gordyola]

I thought there was a Chinese group in there too?

China Media Partners I think The Chinese government decided it wasnt good after to invest in football so they sold

 

[Paladin]

Rule passed even though they weren't close to the 14 votes required. Abstainations shouldn't lower the threshold. What a joke this league is. Passes on 2/3rds rule.

12 is barely a majority and what happens if 3 of those go down this season?

If the rule is for a two thirds majority to carry a vote, then that's that. It's what all the clubs must abide by until they pass a change to that rule for a 50% majority or whatever. Two thirds majority makes it harder to get these changes passed though.

We all know the American owned clubs will vote for anything that restricts their need to spend. That's a persuasive argument to neutral clubs, especially if they don't have wealthy business partners to call upon for sponsorships.

 

[Gordyola]

Am I missing something this has been voted through surely it is in the interests of ALL clubs to oppose this..as it can effect all clubs..

Tell that to the clubs that voted for FFP / FSR and are now regretting it

 

[Manncity]

It needs to be contested in court, anti competition laws.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Hope some on here find the stomach to back the owners, whatever they decide to pursue or direction they want to take us in - now we well and truly know what the Yanks and the Pl want to do to us and think of us.
Last time it was all misty eyed, jumpers for goal posts, rattles and tradition, indignation.

 

[WRicko]

Are we actually challenging the change or just saying it won’t stand up to legal challenge there is a difference I think

 

[M18CTID]

There's usually always a leak regarding who's voted for what so it'll be interesting to see the split.

From the very early leaks City have always questioned the legality of proposals discussing limiting commercial potential.

It seems the Premier League are taking all sorts of risks to appease certain clubs and avoid independent regulation.

Obviously we don’t know the exact background for sure but could City’s stance regarding legality be to do with International Accounting Standards 24 (IAS24) and their definition of a related party? As I understand it, UEFA’s original FFP regs basically followed IAS24 guidelines (and presumably the PL’s FFP regs did too) when it came to related party transactions. Perhaps City see the PL veering too far away from IAS24 with these new proposals being voted in today and as such there are questions surrounding the lawfulness of them?

Thinking back, weren’t UEFA of the opinion that Etihad were a related party but City disagreed, presumably citing IAS24 as what does or doesn’t constitute a related party. IIRC UEFA didn’t argue the toss too much on it, maybe because they knew deep down that Etihad weren’t a RP. An ironic side issue of that is that when the Der Spiegel articles surfaced, if Etihad were indeed a related party and City agreed with UEFA then it would’ve rendered the accusation that Mansour funded some of the sponsorship deal himself effectively moot!

 

[citizen_maine]

Are we actually challenging the change or just saying it won’t stand up to legal challenge there is a difference I think

we don't know if we are doing anything. we don't know what the new rules are yet, who voted for them or even if they'll negatively impact us

 

[foggy1974]

I am I correct in thinking this is any NEW deals?

That's what I thought. Taking the blinkered crackpot hat off for a moment, even though it's City that is creating the fume, this hurts Newcastle more than us. Also would it stop scruffy Jim using Ineos to fund the rags & thats why the begging bowls are out.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

The situation is getting ridiculous. Every PL club is owned by a billionaire but the organisation seems dedicated to guaranteeing that xnone of this wealth should find its way into the game. They are all "fit and proper persons" to own a football club, but not to spend their own money. And major international companies are not to be allowed to decide how much a sponsorship deal should cost them - if they want to spend it where they wish and this doesn't suit. The PL meddlers will decide. It must be "fair market value"! So, if you want to spend it to help a club be more successful, to qualify for the CL and to get your enterprise more exposure, forget it. What the PL wants is a level playing field! But not for Luton or Burnley ... or Newcastle United. And all this is worth trying to ruin the great success story of the last 15 years, ruining one of England's historic clubs and also a twice winner of the European cup. The best interests of football in England are served by disunity, dissension ... and probably the PL dragged before the courts. What a triumph for the regime!

 

[brazilians hurt]

So when the fuck are utd getting their sponsorship re-valued down to represent a fairer value on how fucking shite they are?

Ah but remember half the population of the planet are staunch shirt wearing fan boys or girls repeating the mantra ”Manchester United, Bobby Charlton, George Best, Harry Maguire”

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Who now decides what is a related party or how much they can pay for sponsorship?

 

[pauls]

Yes, even the PL can't apply their rules retrospectively (even if they may be trying in the 115 case. They will fail, though, imho).

Thanks, like must of us ,just disillusioned with this nonsense, will be worth it for a positive outcome .

 

[bluenova]

So when the fuck are utd getting their sponsorship re-valued down to represent a fairer value on how fucking shite they are?

Remember the guy who negotiated their 7 year shirt deal with Chevrolet was promptly sacked.

Definitely something iffy there. We should ask RAWK to investigate.