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

Iassel said:
*Girona, not Genoa.

The natural consequence of these rules will be to softly enforce the club being unable to agree sponsorship deals with Etihad and have to go to ‘the open market’ which these days should really not be an issue as City can generate record breaking deals due to on the field success.

It’s essentially a long-term gamble that the owners will ‘get bored’ when City play at the ‘Infosys Stadium’ wearing kits with ‘Visa’ on the front, rather than Etihad, but of course the club has long since grown from a toy to promote UAE tourism to a multi billion dollar winning machine that serves as a genuine, appreciating asset.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine there is anything in these new rules that says City can't be sponsored by Etihad, or any related or "associated" party. Only that such sponsorships should be at fair value. I suspect these new rules are just tightening up how they deem fair value. If I am wrong, the PL should prepare for a lot of very expensive and long-lasting court cases.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I can't imagine there is anything in these new rules that says City can't be sponsored by Etihad, or any related or "associated" party. Only that such sponsorships should be at fair value. I suspect these new rules are just tightening up how they deem fair value. If I am wrong, the PL should prepare for a lot of very expensive and long-lasting court cases.
Click to expand...
Who the fuck decides whats fair value ? Thats the problem

Of course, it makes no odds to us, we are already in
 
Coatigan said:
Which is why I can believe the claims City would have abstained.

You vote, you legitimise it. Maybe you win. They try again in a couple months and maybe you don't win. Whereas challenging it's legitimacy you show consistency, but then you surely abstain.
Click to expand...
Things are moving too fast for me, who's making these claims that we were one of the abstainers?
 
halfcenturyup said:
I can't imagine there is anything in these new rules that says City can't be sponsored by Etihad, or any related or "associated" party. Only that such sponsorships should be at fair value. I suspect these new rules are just tightening up how they deem fair value. If I am wrong, the PL should prepare for a lot of very expensive and long-lasting court cases.
Click to expand...
Given the rules already say associated party deal have to be fair value I suspect this goes over and above that.

There was talk that clubs had to show matching bids, which adds to the workload of the commercial staff having to source and negotiate multiple bids, only one of which would be accepted.

As for the loans, I suspect an outright ban.
 
moomba said:
Given the rules already say associated party deal have to be fair value I suspect this goes over and above that.

There was talk that clubs had to show matching bids, which adds to the workload of the commercial staff having to source and negotiate multiple bids, only one of which would be accepted.

As for the loans, I suspect an outright ban.
Click to expand...

this get 3 quotes is ridicules you know who you want to partner up with. This isnt a micky mouse golf club that needs 3 quotes so the get the cheapest and shitest job or machine. These are top top business people who run clubs/business in what is a micky mouse run pl !.

Its comical really the pl is a multi billion pound industry run by weak knobheads
 
give it to gordon said:
this get 3 quotes is ridicules you know who you want to partner up with. This isnt a micky mouse golf club that needs 3 quotes so the get the cheapest and shitest job or machine. These are top top business people who run clubs/business in what is a micky mouse run pl !.

Its comical really the pl is a multi billion pound industry run by weak knobheads
Click to expand...
What if we get 3 associated parties to bid?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It's CFG who have the stake and I believe it's a joint venture with OVG, so close to 50%, with Harry Styles as a minority partner. So CFG will take any financial benefit, not City. The income from the hotel and other developments will be fully City's though.

CFG joins Oak View Group as Joint Venture Partner in Co-op Live

Oak View Group (OVG) today confirmed City Football Group (CFG), the global operator of football and sports-related business, has become OVG’s equal joint venture partner and investor in Co-op Live, alongside Harry Styles, who has taken a minority stake in the pioneering venue.Together, OVG and...
www.cityfootballgroup.com www.cityfootballgroup.com
Click to expand...
Who own the ground it’s on ? Could that be city ? Could we get rent income ?
 
moomba said:
Given the rules already say associated party deal have to be fair value I suspect this goes over and above that.

There was talk that clubs had to show matching bids, which adds to the workload of the commercial staff having to source and negotiate multiple bids, only one of which would be accepted.

As for the loans, I suspect an outright ban.
Click to expand...
Related party exists not associated party surely hence the new rule
 
Bluesince1979 said:
Who the fuck decides whats fair value ? Thats the problem
Click to expand...
I can see it now...

PL: "We're sorry Company X with your £70m per year turnover. You can't sponsor City for £150m per season over 5 seasons."

Company X: Why not? It's our money & we want the global exposure City can afford us.

PL: Because the Red Top Mafia & Spuds say it's not fair on them, as they can't get this level of sponsorship to compete. So unless City can show two other companies willing to pay within 10% of your sponsorship offer too, your deal is kiboshed.

Company X: Get the fuck outta here with your bullshit!

City: Company Y & Company Z from the Middle East offered £140m & Company X beat their offers.

PL: A hah, BUT we've now got associated party P&S Rules!

City: And?

PL: Well if you've ever met the executives from Company X, or they come from the southern hemisphere like City's owner, we class this as an associated party.

City: Have you forgotten we're the English, European & World Champions, with several businesses wanting to benefit from out success? We'll see you in court you fuckin planks!

man-city-lawyers (2).gif

IREF will be watching this blatant attempt at stymiying competition & protecting the Cartel club's with keen interest. If this associated party bollocks was rolled out across the UK & globally, the global business trade would be fucked! Why do football see themselves as a special case?

As an aside, before our sponsorship hook up, I'd never heard of Nexen Tire, but only last week I was being given budget, midrange & premium replacement tyre options & I zoned in on Nexen purely because of their association with City.

Their tyres are midway budget, so I didn't go beyond researching them, but if price was the only issue, you're damned right I'd have opted for their brand. If for nothing else, Nexen Tire's success financially helps City.
 
Last edited:
Dribble said:
I can see it now...

PL: "We're sorry Company X with your £70m per year turnover. You can't sponsor City for £150m per season over 5 seasons."

Company X: Why not? It's our money & we want the global exposure City can afford us.

PL: Because the Red Top Mafia & Spuds say it's not fair on them, as they can't get this level of sponsorship to compete. So unless City can show two other companies willing to pay within 10% of your sponsorship offer too, your deal is kiboshed.

Company X: Get the fuck outta here with your bullshit!

City: Company Y & Company Z from the Middle East offered £140m & Company X beat their offers.

PL: A hah, BUT we've now got associated party P&S Rules!

City: And?

PL: Well if you've ever met the executives from Company X, or they come from the southern hemisphere like City's owner, we class this as an associated party.

City: Have you forgotten we're the English, European & World Champions, with several businesses wanting to benefit from out success? We'll see you in court you fuckin planks!

View attachment 106687

IREF will be watching this blatant attempt at stymiying competition & protecting the Cartel club's with keen interest. If this associated party bollocks was rolled out across the UK & globally, the global business trade would be fucked! Why do football see themselves as a special case?

As an aside, before our sponsorship hook up, I'd never heard of Nexen Tire, but only last week I was being given budget, midrange & premium replacement tyre options & I zoned in on Nexen purely because of their association with City.

Their tyres are midway budget, so I didn't go beyond researching them, but if price was the only issue, you're damned right I'd have opted for their brand. If for nothing else, Nexen Tire's success financially helps City.
Click to expand...
Always tickles me that spurs are involved in all this, cracking are a big club with their one league cup in 15 years
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top