Certainly if Ineos want to build on their multi-club model it is possible. Not sure how it would square with the Glazers though. That said the new rules will constrain United if they are serious about getting the club back to the top. The game has changed I think.It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s United that are the other club voting with us on this latest development
I just said the same to some thick red pricks on a wattsapp group.On the day Liverpool’s sportswashing was finally given the attention it deserves this then comes out? Coincidence my arse.
On the day Liverpool’s sportswashing was finally given the attention it deserves this then comes out? Coincidence my arse.
That's true, I forgot about that. Sir Jim wanting to get buddy buddy with us after hiring one of our executives as his CEO is intriguing. Can't stand the rags but I'd imagine we'd be more likely to win the case with their backing.The rags voted with City against these new rules, it could be them.

Are you Padr81 in disguise?It’s pretty hard to believe the club ignored/accepted the original related party rules for 11 years, then waited 3 years after the new ones were approved and then just happened by coincidence to decide to launch a lawsuit about it in the middle of the Premier League's biggest ever lawsuit.
We'd definitely get real ale at some of those National League grounds. Makes you think...Many years ago I had a mate who would sometimes get himself into bother and end up in prison. He would say, prior to sentencing, that he could do with a stint inside to bulk up. He meant it too, the mad ****.
Our stint in the National League could be like that. Keep us Blues in typical City mode.
For someone who tried to avoid the media as much as possible, what have those lovable angels been up to now?
You suggesting that City agreed to abide by the new related party rules in exchange for the 115 going away forever?Any chance this is part of the exit strategy the premier league and city were talking about according to a post on here a couple of months back?
No ta.That's true, I forgot about that. Sir Jim wanting to get buddy buddy with us after hiring one of our executives as his CEO is intriguing. Can't stand the rags but I'd imagine we'd be more likely to win the case with their backing.
They are openly copying the City model , they know the fucking score , and they have an ex City employee at the helm who knows damn well that it takes a lot more than past glory’s to keep up with MCFC.Certainly if Ineos want to build on their multi-club model it is possible. Not sure how it would square with the Glazers though. That said the new rules will constrain United if they are serious about getting the club back to the top. The game has changed I think.
It's not an apt analogy as you are not an independently audited entity. As I understand the APT is not determining what City charge, but how they value (and recognize revenue from) the sponsorship deal which in turn impacts their audited financial statements. As much as I can follow, City are questioning the need for an independent valuation, presumably because there is no objective way to measure it + the rules being applied differently for different teams.So this fair market value bollox makes no sense.
Say I want to sell my house can I only sell it at the market value or can I put it up for sale for as much as I want & even sell it to my family if they are willing to pay for what I believe it’s worth.
Yes I can just like city can charge what they want for sponsorships.
Rinse them city & let’s name those tossers trying to stop other clubs from growing