City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

Watched Stefan on talkSPORT I wonder if the tyranny of majority vote is down to the fact you are supposed to have 14 to get a vote through, now back in Feb didnt only 12 vote yes, 6 no and 2 abstained but it was still carried! Maybe this is the point, it shouldn’t be carried unless 14 is hit. If 14 can’t be got then the vote is void until it’s reached because you could effectively have say the red tops vote yes 3 votes, City no, the rest abstain it would then be carried!
14 isn't technically the number required. It's 70 per cent majority of the teams in the league. Which equates to 14 teams.

2 abstained so 70 per cent of 18 is 12.
 
Meanwhile, the Premier League introduces new rules to distort the market...

"Premier League clubs have agreed to trial an alternative financial system which operates like a spending cap in the 2024-25 season.

The Squad Cost Rules (SCR) and Top to Bottom Anchoring Rules (TBA) will operate alongside the existing Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) on a "non-binding basis".

Teams will be allowed to spend no more than 85% of their total revenues on squads under the new system.

Meanwhile, the TBA is an anchoring model based on the earnings of the bottom club."


The exact rules to be determined once the EPL have found a way for City to have breached them, while certain other clubs haven't.

That was talked about few months ago and if it gets voted in for the 2025/26 season it will not matter if we have a sponsor to sponsor us for 2 billion a year we won't be able to spend say 1 billion and at the moment if it was this summer looking at our books we could only spend around 60/80m with those rules
 
I don't want to be a party pooper but listening to that, how is this explained?

Newcastle have finalised a £25m-a-year front-of-shirt sponsorship deal with the leading Saudi Arabian events company Sela. The agreement will provide an early test of the Premier League’s new fair market value commercial regulations.

That's fair market value if look at other sponsors
 
Have left this reply to our Mr Darke's tweet...

"As a staunch fan of MCFC, I am not in the least embarrassed by the behaviour of our club.Now, I would be embarrassed if my clubs sponsors were found guilty of laundering money for terrorist organizations; or if my clubs fans were guilty of causing the deaths of Italian fans"
Legendary response
 
Ian Byrne, yet another nut job Scouser, and MP, is probably going to take it to PM’s question time. Lol! :-)


It was only a matter of time before the populist rent a **** made a comment.

Meanwhile, Manchester Mayor who was very vocal when his club Everton were under attack from the PL had said fuck all about the vicious attack on City.
 
Meanwhile, the Premier League introduces new rules to distort the market...

"Premier League clubs have agreed to trial an alternative financial system which operates like a spending cap in the 2024-25 season.

The Squad Cost Rules (SCR) and Top to Bottom Anchoring Rules (TBA) will operate alongside the existing Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) on a "non-binding basis".

Teams will be allowed to spend no more than 85% of their total revenues on squads under the new system.

Meanwhile, the TBA is an anchoring model based on the earnings of the bottom club."


The exact rules to be determined once the EPL have found a way for City to have breached them, while certain other clubs haven't.
How about renaming them all SCAAC
(Stop City At All Costs) Rules?
 
Long time reader....first time poster. I'm expecting to be branded a rag any moment!!! Bring it on.

It occurs to me that City and Newcastle could simply broker a mutually beneficial arrangement by which Etihad sponsor Newcastle and a Saudi equivalent sponsors City. It would boil an ocean of urine!

Yes they could and 1 week later they will change the rule again
 
Long time reader....first time poster. I'm expecting to be branded a rag any moment!!! Bring it on.

It occurs to me that City and Newcastle could simply broker a mutually beneficial arrangement by which Etihad sponsor Newcastle and a Saudi equivalent sponsors City. It would boil an ocean of urine!
Very cunning indeed, I was thinking there might be an advantageous little loophole somewhere..
 
Ian Byrne, yet another nut job Scouser, and MP, is probably going to take it to PM’s question time. Lol! :-)


Fucking looks like a Scouser. Got the "I ain't donn notten, lad" frown lines. Can imagine the sound coming out of his gob. Daft **** wants an independent regulator without realising that City are the only PL club who want one.
 
It was only a matter of time before the populist rent a **** made a comment.

Meanwhile, Manchester Mayor who was very vocal when his club Everton were under attack from the PL had said fuck all about the vicious attack on City.
Has he ever set foot in the Etihad or had anything positive to say about City? After all we contribute millions a year to his council. If we hadn’t taken on the stadium it would have cost millions a year to maintain or multi millions to demolish.
 
Has he ever set foot in the Etihad or had anything positive to say about City? After all we contribute millions a year to his council. If we hadn’t taken on the stadium it would have cost millions a year to maintain or multi millions to demolish.
If I remember rightly he got a free ticket to the first game back after covid to watch his beloved Everton, when 40 odd thousand genuine City fans weren't allowed in
 
None of these journos have considered Europe, but that’s where the competition PL teams have to overcome lies. PSV, for example, have 100m euros sponsorship from the “Global branding” of Qatar. The experts employed by UEFA put FMV at 9m but that nice M.Leterme upped it, so they passed FPP.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top