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

give it to gordon said:
What puzzles me with this your sponsor can't be from the same country.
The American owners are ruling out all the sponsor from America for their clubs. That's alot of huge companies the American owned clubs can't use. Probably companies that they know well and have worked with before.

The pl is happy to lose all these huge companies from sponsoring teams in the pl.

I just don't understand it, it makes no business sence to me and only see it harming the pl and the football in this country.

American sponsors won't sponsor mid East clubs, mid East clubs won't sponsor American clubs lol. So the field for sponsorship is very small now and well enable the sponsor to drive down the deals.

Talk about destroying your own league. Other European leagues must be rubbing their hands. Soon all the top players, sponsors, tv money is all coming their way.
Click to expand...
Not countries, its associated parties, so the PL can decide that Etihad is associated because, Mansour's half-brother is on the controlling management and therefore could enhance the deal. With International Financial Reporting Standards IFRS then this would be deemed a related party because no oneat City have any control of Etihad IFRS is the standard that the whole world of business works to, PL have introduce AP and we know why
 
Sibierskii said:


Banging the same. old. drum.
Click to expand...

What exactly is it that City are doing? Well, Si, we have not joined a club and then decided that we don't like the rules. I don't know whether you realise, Si, that the rules have changed because other members of the club appear to be frightened of wealthy clubs. So Manchester United proposed to a frightened "club's" members that they stop owners spending money on their clubs. Then they were frightened that two clubs might benefit from sponsorship deals, so, in mid season, the frightened members of the "club" ban deals from one area of the world from which the owners of these two clubs come. City are of the opinion that these rules infringe competition law and are thus unlawful, and that City should be compensated for losses sustained as a result. The claim will be decided by a PL tribunal, not a court of law. How fair is that, I wonder.

So, Si, if you calmed down a bit and thought calmly, do you think it's an absolute disgrace that the "club" change the rules so often to give themselves an advantage? Or do you prefer to wallow in your loud mouthed ignorance? And accept rules that you don't like but others consider unlawful?
 
KS55 said:
Your statement which ends “unless they are owned by the same people” is plain wrong.
IAS24 which UEFA use is about related companies. That is defined in the standard. It includes ownership and major influence, fine. But the new PL rule goes well beyond that and is about ‘associated companies’ What exactly this means is unclear because the drafting of the rule is opaque and convoluted. But common ownership is not necessary to be caught by the rule. Some interpretations of the rule suggest that merely being from the same country is enough to be caught. If the PL has called our Etihad sponsorship ‘associated’, it will be interesting to see their reasoning, as City has no director, executive etc etc on the Etihad board and Etihad has none on our board. So why is it associated?
(We do not actually know if the PL has made this ruling, but it’s a good guess.)
That’s the rub.
Click to expand...
It's is associated in City's case as they are all brown in colour
 
Newman Noggs said:
What do people make of the concept of the PL having a "conflict of interest" in terms of sponsorship ? I wonder if the PL has approached the same potential sponsors as City or whether the argument is that the concept of a PL as some sort of neutral co-operative is completely wrong and that it is simply a group of clubs all vying for the same pool of sponsors which, on that basis, can never be trusted to act in good faith with respect to an individual shareholder. I'd love to see the submissions.
Click to expand...

More to I'd expect that they think we don't have to work as hard to get a sponsor that pays a lot while the like of spurs Arsenal rags and Chelsea are finding it hard to get one! Levy hasn't even found a stadium sponsor yet!
 
Gordyola said:
Not countries, its associated parties, so the PL can decide that Etihad is associated because, Mansour's half-brother is on the controlling management and therefore could enhance the deal. With International Financial Reporting Standards IFRS then this would be deemed a related party because no oneat City have any control of Etihad IFRS is the standard that the whole world of business works to, PL have introduce AP and we know why
Click to expand...

Only this, but you missed a "not".
 
Mancityphilfo2000 said:
Why give that pr*ck jordan airtime clearly hates city.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure he does hate us, he (like many others) is just using us to try and make himself relevant and to garner clicks. He'll say whatever he thinks will generate the most feedback, if it doesn't work then he'll happily reverse his outlook the next day to try something else.
 
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