CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

"It can now be exclusively revealed that, as per documents obtained by Football Insider, a £50m related-party cap was proposed in the fine print of Project Big Picture, a 2020 plan to restructure the governance of English football."

...

"Project Big Picture was itself rejected in October 2020."
 
Norman kneejerk said:
I thought most of ours like Etihad were not related party.
Click to expand...
This original plan was rejected 18 months ago, with clubs complaining that the definition of a "Related Party" is too vague.

However it seems Newcastle's stellar season has sparked rival teams into cranking up this related party nonsense again.

They want the related party rules tightened up & more clearly defined, but the only clubs seemingly targeted are City & Newcastle. I wonder why?
 
Dribble said:
This original plan was rejected 18 months ago, with clubs complaining that the definition of a "Related Party" is too vague.

However it seems Newcastle's stellar season has sparked rival teams into cranking up this related party nonsense again.

They want the related party rules tightened up & more clearly defined, but the only clubs seemingly targeted are City & Newcastle. I wonder why?
Click to expand...
But surely it doesn’t much matter if Etihad are related (even though they aren’t) as no one can really argue that the Etihad sponsorship is above fair value.
 
JGL07 said:
But surely it doesn’t much matter if Etihad are related (even though they aren’t) as no one can really argue that the Etihad sponsorship is above fair value.
Click to expand...
In view of City & Chelsea being England's two most successful clubs over the past ten years, these are all very valid arguments.

HOWEVER, as you'll already know, common sense is in short supply when City are mentioned.

I'm tired of telling opposition fans that our owner could be worth a Gazillion quid, but he's still limited in what he can spend on our squad because of FFP.

This is where they believe being sponsored by companies based in the same country as the owner is an FFP scam.

This being the case, why aren't the USA owned clubs more heavily scrutinised for being sponsored by USA based companies?
 
Dribble said:
In view of City & Chelsea being England's two most successful clubs over the past ten years, these are all very valid arguments.

HOWEVER, as you'll already know, common sense is in short supply when City are mentioned.

I'm tired of telling opposition fans that our owner could be worth a Gazillion quid, but he's still limited in what he can spend on our squad because of FFP.

This is where they believe being sponsored by companies based in the same country as the owner is an FFP scam.

This being the case, why aren't the USA owned clubs more heavily scrutinised for being sponsored by USA based companies?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, have every faith in the club after beating UEFA despite our friend Evans from the Independent reminding us UEFA lawyers never lost a case.
 
pauls said:
Absolutely, have every faith in the club after beating UEFA despite our friend Evans from the Independent reminding us UEFA lawyers never lost a case.
Click to expand...
It's crazy! When you look at what FFP was meant to achieve, & whose progress it was supposed to impede, look at the clubs who're most in debt. It's all the same bent bastards who dreamt up FFP to stop City!
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.