But it will come back to bite them at some point. When the 115 is resolved (positively for us), and these new amendments are exposed as being illegal, it will make Masters and the PL look like the incompetent imbeciles they really are.
The original APT amendments are already found to be illegal, in that they deliberately target certain clubs in favour of others. City so far has not made anything of this, but when all is laid bare at the end of the 115, I'm pretty sure the PL will be damned, and the chief agitators exposed.
True but I also think those clubs will vote against itThey wouldn't have abstained then, would they?
But it will come back to bite them at some point. When the 115 is resolved (positively for us), and these new amendments are exposed as being illegal, it will make Masters and the PL look like the incompetent imbeciles they really are.
The original APT amendments are already found to be illegal, in that they deliberately target certain clubs in favour of others. City so far has not made anything of this, but when all is laid bare at the end of the 115, I'm pretty sure the PL will be damned, and the chief agitators exposed.
I wish we could fast forward to Khaldoon's first interview once we're cleared after the 115.
It wouldn't, as it would get passed
Surely the PL will have spoken to all 20 clubs and confirmed which way they will be voting. FFS even Masters cannot be that incompetent to hold the vote with the outcome in doubt??Or maybe 9, as two thirds is less than 10?
One would imagine that most organisations would have minimum numbers required for a vote to pass (say over half must vote yes, for example) but this is the rank amateurs that run the PL so likely to not be the case!
On that basis of course, if 17 clubs were to ever abstain, they’d only need 2 to vote something though……
Surely the PL will have spoken to all 20 clubs and confirmed which way they will be voting. FFS even Masters is not that incompetent to hold the vote with the outcome in doubt??
Why not? The original vote only passed by the narrowest of margins because two clubs abstained.Surely the PL will have spoken to all 20 clubs and confirmed which way they will be voting. FFS even Masters cannot be that incompetent to hold the vote with the outcome in doubt??
I just wonder if the PL have argued that the loan to Etisalat by Mansour makes that sponsorship a related transaction.Thanks as ever for your erudite & considered contribution Chris.The bolded bit is what I was trying to infer, but without knowing the exact detail of the PL charges, it's difficult to be certain.
However, paragraphs 18 & 19 in the report of the Arbitration Panel clearly laid bare the background to the motivation for the amendments, which was the belief among some clubs that we were trying to evade declaring that Etihad was a related party. That construct is completely incorrect and is one point that Stefan and me agree on completely.