I’m still not convinced City abstained. Plenty of journalists have written that we voted against.Can someone clear something up for me.
The rules are that 2/3rds of the PL must vote to approve something, so that the new rule was approved by 12 of the 18 clubs who voted (2 abstained including us)
So, why didn't we just vote against it - it would have been 12/7/1 and it would have been defeated. Job done surely??
or due to the constant drip drip of changes that were clearly discriminatory, City decided enough was enough and wanted the changes tested in court. If they win, the other clubs will think twice about future changesBut it wouldnt have mattered if the vote rejected the change.
Suggests either City hadn't read the room right on how many would vote against it, or didn't understand the 2/3rds rule (as many of us thought it was 14 no matter what)
He was chosen by United and Liverpool, and he's there to carry out their bidding.You’d expect any competent CEO to “read the room” of his twenty shareholders and basically know where the votes would go on contentious matters. He’s a fucking clown and has presided over/caused chaos.
Well if journalists have written it , then it must be true with their integrity and fact checking .I’m still not convinced City abstained. Plenty of journalists have written that we voted against.
Thats a good podcast that Stefan shared on Twitter.
Mark Chapman, Gabby Logan and a sports lawyer.
Basically saying that its not that big a deal and no matter the outcome it won't change a great deal. And that everyone has seen "man city taking the premier league to court" since Tuesday and gone into a frenzy
He doesn’t care about 20 shareholders tho :)You’d expect any competent CEO to “read the room” of his twenty shareholders and basically know where the votes would go on contentious matters. He’s a fucking clown and has presided over/caused chaos.
Is the correct answerBring a rule in within 48 hours to ban it
Ineos would be a related party anyway surely.
It’s difficult without seeing the full submission but personally I do think there needs to be some regulation around associated parties (well, there does now because they allowed the Newcastle sale through, the right answer would have been never allowing that to happen), it sounds like the PL have overreached with it though.