I think the mods have missed a trick by not opening a match day thread on it.Been in hospital for 2 days not seen or heard anything obviously, do we have and good new to report
The arbitrators have said we haven't done anything wrong and we can go live on an island somewhereBeen in hospital for 2 days not seen or heard anything obviously, do we have and good new to report
Associated parties - which is legally undefinedThat's in the "115" charges rap, nothing to do with this current challenge, the PL are saying our sponsors are "related parties" and as such can be scrutinised by the PL and the value can be reduced. We're saying that's illegal under competitiveness rules.
Plus the Rags have to play in skins and underpants for the next 5 matches and the Dippers have to replace YNWA with Blue Moon.The arbitrators have said we haven't done anything wrong and we can go live on an island somewhere
It's an old one but Souness sums it all up
Correct - talk about mission creep !A thought occured to me today that I hadn't even considered before, lets say that the PL bring in the anchoring rule where the maximum a club can spend is say £650 million. How does that affect associated rules and fair market value?
If we as a club get to a point where we bring in say £800 million and agree to the cap at £650 million then surely the additional money we are unable to spend will go to the owners as a return on their investment.
So in effect the PL are trying to push rules that will limit what a business can earn regardless of if they can spend it. I cant quite understand how that could be legal.
Yes but we're challenging the fact that our sponsors are related as the club is owned by the Sheikh, 80% and Silverlake, 19% with a 1% stake from China.Associated parties - which is legally undefined
Related parties is already defined legally