City launch legal action against the Premier League

[Churchlawtonblue]

Martin Samuel has made this point. Newcastle can only make deals with Saudi companies that are at market value, if at al, whereas Manchester United could make a deal with the same company on any terms.l

Well I am pretty certain that won't stand up under in UK law.

 

[urban genie]

Long time reader....first time poster. I'm expecting to be branded a rag any moment!!! Bring it on.

It occurs to me that City and Newcastle could simply broker a mutually beneficial arrangement by which Etihad sponsor Newcastle and a Saudi equivalent sponsors City. It would boil an ocean of urine!

rag ;-)


As much as their dislike of Qatar and Yemens Houthis may get them co-operating are we sure the UAE and Saudis are that friendly with each other to mutually benefit each team

 

[mattcity5]

No need for politics mate.

This whole thing is politics. Geopolitics I suppose.

My point stands, disagree if you want or point out how I'm wrong by all means.

 

[Kinkybyname]

It's one of the worst pieces of 'journalism' I've ever read.

Just love the bit of self-congratulation about their shitty paper having the best investigative journalists....preceded by a reference to the leak. He's so far up his own backside, there's little chance he'll see the irony.

He really does need to stick to table tennis :)

hardly investigative, when things are dropped into your lap is it?

 

[Atypical]

There's a part of me that has a strong feeling that Newcastle aren't overly keen on buddying up with City if they can avoid it

It would be cheating anyway swapping sponsors with Saudi in my eyes. City don’t cheat they are just better run than the colluding yank clubs who continue to see their star and striped arses. Us siding with Saudi or vice versa would be their paid shills wet dream to hammer us.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I don't want to be a party pooper but listening to that, how is this explained?

Newcastle have finalised a £25m-a-year front-of-shirt sponsorship deal with the leading Saudi Arabian events company Sela. The agreement will provide an early test of the Premier League’s new fair market value commercial regulations.

According to the wording the PL haven't ratified the deal yet.

 

[mattcity5]

I haven’t a clue what all this means now.

Premier League: Clubs vote to trial new spending cap system

Premier League clubs have voted to bring in a new spending cap system on a trial basis for the 2024-25 season.

www.bbc.co.uk

To be honest all this feels to me like a deliberate attempt to fuck things up so much that everyone says scrap all the financial rules. It's just bizarre. I know the votes keep happening on these amendments, but who keeps putting forward the proposals? Is it all the PL themselves?

Edit - When theres so many of these rules and the PL and UEFA ones may differ in some ways, surely there's a risk of some slightly contradicting each other. Feels like the best accountants will be worth more than a 20 goal a season striker soon.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

rag ;-)


As much as their dislike of Qatar and Yemens Houthis may get them co-operating are we sure the UAE and Saudis are that friendly with each other to mutually benefit each team

They won't need to do it when City win !!

 

[flb]

According to the wording the PL haven't ratified the deal yet.

Which says it all

 

[34yearsandstillgoingstrong]

The rule is "any Resolution tabled at the General Meeting must be approved by two thirds of Members who are present and who vote by their Representative or proxy". So abstentions don't count. Looks very clear to me. And has always been the case. Hopeless argument to try and change that and it won't be what City are arguing

Interesting ! Given the above, could someone enlighten me on this point : I've read a number of differing accounts as to when the Premiership adopted and took on Gill's "Get City FFP" rules from UEFA - I think it was in 2015 ?. I recall the media headlines at the time rejoicing that the Premiership would now have their turn to try and sink City . If I recall correctly - didn't 6 clubs ( City, AV, and 4 others ) vote against their adoption and at the very last moment Reading abstained enabling the usual suspects to get their motion through. The voting would therefore have been 13 for / 6 against. I always understood that Reading's mysterious last minute abstention swung the vote in favour of adopting Gill's FFP and yet the voting in favour ( 65% ) did not meet the 2/3 threshold . I'm sure I'm missing something or have got my facts wrong.