New PL Commercial rule passed (pg4) | City rumoured to be questioning the legality

This just shows that no matter how shit the scum are on the pitch, they still have sway over the minions, lesser teams are shit scared of them and are happy to accept the measly crumbs that are thrown there way, shithouses.
 
Gone for a Burton said:
I was a client guest of a Motor Manufacturer in corporate at LFC (it was shit) for the 2-2 game yonks back.

This was under Manuel Pelegrini and pre our Pep era rivalry.

During lunch one of their Directors suddenly said, with real angst “ I hate your fucking club “ !!

I smiled and asked why, when we’re a small club, and their rivals are yewnitid.

He said “you’ve got all the money and we should’ve had it..... but we don’t want bloody oil money”

I left it until after the game then asked him how much he knew about his club before 1958 and the Littlewoods ‘financial doping’. He nearly exploded so I left it.

Over coffee I gently asked him what he knew about DIC.

“What the fuck is that to do with anything" he snarled.

"I don't know" I replied "but I thought you'd know as they wanted to buy your club recently and most of your fans wanted them".

He got up, left for a piss and didn't have the courtesy to return.

Sums them up.....CNUTS.....and I've never accepted another invitation !!
Click to expand...
Love it!

That Paddy Power ad where they say their club is different, then the fella walk in and says they’re being taken over by an oil baron. Cue ‘loadsa money, oily money’ song.

That’s Liverpool.
 
Premier League ‘changing the goalposts’. No surprise there.

They really are imploding. They should be marketing City’s style of play, success and growing popularity to increase their revenue.

But instead, they are being made to look foolish as they pander to the old guard.

Years in the courts with us and other teams will tarnish the reputation of the PL.

Hopefully this will spur us on for further success this season.
 
How important to us is the restriction being voted in on transfers between associated parties? Will this affect the potential Savio deal? I understand why much is being made of the sponsorship angle but is the multi club football model being stymied by the PL just as it's really about to benefit us?
 
Mancini Manus Domini said:
How important to us is the restriction being voted in on transfers between associated parties? Will this affect the potential Savio deal? I understand why much is being made of the sponsorship angle but is the multi club football model being stymied by the PL just as it's really about to benefit us?
Click to expand...
More than half the clubs in the PL own another club, the PL have no authority over any club outside the PL, the % is what matters but who decides what the % is, nearly every Director holds shares in the club and the sponsors, it is a cesspit that they could never ever police, even if it was legal.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Rags
Red Scouse
Spurs
Arse
Burnley
Villa
Chelsea
Everton soon
Wrexham
Click to expand...
I posted this last September. This vote is another staging post ticked off, with the ultimate aim of the USA gaining control of the game.



"As the 10th Premier League club falls into American ownership, the focus on City and Newcastle plays blindly into the hands of hedge funds, leveraged buyouts and corporate America.

A Trojan horse is being driven into the very heart of English football, in plain sight. The days of drafts, franchises and World Series will soon be upon us, of that I'm sure. The meritocracy will disappear and our great game will disappear into its own arse.

Think about this for a while. If Leeds, Ipswich and Birmingham get promoted and no American owned clubs are relegated, THIRTEEN Premier League clubs will then be American owned. Leaving only one more club to fall and hey presto, the 14 club threshold is achieved. A sprinkling of USA stardust has recently arrived in Birmingham. Coincidence? Maybe. Part of a concerted effort to get another American owned club into the Prem? You decide, but never underestimate the hidden tentacles of Wall Street.

In my opinion that 14th club has already been earmarked as the final piece of the jigsaw, in place, good to go. Already hyped to fuck in the USA, friend of the NFL, multiuse/multisport stadium in the most romantised all-Americanised capital city in the world. NYC brothers from across the pond. The Hotspurs of Tottingham have been flashing their knickers at corporate America for years.

Once Spuds is bought, game over.

Meanwhile, the gutter press will still be salivating about our 115 charges, still placing an asterix against our achievements, still waxing lyrical about the red-shirts, whilst the game is stolen from under our very feet.

Look forward to a cook-out and pretzels at Mary D's in the not too distant future.

Hell yeah"
 
Iassel said:
Because by its very nature, if you think the league are voting on something that breaks the law, you stay well away from it.
Click to expand...

But the club had already been involved in the discussions around the new rules, presumably. If they wanted to distance themselves from something they thought was illegal, they should have walked out? How does abstaining show you were against it, if you are worried about some sort of legal complicity? Surely clearly voting against is more appropriate?

The law is a mystery to me sometimes.
 
DenisLawBackHeel74 said:
The most valuable football franchise in the world……..and these cunts are trying to kill it

Absolute insanity
Click to expand...
True, utter madness, check out how rugby union is going, salary caps so all the talent goes abroad were the players can earn the big bucks, ditto women's football were City keep haemorrhaging talented players because they can earn a hell of a lot more abroad.
 
ninjamonkey said:
Good. You can't allow for multiple multi-million long term global investments to be made and then suddenly change the rules and say "we don't want to allow them anymore because certain clubs who are used to having all the advantages in the world won't benefit from them" without expecting a legal challenge.

Don't give them an inch.
Click to expand...
,,,, and then change the rules and back date the implementation.... more charges incoming.
 
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