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

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

Kevin Keegan joined Newcastle United 40 years ago sparking hysteria on Tyneside

When the Evening Chronicle confirmed Newcastle United were signing England captain Kevin Keegan back in August 1982, Tyneside very nearly went into meltdown
www.chroniclelive.co.uk www.chroniclelive.co.uk

Days like these are long gone it seems. The original sponsor backed transfer for me. Of course we'll pay extra to cover the wages, look at the PR we get from this and the sales of the brown stuff at at the Strawberry on matchdays are gonna go through the roof.

Why are they voting to stifle ambition and investment? Because they have none.
 
Didn’t this come up before?

I could be misremembering this but were City not previously advised by their own legal team to abstain from this vote as they believed it fell foul of British Competition law and they did not want to be part of a decision one way or another?

Its easy to think this is City taking on the PL but it could be that City just followed advice not to participate in this vote for fear of the potential legal consequences.

It might not be that controversial. I think City warned the PL that they were about do something stupid rather than that they themselves would take action against the PL.

Unless I dreamt it all!

Edit:

This seems to say City tried to just warn the PL that they were behaving illegally. It doesn’t say City will be the ones making the challenge.

·
BREAKING: Premier League clubs have approved tougher new rules on associated party deals - sponsorship and player transfers - by the closest of votes: 12 votes to 6 with two abstaining. One club, suggested to be Man City, has warned PL it could face a legal challenge over these.
 
Last edited:
Cobwebcat said:
Didn’t this come up before?

I could be misremembering this but were City not previously advised by their own legal team to abstain from this vote as they believed it fell foul of British Competition law and they did not want to be part of a decision one way or another?

Its easy to think this is City taking on the PL but it could be that City just followed advice not to participate in this vote for fear of the potential legal consequences.

It might not be that controversial. I think City warned the PL that they were about do something stupid rather than that they themselves would take action against the PL.

Unless I dreamt it all!
Click to expand...


I think the rule that was passed was not as straightforward as it sounds, I heard it only just got passed by a single vote by the clubs, So can it be legally bound because of a minority? This is Why an unnamed club is taking legal action

Anyway, moving the goalpost again to suit one club stinks and we all know who is behind all of this, They never have or had a fair fight and want everything handed to them on a plate, Pulling a few strings with the smaller members with false promises like they did in 1992 will not work this time,
 
M18CTID said:
Obviously we don’t know the exact background for sure but could City’s stance regarding legality be to do with International Accounting Standards 24 (IAS24) and their definition of a related party? As I understand it, UEFA’s original FFP regs basically followed IAS24 guidelines (and presumably the PL’s FFP regs did too) when it came to related party transactions. Perhaps City see the PL veering too far away from IAS24 with these new proposals being voted in today and as such there are questions surrounding the lawfulness of them?

Thinking back, weren’t UEFA of the opinion that Etihad were a related party but City disagreed, presumably citing IAS24 as what does or doesn’t constitute a related party. IIRC UEFA didn’t argue the toss too much on it, maybe because they knew deep down that Etihad weren’t a RP. An ironic side issue of that is that when the Der Spiegel articles surfaced, if Etihad were indeed a related party and City agreed with UEFA then it would’ve rendered the accusation that Mansour funded some of the sponsorship deal himself effectively moot!
Click to expand...

I think the Red Shirts had hoped that much of our sponsored revenue could be curtailed by labelling it Related Party Transactions but, that has clearly failed - because convention around International Accounting standards effectively stops the PL making up its own interpretation of the rules. This seems to be a crude attempt at version 2. Invent your own terminology call it Associated Party rather than RP and then make up your own rules and interpretations. I.e, if the sponsorship isn’t from an Anglo Saxon company it can’t be allowed etc… the PL are making some seriously stupid decisions and this can only result in the whole organisation collapsing at some point. Master’s is out of his depth and I seriously don’t think he will be in post by the end of the year.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Not saying you are wrong, but why? These votes aren't a surprise, everyone knows how everyone else is going to vote, so why would any of the three abstain and the rule is passed?
Click to expand...
Because by its very nature, if you think the league are voting on something that breaks the law, you stay well away from it.
 
Phil1 said:
It was much more fun following City when it was about the football and a business degree wasn’t warranted.
Seriously, there’s as many threads these days talking about fucking finances as there are about what’s happening on the pitch.
It’s depressing.
Click to expand...
Yep
 
Cobwebcat said:
Didn’t this come up before?

I could be misremembering this but were City not previously advised by their own legal team to abstain from this vote as they believed it fell foul of British Competition law and they did not want to be part of a decision one way or another?

Its easy to think this is City taking on the PL but it could be that City just followed advice not to participate in this vote for fear of the potential legal consequences.

It might not be that controversial. I think City warned the PL that they were about do something stupid rather than that they themselves would take action against the PL.

Unless I dreamt it all!

Edit:

This seems to say City tried to just warn the PL that they were behaving illegally. It doesn’t say City will be the ones making the challenge.

·
BREAKING: Premier League clubs have approved tougher new rules on associated party deals - sponsorship and player transfers - by the closest of votes: 12 votes to 6 with two abstaining. One club, suggested to be Man City, has warned PL it could face a legal challenge over these.
Click to expand...
What happened to the two thirds of members must vote in favour for a rule change to be effected?
Has this been officially ditched?
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.