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

[eyalluvitt]

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.

Doesn’t Worzel Jimmage own a nice club in France?

 

[Cambo]

Exactly, so if say 14 abstained, it would only need 4 clubs to have a rule passed. It should be a 2/3rds vote of all clubs, for the motion to approve change.

In most forms of business the voting threshold is the voting threshold. An abstaining vote is a no vote.

I wonder if they didn’t want to hard code a number of clubs (ie 14) given that the number of teams in the PL may change over time. You deal with that by saying 2/3 vote of the participating clubs in the PL at the time the vote is taken.

 

[eyalluvitt]

The most valuable football franchise in the world……..and these cunts are trying to kill it

Absolute insanity

Yet the great British taxpayer is being asked to fund New Scaffold,

 

[eyalluvitt]

II think Etihad should sponsor Newcastle and their stadium for 75m a year and Saudi airlines should have a similar deal with City, the piss boiling would be hilarious.

Yet the Saudi Telecom inflated millions pumped into United for 12 years flies under the radar

 

[eyalluvitt]

At the moment I think that this rule change is aimed at Newcastle rather than at City. We've recently found out that the most watched team on TV in the USA is ... City, home of the scarlet cartel. The only conclusion to draw from that is that "fair market value" for City must be way higher than what the red tops get for their deals, whether its paid by Yanks, Arabs or little green men from Mars. No doubt though, Newcastle will be seen as a very different kettle of fish

Us and the gruesome threesome can still monopolize the CL places most seasons, Biffa Bacon fc threatened that

 

[SWP's back]

I mean I’d be amazed if the abstentions weren’t City + 1 of Chelsea/Newcastle, especially if there is any grain of truth in City considering a legal challenge.

City and Newcastle voted against it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

City and Newcastle voted against it.

You would think so ....

 

[SWP's back]

It seems the Premier League are taking all sorts of risks to appease certain clubs and avoid independent regulation.

The Premier League is made up of 20 shareholders, the individual clubs. The new proposals came from the cartel clubs, not some higher ups.

 

[SWP's back]

City were the only club to abstain from the vote when it first came round last Autumn.

Fair enough.

 

[KS55]

Perhaps I've missed it (unless this is from your own sources) but when did this occur?

I missed it too but was informed, I think by @Prestwich_Blue, that we bought a 25% stake in the arena. I have not seen it anywhere but we are listed as a stakeholder in the legal docs apparently.
City and CFG are poor at informing fans about such matters. So, for example, they said nothing when ADUG ceased to be our ultimate owner and have said nothing about a proposed IPO in NY. WHY are we now owned by an intermediate company in CFG? The CFG website was miles out of date when I last looked. The one failing of our chairman is the failure to understand fans’ needs properly, try ringing the ticket office.