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

[waspish]

Just woke up and seen this thread, read through the pages just now.

It seems we have warned the PL that they may face a legal challenge - whether that is us or possibly Newcastle remains to be seen

In regards to the other clubs, i just dont understand why they choose to align with the red mafia. I can only assune that they actually dont care about what the fans deem aspirations/dreams about one day challenging or winning a trophy....i think these clubs owners are just happy to ride the coat tails of the red cartel and not have to spend money

The premier league is currently managaed by a patsy that tge red cartel can manipulate.. seems that comment about them having too much power/sway in decisions have once again come home to roost


The so-called associated-party transaction (APT) rules are intended to ensure a level playing field among English football's elite teams by preventing clubs from signing commercial deals at inflated prices, thereby enabling them to spend even greater sums on players.

Level playing field for who?
Who the hell do the premier league think they are to hold the power about commercial deals being inflated and then be judge and executioner to say no deal - and who actually has input on that decision by the premier league!

Maybe this rule is aimed at both Newcastle and our club

Long shot. But maybe this rule being enforced is a indication that the current 115 charges are about to be swatted away by our legal team

If that's the case "to be fair for all" only let everyone premier team allowed what the bottom team get sponsors for then! What why really mean is we don't want Man City getting at sponsors deal for 150m a year when the red shirts can "only" get 100m!

 

[Elbow beards]

This has got to backfire as well, got to. City are treble winners, champions of Europe and the world and most watched in USA. We can demand the highest of sponsorship deals. How can the shit ask for larger deals when in reality they are a mediocre mid table team now? City will just turn round and say ' well if they're getting that, then we can easily get this'

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

It's related party transactions that companies have to declare, and there has to a well-defined connection. Etihad is not a related party to City under the relevant accounting standard but the PL are trying to make it one.

Hmmmm...so another rule to beat us with

Therefore the PL and cartel would be able to make the Etihad spondorship null - is that right

But Etihad has already prospered from their sponsorship with us, so as soneone said earlier, we would get another deal say with Amazon etc which would pass

 

[HolisticJim]

Surely this rule is brought in to prevent Genoa for etc signing a player and then us buying him for next to nothing...or worse still selling them a player for an insane amount to get around ffp?

Same with Newcastle and the Saudi league.

And....as much as I can see this having a potential impact on city a) I haven't seen much evidence of it and b) isn't it right if that's the case.

I think the commercial deals is slightly different as like many others have said, whi are the Premier League to say 'X club's shirt isn't worth X amount' but then again, I dont see really how this effects us as providing we keep winning we will be attracting global sponsors anyway.

In my view we love to hate but the reality is that if 20 years ago we were told we would literally be thebgreatest football team in the world but everyone would hate us for it then we would have all got our cocks out.

In another 20 years we will be the product...the prem and Man City will be one of the same and the red tops will be also rans (they already are).

And as much as I hope it continues, from everybody else's perspective City winning 5 from 6 titles etc isn't good for the sport and it's their worse nightmare come true.

So of course we are hated! Just enjoy it.

 

[Bruno39]

Should have a field day. Ashley throw the book at Masters, Hoffman and PL and they crumbled.

Staveley has said in so many terms that they have a load of dirt on the PL regarding how they blocked and tried to block our takeover.

Will catch up on the details - but good to see City taking them on in court. I see Newcastle and City natural allies in this against Levy and American's that are the puppeteers of Masters and the PL.

During Masters' tenure it's just been a utter shit show - hope you guys can get his head on a stick!

 

[Iassel]

This Associated Party Transaction isnt it normal in big business

Related Party Transactions is what you’re thinking of and is generally dealing with companies with common directors or shareholders.

As a high level example, the director of a building company is also a director of a scaffolding company and a skip hire company and deals with both, they would declare any debts owed/owing to each other.

The PLs ‘associated party’ is intentionally much vaguer and so the companies that City and Newcastle for example deal with that have separate directors but are in the same circles as the clubs directors can be drawn in and cracked down on.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Seeing that we have been the most successful club over the last decade, at least we will be the ones to set the price of sponsorship.

There‘s obviously a lot more to these changes, though, for clubs wanting to push them through mid-season.

 

[give it to gordon]

I see nothing wrong with the Etihad sponsorship

Both City and Etihad have had a great journey alongside each other.

What ever Etihad paid its clear both are happy with the deal.

Both City and Etihad liked the project and it's been brilliant for both.

Now if the pl want to look at something abit dodge, look at rags last two deals, one a car company that doesn't sell cars in this country. Second company went bust. Dippers sponsor a very dodge American bank.

 

[PPT]

Can I ask a simple question, Why do the Premier League and its members want to protect the Scum, Only a couple of seasons ago they were leaving to form the Super League, If that was not a sign they don't care about anybody else then I don't know what is,

Manchester City did not want to leave, But had to protect themselves and agree to leave, again peer pressure from the scum saying if they leave they will be no Premier League or Champions League or European football or the sort of money it will bring if we stay,

We should have been nowhere near that Super League debacle. But we were and we have to take responsibility for that decision 100%. It was nobody else’s fault but our own. We even had Joel Glazer explaining it on the official club website.
Also, if the Super League had of happened we would have gone. Soriano saw the £££ just like the rest of them.

 

[Iassel]

Surely this rule is brought in to prevent Genoa for etc signing a player and then us buying him for next to nothing...or worse still selling them a player for an insane amount to get around ffp?

Same with Newcastle and the Saudi league.

*Girona, not Genoa.

The natural consequence of these rules will be to softly enforce the club being unable to agree sponsorship deals with Etihad and have to go to ‘the open market’ which these days should really not be an issue as City can generate record breaking deals due to on the field success.

It’s essentially a long-term gamble that the owners will ‘get bored’ when City play at the ‘Infosys Stadium’ wearing kits with ‘Visa’ on the front, rather than Etihad, but of course the club has long since grown from a toy to promote UAE tourism to a multi billion dollar winning machine that serves as a genuine, appreciating asset.