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

[cheekybids]

To be fair, that was a bloody good Spurs side at the start if the 60s. Their problem is that they've been living off the back of it for 63 years.
Fraud club.

They won their first title in the 50s & last in the 60s. They can’t claim historical significance, they’ve never had a period of dominance & they’ve done fuck all for 60 odd years……


Their record doesn’t stand out against Burnley.

 

[CC1]

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,

The Premier League IS the scum & other so called ex top teams with mainly US owners. They simply outvote the other clubs in order to protect their own interests.

 

[Chris-NCL]

Hang on hang on ! I've just googled the King Power Company and it's owned by the owner of Leicester City. He owns the company that sponsor Leicester Citys shirt and statium.

I'm I missing something here ?

It wasn’t a problem for us (Newcastle) either, when Ashley owned us and gave Sports Direct 14 years of free advertising around the stadium. The last 2 years he claimed he was paying for, but our owners found through the accounts that he never actually did, resulting in them letting the fans know, and Ashley trying to take Amanda Staveley to court for bad mouthing him when he asked her not too.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Apology’ if I have missed this but is there a definition that will help me understand the difference between an associated party and a related party (accounting term?) - can an entity be both?

Related parties are those where one has a significant influence over the other, normally (but not always) by shareholding.

"Associated" parties according to the PL are pretty much any two parties where there is an association between the two (familial, business, or any other connection the PL cares to determine) irrespective of the accounting definition.

So yes, a related party by accounting standards would also be "associated" by the PL definition, but most "associated" parties defined by the PL would not be associated as defined by accounting standards.

This isn't new, by the way, it is already in the PL rules. And the current rules aren't really a problem for City as they just require such transactions to be at fair value, which is fairly easy to defend.

What they have just done is tighten up the associated party rules with some new rules that we don't know about yet. Last time, they tried to say such transactions wouldn't be approved unless they were supported by two third party bids as comparators (Liverpool's "what was the losing bid?" question when Etihad sponsorship was first signed). That was voted down last time but it gives City more of a problem, if it is indeed the new rule, because getting three bids for each sponsorship is a pain in the arse and, quite frankly, an onerous burden, which is maybe why City would be thinking about challenging it. And they would win, in my view. The ECJ has recently determined that regulators should keep out of commercial arrangements unless they have a very good reason. I think :)

The current (previous) rules are sufficient protection against inflated "associated" sponsorships, imho, although they too may get thrown out under a legal challenge. At the end of the day, sponsorships should be at fair value, no matter who they are from. Any attempt to restrict a club's ability to sign sponsorships with whoever they want because it's a bit disadvantageous to clubs who aren't so well connected, and we all know this is the issue, is very probably anti-competitive.

At least, that's my take on it all, right or wrong :)

 

[SWP's back]

So City and Newcastle didn’t abstain…

 

[halfcenturyup]

So City and Newcastle didn’t abstain…

:)

 

[cheekybids]

Related parties are those where one has a significant influence over the other, normally (but not always) by shareholding.

"Associated" parties according to the PL are pretty much any two parties where there is an association between the two (familial, business, or any other connection the PL cares to determine) irrespective of the accounting definition.

So yes, a related party by accounting standards would also be "associated" by the PL definition, but most "associated" parties defined by the PL would not be associated as defined by accounting standards.

This isn't new, by the way, it is already in the PL rules. And the current rules aren't really a problem for City as they just require such transactions to be at fair value, which is fairly easy to defend.

What they have just done is tighten up the associated party rules with some new rules that we don't know about yet. Last time, they tried to say such transactions wouldn't be approved unless they were supported by two third party bids as comparators (Liverpool's "what was the losing bid?" question when Etihad sponsorship was first signed). That was voted down last time but it gives City more of a problem, if it is indeed the new rule, because getting three bids for each sponsorship is a pain in the arse and, quite frankly, an onerous burden, which is maybe why City would be thinking about challenging it. And they would win, in my view. The ECJ has recently determined that regulators should keep out of commercial arrangements unless they have a very good reason. I think :)

The current (previous) rules are sufficient protection against inflated "associated" sponsorships, imho, although they too may get thrown out under a legal challenge. At the end of the day, sponsorships should be at fair value, no matter who they are from. Any attempt to restrict a club's ability to sign sponsorships with whoever they want because it's a bit disadvantageous to clubs who aren't so well connected, and we all know this is the issue, is very probably anti-competitive.

At least, that's my take on it all, right or wrong :)

So football sponsorship has more “red tape” than government tenders…..

 

[ancoats]

The Premier League IS the scum & other so called ex top teams with mainly US owners. They simply outvote the other clubs in order to protect their own interests.

But the scum only have one vote to 19 others, I don't understand why the other smaller to middle-of-the-road clubs back them unless its power the scum have on the smaller clubs, As I said back in 1992 the scum lied when they promised live games for everybody every week, What they didn't say it had to be the 2 united games you play every season,

Now there is a new sheriff in town and Sorry to burst the scum's bubble but Manchester City are top dogs and the way forward, Even after all the shit the scum has thrown at Manchester City even rule changes we just keep going on and on, So maybe the smaller clubs should wake up and free themselves from the filth and the scum and listen to somebody else for once.

 

[Random Precision]

They've only sponsored the stadium for what 12 or 13 years., and they are attempting to go after this now, by making a rule change?

I really hope it is City who are threatening legal action over this. It beggars belief, the levels the enemies of the club will stoop to.

No, no, no……I want it to be Newcastle who’re threaten/taking legal action.

 

[give it to gordon]

So football sponsorship has more “red tape” than government tenders…..

Also you can just image it, City put forward their 3 quotes of say 100milion for shirt sponsor. Some how the dippers & rags get to hear about this.

The dippers & rags go back to their potential sponsors say City are getting 100million so you have to equal or better it.

The dippers & rags sponsors agree to 100million.

Than the pl say sorry City but your sponsorship is to high it has to be 50million maximum.