They aren't trying to stop them (at least not yet) but seem to be trying to ensure that all deals (including player movements) are done at fair market value.Are they trying to stop all”related” sponsorship or just trying to make the valuation stricter than it is currently? Also, will they be backdating it or in will it only affect future sponsors
Unfortunately many undesirable checks are probable when Investment is constrained.I love the desperate lunacy of the "3 bids'" idea since it's effectively an auction, not just of a single item, but of the myriad different, and moving, variables that go into such deals at both ends. So the club would have to enter into complex, commercially sensitive negotiations with 3 different major corporations all of which have different visions and expectations from the deal and 2 of which know they aren't going to succeed. Anyone who has ever been in a tendering exercise knows the cost of that to all parties.
Once the winning bid/tender has been decided, that has to be submitted, along with commercial details of the losing bids, which may or may not have included differing moving variables, for scrutiny by the Premier League"s ever-increasing panel of legal and financial "experts" who will then pronounce whether they will allow it. Obviously, given all the moving parts, that will be a quick process because a) that would be entirely possible and b) that's the way the PL operates. This for all 20 clubs.
It has all the hallmarks of the PL's ill-considered and desperate pandering to Liverpool's crass comment about wanting to see the "2nd bid". Just as the "blue card" nonsense appears to reflect Gary Neville's constant banging on about City's "tactical fouling".
They aren't trying to stop them (at least not yet) but seem to be trying to ensure that all deals (including player movements) are done at fair market value.
Now, on the surface, it seems a sensible move in many ways but there's obviously something there that we don't particularly like. I suspect the requirement to get a number of "quotes" will be one of them. That definitely seems suspect.
Unfortunately many undesirable checks are probable when Investment is constrained.
Surely if an ability to service debt is allowed and even encouraged then the ability to service an investment should be applauded not punished.
The scum certainly do only have one vote but they are in cahoots with the other US owned clubs. Those clubs that don’t have real business owners are persuaded by the scum to vote their way.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.
Thanks PB. Definitely seems suspicious. But in that case, I’m looking forward to seeing the other quotes that competed with Team Viewer’s bid :)They aren't trying to stop them (at least not yet) but seem to be trying to ensure that all deals (including player movements) are done at fair market value.
Now, on the surface, it seems a sensible move in many ways but there's obviously something there that we don't particularly like. I suspect the requirement to get a number of "quotes" will be one of them. That definitely seems suspect.
They aren't trying to stop them (at least not yet) but seem to be trying to ensure that all deals (including player movements) are done at fair market value.
Now, on the surface, it seems a sensible move in many ways but there's obviously something there that we don't particularly like. I suspect the requirement to get a number of "quotes" will be one of them. That definitely seems suspect.
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.
It’s all self protection. Teams like Brighton would rather have a situation where they are comfortable as a top 10 team without having to worry about an ambitious team coming up and challenging so they and other teams in similar positions are happy to protect themselves, even if it gives the teams above them a huge advantage.The scum certainly do only have one vote but they are in cahoots with the other US owned clubs. Those clubs that don’t have real business owners are persuaded by the scum to vote their way.
Thought for the day - do these so called lower clubs get some sort of underhand payment for their vote :) :)