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

[Man_City_Loyal]

What’s the background to this story? Have the new rules been released and voted through by the rest of the league or what? And what are the details of the new rules?

not yet, but they want to push it soon

 

[Centurions]

The next tweak to the rules will be to exclude any income from the new co op arena. Rags and dippers don’t have one so will cry foul.
Possibly the hotel though with it being part of the ground structurally weve got more of a chance there I’d think.

they are entirely predictable

The CO-OP Live money would go to the CFG anyway I think. Quite how it works after that I'm not sure.

 

[BlueLou82]

Wipe the floor with them.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

The CO-OP Live money would go to the CFG anyway I think. Quite how it works after that I'm not sure.

That won’t stop them trying to stop CFP passing on the share to city mate

 

[Dribble]

So as was expected all along, the PL are using illegal tactics to get at City, If this goes to court it would suddenly mean all charges are frozen and when the court decides to back current trading laws, which they would have to, surely most of the charges are then wiped??

We've just won three fuckin PL titles on the trot, the last culminating with us completing a treble in addition to becoming European Super Cup & World Club Champions, & our sponsorship is being questioned? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

We're the most successful football team in Europe, & we've won everything there is to win & our sponsorship levels STILL aren't even the highest in football, but yet the Red Top Mafia & Spuds are pushing the PL to restrict UAE sponsorship?

I can see this move being more aimed at stopping Newcastle from becoming City 2.0, but where City are concerned, this is the thin end of the wedge.

Let's say we have a barren season, who's to say the Red Top Mafia & Spuds won't demand our sponsorship revenue should be looked at & massively revised downwards, as it'd represent a fairer value?

As I said, this is aimed more at Newcastle, BUT if you connect the dots, you can see the long-term aim will be to neuter City too. Bastards!

 

[citizen_maine]

Wasn't this mooted shortly after Newcastle's takeover?
I seem to remember it was discussed and possibly even voted on, and we abstained or pointed out at that time that we thought the intended changes were illegal.

 

[Corky]

You actually said "No one has said or indicated it is City" but Sky at least have certainly indicated or suggested that it us?

They have said some one has speculated which is likely to be themselves. There is speculation it is Newcastle, Liverpool, Brighton and Aston Villa. As I have just speculated it may be them based on zero, like what Sky are using.

No one has said or indicted it is City, just mentioned some one else has speculated it could be us which is meaningless.

 

[MCFC1993]

Rule passed even though they weren't close to the 14 votes required. Abstainations shouldn't lower the threshold. What a joke this league is. Passes on 2/3rds rule.

12 is barely a majority and what happens if 3 of those go down this season?

 

[Cumbie Blue]

All because the known backlash to the Anfield Gatorade Sky Dome or Old Trafford Walmart Arena for those clubs with 'istory stops them from doing it.

Imagine if Jim had the nerve of a Keegan flogging Andy Cole, bit this bullet and met the masses on the steps at the swamp to tell them the plan, move with the times, see what happens etc? No easier to move the goalposts again. Muppets and long may it continue.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

Rule passed even though they weren't close to the 14 votes. What a joke this league is.

Clubs shouldn't be allowed abstain.
A case of running with the hare and hunting with the hound.