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

halfcenturyup said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. That helps me quite a bit
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
And how many sponsors would be happy to share confidential details of their bids with a leaky organisation like the PL. This idea is barking mad. Masters is a clueless moron.
Click to expand...

This. I said it the first time they tried this. The very first time they try to enforce these new rules, there will be a court case and, if they aren't careful, the whole FFP thing will come tumbling down. Why take the risk when they have perfectly good rules in place already?
 
mancboy said:
from a business perspective its completely insane
Click to expand...
The people running the PL, ie Masters and the board members, don't have a clue what they are doing. And those club Directors who voted for this change are imbeciles. Do they think it will make it easier for them to attract sponsors by creating such a barrier to investment. Just the paperwork involved in such a tendering process would deter most firms. The PL is not a public organisation using public money. The proposal for a bidding process will put PL clubs at a huge disadvantage against clubs from Spain, Germany, Italy etc.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The people running the PL, ie Masters and the board members, don't have a clue what they are doing. And those club Directors who voted for this change are imbeciles. Do they think it will make it easier for them to attract sponsors by creating such a barrier to investment. Just the paperwork involved in such a tendering process would deter most firms. The PL is not a public organisation using public money. The proposal for a bidding process will put PL clubs at a huge disadvantage against clubs from Spain, Germany, Italy etc.
Click to expand...

But that is what they want. This isn't for all transactions, just associated party transactions. And the PL gets to decide what is associated and what isn't.

So, City want a sponsorship from a company who has a board member related to Khaldoon? Associated, follow the rules. United want a sponsorship from a company who has a Board member in common with Ineos? Minority owner, no problem. You can see where this is going. The courts.
 
Last edited:
M18CTID said:
I’m sure City - given our standing these days - could easily go out into the open market and get 2 highly lucrative bids from well-known companies that are in no way considered a related or associated party to compete with whatever Etihad are bidding. Factor in the business contacts of both Mansour and Silver Lake - which shit all over the red-shirt Cartel clubs - I’d argue that it’s an easier task for our club to do that than any other club in the PL. As such, our issue with this could be more to do with the risk of sensitive commercial info falling into the hands of our competitors. And given that that **** Masters probably has both United and Liverpool on fucking speed dial, you can guarantee he’d be straight on the phone to them to disclose details of those bids.
Click to expand...
City should offer to sponsor the Dippers for a Tenner, that would skew their bid prices!
 
ancoats said:
I was sat up in bed last night thinking about what status and power Manchester City holds.

The Premier League/Uefa do very well off the back of our great new-found wealth with the superstar players and manager to sell their TV rights to the highest bidders, That was the Premier League plan to invite outside investment and bring the best players and managers to the league, Also to boost Englands international team with the best young players with the best academy system,

What more could our great owners have done for the game in England, Thats right (nothing more) because it is 100% more than all the other 19 clubs put together have done for the game in England.

We need somebody to shout this out to the world and make them listen. WE ARE NO CHEATS, we care about the game and fans at all levels of the game, what have the scum ever done, bloody hell it took them nearly 10 years to form a ladies team because they felt it did not benefit them ?

Maybe Manchester City should come up with a New plan for the game and top division, Build a new structure that all 4 leagues and Non leagues in England are treated well, I know for a fact Internet companies would jump on board to back the idea and blow Sky subscription football out of the water,
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.