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

Good. You can't allow for multiple multi-million long term global investments to be made and then suddenly change the rules and say "we don't want to allow them anymore because certain clubs who are used to having all the advantages in the world won't benefit from them" without expecting a legal challenge.

Don't give them an inch.
 
Corky said:
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.
Click to expand...

Liverpool?
 
Dribble said:
View attachment 106604View attachment 106605

The Premier League is facing a fresh battle over changes to rules governing commercial deals between related parties after it was warned by a club that the proposals were unlawful.

Sky News has learnt that the 20 top-flight clubs, which include Arsenal, Brentford, Chelsea and Manchester United, were notified on Thursday that one of them had informed the Premier League that it could resort to arbitration proceedings to prevent the changes being adopted.

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.

There was speculation on Friday that Manchester City, which is already facing 115 charges of breaching Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, was the club which had objected to the reforms.

It is understood to have told the Premier League that the changes were unlawful in English competition law, paving the way for yet another legal battle involving the game at a time when it is under intense political pressure with an independent regulator looming.

Manchester City, which is owned by Abu Dhabi sovereign investors, have previously expressed its opposition to tighter APT rules.

Their stadium is named after Etihad, the Gulf state's flagship airline, and is said to have been among those voting against restrictions on loan signings between clubs with common ownership during a ballot on the issue in November.

The issue of related-party deals has become increasingly important to many clubs because they believe the competitive balance of the Premier League is being distorted by state ownership at rivals including Manchester City and Newcastle United.

Questions have also been raised about the value of Chelsea's one-year shirt sponsorship deal with Infinite Athlete, given the club failed to qualify for Europe this season.

The latest threat to seek arbitration proceedings underlines the increasingly fractured relationship between the Premier League and a number of its clubs, and between the clubs themselves.

So the US owned Red Top Mafia having American based sponsorship is perfectly fine, but Manchester City having Abu Dhabi based sponsorship us unfair & killing the game?

Seriously? What the actual fuck!! Their piss-taking has gone to new stratospheric levels. They hate us that much, they're prepared to kill the Premier League to stop us.

If the Red Top Mafia can'r dominate the Premier League, they'd rather burn it down so no one else can. UnFuckinBelievable

https://news.sky.com/story/premier-...ttle-over-rule-changes-13067278?dcmp=whatsapp
Click to expand...
That story is full of false statements:the new rules are not about "inflated" sponsorships; City are not "state-owned" or owned by "Abu Dhabi sovereign investors" whatever that means. Literally fake news from SKY.
 
Xhavenjoe said:
Clubs shouldn't be allowed abstain.
A case of running with the hare and hunting with the hound.
Click to expand...
I mean I’d be amazed if the abstentions weren’t City + 1 of Chelsea/Newcastle, especially if there is any grain of truth in City considering a legal challenge.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
That story is full of false statements:the new rules are not about "inflated" sponsorships; City are not "state-owned" or owned by "Abu Dhabi sovereign investors" whatever that means. Literally fake news from SKY.
Click to expand...

It all stinks of inflammatory bullshit. No one is reporting the club is actually challenging this rule, are they? They have said it's potentially illegal, as they did last time, probably as a warning shot for the PL to keep away.
 
If one of the abstainers had voted no, it wouldn’t have been approved. There normally needs to be 14 clubs saying yes, but with 2 abstaining they only needed 12 as the rule is two-thirds of those not abstaining have to approve. Fuck.
 
All this makes me wonder if silverlake could end up with more of a stake and influence at city. They are a huge entity in the USA, the prem and uefa can’t ban sponsors from Middle East and the USA!

what do they own at present is it about 20 percent?
 
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.