You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New PL Commercial rule passed (pg4) | City rumoured to be questioning the legality
- Thread starter mancity dan
- Start date
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
It does show there is a lot of opposition to the changes though. Another master stroke from Masters and his cronies. He has created a bitter division between the PL clubs which could end up in court. He is totally out of his depth.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.
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
The ESL moves a step closer. Carefully orchestrated by 3 clubs and their weedy sidekick Spurs
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?
I see the confusion.
23 is equivalent to 20% of the 115 charges
It was much more fun following City when it was about the football and a business degree wasn’t warranted.
Seriously, there’s as many threads these days talking about fucking finances as there are about what’s happening on the pitch.
It’s depressing.
Seriously, there’s as many threads these days talking about fucking finances as there are about what’s happening on the pitch.
It’s depressing.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
This isn't about banning any sponsor its related parties Take Etihad as an example, owned by the Abu Dhabi government, Sheikh Mansour has no monetary interest nor management influence and this is enough to say in accounting rules and accepted by CAS that they aren't a related party. My guess is that this proposal is to change the PL's own rules that would make them a related party, because his relatives do have responsibility. It could also mean that if one of the companies that Silver Lake have a major investment is could also be deemed a related party thus ruling them out as sponsorsAll 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?
Tricky_Trev
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 31,841
It is tiring that as a City fan we’re expected to be a lawyer, an accountant, know our geopolitics and be an auditor all before simply knowing football and tactics.It was much more fun following City when it was about the football and a business degree wasn’t warranted.
Seriously, there’s as many threads these days talking about fucking finances as there are about what’s happening on the pitch.
It’s depressing.
Holcombe bloo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 1,588
So say Adug sold up completely to silverlake. Etihad could sponsor us still for 100 million no probs. Or any silverlake business could do similar the other way round? If so I’m sure a deal could be done some in some way. If the prem get their way with related company sponsors that is.This isn't about banning any sponsor its related parties Take Etihad as an example, owned by the Abu Dhabi government, Sheikh Mansour has no monetary interest nor management influence and this is enough to say in accounting rules and accepted by CAS that they aren't a related party. My guess is that this proposal is to change the PL's own rules that would make them a related party, because his relatives do have responsibility. It could also mean that if one of the companies that Silver Lake have a major investment is could also be deemed a related party thus ruling them out as sponsors
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 54,262
I wonder if it is that simple? Sheikh Mansour transfers the club to Moonbeam and we carry on as normal.So say Adug sold up completely to silverlake. Etihad could sponsor us still for 100 million no probs. Or any silverlake business could do similar the other way round? If so I’m sure a deal could be done some in some way. If the prem get their way with related company sponsors that is.
If you think it’s an illegal motion, 100% you’re abstaining in my personal opinion.You don't think City, Chelsea and Newcastle would have voted against?