PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

dadnlad said:
So basically any Saudi company can't sponsor Newcastle
Any Abu Dhabi company can't sponsor city
But all other clubs can have who pays most because not associated
Sounds fair
Click to expand...
I'm sure all our rival clubs would love that but unless you know different then it applies to all PL clubs. So when the next shirt deal comes up for United then they can't go with a TeamViewer type of company paying a huge amount unless 'multiple' (3,5,10?) others are offering a similar amount.
 
You take a step back from the hatchet job of what the Premier League are trying to do to city and you so the mischief that they are up to tightening up on loans between clubs. They want certain teams protecting who have way too much influence over the direction of elite football in this country and Europe.

The trouble is non of these owners of United and Liverpool have done a good job in trying to be the top team in the country. They have two league titles between them in the last decade, you look at what they both got up to in Europe this week and it shows where they are as clubs. Both struggling to get past opponents who have a fraction of what United and Liverpool have to spend budget wise. They can’t get their footballing operations right and aren’t prepared to do the hard graft which City did over the last decade.

Worrying thing is there are more and more American owners getting into the Premier League which now gives the likes of United and Liverpool a powerful voting block to drive through their agenda. All the while they hold a gun to the Premier League’s head and tell them if they don’t do what they say they are fucking off to a super league. Not a single person in the media calls this out but this is where they are but they blindside your average football supporter by trying to point the finger at City and Newcastle.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
You take a step back from the hatchet job of what the Premier League are trying to do to city and you so the mischief that they are up to tightening up on loans between clubs. They want certain teams protecting who have way too much influence over the direction of elite football in this country and Europe.

The trouble is non of these owners of United and Liverpool have done a good job in trying to be the top team in the country. They have two league titles between them in the last decade, you look at what they both got up to in Europe this week and it shows where they are as clubs. Both struggling to get past opponents who have a fraction of what United and Liverpool have to spend budget wise. They can’t get their footballing operations right and aren’t prepared to do the hard graft which City did over the last decade.

Worrying thing is there are more and more American owners getting into the Premier League which now gives the likes of United and Liverpool a powerful voting block to drive through their agenda. All the while they hold a gun to the Premier League’s head and tell them if they don’t do what they say they are fucking off to a super league. Not a single person in the media calls this out but this is where they are but they blindside your average football supporter by trying to point the finger at City and Newcastle.
Click to expand...

Because the majority of the media are rags scousers and arsenal supporters they love these rules coming in! They never ever look at debt! Debt can have club in more trouble say the rags go down don't come up for 2/3 seasons they'll going bust!
 
This just gets sillier and sillier.
So if a Saudi Company is not able to sponsor Newcastle and City likewise with Abu Dhabi does this mean that the American owned teams can't have American sponsors on their books?
 
As a Newcastle fan these new rules they're* trying to push through are hilarious and so fucking transparent. We've abided by FFP, we've got a stack of new 'fair market value' commercial deals, and now here's some new hurdles. The established cartel are bricking it that we'll usurp them.

We can't loan a player from the Saudi league, but literally every other club in the league can? That seems totally fair. Will it stop Chelsea hoovering up young players from their feeder clubs, or Man Utd, or Liverpool? Course it won't.

We can't get a sponsor unless we've got similarly valued bids from other companies? Has that been the case for Man Utd's official tractor partner? Were there multiple tractor companies all offering up partnership deals for the same price? Was there shite.

We've not spent anything like the money Chelsea and Man Utd have, and yet we're still above them, still playing better football, still fielding the likes of Jamall Lascelles and Jacob fucking Murphy. This is all because they're scared their time at the top is coming to an end, they're trying to pull the drawbridge up behind them.


*by "they" I mean Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd and Spurs.
 
bulldogblue said:
This just gets sillier and sillier.
So if a Saudi Company is not able to sponsor Newcastle and City likewise with Abu Dhabi does this mean that the American owned teams can't have American sponsors on their books?
Click to expand...
Seems simple ABU chuck millions at Toon and Saudi at us.

No related parties and as neither lot like each other it'd be very hard to prove anything iffy....but a result for both.
 
the talisman said:
Makes no sense
You (generally) take the highest offer
So if you get 3 offers of 40m and get one offer of 60m you have to take 40?
What if none of the offers are the same?
Someone hasn’t thought this through
Click to expand...
Or they have? Presumably they'll need access to even more confidential information and who knows who gets sight of it? Information is power.
 
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.