PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Centurions]

Yes. But the club abstained from the vote on the 2021 rules on the grounds they could be illegal. It would be strange to want the latest rules overturned but not ones the club previously thought could be illegal. The new rules were just the straw that broke the camel's back, I think.

What if City started this procedure back in 2021 and it's taken this long to go through all of the proper channels and procedures? You could look at the PL's 115 charges as petty retaliation and perhaps why it was rushed through. The opposite of how the media are portraying our case being heard this week as?

 

[jrb]

 

[KS55]

I am right in thinking that City aren't against the APT as it was before the February ammendment, we just dont agree with this change and we are fighting this. Or am I wrong?

When ‘associated’ was put forward City said they had legal advice that it was not lawful. They did however say that they would bide their time and see how it panned out. The PL in Feb changed the rule again, triggering City’s action.
Idiots.

 

[dadnlad]

A guy I used to work with many years ago was sacked because of the websites he was looking at on work's time. Don't go looking for dwarf porn sites!

ha ha same thing this lad on nights shouted hey come n look at this as manager was stood behind him. how he explained sacking to his wife i dont know

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

Just the Red Shirts, Spurs didn't get invited.

Levy was under the table sucking their cocks

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

A guy I used to work with many years ago was sacked because of the websites he was looking at on work's time. Don't go looking for dwarf porn sites!

Did you used to work in Parliament?

 

[jrb]

:-)

A consortium of international investors, which involves a member of the Saudi royal family, has made a £400m offer to buy Premier League club Everton.

Everton: Consortium with Saudi royal makes £400m takeover bid

A consortium of international investors, which involves a member of the Saudi royal family, has made a £400m offer to buy Premier League club Everton.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[BlueAnorak]

I suspect they are against the Associated party definition though, and want a return to the related party definition under IAS24

Well yes.
But Etihad are NOT a Related party to City by IFFS IAS24.
The PL declaring it to be so targets MCFC. And restricting sponsorship based on country or a perceived connection stinks.
Let's look at PL American Owner Connections to Amercan Companies that sponsor PL clubs. Lets chose, say, New Balance from the US who had a relationship with other Fenway Sports brands before being chosen by Liverpool. That is a related party under the approach chosen by the PL for sponsorships but, unsurprisingly not covered by the Jan 2024 rules that only target City and Newcastle.
All sponsorships over a trigger value should be accessed under the same fair value rules. End of.
Alternatively scrap the lot and simply have a simple salary cap spplicable to all.

Edit: updated company - it was New Balance not Under Armour

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

:-)

A consortium of international investors, which involves a member of the Saudi royal family, has made a £400m offer to buy Premier League club Everton.

Everton: Consortium with Saudi royal makes £400m takeover bid

A consortium of international investors, which involves a member of the Saudi royal family, has made a £400m offer to buy Premier League club Everton.

www.bbc.co.uk

I wonder if they will still find a way to call it state funded

 

[spinney]

When ‘associated’ was put forward City said they had legal advice that it was not lawful. They did however say that they would bide their time and see how it panned out. The PL in Feb changed the rule again, triggering City’s action.
Idiots.

City have no objection to the legally defined status of 'related parties' - the objections is to the PL dreamt up status of 'associated parties' which has no legal status and can be implemented or ignored on a whim by the PL