City are flapping it

comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 3 minutes ago
Why would City have an issue with this rule, unless they have good reason to suspect the Prem would find their deals 'inflated' ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bear in mind they didn’t challenge the rule in 2021, when the PL put the rule in place to apply fair market value to associated parties. Any of their deals for associated parties have been assessed by the PL for fair market value for three years already. Theyre challenging the rule changes made in Feb this year.

It’s not just city that had a problem with the new rule, which is why 8 clubs didn’t vote for it. In terms of exactly why they’ve gone against it, no one will know until post the case itself and we see the main arguments.

What were the changes made in Feb? Just the headlines, if you know.

comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 23 minutes ago
What were the changes made in Feb? Just the headlines, if you know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Off the top of my head it was changing who made the assessment of fmv from the pl to the clubs and sponsors themselves and then making them accountable for sanctions as well as a couple of things around transactions between associated clubs. I’d need to look it up again though.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 3 minutes ago
Why would City have an issue with this rule, unless they have good reason to suspect the Prem would find their deals 'inflated' ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bear in mind they didn’t challenge the rule in 2021, when the PL put the rule in place to apply fair market value to associated parties. Any of their deals for associated parties have been assessed by the PL for fair market value for three years already. Theyre challenging the rule changes made in Feb this year.

It’s not just city that had a problem with the new rule, which is why 8 clubs didn’t vote for it. In terms of exactly why they’ve gone against it, no one will know until post the case itself and we see the main arguments.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently City threatened the whole league with dire legal consequences if they allowed it in Feb. 12 clubs voted for it knowing that City would sue the Prem as a result.

The Times report that City objected to the changed rules as they were "approved by rivals to "stifle" their success on the pitch, and call it "a tyranny of the majority".

The "tyranny of the majority"....also known as democracy Why is it no surprise that middle eastern state with unlimited wealth has an issue with democracy

What they are saying is that the greater good, as defined by the majority, should be over ruled by whoever holds the most power and influence.

At least City's owners hold a position and stick to their guns, however misguided most people might think that to be.

You on the other hand just float around making an absolute mug of yourself on a daily basis.

comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems the American Cartel’s objective is to silence City, move on to Chelsea and then possibly Newcastle

Clear Road ahead then to the ESL

The fact that City's position is 'democracy isn't fair' makes me livid. Who on earth do they think they are?? Most importantly, where do they think they are? North Korea?? Russia???

The league should show a bit of bottle and kick them out.

Democracy is a huge part of, not just our game, but our country and our British values. City don't belong anymore and they need to be kicked out.