Help me out here then

20 PL clubs

6 object, 2 abstain (a total of 8 clubs)

How many approved the motion then?

comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 55 minutes ago
Still, you need 14 clubs to pass a resolution. If six voted against and two abstained then how was the resolution passed?

Honestly, you're coming out with all sorts today, ranging from blatant lies to super optimistic guesses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently they need 14 votes, or 2/3 of the vote if some abstain.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
I didn't double down, I made my comment and that's it. Wow.

I checked the process for resolutions and it says 14 clubs must approve. I then asked you how 6 disapproved and two abstained. That was ages ago and instead of a simple answer this is what I get.

Can you substantiate your claims or correct my mistake instead of this time wasting back and forth?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You could have solved it yourself the second I told you to go and research it!

It needs two thirds or 14 clubs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another opportunity missed. You've chosen to do 10 times the work instead of just saying what you want to say. What you're doing is not how debates work and everybody knows why people act like you're doing right now in a debate.

You pulled that stuff out your ass and didn't expect to be taken to task.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So just to get this right, you stated an incorrect statement, I posted an article telling you what the split was, you then doubled down on that incorrect statement and you’re accusing someone else of pulling stuff out of their ass?!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
What article? I'll have a look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair play, that made me lol

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I missed it somehow. Think it's because there's like 5 threads on this topic, must have gotten mixed up. It answers that particular question perfectly to be fair to you, but not all the questions. My bad.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 39 seconds ago
Help me out here then

20 PL clubs

6 object, 2 abstain (a total of 8 clubs)

How many approved the motion then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Blimey. You shouldn't need a calculator for this.

comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 39 seconds ago
Help me out here then

20 PL clubs

6 object, 2 abstain (a total of 8 clubs)

How many approved the motion then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Blimey. You shouldn't need a calculator for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 39 seconds ago
Help me out here then

20 PL clubs

6 object, 2 abstain (a total of 8 clubs)

How many approved the motion then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Blimey. You shouldn't need a calculator for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So why did you ask what 20-8 was?

comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 39 seconds ago
Help me out here then

20 PL clubs

6 object, 2 abstain (a total of 8 clubs)

How many approved the motion then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Blimey. You shouldn't need a calculator for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So why did you ask what 20-8 was?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we can tell him the answer. That's why he doesn't need a calculator.

So 12 clubs voted for the motion, not 14?.

comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
I didn't double down, I made my comment and that's it. Wow.

I checked the process for resolutions and it says 14 clubs must approve. I then asked you how 6 disapproved and two abstained. That was ages ago and instead of a simple answer this is what I get.

Can you substantiate your claims or correct my mistake instead of this time wasting back and forth?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You could have solved it yourself the second I told you to go and research it!

It needs two thirds or 14 clubs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another opportunity missed. You've chosen to do 10 times the work instead of just saying what you want to say. What you're doing is not how debates work and everybody knows why people act like you're doing right now in a debate.

You pulled that stuff out your ass and didn't expect to be taken to task.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So just to get this right, you stated an incorrect statement, I posted an article telling you what the split was, you then doubled down on that incorrect statement and you’re accusing someone else of pulling stuff out of their ass?!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
What article? I'll have a look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair play, that made me lol

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I missed it somehow. Think it's because there's like 5 threads on this topic, must have gotten mixed up. It answers that particular question perfectly to be fair to you, but not all the questions. My bad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
So 12 clubs voted for the motion, not 14?.


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

Yes. They need 14 from 20 votes or 2/3 of the vote if less than 20 clubs vote.

Why would City have an issue with this rule, unless they have good reason to suspect the Prem would find their deals 'inflated' ?

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.