Well Sky say that at least six clubs are facing possible breaches along with the consequences, and City not mentioned.
——————————-

Probably because they haven’t broken the rules.

However they are challenging the fairness of the rules because they’re only designed to help a couple of clubs

Boris, genuine question.
Would city not be one of those clubs? Surely they are as attractive to sponsors as United and Liverpool.

comment by Custardeyes (U4500)
posted 31 seconds ago
Boris, genuine question.
Would city not be one of those clubs? Surely they are as attractive to sponsors as United and Liverpool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 52 minutes ago
Well Sky say that at least six clubs are facing possible breaches along with the consequences, and City not mentioned.
——————————-

Probably because they haven’t broken the rules.

However they are challenging the fairness of the rules because they’re only designed to help a couple of clubs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

rules which the majority voted for

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Custardeyes (U4500)
posted 31 seconds ago
Boris, genuine question.
Would city not be one of those clubs? Surely they are as attractive to sponsors as United and Liverpool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City are challenging the fairness of the rules because they're only designed to help a couple of clubs.

Aren't city one of those clubs now, with their recent success.

comment by Custardeyes (U4500)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Custardeyes (U4500)
posted 31 seconds ago
Boris, genuine question.
Would city not be one of those clubs? Surely they are as attractive to sponsors as United and Liverpool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City are challenging the fairness of the rules because they're only designed to help a couple of clubs.

Aren't city one of those clubs now, with their recent success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably but I’m glad they’re sticking to their guns.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 52 minutes ago
Well Sky say that at least six clubs are facing possible breaches along with the consequences, and City not mentioned.
——————————-

Probably because they haven’t broken the rules.

However they are challenging the fairness of the rules because they’re only designed to help a couple of clubs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

rules which the majority voted for
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can have another vote when all the clubs are have a clearer picture of what they’re voting for

Making sure the rules don’t break the laws of the land is a good starting point

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
Making sure the rules don’t break the laws of the land is a good starting point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which ones specifically?

Making sure the rules don’t break the laws of the land is a good starting point
____________________________________________

yeah I'm sure the sheikhs worried about the laws of the land...like freedom,equality,human rights etc

comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
Making sure the rules don’t break the laws of the land is a good starting point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which ones specifically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/40284718/manchester-city-premier-league-legal-action-associated-party-transactions

forgot democracy aka "the tyranny of the majority"

comment by Custardeyes (U4500)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
Making sure the rules don’t break the laws of the land is a good starting point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which ones specifically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/40284718/manchester-city-premier-league-legal-action-associated-party-transactions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's no much wrong in that article, the outcome of this case won't impact the outcome of the 115 charges as the AFP rules came in after the date of the 115 charges.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/why-man-citys-legal-action-wont-save-them-from-115-charges/id1733124620?i=1000658072385

APT not AFT*

comment by IanWrightWrightWright (U12750)
posted 12 minutes ago
forgot democracyaka "the tyranny of the majority"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People were told to vote Brexit because 'we would get our freedom back'.

Vote Tory -'Levelling Up will benefit the whole country'

The good thing about democracy is that you can vote to change polices that don't fulfil the promises.

comment by Custardeyes (U4500)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
Making sure the rules don’t break the laws of the land is a good starting point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which ones specifically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/40284718/manchester-city-premier-league-legal-action-associated-party-transactions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I was an electrician and I bought a van, I'd be damn sure I'd put my own name on the side of it.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by IanWrightWrightWright (U12750)
posted 12 minutes ago
forgot democracyaka "the tyranny of the majority"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People were told to vote Brexit because 'we would get our freedom back'.

Vote Tory -'Levelling Up will benefit the whole country'

The good thing about democracy is that you can vote to change polices that don't fulfil the promises.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed but for that vote to succeed you still need the majority to be in favour.

"All those in favour in giving City carte blanche to veto PL rule changes" ...... <tumbleweed>

One interesting point that City make in their submissions on this latest case (according to the Times) is that they penalised because they are not a big historic club, so do not have that global fanbase and massive commercial reveneus associated with that, and are not a London club so cannot charge what say Spurs or Arsenal do for tickets.

They see this as a disadvantage which they can offset by having access to more Middle Eastern money through sponsors based in that region who have very deep/limitless pockets.

DO people think thats a valid argument....that it's not fair because you are a bigger club, or London based, and they're not.

That is how its always been, is not really a reason to maintain things as they are.

But for me, this all comes down to the speed at witch change and growth occurs. City are not a global household name yet, like LFC and Utd, but they could be if they sustain their success. But that takes time. Look how long it has taken Spurs to get their revenues anywhere near the Top 4s, 2 decades of us having limited spending, then massive borrowing to fund a stadium, and only now we are seeing some financial benefits.

You could argue that without the Chelsea's and City's of this world Spurs (and others) would have been far more successful if the rules had clamped down on owner mega investment from year 1.

Should organic growth be promoted over largely unrestricted investment from linked parties.

City already have record breaking revenues, commercial revenues of 15% above Utds, so does their unfair claim hold any weight at all?

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by IanWrightWrightWright (U12750)
posted 12 minutes ago
forgot democracyaka "the tyranny of the majority"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People were told to vote Brexit because 'we would get our freedom back'.

Vote Tory -'Levelling Up will benefit the whole country'

The good thing about democracy is that you can vote to change polices that don't fulfil the promises.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed but for that vote to succeed you still need the majority to be in favour.

"All those in favour in giving City carte blanche to veto PL rule changes" ......<tumbleweed>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your knowledge of the democratic process is on a par with your knowledge of the geography of the Arabian Peninsular?

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 minutes ago
One interesting point that City make in their submissions on this latest case (according to the Times) is that they penalised because they are not a big historic club, so do not have that global fanbase and massive commercial reveneus associated with that, and are not a London club so cannot charge what say Spurs or Arsenal do for tickets.

They see this as a disadvantage which they can offset by having access to more Middle Eastern money through sponsors based in that region who have very deep/limitless pockets.

DO people think thats a valid argument....that it's not fair because you are a bigger club, or London based, and they're not.

That is how its always been, is not really a reason to maintain things as they are.

But for me, this all comes down to the speed at witch change and growth occurs. City are not a global household name yet, like LFC and Utd, but they could be if they sustain their success. But that takes time. Look how long it has taken Spurs to get their revenues anywhere near the Top 4s, 2 decades of us having limited spending, then massive borrowing to fund a stadium, and only now we are seeing some financial benefits.

You could argue that without the Chelsea's and City's of this world Spurs (and others) would have been far more successful if the rules had clamped down on owner mega investment from year 1.

Should organic growth be promoted over largely unrestricted investment from linked parties.

City already have record breaking revenues, commercial revenues of 15% above Utds, so does their unfair claim hold any weight at all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Think anything in the times article needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

So the biggest victims have been Spurs?

The first club to become a PLC, front-runners in the concept of football branding and the pioneers of monetizing the game.

“They see this as a disadvantage which they can offset by having access to more Middle Eastern money through sponsors based in that region who have very deep/limitless pockets.

DO people think thats a valid argument....that it's not fair because you are a bigger club, or London based, and they're not.“

In the context of the associated parties rules, it could well be a valid argument tbh depending on how they’re applying fair market value to them.

The biggest issue for me is LFC, or any of the other 18 clubs have commercial deals that have to be negotiated with parties that are nothing to do with the club. Nike for example will try to get the best value deal for their business, so will LFC, and they'll probably meet in the middle.

Who are City negotiating with? They probably own most of the successful ventures in AD, Etihad for example, so are effectively negotiating with themselves. 'Yeah tough negotiations but we've decided this commercial deal is worth £20m a season'. How is this enhancing competition? Is there a real life legal example of this they are basing the current case on?

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
“They see this as a disadvantage which they can offset by having access to more Middle Eastern money through sponsors based in that region who have very deep/limitless pockets.

DO people think thats a valid argument....that it's not fair because you are a bigger club, or London based, and they're not.“

In the context of the associated parties rules, it could well be a valid argument tbh depending on how they’re applying fair market value to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City's 5 biggest sponsors:-

Etihad Airways. (UAE)
PUMA (Germany)
OKX. (China)
Asahi (Japan)
Nissan (Japan)

comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
The biggest issue for me is LFC, or any of the other 18 clubs have commercial deals that have to be negotiated with parties that are nothing to do with the club. Nike for example will try to get the best value deal for their business, so will LFC, and they'll probably meet in the middle.

Who are City negotiating with? They probably own most of the successful ventures in AD, Etihad for example, so are effectively negotiating with themselves. 'Yeah tough negotiations but we've decided this commercial deal is worth £20m a season'. How is this enhancing competition? Is there a real life legal example of this they are basing the current case on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt it seeing as there’s no law for transactions between associated parties.