comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 19 minutes ago
The key bit is how the define associated parties. They’d have been better off just saying all sponsorships are going to be assessed for fair value. Can see why people wouldn’t go for that though, which is why City might have a valid challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's only tricky in the case of City and Newcastle because of the positions their respective owners also hold in their own countries. Money and wealth flows in one direction. Is of really a negotiation or an order for a company to pay over the odds?
The rest of the PL clubs usually aren't negotiating sponsorship deals with companies they own/are linked to. Even if they were they'd face more financial scrutiny in their country, the US or UK for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree to an extent but there were eight clubs that either abstained or voted against, it’s not just city.
Like I said, it all depends on their definition of associated parties and how they apply fair market value. That they’re not applying it at all to non associated parties might create an issue.
Clubs abstaining from a vote or voting against the trend is nothing new. Happens all the time. City fans talk about it like some big deal because they're clutching at straws of course. It means absolutely nothing.
Nearly all the points made by City fans on these threads range from delusions to pure lies and sportswashing by desperate fans that will now know for sure that the guillotine is closer to their club's neck than ever.
Don't know why they bother doing that on here as even if we believe their lies, none of us is going to be on the independent panel.
City were also threatening the entire league with dire consequences and trying to influence the vote. They hate democratic processes and they bought the club b to get some native UK people on their side no matter what. They're now hoping they've sportswashed enough people to push through their dictator ways and remove democracy.
Don't be fooled by City mugs. They're sportswashed mugs who are helping this bullsheet to take root in our country.
Wtf is that garbage?
How many of our clubs are now owned by 'Native UK people' these days?
Businessmen will vote for what's best for their investment, nothing else. This whole hearing is about the legality of the present rules.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 19 minutes ago
The key bit is how the define associated parties. They’d have been better off just saying all sponsorships are going to be assessed for fair value. Can see why people wouldn’t go for that though, which is why City might have a valid challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's only tricky in the case of City and Newcastle because of the positions their respective owners also hold in their own countries. Money and wealth flows in one direction. Is of really a negotiation or an order for a company to pay over the odds?
The rest of the PL clubs usually aren't negotiating sponsorship deals with companies they own/are linked to. Even if they were they'd face more financial scrutiny in their country, the US or UK for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree to an extent but there were eight clubs that either abstained or voted against, it’s not just city.
Like I said, it all depends on their definition of associated parties and how they apply fair market value. That they’re not applying it at all to non associated parties might create an issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I ahbeny looked who the 8 clubs are but at a guess I'd say Newcastle and 7 others usually at the lower end of the table, fighting relegation or have already been sanctioned by the league.
I bet Moshiri at Everton was one. Look how well rumt they've been under his ownership. There's a reason an owner like Moshiri would back it, it isn't the legality of the rules.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 48 minutes ago
Wtf is that garbage?
How many of our clubs are now owned by 'Native UK people' these days?
Businessmen will vote for what's best for their investment, nothing else. This whole hearing is about the legality of the present rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wasn't talking about owners when he said 'native English people' he was talking about brain washed people like you
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 48 minutes ago
Wtf is that garbage?
How many of our clubs are now owned by 'Native UK people' these days?
Businessmen will vote for what's best for their investment, nothing else. This whole hearing is about the legality of the present rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wasn't talking about owners when he said 'native English people' he was talking about brain washed people like you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was sidetracked by the democracy comment considering Liverpool and United managed to install 'Their man' at the PL despite him being 3rd choice amongst the rest of the clubs.
The American Cartels' version of democracy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7988919/Premier-League-rivals-furious-Liverpool-Man-United-allowed-vet-league-CEO-candidates.html
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 48 minutes ago
Wtf is that garbage?
How many of our clubs are now owned by 'Native UK people' these days?
Businessmen will vote for what's best for their investment, nothing else. This whole hearing is about the legality of the present rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wasn't talking about owners when he said 'native English people' he was talking about brain washed people like you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was sidetracked by the democracy comment considering Liverpool and United managed to install 'Their man' at the PL despite him being 3rd choice amongst the rest of the clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's more democratic than the regime your owner forces on the citizens of Abu Dhabi. Was it a 2/3rd majority Mansour was elected Deputy PM?
Autocratic uber rich member of the ruling royal family of Abu Dhabi whinging about the rules not being fair & being discriminated against
I wonder when the oppressed people of Abu Dhabi will rise up and reject the free education, free healthcare and subsidised housing this country couldn't even dream of.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
The American Cartels' version of democracy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7988919/Premier-League-rivals-furious-Liverpool-Man-United-allowed-vet-league-CEO-candidates.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone doesn't read the links he posts, just the headlines that suit. This article doesn't prove what you think it does.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
I wonder when the oppressed people of Abu Dhabi will rise up and reject the free education, free healthcare and subsidised housing this country couldn't even dream of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sportswashing at work right in front of our faces.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
I wonder when the oppressed people of Abu Dhabi will rise up and reject the free education, free healthcare and subsidised housing this country couldn't even dream of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said they are oppressed?
I simply pointed out the PL system your owner (literally it seems) is whinging about is more democratic than the one he rules over unelected in his own country. Funny you can't see the hypocrisy there.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 48 minutes ago
Wtf is that garbage?
How many of our clubs are now owned by 'Native UK people' these days?
Businessmen will vote for what's best for their investment, nothing else. This whole hearing is about the legality of the present rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wasn't talking about owners when he said 'native English people' he was talking about brain washed people like you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was sidetracked by the democracy comment considering Liverpool and United managed to install 'Their man' at the PL despite him being 3rd choice amongst the rest of the clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's insane FFS.
Boris
Why did the other 2 candidates for the PL job stand down?
"Another candidate, CEO of the Guardian Pemsel, then had to step down from taking the role after it emerged he had been sending a series of text messages to a young female colleague."
Yeah but United and Liverpool conspiracy something something. Funny how it was the chairmen of Chelsea, Burnley and latterly United (Woodward) and Palace (Simon Jordan) on the panel but it was all United and Liverpool.
They could have, but what are the chances Simon Jordan, notorious for being outspoken, would keep quiet about it on his various platforms and podcasts?
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 58 minutes ago
"Another candidate, CEO of the Guardian Pemsel, then had to step down from taking the role after it emerged he had been sending a series of text messages to a young female colleague."
Yeah but United and Liverpool conspiracy something something. Funny how it was the chairmen of Chelsea, Burnley and latterly United (Woodward) and Palace (Simon Jordan) on the panel but it was all United and Liverpool.
They could have, but what are the chances Simon Jordan, notorious for being outspoken, would keep quiet about it on his various platforms and podcasts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you claim Simon Jordan was on the committee.
In what capacity other than resident gobshiite?
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 58 minutes ago
"Another candidate, CEO of the Guardian Pemsel, then had to step down from taking the role after it emerged he had been sending a series of text messages to a young female colleague."
Yeah but United and Liverpool conspiracy something something. Funny how it was the chairmen of Chelsea, Burnley and latterly United (Woodward) and Palace (Simon Jordan) on the panel but it was all United and Liverpool.
They could have, but what are the chances Simon Jordan, notorious for being outspoken, would keep quiet about it on his various platforms and podcasts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you claim Simon Jordan was on the committee.
In what capacity other than resident gobshiite?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not claiming that, the link you posted states it as a fact
Probably best to read the links you post. You claimed LFC and MU influenced Masters being appointed. There's no proof of this in the link. Those on the panel were initially the chairmen of Chelsea and Burnley and latterly Woodward at United and Jordan at Palace.
But United and Liverpool something something
Are you on drugs?
It doesn't mention Simon Jordan.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 51 seconds ago
Are you on drugs?
It doesn't mention Simon Jordan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My bad meant Steve Parish.
Either way Palace chairman on the panel, with Chelsea, Burnley and United.
But Liverpool and United conspiracy something.
Were the others allowed to privately interview the candidates?
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 13 minutes ago
Were the others allowed to privately interview the candidates?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You tell me, you're the conspiracy headcase.
'It is alleged Liverpool and United each met three candidates, including Dinnage along with the NBC executive Dave Howe and David Pemsel.
According to the Times' report, the meetings are understood to have taken place before any eventual decisions were made by the nominations committee.
The search had descended into something of a farce for the Premier League, who initially believed they had filled Scudamore's void after Dinnage accepted the role, before later changing her mind.
Dinnage’s decision, thought to be motivated as much by concerns about the potential problems facing the Premier League as a desire to remain in her current position at Discovery, was of particular embarrassment to Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck."
Where is the proof either LFC or United influenced Dinnages decision not to take the job? It wasn't LFC or United sending messages to young female colleagues that was the other candidate Pemsel
No proof because the interview was held in private.
They doesn't mean that United and Liverpool didn't influence Dinnage to withdraw her application, odd that she did though after advancing to that stage of the selection process.
Sign in if you want to comment
FFP and Points Deductions etc
Page 3 of 4
posted on 7/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 19 minutes ago
The key bit is how the define associated parties. They’d have been better off just saying all sponsorships are going to be assessed for fair value. Can see why people wouldn’t go for that though, which is why City might have a valid challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's only tricky in the case of City and Newcastle because of the positions their respective owners also hold in their own countries. Money and wealth flows in one direction. Is of really a negotiation or an order for a company to pay over the odds?
The rest of the PL clubs usually aren't negotiating sponsorship deals with companies they own/are linked to. Even if they were they'd face more financial scrutiny in their country, the US or UK for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree to an extent but there were eight clubs that either abstained or voted against, it’s not just city.
Like I said, it all depends on their definition of associated parties and how they apply fair market value. That they’re not applying it at all to non associated parties might create an issue.
posted on 8/6/24
Clubs abstaining from a vote or voting against the trend is nothing new. Happens all the time. City fans talk about it like some big deal because they're clutching at straws of course. It means absolutely nothing.
Nearly all the points made by City fans on these threads range from delusions to pure lies and sportswashing by desperate fans that will now know for sure that the guillotine is closer to their club's neck than ever.
Don't know why they bother doing that on here as even if we believe their lies, none of us is going to be on the independent panel.
City were also threatening the entire league with dire consequences and trying to influence the vote. They hate democratic processes and they bought the club b to get some native UK people on their side no matter what. They're now hoping they've sportswashed enough people to push through their dictator ways and remove democracy.
Don't be fooled by City mugs. They're sportswashed mugs who are helping this bullsheet to take root in our country.
posted on 8/6/24
Wtf is that garbage?
How many of our clubs are now owned by 'Native UK people' these days?
Businessmen will vote for what's best for their investment, nothing else. This whole hearing is about the legality of the present rules.
posted on 8/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 19 minutes ago
The key bit is how the define associated parties. They’d have been better off just saying all sponsorships are going to be assessed for fair value. Can see why people wouldn’t go for that though, which is why City might have a valid challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's only tricky in the case of City and Newcastle because of the positions their respective owners also hold in their own countries. Money and wealth flows in one direction. Is of really a negotiation or an order for a company to pay over the odds?
The rest of the PL clubs usually aren't negotiating sponsorship deals with companies they own/are linked to. Even if they were they'd face more financial scrutiny in their country, the US or UK for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree to an extent but there were eight clubs that either abstained or voted against, it’s not just city.
Like I said, it all depends on their definition of associated parties and how they apply fair market value. That they’re not applying it at all to non associated parties might create an issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I ahbeny looked who the 8 clubs are but at a guess I'd say Newcastle and 7 others usually at the lower end of the table, fighting relegation or have already been sanctioned by the league.
I bet Moshiri at Everton was one. Look how well rumt they've been under his ownership. There's a reason an owner like Moshiri would back it, it isn't the legality of the rules.
posted on 8/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 48 minutes ago
Wtf is that garbage?
How many of our clubs are now owned by 'Native UK people' these days?
Businessmen will vote for what's best for their investment, nothing else. This whole hearing is about the legality of the present rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wasn't talking about owners when he said 'native English people' he was talking about brain washed people like you
posted on 8/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 48 minutes ago
Wtf is that garbage?
How many of our clubs are now owned by 'Native UK people' these days?
Businessmen will vote for what's best for their investment, nothing else. This whole hearing is about the legality of the present rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wasn't talking about owners when he said 'native English people' he was talking about brain washed people like you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was sidetracked by the democracy comment considering Liverpool and United managed to install 'Their man' at the PL despite him being 3rd choice amongst the rest of the clubs.
posted on 8/6/24
The American Cartels' version of democracy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7988919/Premier-League-rivals-furious-Liverpool-Man-United-allowed-vet-league-CEO-candidates.html
posted on 8/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 48 minutes ago
Wtf is that garbage?
How many of our clubs are now owned by 'Native UK people' these days?
Businessmen will vote for what's best for their investment, nothing else. This whole hearing is about the legality of the present rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wasn't talking about owners when he said 'native English people' he was talking about brain washed people like you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was sidetracked by the democracy comment considering Liverpool and United managed to install 'Their man' at the PL despite him being 3rd choice amongst the rest of the clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's more democratic than the regime your owner forces on the citizens of Abu Dhabi. Was it a 2/3rd majority Mansour was elected Deputy PM?
Autocratic uber rich member of the ruling royal family of Abu Dhabi whinging about the rules not being fair & being discriminated against
posted on 8/6/24
Desperate
posted on 8/6/24
I wonder when the oppressed people of Abu Dhabi will rise up and reject the free education, free healthcare and subsidised housing this country couldn't even dream of.
posted on 8/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
The American Cartels' version of democracy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7988919/Premier-League-rivals-furious-Liverpool-Man-United-allowed-vet-league-CEO-candidates.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone doesn't read the links he posts, just the headlines that suit. This article doesn't prove what you think it does.
posted on 8/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
I wonder when the oppressed people of Abu Dhabi will rise up and reject the free education, free healthcare and subsidised housing this country couldn't even dream of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sportswashing at work right in front of our faces.
posted on 8/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
I wonder when the oppressed people of Abu Dhabi will rise up and reject the free education, free healthcare and subsidised housing this country couldn't even dream of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said they are oppressed?
I simply pointed out the PL system your owner (literally it seems) is whinging about is more democratic than the one he rules over unelected in his own country. Funny you can't see the hypocrisy there.
posted on 8/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 48 minutes ago
Wtf is that garbage?
How many of our clubs are now owned by 'Native UK people' these days?
Businessmen will vote for what's best for their investment, nothing else. This whole hearing is about the legality of the present rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wasn't talking about owners when he said 'native English people' he was talking about brain washed people like you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was sidetracked by the democracy comment considering Liverpool and United managed to install 'Their man' at the PL despite him being 3rd choice amongst the rest of the clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's insane FFS.
posted on 8/6/24
Boris
Why did the other 2 candidates for the PL job stand down?
posted on 8/6/24
"Another candidate, CEO of the Guardian Pemsel, then had to step down from taking the role after it emerged he had been sending a series of text messages to a young female colleague."
Yeah but United and Liverpool conspiracy something something. Funny how it was the chairmen of Chelsea, Burnley and latterly United (Woodward) and Palace (Simon Jordan) on the panel but it was all United and Liverpool.
They could have, but what are the chances Simon Jordan, notorious for being outspoken, would keep quiet about it on his various platforms and podcasts?
posted on 8/6/24
Boris in the bin again
posted on 8/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 58 minutes ago
"Another candidate, CEO of the Guardian Pemsel, then had to step down from taking the role after it emerged he had been sending a series of text messages to a young female colleague."
Yeah but United and Liverpool conspiracy something something. Funny how it was the chairmen of Chelsea, Burnley and latterly United (Woodward) and Palace (Simon Jordan) on the panel but it was all United and Liverpool.
They could have, but what are the chances Simon Jordan, notorious for being outspoken, would keep quiet about it on his various platforms and podcasts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you claim Simon Jordan was on the committee.
In what capacity other than resident gobshiite?
posted on 8/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 58 minutes ago
"Another candidate, CEO of the Guardian Pemsel, then had to step down from taking the role after it emerged he had been sending a series of text messages to a young female colleague."
Yeah but United and Liverpool conspiracy something something. Funny how it was the chairmen of Chelsea, Burnley and latterly United (Woodward) and Palace (Simon Jordan) on the panel but it was all United and Liverpool.
They could have, but what are the chances Simon Jordan, notorious for being outspoken, would keep quiet about it on his various platforms and podcasts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you claim Simon Jordan was on the committee.
In what capacity other than resident gobshiite?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not claiming that, the link you posted states it as a fact
Probably best to read the links you post. You claimed LFC and MU influenced Masters being appointed. There's no proof of this in the link. Those on the panel were initially the chairmen of Chelsea and Burnley and latterly Woodward at United and Jordan at Palace.
But United and Liverpool something something
posted on 8/6/24
Are you on drugs?
It doesn't mention Simon Jordan.
posted on 8/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 51 seconds ago
Are you on drugs?
It doesn't mention Simon Jordan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My bad meant Steve Parish.
Either way Palace chairman on the panel, with Chelsea, Burnley and United.
But Liverpool and United conspiracy something.
posted on 8/6/24
Were the others allowed to privately interview the candidates?
posted on 8/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 13 minutes ago
Were the others allowed to privately interview the candidates?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You tell me, you're the conspiracy headcase.
posted on 8/6/24
'It is alleged Liverpool and United each met three candidates, including Dinnage along with the NBC executive Dave Howe and David Pemsel.
According to the Times' report, the meetings are understood to have taken place before any eventual decisions were made by the nominations committee.
The search had descended into something of a farce for the Premier League, who initially believed they had filled Scudamore's void after Dinnage accepted the role, before later changing her mind.
Dinnage’s decision, thought to be motivated as much by concerns about the potential problems facing the Premier League as a desire to remain in her current position at Discovery, was of particular embarrassment to Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck."
Where is the proof either LFC or United influenced Dinnages decision not to take the job? It wasn't LFC or United sending messages to young female colleagues that was the other candidate Pemsel
posted on 8/6/24
No proof because the interview was held in private.
They doesn't mean that United and Liverpool didn't influence Dinnage to withdraw her application, odd that she did though after advancing to that stage of the selection process.
Page 3 of 4