There will always be the spectre of an ESL with American owners who do appear to work in tandem on most off-field aspects of the game
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 6 minutes ago
There will always be the spectre of an ESL with American owners who do appear to work in tandem on most off-field aspects of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There will always be the spectre of being murderers, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding terrorists like AQ with owners from the ME.
They can afford to subsidise losses like it's 'breakages' on an accounts ledger with inflated sponsorship deals. Can Villa or Everton's owners afford to do the same?
Look at clubs like Blackburn, Reading, QPR, Portsmouth etc for examples of clubs with bad ownership of you're so concerned about the state of football.
There will always be the spectre of being murderers, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding terrorists like AQ with owners from the ME.
———————————
I’m more than happy with the UAE’s stance on both AQ and ISIS, not that it’s related to football in any way
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 25 minutes ago
There will always be the spectre of being murderers, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding terrorists like AQ with owners from the ME.
———————————
I’m more than happy with the UAE’s stance on both AQ and ISIS, not that it’s related to football in any way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither has being from the US and owning a football club. You want to believe dogmatically 'American owners bad' whilst claiming a proven murderer is 'good' and AD owners, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding AQ, are better
How has Moshiri's profligate spending policy worked out for Everton? This is what City's, Villa's, Newcastle and Everton's owners want more of.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 25 minutes ago
There will always be the spectre of being murderers, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding terrorists like AQ with owners from the ME.
———————————
I’m more than happy with the UAE’s stance on both AQ and ISIS, not that it’s related to football in any way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither has being from the US and owning a football club. You want to believe dogmatically 'American owners bad' whilst claiming a proven murderer is 'good' and AD owners, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding AQ, are better
How has Moshiri's profligate spending policy worked out for Everton? This is what City's, Villa's, Newcastle and Everton's owners want more of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one’s saying there shouldn’t be rules in place to stop clubs going bust.
FFP was supposed to be there for that purpose but it clearly isn’t, it’s all about stifling the opposition
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 25 minutes ago
There will always be the spectre of being murderers, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding terrorists like AQ with owners from the ME.
———————————
I’m more than happy with the UAE’s stance on both AQ and ISIS, not that it’s related to football in any way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither has being from the US and owning a football club. You want to believe dogmatically 'American owners bad' whilst claiming a proven murderer is 'good' and AD owners, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding AQ, are better
How has Moshiri's profligate spending policy worked out for Everton? This is what City's, Villa's, Newcastle and Everton's owners want more of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one’s saying there shouldn’t be rules in place to stop clubs going bust.
FFP was supposed to be there for that purpose but it clearly isn’t, it’s all about stifling the opposition
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do clubs go bust? Irresponsible spending by owners chasing the same thing City have done. All well and good if you've got a nation state or sovereign wealth fund backing you. Not so much for club owners without that wealth.
Its basically punishing clubs that do spend responsibly and do it the right way.
Has Moshiri's spending policy worked for Everton?
I don’t know what your argument is here, I’m all for owners spending within their means and there’s no real excuse not to consider most owners are Billionaires
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don’t know what your argument is here, I’m all for owners spending within their means and there’s no real excuse not to consider most owners are Billionaires
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Within your means is a different thing for City and their owners than it is for Brentford and theirs.
How is what City are proposing sustainable for clubs without unlimited wealth? There's plenty of examples of other clubs proving increased spending isn't commensurate with success or a higher place in the league. This undermines the 'stifling success' argument
Of course this doesn't apply to City or clubs backed by nation states and unlimited funds.
I would add we've gone from an established top 4 pretty much guaranteed every season to a more competitive league if you look from 2nd down. Different clubs, sometimes unexpected, Spurs, Villa etc are competing. Brighton and West Ham etc are qualifying for Europe for the first time/first time in years.
I wouldn't call that hegemonic control of clubs like Liverpool and United because surely that would he against our interests.
Just to be clear, City aren’t challenging either PSR or FFP. It is purely the rules out in place for associated party transactions. FFP and PSR in their current guises are both beneficial to City.
If City have access to unlimited wealth, how is it we haven’t been the biggest spenders or had the highest wage bill for a number of years?
With all respect to Palace, Bournemouth, Brentford etc, they have never been classed as ‘Top 6’ clubs and never will be. Without trade restrictions though, sleeping giants like Wednesday, West Brom as a few others could make a comeback
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 18 seconds ago
Just to be clear, City aren’t challenging either PSR or FFP. It is purely the rules out in place for associated party transactions. FFP and PSR in their current guises are both beneficial to City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep but Associated Party creates false revenue inflating the economy of the PL.
Club X wants to buy a new striker for £120m. They offer an amortised contract over 6 years at £20m per season.
Club X then signs a sponsorship deal with company Y, also owner of club X, for £20m a season over a period of 6 years (seasons).
Who has paid for that player?
All well and good for the clubs that can afford it. What about the clubs without the benefit of unlimited wealth, a nation state or sovereign wealth fund behind them. Isn't that an unfair advantage?
Isn't this also a way to circumnavigate PSR and FFP rules as a way of reducing a clubs inconvenient losses in the chase for CL or to catch up with City? Villa sign a convenient Associated party deal over a number of years to reduce their £130m losses meaning they fall within PSR/FFP.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 12 minutes ago
If City have access to unlimited wealth, how is it we haven’t been the biggest spenders or had the highest wage bill for a number of years?
With all respect to Palace, Bournemouth, Brentford etc, they have never been classed as ‘Top 6’ clubs and never will be. Without trade restrictions though, sleeping giants like Wednesday, West Brom as a few others could make a comeback
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've been uo there amongst the biggest spenders Boris. You can't deny it, how much you spent, both NET & Gross, under Pep alone?
Where are Sheff Weds now? That's the worst comparison you could pick.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 18 seconds ago
Just to be clear, City aren’t challenging either PSR or FFP. It is purely the rules out in place for associated party transactions. FFP and PSR in their current guises are both beneficial to City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep but Associated Party creates false revenue inflating the economy of the PL.
Club X wants to buy a new striker for £120m. They offer an amortised contract over 6 years at £20m per season.
Club X then signs a sponsorship deal with company Y, also owner of club X, for £20m a season over a period of 6 years (seasons).
Who has paid for that player?
All well and good for the clubs that can afford it. What about the clubs without the benefit of unlimited wealth, a nation state or sovereign wealth fund behind them. Isn't that an unfair advantage?
Isn't this also a way to circumnavigate PSR and FFP rules as a way of reducing a clubs inconvenient losses in the chase for CL or to catch up with City? Villa sign a convenient Associated party deal over a number of years to reduce their £130m losses meaning they fall within PSR/FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That scenario wouldn’t be an associated party, it would be a related party which is a different set of rules that have been in place for ages and also they have a requirement to legally account for them differently too.
Melts
My example is Associated Party
"What are the Associated Party Transaction rules?
The Premier League's rules require any club, its players, manager or any 'senior official' to run dealings with 'associated parties' past them.
'Associated parties'’ are companies or people who have a significant interest in the relevant club, financially or otherwise.
The Premier League's board then reviews each transaction, to assess whether it believes they represent a fair market value.
The league says the rule helps to build "fairness" across the division, by ending a "reliance on enhanced commercial revenues linked to the club's ownership"."
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 6 minutes ago
Melts
My example is Associated Party
"What are the Associated Party Transaction rules?
The Premier League's rules require any club, its players, manager or any 'senior official' to run dealings with 'associated parties' past them.
'Associated parties'’ are companies or people who have a significant interest in the relevant club, financially or otherwise.
The Premier League's board then reviews each transaction, to assess whether it believes they represent a fair market value.
The league says the rule helps to build "fairness" across the division, by ending a "reliance on enhanced commercial revenues linked to the club's ownership"."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If an owner has significant financial control of another party then it’s a related party. It’s the “or otherwise” bit in that that the PL have defined themselves that is being challenged.
I can’t see why Chelsea were barred from having Paramount as a shirt sponsor, I know it was because other broadcasters objected but Sky are allowed to advertise on ITV, CH4 etc under present advertising rules
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 6 minutes ago
Melts
My example is Associated Party
"What are the Associated Party Transaction rules?
The Premier League's rules require any club, its players, manager or any 'senior official' to run dealings with 'associated parties' past them.
'Associated parties'’ are companies or people who have a significant interest in the relevant club, financially or otherwise.
The Premier League's board then reviews each transaction, to assess whether it believes they represent a fair market value.
The league says the rule helps to build "fairness" across the division, by ending a "reliance on enhanced commercial revenues linked to the club's ownership"."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If an owner has significant financial control of another party then it’s a related party. It’s the “or otherwise” bit in that that the PL have defined themselves that is being challenged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mansour has significant interest in.both City and Etihad for example and could influence how much the deal is worth or, if City get their way, have no restrictions.
How many PL clubs are also able to make a similar deal?
What interests does HRH have in Etihad?
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 6 minutes ago
Melts
My example is Associated Party
"What are the Associated Party Transaction rules?
The Premier League's rules require any club, its players, manager or any 'senior official' to run dealings with 'associated parties' past them.
'Associated parties'’ are companies or people who have a significant interest in the relevant club, financially or otherwise.
The Premier League's board then reviews each transaction, to assess whether it believes they represent a fair market value.
The league says the rule helps to build "fairness" across the division, by ending a "reliance on enhanced commercial revenues linked to the club's ownership"."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If an owner has significant financial control of another party then it’s a related party. It’s the “or otherwise” bit in that that the PL have defined themselves that is being challenged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mansour has significant interest in.both City and Etihad for example and could influence how much the deal is worth or, if City get their way, have no restrictions.
How many PL clubs are also able to make a similar deal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that’s essentially the challenge they’ve got, legally Mansour has no control of Etihad at all but he clearly has links so it’s how far do you go defining what those links have to be for it to be an associated party, bear in mind City didn’t legally challenge the first set of AP rules, only those that came in in Feb.
Personally I’m not against the AP rules as such or ant least some form of andditioanl regulation and thought it was inevitable as soon as they allowed the Saudi deal with Newcastle.
I’d rather they just apply FMV to all sponsorships though. I get why they don’t but if they’re already restricting owner equity investment…
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
What interests does HRH have in Etihad?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What interest does Deputy PM of Abu Dhabi, Mansour have in state owned airline Etihad?
Melts
Two issues for me
It gives state owned clubs an unfair advantage over clubs that don't have comparative financial backing and are constrained by profit, loss, shareholders etc. Not all clubs have that source of revenue to tap.
Villa or Chelsea for example owned by hedge funds who have no loyalty to the club. They can accrue losses, kick the can down the road until the bottom falls out then bail. Unrestricted Associated party deals could be used to delay the inevitable (losses year after year) until its beneficial for the owner to bail leaving the club with debts.
We've seen plenty of examples of overeaching owners overspending leading to clubs dropping down the divisions and possibly ceasing to exist.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 seconds ago
Melts
Two issues for me
It gives state owned clubs an unfair advantage over clubs that don't have comparative financial backing and are constrained by profit, loss, shareholders etc. Not all clubs have that source of revenue to tap.
Villa or Chelsea for example owned by hedge funds who have no loyalty to the club. They can accrue losses, kick the can down the road until the bottom falls out then bail. Unrestricted Associated party deals could be used to delay the inevitable (losses year after year) until its beneficial for the owner to bail leaving the club with debts.
We've seen plenty of examples of overeaching owners overspending leading to clubs dropping down the divisions and possibly ceasing to exist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, like I said I thought it was inevitable as soon as they allowed the Saudi deal, that and the restricting of owner equity coupled together meant they were always going to have to implement something.
If what they’ve implemented is lawful, then fine. If it’s not, then they’ll rightly change the rules to ones that are lawful. It’s not going to go away all together.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
What interests does HRH have in Etihad?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What interest does Deputy PM of Abu Dhabi, Mansour have in state owned airline Etihad?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, yes.
Is he a director, does he have a direct role in the way the airline operates?
If the IPO goes through, Etihad will be a Flag Bearet rather than a state owned airline much like BA
Sign in if you want to comment
English Saudi League
Page 5 of 6
6
posted on 12/6/24
There will always be the spectre of an ESL with American owners who do appear to work in tandem on most off-field aspects of the game
posted on 12/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 6 minutes ago
There will always be the spectre of an ESL with American owners who do appear to work in tandem on most off-field aspects of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There will always be the spectre of being murderers, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding terrorists like AQ with owners from the ME.
They can afford to subsidise losses like it's 'breakages' on an accounts ledger with inflated sponsorship deals. Can Villa or Everton's owners afford to do the same?
Look at clubs like Blackburn, Reading, QPR, Portsmouth etc for examples of clubs with bad ownership of you're so concerned about the state of football.
posted on 12/6/24
There will always be the spectre of being murderers, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding terrorists like AQ with owners from the ME.
———————————
I’m more than happy with the UAE’s stance on both AQ and ISIS, not that it’s related to football in any way
posted on 12/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 25 minutes ago
There will always be the spectre of being murderers, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding terrorists like AQ with owners from the ME.
———————————
I’m more than happy with the UAE’s stance on both AQ and ISIS, not that it’s related to football in any way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither has being from the US and owning a football club. You want to believe dogmatically 'American owners bad' whilst claiming a proven murderer is 'good' and AD owners, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding AQ, are better
How has Moshiri's profligate spending policy worked out for Everton? This is what City's, Villa's, Newcastle and Everton's owners want more of.
posted on 12/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 25 minutes ago
There will always be the spectre of being murderers, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding terrorists like AQ with owners from the ME.
———————————
I’m more than happy with the UAE’s stance on both AQ and ISIS, not that it’s related to football in any way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither has being from the US and owning a football club. You want to believe dogmatically 'American owners bad' whilst claiming a proven murderer is 'good' and AD owners, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding AQ, are better
How has Moshiri's profligate spending policy worked out for Everton? This is what City's, Villa's, Newcastle and Everton's owners want more of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one’s saying there shouldn’t be rules in place to stop clubs going bust.
FFP was supposed to be there for that purpose but it clearly isn’t, it’s all about stifling the opposition
posted on 12/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 25 minutes ago
There will always be the spectre of being murderers, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding terrorists like AQ with owners from the ME.
———————————
I’m more than happy with the UAE’s stance on both AQ and ISIS, not that it’s related to football in any way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither has being from the US and owning a football club. You want to believe dogmatically 'American owners bad' whilst claiming a proven murderer is 'good' and AD owners, accused of forced disappearance, torture and funding AQ, are better
How has Moshiri's profligate spending policy worked out for Everton? This is what City's, Villa's, Newcastle and Everton's owners want more of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one’s saying there shouldn’t be rules in place to stop clubs going bust.
FFP was supposed to be there for that purpose but it clearly isn’t, it’s all about stifling the opposition
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do clubs go bust? Irresponsible spending by owners chasing the same thing City have done. All well and good if you've got a nation state or sovereign wealth fund backing you. Not so much for club owners without that wealth.
Its basically punishing clubs that do spend responsibly and do it the right way.
Has Moshiri's spending policy worked for Everton?
posted on 12/6/24
I don’t know what your argument is here, I’m all for owners spending within their means and there’s no real excuse not to consider most owners are Billionaires
posted on 12/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don’t know what your argument is here, I’m all for owners spending within their means and there’s no real excuse not to consider most owners are Billionaires
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Within your means is a different thing for City and their owners than it is for Brentford and theirs.
How is what City are proposing sustainable for clubs without unlimited wealth? There's plenty of examples of other clubs proving increased spending isn't commensurate with success or a higher place in the league. This undermines the 'stifling success' argument
Of course this doesn't apply to City or clubs backed by nation states and unlimited funds.
I would add we've gone from an established top 4 pretty much guaranteed every season to a more competitive league if you look from 2nd down. Different clubs, sometimes unexpected, Spurs, Villa etc are competing. Brighton and West Ham etc are qualifying for Europe for the first time/first time in years.
I wouldn't call that hegemonic control of clubs like Liverpool and United because surely that would he against our interests.
posted on 12/6/24
Just to be clear, City aren’t challenging either PSR or FFP. It is purely the rules out in place for associated party transactions. FFP and PSR in their current guises are both beneficial to City.
posted on 12/6/24
If City have access to unlimited wealth, how is it we haven’t been the biggest spenders or had the highest wage bill for a number of years?
With all respect to Palace, Bournemouth, Brentford etc, they have never been classed as ‘Top 6’ clubs and never will be. Without trade restrictions though, sleeping giants like Wednesday, West Brom as a few others could make a comeback
posted on 12/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 18 seconds ago
Just to be clear, City aren’t challenging either PSR or FFP. It is purely the rules out in place for associated party transactions. FFP and PSR in their current guises are both beneficial to City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep but Associated Party creates false revenue inflating the economy of the PL.
Club X wants to buy a new striker for £120m. They offer an amortised contract over 6 years at £20m per season.
Club X then signs a sponsorship deal with company Y, also owner of club X, for £20m a season over a period of 6 years (seasons).
Who has paid for that player?
All well and good for the clubs that can afford it. What about the clubs without the benefit of unlimited wealth, a nation state or sovereign wealth fund behind them. Isn't that an unfair advantage?
Isn't this also a way to circumnavigate PSR and FFP rules as a way of reducing a clubs inconvenient losses in the chase for CL or to catch up with City? Villa sign a convenient Associated party deal over a number of years to reduce their £130m losses meaning they fall within PSR/FFP.
posted on 12/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 12 minutes ago
If City have access to unlimited wealth, how is it we haven’t been the biggest spenders or had the highest wage bill for a number of years?
With all respect to Palace, Bournemouth, Brentford etc, they have never been classed as ‘Top 6’ clubs and never will be. Without trade restrictions though, sleeping giants like Wednesday, West Brom as a few others could make a comeback
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've been uo there amongst the biggest spenders Boris. You can't deny it, how much you spent, both NET & Gross, under Pep alone?
Where are Sheff Weds now? That's the worst comparison you could pick.
posted on 12/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 18 seconds ago
Just to be clear, City aren’t challenging either PSR or FFP. It is purely the rules out in place for associated party transactions. FFP and PSR in their current guises are both beneficial to City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep but Associated Party creates false revenue inflating the economy of the PL.
Club X wants to buy a new striker for £120m. They offer an amortised contract over 6 years at £20m per season.
Club X then signs a sponsorship deal with company Y, also owner of club X, for £20m a season over a period of 6 years (seasons).
Who has paid for that player?
All well and good for the clubs that can afford it. What about the clubs without the benefit of unlimited wealth, a nation state or sovereign wealth fund behind them. Isn't that an unfair advantage?
Isn't this also a way to circumnavigate PSR and FFP rules as a way of reducing a clubs inconvenient losses in the chase for CL or to catch up with City? Villa sign a convenient Associated party deal over a number of years to reduce their £130m losses meaning they fall within PSR/FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That scenario wouldn’t be an associated party, it would be a related party which is a different set of rules that have been in place for ages and also they have a requirement to legally account for them differently too.
posted on 12/6/24
Melts
My example is Associated Party
"What are the Associated Party Transaction rules?
The Premier League's rules require any club, its players, manager or any 'senior official' to run dealings with 'associated parties' past them.
'Associated parties'’ are companies or people who have a significant interest in the relevant club, financially or otherwise.
The Premier League's board then reviews each transaction, to assess whether it believes they represent a fair market value.
The league says the rule helps to build "fairness" across the division, by ending a "reliance on enhanced commercial revenues linked to the club's ownership"."
posted on 12/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 6 minutes ago
Melts
My example is Associated Party
"What are the Associated Party Transaction rules?
The Premier League's rules require any club, its players, manager or any 'senior official' to run dealings with 'associated parties' past them.
'Associated parties'’ are companies or people who have a significant interest in the relevant club, financially or otherwise.
The Premier League's board then reviews each transaction, to assess whether it believes they represent a fair market value.
The league says the rule helps to build "fairness" across the division, by ending a "reliance on enhanced commercial revenues linked to the club's ownership"."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If an owner has significant financial control of another party then it’s a related party. It’s the “or otherwise” bit in that that the PL have defined themselves that is being challenged.
posted on 12/6/24
I can’t see why Chelsea were barred from having Paramount as a shirt sponsor, I know it was because other broadcasters objected but Sky are allowed to advertise on ITV, CH4 etc under present advertising rules
posted on 12/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 6 minutes ago
Melts
My example is Associated Party
"What are the Associated Party Transaction rules?
The Premier League's rules require any club, its players, manager or any 'senior official' to run dealings with 'associated parties' past them.
'Associated parties'’ are companies or people who have a significant interest in the relevant club, financially or otherwise.
The Premier League's board then reviews each transaction, to assess whether it believes they represent a fair market value.
The league says the rule helps to build "fairness" across the division, by ending a "reliance on enhanced commercial revenues linked to the club's ownership"."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If an owner has significant financial control of another party then it’s a related party. It’s the “or otherwise” bit in that that the PL have defined themselves that is being challenged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mansour has significant interest in.both City and Etihad for example and could influence how much the deal is worth or, if City get their way, have no restrictions.
How many PL clubs are also able to make a similar deal?
posted on 12/6/24
What interests does HRH have in Etihad?
posted on 12/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 6 minutes ago
Melts
My example is Associated Party
"What are the Associated Party Transaction rules?
The Premier League's rules require any club, its players, manager or any 'senior official' to run dealings with 'associated parties' past them.
'Associated parties'’ are companies or people who have a significant interest in the relevant club, financially or otherwise.
The Premier League's board then reviews each transaction, to assess whether it believes they represent a fair market value.
The league says the rule helps to build "fairness" across the division, by ending a "reliance on enhanced commercial revenues linked to the club's ownership"."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If an owner has significant financial control of another party then it’s a related party. It’s the “or otherwise” bit in that that the PL have defined themselves that is being challenged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mansour has significant interest in.both City and Etihad for example and could influence how much the deal is worth or, if City get their way, have no restrictions.
How many PL clubs are also able to make a similar deal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that’s essentially the challenge they’ve got, legally Mansour has no control of Etihad at all but he clearly has links so it’s how far do you go defining what those links have to be for it to be an associated party, bear in mind City didn’t legally challenge the first set of AP rules, only those that came in in Feb.
Personally I’m not against the AP rules as such or ant least some form of andditioanl regulation and thought it was inevitable as soon as they allowed the Saudi deal with Newcastle.
I’d rather they just apply FMV to all sponsorships though. I get why they don’t but if they’re already restricting owner equity investment…
posted on 12/6/24
Crap spelling there!
posted on 12/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
What interests does HRH have in Etihad?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What interest does Deputy PM of Abu Dhabi, Mansour have in state owned airline Etihad?
posted on 12/6/24
Melts
Two issues for me
It gives state owned clubs an unfair advantage over clubs that don't have comparative financial backing and are constrained by profit, loss, shareholders etc. Not all clubs have that source of revenue to tap.
Villa or Chelsea for example owned by hedge funds who have no loyalty to the club. They can accrue losses, kick the can down the road until the bottom falls out then bail. Unrestricted Associated party deals could be used to delay the inevitable (losses year after year) until its beneficial for the owner to bail leaving the club with debts.
We've seen plenty of examples of overeaching owners overspending leading to clubs dropping down the divisions and possibly ceasing to exist.
posted on 12/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 seconds ago
Melts
Two issues for me
It gives state owned clubs an unfair advantage over clubs that don't have comparative financial backing and are constrained by profit, loss, shareholders etc. Not all clubs have that source of revenue to tap.
Villa or Chelsea for example owned by hedge funds who have no loyalty to the club. They can accrue losses, kick the can down the road until the bottom falls out then bail. Unrestricted Associated party deals could be used to delay the inevitable (losses year after year) until its beneficial for the owner to bail leaving the club with debts.
We've seen plenty of examples of overeaching owners overspending leading to clubs dropping down the divisions and possibly ceasing to exist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, like I said I thought it was inevitable as soon as they allowed the Saudi deal, that and the restricting of owner equity coupled together meant they were always going to have to implement something.
If what they’ve implemented is lawful, then fine. If it’s not, then they’ll rightly change the rules to ones that are lawful. It’s not going to go away all together.
posted on 12/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
What interests does HRH have in Etihad?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What interest does Deputy PM of Abu Dhabi, Mansour have in state owned airline Etihad?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, yes.
Is he a director, does he have a direct role in the way the airline operates?
posted on 12/6/24
If the IPO goes through, Etihad will be a Flag Bearet rather than a state owned airline much like BA
Page 5 of 6
6