comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawful according to what though? Comparing the PL to other UK businesses and UK competition laws seems daft.
There's the big 6 of supermarkets all competing for market share. Where in UK business law does of say the supermarket ranked bottom of a league table will be excluded from.competing the following year?
What if the bottom ranked supermarket could sign a deal with another company it owns to avoid that exclusion?
Would that be fair to the other 5 supermarkets who competed fairly in accordance to the rules? Rules democratically agreed by all 6.
Other things like transfer windows, how easily contracts are broken, failing managers leaving the job being paid off millions etc aren't tecnically in accordance with UK business law.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 12 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does he negotiate the deal with the CEO of Etihad or tell him how much and order it in his capacity as deputy PM of the country?
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 12 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does he negotiate the deal with the CEO of Etihad or tell him how much and order it in his capacity as deputy PM of the country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it, £20m a year for both shirt and stadium sponsorship sounds like he undersold it.
He should be criticised for charging mates rates
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawful according to what though? Comparing the PL to other UK businesses and UK competition laws seems daft.
There's the big 6 of supermarkets all competing for market share. Where in UK business law does of say the supermarket ranked bottom of a league table will be excluded from.competing the following year?
What if the bottom ranked supermarket could sign a deal with another company it owns to avoid that exclusion?
Would that be fair to the other 5 supermarkets who competed fairly in accordance to the rules? Rules democratically agreed by all 6.
Other things like transfer windows, how easily contracts are broken, failing managers leaving the job being paid off millions etc aren't tecnically in accordance with UK business law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawful according to the arbitrators hearing the case, ultimately. All the clubs are still separate entities remember, they’re not subsidiaries of the PL. They can’t just implement any rule they want to, even if most clubs want them to.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawful according to what though? Comparing the PL to other UK businesses and UK competition laws seems daft.
There's the big 6 of supermarkets all competing for market share. Where in UK business law does of say the supermarket ranked bottom of a league table will be excluded from.competing the following year?
What if the bottom ranked supermarket could sign a deal with another company it owns to avoid that exclusion?
Would that be fair to the other 5 supermarkets who competed fairly in accordance to the rules? Rules democratically agreed by all 6.
Other things like transfer windows, how easily contracts are broken, failing managers leaving the job being paid off millions etc aren't tecnically in accordance with UK business law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the best analogy as supermarkets tend to fix prices and few people have the same emotional capacity as they do with football clubs
Sign in if you want to comment
English Saudi League
Page 6 of 6
6
posted on 12/6/24
*bearer
posted on 12/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawful according to what though? Comparing the PL to other UK businesses and UK competition laws seems daft.
There's the big 6 of supermarkets all competing for market share. Where in UK business law does of say the supermarket ranked bottom of a league table will be excluded from.competing the following year?
What if the bottom ranked supermarket could sign a deal with another company it owns to avoid that exclusion?
Would that be fair to the other 5 supermarkets who competed fairly in accordance to the rules? Rules democratically agreed by all 6.
Other things like transfer windows, how easily contracts are broken, failing managers leaving the job being paid off millions etc aren't tecnically in accordance with UK business law.
posted on 12/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 12 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does he negotiate the deal with the CEO of Etihad or tell him how much and order it in his capacity as deputy PM of the country?
posted on 12/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 12 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does he negotiate the deal with the CEO of Etihad or tell him how much and order it in his capacity as deputy PM of the country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it, £20m a year for both shirt and stadium sponsorship sounds like he undersold it.
He should be criticised for charging mates rates
posted on 12/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawful according to what though? Comparing the PL to other UK businesses and UK competition laws seems daft.
There's the big 6 of supermarkets all competing for market share. Where in UK business law does of say the supermarket ranked bottom of a league table will be excluded from.competing the following year?
What if the bottom ranked supermarket could sign a deal with another company it owns to avoid that exclusion?
Would that be fair to the other 5 supermarkets who competed fairly in accordance to the rules? Rules democratically agreed by all 6.
Other things like transfer windows, how easily contracts are broken, failing managers leaving the job being paid off millions etc aren't tecnically in accordance with UK business law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawful according to the arbitrators hearing the case, ultimately. All the clubs are still separate entities remember, they’re not subsidiaries of the PL. They can’t just implement any rule they want to, even if most clubs want them to.
posted on 12/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawful according to what though? Comparing the PL to other UK businesses and UK competition laws seems daft.
There's the big 6 of supermarkets all competing for market share. Where in UK business law does of say the supermarket ranked bottom of a league table will be excluded from.competing the following year?
What if the bottom ranked supermarket could sign a deal with another company it owns to avoid that exclusion?
Would that be fair to the other 5 supermarkets who competed fairly in accordance to the rules? Rules democratically agreed by all 6.
Other things like transfer windows, how easily contracts are broken, failing managers leaving the job being paid off millions etc aren't tecnically in accordance with UK business law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the best analogy as supermarkets tend to fix prices and few people have the same emotional capacity as they do with football clubs
Page 6 of 6
6