I think we’ve all seen that you don’t care about that it’s long as you get some bragging rights at the end of the season Boris.
As said, that’s your call.
City crying that they’re not allowed to have over priced sponsorship deals from companies that they also own just about sums them up perfectly.
It’s pretty obvious why those rules were tightened, and UK law or not, they’re pretty obviously to allow more competition in the league.
City want to tear that up and I hope they fail miserably.
That would be absurd though just at a base level, what if the premier league as a collective voted that Liverpool were no longer allowed to play in red, should they be able to do that?
————
I was working on the assumption of common sense Boris, sorry.
I’d argue about the PL btw, I don’t think it’s a great product or particularly enjoyable and wish it had never been introduced in the first place, but that’s for another conversation!
I didn’t realise the Sheikh also owned Puma and Nissan
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 39 seconds ago
That would be absurd though just at a base level, what if the premier league as a collective voted that Liverpool were no longer allowed to play in red, should they be able to do that?
————
I was working on the assumption of common sense Boris, sorry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you’re not though, you’re working on the basis of emotion as it’s led you to suggest the PL should be able to implement any rule they want.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 seconds ago
I’d argue about the PL btw, I don’t think it’s a great product or particularly enjoyable and wish it had never been introduced in the first place, but that’s for another conversation!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I suspect this will be the start of a super league so you’ll not have to worry about it too much longer.
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think we’ve all seen that you don’t care about that it’s long as you get some bragging rights at the end of the season Boris.
As said, that’s your call.
City crying that they’re not allowed to have over priced sponsorship deals from companies that they also own just about sums them up perfectly.
It’s pretty obvious why those rules were tightened, and UK law or not, they’re pretty obviously to allow more competition in the league.
City want to tear that up and I hope they fail miserably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they don’t. They didn’t challenge the implementation of the APT rules.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 39 seconds ago
That would be absurd though just at a base level, what if the premier league as a collective voted that Liverpool were no longer allowed to play in red, should they be able to do that?
————
I was working on the assumption of common sense Boris, sorry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you’re not though, you’re working on the basis of emotion as it’s led you to suggest the PL should be able to implement any rule they want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As a world’s leading authority on myself I’m going to disagree.
I think the disparity between the likes of City and Ipswich is not good. You do, and by the looks of things want to make it bigger, which is fair enough, but not something I’d subscribe to.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think we’ve all seen that you don’t care about that it’s long as you get some bragging rights at the end of the season Boris.
As said, that’s your call.
City crying that they’re not allowed to have over priced sponsorship deals from companies that they also own just about sums them up perfectly.
It’s pretty obvious why those rules were tightened, and UK law or not, they’re pretty obviously to allow more competition in the league.
City want to tear that up and I hope they fail miserably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they don’t. They didn’t challenge the implementation of the APT rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just going by what’s been reported, such as;
‘City’s gripe is with a specific set of Premier League regulations, called Associated Party Transaction rules (APT). These are the rules which restrict an owner’s ability to arrange large sponsorship agreements between the club they run and the companies they own or are associated with.‘
Tbh, City’s reputation is that bad now, and their dealing so nefarious and clandestine, it’s hard not to imagine the worst, especially when you take into account the owners.
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 39 seconds ago
That would be absurd though just at a base level, what if the premier league as a collective voted that Liverpool were no longer allowed to play in red, should they be able to do that?
————
I was working on the assumption of common sense Boris, sorry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you’re not though, you’re working on the basis of emotion as it’s led you to suggest the PL should be able to implement any rule they want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As a world’s leading authority on myself I’m going to disagree.
I think the disparity between the likes of City and Ipswich is not good. You do, and by the looks of things want to make it bigger, which is fair enough, but not something I’d subscribe to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s just proving my point though as you keep bringing up non sequiturs! No I don’t want that at all, personally I’d like to see the complete opposite. That’s got nothing to do with what we’re talking about again though,
I haven’t said I even support City’s stance in this particular case. I’ve got absolutely no issue with them taking it to court though. If the rules are unlawful, they’ll get amended and reimplemented with lawful ones, which everyone should want. If the rules are lawful, then they stay as they are.
That’s all there is to it. There’s no challenge to the principle of APTs, it’s only the new regulations that they’re challenging.
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think we’ve all seen that you don’t care about that it’s long as you get some bragging rights at the end of the season Boris.
As said, that’s your call.
City crying that they’re not allowed to have over priced sponsorship deals from companies that they also own just about sums them up perfectly.
It’s pretty obvious why those rules were tightened, and UK law or not, they’re pretty obviously to allow more competition in the league.
City want to tear that up and I hope they fail miserably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they don’t. They didn’t challenge the implementation of the APT rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just going by what’s been reported, such as;
‘City’s gripe is with a specific set of Premier League regulations, called Associated Party Transaction rules (APT). These are the rules which restrict an owner’s ability to arrange large sponsorship agreements between the club they run and the companies they own or are associated with.‘
Tbh, City’s reputation is that bad now, and their dealing so nefarious and clandestine, it’s hard not to imagine the worst, especially when you take into account the owners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City didn’t challenge APTs when they came in. They’ve challenged the most recent set of changes to those regulations.
That whole post has a Saul Goodman vibe. It feels greasy.
City didn’t challenge APTs when they came in. They’ve challenged the most recent set of changes to those regulations.
————
Tomatoe. Tomatoe.
You could just say you don’t really know much about the subject you know
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
You could just say you don’t really know much about the subject you know
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know City are challenging the ATP rules and it’s not even up for debate.
Now, you’ll get some desperate, I’m all right pull the ladder up Jack types looking for loopholes and try and spin that quite simple fact, and that’s up to them, but they look silly as a result imo.
They’re not challenging ATP, they just challenging ATP
Okay!
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
You could just say you don’t really know much about the subject you know
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know City are challenging the ATP rules and it’s not even up for debate.
Now, you’ll get some desperate, I’m all right pull the ladder up Jack types looking for loopholes and try and spin that quite simple fact, and that’s up to them, but they look silly as a result imo.
They’re not challenging ATP, they just challenging ATP
Okay!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you’ll also get some people that have listened to the lawyers who have read the full submission who know City didn’t challenge the APT rules when they came in and have challenged the most recent changes due to how the PL have defined what classes as an associated party. Had they kept with their initial definition then they wouldn’t have been challenged, a challenge they were told would be coming.
What you’ve got is people doing the opposite of what you’re suggesting and people thinking there’s a simple fact and making themselves look stupid by doing that instead by suggesting City are wanting the whole APT regulations gone.
Rather annoyed I keep putting ATP rather than APTs though
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
You could just say you don’t really know much about the subject you know
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know City are challenging the ATP rules and it’s not even up for debate.
Now, you’ll get some desperate, I’m all right pull the ladder up Jack types looking for loopholes and try and spin that quite simple fact, and that’s up to them, but they look silly as a result imo.
They’re not challenging ATP, they just challenging ATP
Okay!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you’ll also get some people that have listened to the lawyers who have read the full submission who know City didn’t challenge the APT rules when they came in and have challenged the most recent changes due to how the PL have defined what classes as an associated party. Had they kept with their initial definition then they wouldn’t have been challenged, a challenge they were told would be coming.
What you’ve got is people doing the opposite of what you’re suggesting and people thinking there’s a simple fact and making themselves look stupid by doing that instead by suggesting City are wanting the whole APT regulations gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You see Melts, I think challenging the APTs is challenging the APTs and you think spinning it by writing ‘Oh no, they’re not doing that, they’re just challenging the amendments’ somehow means they’re not.
Well to any, imo, reasonable person that’s still challenging the APTs and no amount of nauseating spin will change that.
To morons yes, but that doesn’t mean we all have to turn into one!
Even if City’s challenge is successful, there will still be regulations around APTs in place.
Yes, I know that, but saying City are not challenging APT is wilfully erroneous, they just are.
Are City challenging the Premier Leagues APT rules? The answer would be yes, and calling people names doesn’t change that.
Sometimes it’s just best to hold your hands up Melts.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 31 minutes ago
You could just say you don’t really know much about the subject you know
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rats fleeing the sinking ship.
I mean you can laugh, but he was wrong.
Tbh I find pretending ‘we’re just challenging the amendments’ stance pretty funny, although predictable.
‘suggesting City are wanting the whole APT regulations gone.‘ - this blatant lie was also quite funny tbf, didn’t think Melts was like that.
If anyone can find anywhere on here where that is written, I’ll by the a
Just more desperate stuff from City, et al.
Clubs reportedly sympathetic to City’s challenge? Newcastle, Villa, Chelsea and Utd.
Wonder what all of those have in common.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c7295x478wro
I’m undecided on MCO but the Bournemouth owner makes a good case
Sign in if you want to comment
The end of an era for City
Page 3 of 4
posted on 22/7/24
I think we’ve all seen that you don’t care about that it’s long as you get some bragging rights at the end of the season Boris.
As said, that’s your call.
City crying that they’re not allowed to have over priced sponsorship deals from companies that they also own just about sums them up perfectly.
It’s pretty obvious why those rules were tightened, and UK law or not, they’re pretty obviously to allow more competition in the league.
City want to tear that up and I hope they fail miserably.
posted on 22/7/24
That would be absurd though just at a base level, what if the premier league as a collective voted that Liverpool were no longer allowed to play in red, should they be able to do that?
————
I was working on the assumption of common sense Boris, sorry.
posted on 22/7/24
I’d argue about the PL btw, I don’t think it’s a great product or particularly enjoyable and wish it had never been introduced in the first place, but that’s for another conversation!
posted on 22/7/24
I didn’t realise the Sheikh also owned Puma and Nissan
posted on 22/7/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 39 seconds ago
That would be absurd though just at a base level, what if the premier league as a collective voted that Liverpool were no longer allowed to play in red, should they be able to do that?
————
I was working on the assumption of common sense Boris, sorry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you’re not though, you’re working on the basis of emotion as it’s led you to suggest the PL should be able to implement any rule they want.
posted on 22/7/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 seconds ago
I’d argue about the PL btw, I don’t think it’s a great product or particularly enjoyable and wish it had never been introduced in the first place, but that’s for another conversation!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I suspect this will be the start of a super league so you’ll not have to worry about it too much longer.
posted on 22/7/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think we’ve all seen that you don’t care about that it’s long as you get some bragging rights at the end of the season Boris.
As said, that’s your call.
City crying that they’re not allowed to have over priced sponsorship deals from companies that they also own just about sums them up perfectly.
It’s pretty obvious why those rules were tightened, and UK law or not, they’re pretty obviously to allow more competition in the league.
City want to tear that up and I hope they fail miserably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they don’t. They didn’t challenge the implementation of the APT rules.
posted on 22/7/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 39 seconds ago
That would be absurd though just at a base level, what if the premier league as a collective voted that Liverpool were no longer allowed to play in red, should they be able to do that?
————
I was working on the assumption of common sense Boris, sorry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you’re not though, you’re working on the basis of emotion as it’s led you to suggest the PL should be able to implement any rule they want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As a world’s leading authority on myself I’m going to disagree.
I think the disparity between the likes of City and Ipswich is not good. You do, and by the looks of things want to make it bigger, which is fair enough, but not something I’d subscribe to.
posted on 22/7/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think we’ve all seen that you don’t care about that it’s long as you get some bragging rights at the end of the season Boris.
As said, that’s your call.
City crying that they’re not allowed to have over priced sponsorship deals from companies that they also own just about sums them up perfectly.
It’s pretty obvious why those rules were tightened, and UK law or not, they’re pretty obviously to allow more competition in the league.
City want to tear that up and I hope they fail miserably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they don’t. They didn’t challenge the implementation of the APT rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just going by what’s been reported, such as;
‘City’s gripe is with a specific set of Premier League regulations, called Associated Party Transaction rules (APT). These are the rules which restrict an owner’s ability to arrange large sponsorship agreements between the club they run and the companies they own or are associated with.‘
Tbh, City’s reputation is that bad now, and their dealing so nefarious and clandestine, it’s hard not to imagine the worst, especially when you take into account the owners.
posted on 22/7/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 39 seconds ago
That would be absurd though just at a base level, what if the premier league as a collective voted that Liverpool were no longer allowed to play in red, should they be able to do that?
————
I was working on the assumption of common sense Boris, sorry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you’re not though, you’re working on the basis of emotion as it’s led you to suggest the PL should be able to implement any rule they want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As a world’s leading authority on myself I’m going to disagree.
I think the disparity between the likes of City and Ipswich is not good. You do, and by the looks of things want to make it bigger, which is fair enough, but not something I’d subscribe to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s just proving my point though as you keep bringing up non sequiturs! No I don’t want that at all, personally I’d like to see the complete opposite. That’s got nothing to do with what we’re talking about again though,
I haven’t said I even support City’s stance in this particular case. I’ve got absolutely no issue with them taking it to court though. If the rules are unlawful, they’ll get amended and reimplemented with lawful ones, which everyone should want. If the rules are lawful, then they stay as they are.
That’s all there is to it. There’s no challenge to the principle of APTs, it’s only the new regulations that they’re challenging.
posted on 22/7/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think we’ve all seen that you don’t care about that it’s long as you get some bragging rights at the end of the season Boris.
As said, that’s your call.
City crying that they’re not allowed to have over priced sponsorship deals from companies that they also own just about sums them up perfectly.
It’s pretty obvious why those rules were tightened, and UK law or not, they’re pretty obviously to allow more competition in the league.
City want to tear that up and I hope they fail miserably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they don’t. They didn’t challenge the implementation of the APT rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just going by what’s been reported, such as;
‘City’s gripe is with a specific set of Premier League regulations, called Associated Party Transaction rules (APT). These are the rules which restrict an owner’s ability to arrange large sponsorship agreements between the club they run and the companies they own or are associated with.‘
Tbh, City’s reputation is that bad now, and their dealing so nefarious and clandestine, it’s hard not to imagine the worst, especially when you take into account the owners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City didn’t challenge APTs when they came in. They’ve challenged the most recent set of changes to those regulations.
posted on 22/7/24
That whole post has a Saul Goodman vibe. It feels greasy.
posted on 22/7/24
City didn’t challenge APTs when they came in. They’ve challenged the most recent set of changes to those regulations.
————
Tomatoe. Tomatoe.
posted on 22/7/24
You could just say you don’t really know much about the subject you know
posted on 22/7/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
You could just say you don’t really know much about the subject you know
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know City are challenging the ATP rules and it’s not even up for debate.
Now, you’ll get some desperate, I’m all right pull the ladder up Jack types looking for loopholes and try and spin that quite simple fact, and that’s up to them, but they look silly as a result imo.
They’re not challenging ATP, they just challenging ATP
Okay!
posted on 22/7/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
You could just say you don’t really know much about the subject you know
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know City are challenging the ATP rules and it’s not even up for debate.
Now, you’ll get some desperate, I’m all right pull the ladder up Jack types looking for loopholes and try and spin that quite simple fact, and that’s up to them, but they look silly as a result imo.
They’re not challenging ATP, they just challenging ATP
Okay!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you’ll also get some people that have listened to the lawyers who have read the full submission who know City didn’t challenge the APT rules when they came in and have challenged the most recent changes due to how the PL have defined what classes as an associated party. Had they kept with their initial definition then they wouldn’t have been challenged, a challenge they were told would be coming.
What you’ve got is people doing the opposite of what you’re suggesting and people thinking there’s a simple fact and making themselves look stupid by doing that instead by suggesting City are wanting the whole APT regulations gone.
posted on 22/7/24
Rather annoyed I keep putting ATP rather than APTs though
posted on 22/7/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
You could just say you don’t really know much about the subject you know
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know City are challenging the ATP rules and it’s not even up for debate.
Now, you’ll get some desperate, I’m all right pull the ladder up Jack types looking for loopholes and try and spin that quite simple fact, and that’s up to them, but they look silly as a result imo.
They’re not challenging ATP, they just challenging ATP
Okay!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you’ll also get some people that have listened to the lawyers who have read the full submission who know City didn’t challenge the APT rules when they came in and have challenged the most recent changes due to how the PL have defined what classes as an associated party. Had they kept with their initial definition then they wouldn’t have been challenged, a challenge they were told would be coming.
What you’ve got is people doing the opposite of what you’re suggesting and people thinking there’s a simple fact and making themselves look stupid by doing that instead by suggesting City are wanting the whole APT regulations gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You see Melts, I think challenging the APTs is challenging the APTs and you think spinning it by writing ‘Oh no, they’re not doing that, they’re just challenging the amendments’ somehow means they’re not.
Well to any, imo, reasonable person that’s still challenging the APTs and no amount of nauseating spin will change that.
posted on 22/7/24
To morons yes, but that doesn’t mean we all have to turn into one!
Even if City’s challenge is successful, there will still be regulations around APTs in place.
posted on 22/7/24
Yes, I know that, but saying City are not challenging APT is wilfully erroneous, they just are.
Are City challenging the Premier Leagues APT rules? The answer would be yes, and calling people names doesn’t change that.
Sometimes it’s just best to hold your hands up Melts.
posted on 22/7/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 31 minutes ago
You could just say you don’t really know much about the subject you know
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 22/7/24
Rats fleeing the sinking ship.
posted on 22/7/24
I mean you can laugh, but he was wrong.
Tbh I find pretending ‘we’re just challenging the amendments’ stance pretty funny, although predictable.
‘suggesting City are wanting the whole APT regulations gone.‘ - this blatant lie was also quite funny tbf, didn’t think Melts was like that.
If anyone can find anywhere on here where that is written, I’ll by the a
Just more desperate stuff from City, et al.
Clubs reportedly sympathetic to City’s challenge? Newcastle, Villa, Chelsea and Utd.
Wonder what all of those have in common.
posted on 22/7/24
Oh and the bitters
posted on 22/7/24
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c7295x478wro
I’m undecided on MCO but the Bournemouth owner makes a good case
Page 3 of 4