Gallowgate Toon Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 I bet we're absolutely delighted for City to fight battles for us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Just now, Gallowgate Toon said: I bet we're absolutely delighted for City to fight battles for us I have a feeling Newcastle and City will have discussed FMV at length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE27 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 That doesn’t make sense. The two abstentions should be effectively no votes. Quote Each Member Club is entitled to one vote and all rule changes and major commercial contracts require the support of at least a two-thirds vote, or 14 clubs, to be agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 15 hours ago, Stifler said: So it looks like PSG are to build a new stadium. It will be interesting to see how they fund it considering UEFA’s rules, which the Premier League are looking to implement as well. UEFA's FFP rules still exclude infrastructure spending from the calculation as far as I can tell (Article 89.01(e) of the UEFA Club Licencing and Financial Sustainability Regulations). I think there was some talk of them removing the exclusion of infrastructure spending but I don't think that did, or is going to, happen. Although I might be completely wrong because there's lots of talk of it on here, so I might have missed something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 32 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: I have a feeling Newcastle and City will have discussed FMV at length. When the charges were first announced against City I went to their forum and one bloke said something like "Newcastle and us would make natural allies". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Never really understood the whole members create their own rules concept. Bring me that independent regulator Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 7 minutes ago, McDog said: When the charges were first announced against City I went to their forum and one bloke said something like "Newcastle and us would make natural allies". Certainly at boardroom level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 22 hours ago, madras said: Anyone heard any concrete numbers on ours and Villa's Adidas deals ? Just at the time of announcement we were a Champs league team and they weren't.......I doubt their owner having a 7% ownership of Adidas and being in negotiations would have any bearing on things though. I find it hard to believe Sawiris is going to be anywhere near negotiations. He's a shareholder, that doesn't mean he can get involved in day to day operations. They are certainly not going to be pouring inflated sums into us as a result of anything he says. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 hour ago, Jack27 said: https://x.com/martynziegler/status/1755929163767177548?s=46&t=qch8y64njTIa-YpWt4BfqA hmm I wonder when they’ll release which clubs voted for what? They usually do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 58 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: UEFA's FFP rules still exclude infrastructure spending from the calculation as far as I can tell (Article 89.01(e) of the UEFA Club Licencing and Financial Sustainability Regulations). I think there was some talk of them removing the exclusion of infrastructure spending but I don't think that did, or is going to, happen. Although I might be completely wrong because there's lots of talk of it on here, so I might have missed something. There's been so much talk of that on here and I don't know where it's come from. It doesn't make sense. Stadiums are expensive to build for any club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 8 minutes ago, brummie said: I find it hard to believe Sawiris is going to be anywhere near negotiations. He's a shareholder, that doesn't mean he can get involved in day to day operations. They are certainly not going to be pouring inflated sums into us as a result of anything he says. Many sources are saying the deal was "overseen" by Sawiris. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GideonShandy Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68253004 The Premier League is facing the threat of legal action from a club over amended rules around commercial deals. On Friday, rules regarding associated party transactions (ATPs) were tightened, aimed at clubs signing sponsorship deals with companies linked to their owners. ATPs can inflate revenue streams and allow more room for spending. League officials have not named the club but informed all 20 of the threat at a shareholders' meeting in London. The legal threat surrounds whether the Premier League's rules are compatible with competition law. BBC Sport has been told the threat remains even though a vote on the proposed rule changes, following an earlier review, gained enough support to be passed after it had been rejected in November. The changes will be introduced to the Premier League handbook in a matter of weeks but one contentious element around personal liability to directors has been removed. It is understood the vote was not unanimous. Sources have pointed to that disagreement, plus ongoing charges against Everton, Nottingham Forest and Manchester City and behind-the-scenes complaints about the new Premier League TV deal, as evidence of fractured relationships within the Premier League and discontent with chief executive Richard Masters. "Following a full review of the existing associated party transactions rules and fair market value assessment protocols, clubs agreed to a series of amendments to further enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the system," said a Premier League statement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 3 hours ago, timeEd32 said: That doesn’t make sense. The two abstentions should be effectively no votes. 12/18 makes two thirds, doesn’t it? Think that minimum number of 14 is wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronson333 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 14 minutes ago, Unbelievable said: 12/18 makes two thirds, doesn’t it? Think that minimum number of 14 is wrong. They are fucked when this goes to court, Levy and those cowboy Americans at Liverpool know it too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 7 minutes ago, Ronson333 said: They are fucked when this goes to court, Levy and those cowboy Americans at Liverpool know it too. It’ll go before a Competition Authority Tribunal more than likely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 24 minutes ago, Unbelievable said: 12/18 makes two thirds, doesn’t it? Think that minimum number of 14 is wrong. True, I guess the two-thirds part is more significant than the 14 even though both are mentioned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagMal Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 4 hours ago, timeEd32 said: That doesn’t make sense. The two abstentions should be effectively no votes. I can't stand people who abstain, if everyone isn't going to vote then the vote should be null and void. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 When we were first taken over at a PL meeting didn’t Charnley inform the meeting that introducing FMV that it was illegal? I wonder what are the chances that it is us that have threatened legal action at the PL meeting today? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1892 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 On 08/02/2024 at 15:49, madras said: Anyone heard any concrete numbers on ours and Villa's Adidas deals ? Just at the time of announcement we were a Champs league team and they weren't.......I doubt their owner having a 7% ownership of Adidas and being in negotiations would have any bearing on things though. I don’t think it’s a case of being a Champions League team at announcement and the other one wasn’t, there is a feeling that PIF want to make us one of the most successful clubs in the world which is why Adidas wanted in, which will be reflected in the deal and comes at a cost. All I’ve been told is that a lot of work went in to securing the deal with us by adidas and that Nike were also in contention, that they worked hard to keep the news from coming out. Where as with Villa it was an unexpected opportunity that came along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Which part of the rules have been tightened have they actually said, the only thing I can remember from original proposal was that you had to show bids of an equal value from 2 independent companies, which was generally considered to be unusual practice ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 4 hours ago, madras said: Many sources are saying the deal was "overseen" by Sawiris. I still find that very hard to believe. Even if it was true, he's not going to be in a position to inflate deals, as it wouldn't be shareholder value for the people who own the other 93%, so there won't be anything nefarious in it. What I can believe is he introduced the right people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 9 minutes ago, brummie said: I still find that very hard to believe. Even if it was true, he's not going to be in a position to inflate deals, as it wouldn't be shareholder value for the people who own the other 93%, so there won't be anything nefarious in it. What I can believe is he introduced the right people. Hey man stop making so much sense Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty__mag Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 (edited) 2 hours ago, Unbelievable said: 12/18 makes two thirds, doesn’t it? Think that minimum number of 14 is wrong. No, because abstentions don’t equal no votes. 14 votes gives the two-thirds majority of clubs - two clubs not voting doesn’t mean that those two clubs don’t exist Another PL rule that should be reformed Edited February 9 by TheBrownBottle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now