Taking the PIF
- Thread starter Beamrider
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Just saw that. To be honest I just wanted to do the taking the PIF gag again.
Was a good one. It deserves its own discussion as well.
Is it standard thing to have 14 clubs, why 70% majority? If 52% is enough for Brexit then why not this?
Anyway, most of the league seems to multi club affiliated now:
Arsenal: Colorado Rapids
Aston Villa: Vitória Sport Clube, ZED FC, Vissel Kobe
Bournemouth: FC Lorient
Brighton: Union Saint-Gilloise
Chelsea: Strasbourg
Crystal Palace: Lyon, Botafogo, RWD Molenbeek
Manchester City: New York City, Melbourne City, Yokohama F Marinos, Montevideo, Girona, Sichuan Jiuniu, Mumbai City, Lommel SK, ESTAC Troyes, Palermo, Bahia, Club Bolivar
Newcastle: Al Nassr, Al Ahli, Al Ittihad, Al Hilal
Nottingham Forest: Olympiakos
Sheffield United: Beerschot, Al Hilal United, Kereala United, Chateauroux
West Ham: Sparta Prague
TBC - Manchester United: OGC Nice, FC Lausanne-Sport (subject to completion of Sir Jim Ratcliffe investment)
Anyway, most of the league seems to multi club affiliated now:
Arsenal: Colorado Rapids
Aston Villa: Vitória Sport Clube, ZED FC, Vissel Kobe
Bournemouth: FC Lorient
Brighton: Union Saint-Gilloise
Chelsea: Strasbourg
Crystal Palace: Lyon, Botafogo, RWD Molenbeek
Manchester City: New York City, Melbourne City, Yokohama F Marinos, Montevideo, Girona, Sichuan Jiuniu, Mumbai City, Lommel SK, ESTAC Troyes, Palermo, Bahia, Club Bolivar
Newcastle: Al Nassr, Al Ahli, Al Ittihad, Al Hilal
Nottingham Forest: Olympiakos
Sheffield United: Beerschot, Al Hilal United, Kereala United, Chateauroux
West Ham: Sparta Prague
TBC - Manchester United: OGC Nice, FC Lausanne-Sport (subject to completion of Sir Jim Ratcliffe investment)
This cant be true, surely?!
Premier League clubs have ALSO voted AGAINST tougher rules on related-party commercial deals It was proposed clubs had to provide proof of multiple offers of same value This was seen as a move by some to restrict Saudi-owned NUFC
Premier League clubs have ALSO voted AGAINST tougher rules on related-party commercial deals It was proposed clubs had to provide proof of multiple offers of same value This was seen as a move by some to restrict Saudi-owned NUFC
Not at all surprised by this. The existing rules are bullshit and need tightening, no surprise this was voted down.
Why? So Man City can still allow shell betting companies to sponsor them?
Loads of clubs will want to do the City trick of over-priced sponsorship from related parties. They voted against it because their own interests trumped seeing City or Newcastle shown up for exaggerating their income.
Struggling to care about this, especially now when Newcastle (like the 2 plastic clubs) have the backing themselves to essentially buy who they want with no reprecussion. Let's look at the bigger picture here and understand why the league has allowed football to die in this country, this is just a little side piece of that story.
Whether it's loaning in Neves or Brozovic or whoever for 6months/a year or signing XYZ on a contract for 50m. Who cares. Plus do we even know if the Saudi clubs would agree to this? Or the player would agree to the move? I thought the whole reason Saudi were buying all these players was to change the perception of their league to the west? Well what good will suddenly loaning those same players back to England do?
Who else does/has it affected to enhance their season?
Whether it's loaning in Neves or Brozovic or whoever for 6months/a year or signing XYZ on a contract for 50m. Who cares. Plus do we even know if the Saudi clubs would agree to this? Or the player would agree to the move? I thought the whole reason Saudi were buying all these players was to change the perception of their league to the west? Well what good will suddenly loaning those same players back to England do?
Who else does/has it affected to enhance their season?
Does it though - even if it wasn’t pretty much dead anyway?
Surely if loaning wasn’t an option, the Saudis could just sell the player to Newcastle for a nominal fee citing some bullshit, but plausible reason.
It feels a bit like the clubs have rejected the offer of some neurophen to treat a severed leg - the multi-club ownership genie is already too far out of the bottle to do anything about effectively.
Red Bird only has a very small stake in LFC, nowhere near enough to exercise control, so they would not be caught by rules for connected parties.
Premier League definition is apparently "material influence" over a club's affairs. Red Bird wouldn't count and the fact they didn't have enough influence to have LFC vote against the proposal kind of proves they don't have material influence.
Its not right but maybe they can impose a limit on how many they should be allowed to get. But I also see this as potential advantage if our parent company in the future can get a club in South America or Africa, it could be used to provide us some players.
- Status
