Just saw that. To be honest I just wanted to do the taking the PIF gag again.Yeah, just posted that. The teams with multi club owners voted no, so the likes of Newcastle, City, Chelsea, Villa, Palace and probably Utd.
Just saw that. To be honest I just wanted to do the taking the PIF gag again.
Not at all surprised by this. The existing rules are bullshit and need tightening, no surprise this was voted down.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
Why? So Man City can still allow shell betting companies to sponsor them?Not at all surprised by this. The existing rules are bullshit and need tightening, no surprise this was voted down.
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.Why? So Man City can still allow shell betting companies to sponsor them?
It makes FFP null and void is all.
How does it work with RedBird Capital being owners of AC Milan & Toulouse while also invested in FSG?
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.How does it work with RedBird Capital being owners of AC Milan & Toulouse while also invested in FSG?
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.Newcastle will be able to loan players from PIF-controlled clubs after PL clubs failed to back a proposal to ban it. The proposal got 13 votes, needed 14).
Welcome back Ruben Neves et al.