@davidyelland@ManCity There’s never previously been a penalty for spending too much when solvent that has resulted in relegation and the time period this stretched over reflects badly on the PL’s poor enforcement. Earlier action could have made this much less toxic. The PL statement was then reckless
@sav4efc He literally played for Blackburn and Jack Walker…
The only difference is that the league hadn’t made up ridiculous rules to maintain the arsenal/united/liverpool oligopoly
Premier league sanctions destroy communities… my team Leeds suffered a double penalty when financial failures led to issues, I saw the impact that had. Now the best team of the last 10 years is facing the threat of being dismantled to the joy of Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern…
Binning the environment agency would be a mad move by the tories. People hate polluted water and if there’s no mechanism for preventing pollution and dumping of waste then it really is a tragedy.
@TheRealFbloke It’s absolute nonsense. I saw something yesterday saying that unless they shut up and take their medicine they’ll be relegated to non league. Which just says it’s about protecting the cartel…
Another good point, that makes it an average of around £13m per year of genuine sponsorship. Surely that’s an incredibly low bit of sponsorship income. Compare to United, Arsenal, Liverpool, spurs and Chelsea who would average around £60-70m per year sponsorship
@Environomics3@little2blu@Dbluewhale@NiphoWorldWiide@TheRealFbloke It’s not my team (Leeds Utd fan)… and agree that it was a part of it but I also think the premier league is in a mess on this. Prosecuting a case for issues that began 18 years ago when there are literally only 20 members to monitor hardly screams competence at monitoring
@Environomics3@Dbluewhale@NiphoWorldWiide@TheRealFbloke But if they were held to that standard and the PL had ruled that way in year 1, surely they would have got different sponsors at a higher rate?
In reality, Abu Dhabi also put capital into emirates as it’s loss making but because they sponsor arsenal that is ok…
@JamesPearceLFC £900m really feels a stretch. The commission have assumed that all equity paid by Abu Dhabi to its companies like emirates only related to City and not to trading losses and as a result imputes a value far below market for sponsorship
@xpi3on6age9 It’s narrower than that - was it a reasonable conclusion that any amounts paid by ADUG solely related to Man City (especially when including them this was apparently understates commercial income vs market)
The tribunal assumed that all amounts paid by Abu Dhabi to its companies were to cover sponsorship. Which means any losses incurred by Ethihad for example were assumed because of sponsoring city, which is patently untrue. I’m not a city fan but this doesn’t look fair & reasonable
I want someone with a good understanding of the charges/outcome, to give a viable reason why when trying to inflate income, you would massively undersell your sponsorship?
This is from the panel, it is the crux of everything, the AD sponsors massively underpaid against market