Club with the most money wins trophies shock horror
Dont see why everyone is against city when united and liverpool have been doing that for years.
If their owners want to throw theironey so what? Doesnt harm anyone.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
Think United fans should probably hold fire before criticising us too much for this action tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 25 minutes ago
Club with the most money wins trophies shock horror
Dont see why everyone is against city when united and liverpool have been doing that for years.
If their owners want to throw theironey so what? Doesnt harm anyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeing as you gave us this answer, I'm sure you can tell us how Liverpool and United have been 'doing this for years'. Please tell us all how United and Liverpool have been doing this for years
comment by House (U17162)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
Think United fans should probably hold fire before criticising us too much for this action tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they’re very likely to not want the broadening of rules to associated party transactions too now.
City have tainted our sport and it’s time they were punished over it. Suing the league because they’ve broken 115 rules is pathetic, petulant and stinks of absolute disgrace.
Relegate them.
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that Melt, but when, if ever, will there be a punishment for breaking the rules regarding the 115 charges regarding investment.
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that Melt, but when, if ever, will there be a punishment for breaking the rules regarding the 115 charges regarding investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
November this year, if they’re found guilty then the punishment will follow that.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, what are you basing that on?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that Melt, but when, if ever, will there be a punishment for breaking the rules regarding the 115 charges regarding investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
November this year, if they’re found guilty then the punishment will follow that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When they’re found guilty *
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, what are you basing that on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested to hear this.
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, what are you basing that on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has everything to do with the 115 charges. They may not admit it and on paper the two issues are separate but everyone knows why City are doing this is the 115 charges.
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has everything to do with the 115 charges. They may not admit it and on paper the two issues are separate but everyone knows why City are doing this is the 115 charges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then they’re morons then that haven’t been reading much recently. A legal challenge to the new rules being on the cards by City was reported in Feb this year as soon as those changes were announced.
Not saying I agree with the challenge there btw.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that Melt, but when, if ever, will there be a punishment for breaking the rules regarding the 115 charges regarding investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
November this year, if they’re found guilty then the punishment will follow that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Melt. 'If' they are found guilty what do you think the punishment should be. I've given my viewpoint, relegation would not be terrible, we all know you would come up immediately, and you can afford the fine. That seems fair around to me.
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has everything to do with the 115 charges. They may not admit it and on paper the two issues are separate but everyone knows why City are doing this is the 115 charges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then they’re morons then that haven’t been reading much recently. A legal challenge to the new rules being on the cards by City was reported in Feb this year as soon as those changes were announced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Thanks for proving the point. Anyway, are you being serious right now saan?
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that Melt, but when, if ever, will there be a punishment for breaking the rules regarding the 115 charges regarding investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
November this year, if they’re found guilty then the punishment will follow that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Melt. 'If' they are found guilty what do you think the punishment should be. I've given my viewpoint, relegation would not be terrible, we all know you would come up immediately, and you can afford the fine. That seems fair around to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they’re found guilty of everything, then relegation and a significant fine at the least I assume.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But unless there’s any indication that there’s plans for them to exploit it like City and Chelsea, which I’m yet to see, I’m not sure it’ll matter that much. Unless there’s something you’ve seen that I’ve missed?
United have been one of the clubs pushing for these regulations most, find it unlikely to have changed just because of the circumstances you’ve mentioned.
Would be unfair on championship clubs and all lower league clubs to relegate them to the championship. Relegation must be all the way down to the bottom of the football pyramid. Only starting again at the very bottom would be fair on other clubs.
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But unless there’s any indication that there’s plans for them to exploit it like City and Chelsea, which I’m yet to see, I’m not sure it’ll matter that much. Unless there’s something you’ve seen that I’ve missed?
United have been one of the clubs pushing for these regulations most, find it unlikely to have changed just because of the circumstances you’ve mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the things I’ve seen Ratcliffe say, both about his own opinion on muliyclub ownership and when he’s spoken about us. I can’t see him, particularly being the businessman (and let’s be honest, like all of them at that level, the tw@ts they are!) ever be likely to support additional regulation personally.
Fair play. I think there will be pressure from the Glazers as the major shareholders, and that will hold plenty of weight.
Sign in if you want to comment
Man City: Guilty Regardless Of Verdict
Page 3 of 6
6
posted on 4/6/24
Club with the most money wins trophies shock horror
Dont see why everyone is against city when united and liverpool have been doing that for years.
If their owners want to throw theironey so what? Doesnt harm anyone.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
Think United fans should probably hold fire before criticising us too much for this action tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
posted on 4/6/24
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 25 minutes ago
Club with the most money wins trophies shock horror
Dont see why everyone is against city when united and liverpool have been doing that for years.
If their owners want to throw theironey so what? Doesnt harm anyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeing as you gave us this answer, I'm sure you can tell us how Liverpool and United have been 'doing this for years'. Please tell us all how United and Liverpool have been doing this for years
posted on 4/6/24
comment by House (U17162)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
Think United fans should probably hold fire before criticising us too much for this action tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they’re very likely to not want the broadening of rules to associated party transactions too now.
posted on 4/6/24
City have tainted our sport and it’s time they were punished over it. Suing the league because they’ve broken 115 rules is pathetic, petulant and stinks of absolute disgrace.
Relegate them.
posted on 4/6/24
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that Melt, but when, if ever, will there be a punishment for breaking the rules regarding the 115 charges regarding investment.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that Melt, but when, if ever, will there be a punishment for breaking the rules regarding the 115 charges regarding investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
November this year, if they’re found guilty then the punishment will follow that.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, what are you basing that on?
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that Melt, but when, if ever, will there be a punishment for breaking the rules regarding the 115 charges regarding investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
November this year, if they’re found guilty then the punishment will follow that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When they’re found guilty *
posted on 4/6/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, what are you basing that on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested to hear this.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, what are you basing that on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has everything to do with the 115 charges. They may not admit it and on paper the two issues are separate but everyone knows why City are doing this is the 115 charges.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has everything to do with the 115 charges. They may not admit it and on paper the two issues are separate but everyone knows why City are doing this is the 115 charges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then they’re morons then that haven’t been reading much recently. A legal challenge to the new rules being on the cards by City was reported in Feb this year as soon as those changes were announced.
posted on 4/6/24
Not saying I agree with the challenge there btw.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that Melt, but when, if ever, will there be a punishment for breaking the rules regarding the 115 charges regarding investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
November this year, if they’re found guilty then the punishment will follow that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Melt. 'If' they are found guilty what do you think the punishment should be. I've given my viewpoint, relegation would not be terrible, we all know you would come up immediately, and you can afford the fine. That seems fair around to me.
posted on 4/6/24
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has everything to do with the 115 charges. They may not admit it and on paper the two issues are separate but everyone knows why City are doing this is the 115 charges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then they’re morons then that haven’t been reading much recently. A legal challenge to the new rules being on the cards by City was reported in Feb this year as soon as those changes were announced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Thanks for proving the point. Anyway, are you being serious right now saan?
posted on 4/6/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that Melt, but when, if ever, will there be a punishment for breaking the rules regarding the 115 charges regarding investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
November this year, if they’re found guilty then the punishment will follow that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Melt. 'If' they are found guilty what do you think the punishment should be. I've given my viewpoint, relegation would not be terrible, we all know you would come up immediately, and you can afford the fine. That seems fair around to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they’re found guilty of everything, then relegation and a significant fine at the least I assume.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But unless there’s any indication that there’s plans for them to exploit it like City and Chelsea, which I’m yet to see, I’m not sure it’ll matter that much. Unless there’s something you’ve seen that I’ve missed?
United have been one of the clubs pushing for these regulations most, find it unlikely to have changed just because of the circumstances you’ve mentioned.
posted on 4/6/24
Would be unfair on championship clubs and all lower league clubs to relegate them to the championship. Relegation must be all the way down to the bottom of the football pyramid. Only starting again at the very bottom would be fair on other clubs.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But unless there’s any indication that there’s plans for them to exploit it like City and Chelsea, which I’m yet to see, I’m not sure it’ll matter that much. Unless there’s something you’ve seen that I’ve missed?
United have been one of the clubs pushing for these regulations most, find it unlikely to have changed just because of the circumstances you’ve mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the things I’ve seen Ratcliffe say, both about his own opinion on muliyclub ownership and when he’s spoken about us. I can’t see him, particularly being the businessman (and let’s be honest, like all of them at that level, the tw@ts they are!) ever be likely to support additional regulation personally.
posted on 4/6/24
Fair play. I think there will be pressure from the Glazers as the major shareholders, and that will hold plenty of weight.
Page 3 of 6
6