General Football 23/24

[Exiled_red]

This is dodgy as ****

[red g]

it was only a matter of time till state run and multi club clubs could rule the roost. time is now.

[Scratch]

I kinda get that introducing a rule midway thru a season needs the clubs to buy into it, but can the PL, at the end of the season, just force the rule through?

[danperkins]

So City, Sheff United, Newcastle, Forest, Everton, Burnley, Chelsea and Wolves apparently voted to block it.

[RedReet]

I kinda get that introducing a rule midway thru a season needs the clubs to buy into it, but can the PL, at the end of the season, just force the rule through?

I'm sure someone more enlightened will respond, but my take on things is they can. Well I don't know how much they can force it through without club input, but this vote was for a temporary ban, until a proper ruling can be put in place.

It's absolutely crazy that Newcastle could sell someone to a PIF club in SA for £200m and there is nothing preventing them loaning him right back for peanuts.

[Kenneth]

I kinda get that introducing a rule midway thru a season needs the clubs to buy into it, but can the PL, at the end of the season, just force the rule through?

The PL is owned by the clubs.

It’s not a good look, with Everton having been docked points, city and Chelsea looking at serious sanctions, Spurs being investigated for dodgy transfer dealings, 7 PL clubs have voted against measures to limit corrupt behaviour

[Buzzo]

Turkeys apparently not voting for Christmas.

[Norbs]

So City, Sheff United, Newcastle, Forest, Everton, Burnley, Chelsea and Wolves apparently voted to block it.

That's 8 clubs, I thought it was 7

[RedReet]

That's 8 clubs, I thought it was 7

I think I read the 7 was for the sponsorship vote, and they got those mixed up online when it was originally leaked.

[Norbs]

I think I read the 7 was for the sponsorship vote, and they got those mixed up online when it was originally leaked.

Wtf do any teams other than Newcastle gain from allowing it?

[RedReet]

Wtf do any teams other than Newcastle gain from allowing it?

It is understood the clubs who voted against the temporary ban on January loans were Burnley, Chelsea, Everton, Newcastle, Nottingham Forest, Manchester City, Sheffield United and Wolves.

Most of these clubs are, or potentially soon will be, part of multi-club ownership models: Sheffield United with the United World Group, Forest with Greece’s Olympiacos, Chelsea with Strasbourg in France, and Manchester City with City Football Group (CFG). It is understood that one of these sides had rung around floating voters in search of support in recent days.

Everton have been engaged in takeover discussions with American private investment firm 777 Partners, which already owns sides such as Genoa in Italy and Belgium’s Standard Liege. The Merseyside club are also furious with the Premier League over last week’s 10-point deduction.

Burnley, owned by American businessman Alan Pace, have also been exploring potential partner clubs.

Manchester United voted with the Premier League on both issues, which may be seen as a surprise given they are poised to sell a 25 per cent stake of the club to Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s INEOS group, which owns France’s Nice and Swiss side Lausanne-Sport.

Brighton, another Premier League side who are part of a multi-club network, also voted with the majority, though UEFA, European football’s governing body, has already implemented a ban on transfers or loans between them and the Belgian club Union Saint-Gilloise, who are also owned by British billionaire Tony Bloom, until September 2024 after both qualified for European football this season.

It was also noted by rivals that while Sheffield United are part of a multi-club group, they are also, like Newcastle, Saudi-owned.


Sheffield United manager Paul Heckingbottom and owner Abdullah bin Musaid Al Saud (James Williamson – AMA/Getty Images)

Wolves have also explored partner clubs in recent years but have no formal partnerships and their motivations are unknown. Their owners are Fosun Group, while Fosun chairman Guo Guangchang’s wife Jenny is the majority shareholder of Switzerland’s Grasshoppers Zurich.

Not every club involved in multi-club ownership automatically backed the motion. In a sign of the sporting politics at play, one such team who would ordinarily side against the proposed rule change to preserve their ability to loan players from their partner club gave serious consideration to voting in favour, purely to prevent other Premier League teams getting a potentially bigger advantage from it than them.

[Norbs]

Cheers Reet, makes much more sense now

[Sus]

That's incredible - not surprising but still somehow still amazing to me

This is surely just making it easier for the regulator legislation to pass early next year with real powers

[frank the tank]

Saw a tweet detailing that the Premier league is losing all credibility here and its hard to disagree with. Detailed how sports like cycling became all about how "nutritionalists" became more efficient, the PL is becoming all about how accountants are.

Surely the thing to do is to ban all multi-club owners being associated with the Premier league. But in reality the fact that there are so many of these cunts in there now, it will never get a vote like that past.

[John Barnes]

Can't see Man City/Chelsea getting relegated as mentioned the PL would loose more than credibility..... I'm sure Tv companies/sponsors etc wherever the money comes in from would want their investment protected