AbdulHakeem44:
This is not making sense to an extent as far as I can comprehend this. For instance, if Abrahmovich, the owner of Chelsea fc has another business in Europe or any other place in the world. He cannot use his club to rubber stamp sponsorship for his business as a form of free advert to the Europeans, haba!!!.

I guess many people think this is a move to not make the just-purchased Newcastle united a big club, NO!!! I don't think that is what they voted against. It is to vote that clubs should not accept sponsorship deals linked to any of the co-owner or owner of the club. Meaning sponsorship deals should go to any club and not the club the owners have stake in. A move to make big sponsorship deals available to small clubs, that is the way I look at it and if that is the case, I don't buy the idea.

If anyone who reads and digested the information and has contrary comprehension can quote me pls, we are all learning...

graphics104:

I know say man city go follow for people wen vote against am.

The Guardian newspaper reported 18 clubs voted in favour of the ban at an emergency meeting on Monday, with Newcastle voting against and Manchester City abstaining. It is understood that both questioned the legality of the move.

Abfinest007:
This how mancity use a company owned by their owners to secured a lucrative deal for man city even psg did same.new castle would have done same

KingLennon:
The English FA will always move to end moves that will become a threat to their financial business.
..



Newcastle will make Europa league two seasons from now

AbdulHakeem44:
This is not making sense to an extent as far as I can comprehend this. For instance, if Abrahmovich, the owner of Chelsea fc has another business in Europe or any other place in the world. He cannot use his club to rubber stamp sponsorship for his business as a form of free advert to the Europeans, haba!!!.

I guess many people think this is a move to not make the just-purchased Newcastle united a big club, NO!!! I don't think that is what they voted against. It is to vote that clubs should not accept sponsorship deals linked to any of the co-owner or owner of the club. Meaning sponsorship deals should go to any club and not the club the owners have stake in. A move to make big sponsorship deals available to small clubs, that is the way I look at it and if that is the case, I don't buy the idea.

If anyone who reads and digested the information and has contrary comprehension can quote me pls, we are all learning...

Falseprofet2:
I see bad belle from the old teams like liverpool, manu, chelsea

I see the courts deciding this.
I see it been upturned

I see newcastle becoming like man city in five years

This i am seeing

Sunisonflex39:
Anything to cripple Newcastle is welcome.. Because na my arsenal go suffer am if e stand..

Them go dey beat us steadily

StayMotivated:
Omo na to leave Man Utd go join Newcastle next season. Since Man Utd board no gree sack Ole

adioolayi:
Football is business and entertainment...

If they have the will..why not

Others should sell their clubs to highest bidders too if they cannot fund the club.


We want entertainment...to the fullest..that's why we watch football matches.

graphics104:

I know say man city go follow for people wen vote against am.

Calibrator:
You missed the whole point.


Manchester City circumvented FFP rules by inflating the sponsorship deals struck between them and the owner's affiliated companies, which in turn shot up their revenue to astronomical proportions and enabled them to have an unfair advantage in the transfer market.


Imagine Manchester City posting endorsement deals superseding a big club of Manchester United pedigree.



The only reason they escaped punishment was the expired statue of limitations when their scam came to light.


Hope you understand better now?

Calibrator:
You missed the whole point.


Manchester City circumvented FFP rules by inflating the sponsorship deals struck between them and the owner's affiliated companies, which in turn shot up their revenue to astronomical proportions and enabled them to have an unfair advantage in the transfer market.


Imagine Manchester City posting endorsement deals superseding a big club of Manchester United pedigree.



The only reason they escaped punishment was the expired statue of limitations when their scam came to light.


Hope you understand better now?

Lamasta:
Stop typing what you have no knowledge of

DOTian:
Envy!
So much noise since the Saudi take over of Newcastle.
Makes you wonder if it was not the same with PSG, Mancity, Man United, Milan, Chelsea etc...
Wealthy owners bought these clubs before. Everybody is upset because the Saudis have come with their huge millions?

DoctorDree:
Good move
They can’t eat their cake and have it at the same time
You want to invest and also control everything and anything around the club

Calibrator:
Kindly tell me, O knowledgeable one.... The basis of the last FFP investigation into Man City finances that threatened their continued participation in last season's UEFA champions league?