Snak

Men det får ikke den dårlige indsats til på mystisk vis at forsvinde.

Liverpool opsøgte intet mod Palace. Man var heldige med at de fik et rødt kort. Dét vendte kampen..

Liverpool opsøgte intet mod Palace. Man var heldige med at de fik et rødt kort. Dét vendte kampen..

Okay, heldet fik de altså forærende. Skide være med det 3 point luner altid.

Det er jo ikke det nogen snakker om DBR? Det er indsatsen, der diskuteres og ikke resultatet.

Nej, indsatsen var da absolut heller ikke i top, men alligevel god nok til at hive 3 point med hjem. Imodsætning til i går og den kamp SLarsen71 nævner.

Er du uenig i at indsatsen i et nederlag kan være bedre end i en sejr?

Nej.

Premier League tightens sponsorship rules despite Man City legal threat​
Vote exposes split among top-flight clubs on issue of associated-party deals, with champions believed to have threatened a legal challenge

Premier League clubs have approved tougher new rules for associated-party deals by the narrowest of votes despite the threat of a legal challenge from one of its members — believed to be Manchester City.

The rules cover sponsorship deals with companies connected to the clubs, and any player transfers between clubs in the same ownership group to ensure they are of “fair market value”.

They aim to stop sponsorship deals being artificially inflated or for clubs to benefit from buying players cheaply — or selling them for inflated prices — from or to associated clubs.

Twelve clubs voted in favour and six against at a meeting in London today, with two clubs abstaining, sources have confirmed to The Times. It is thought to be the closest vote in the Premier League’s history — just about meeting the requirement of a two-thirds majority to pass — with some clubs suggesting that indicates a fractured relationship and a lack of unity.

The clubs earlier heard that one member had warned it could take the Premier League to arbitration over the rules as they were anti-competitive. The Premier League responded by saying it was confident the rules were compatible with English law.

The associated party rules particularly impact upon Manchester City and Newcastle United, both of whom have owners connected to Gulf states, with City being part of a large ownership group which also includes clubs in countries including Spain, Australia and the United States. Chelsea also had to have a shirt sponsorship deal with a related party approved.

City are believed to be the club who warned of possible further action but they would not confirm or deny if that was the case. Sources told The Times that the warning was not made by either Newcastle or Chelsea.

The rules are aimed at preventing clubs signing inflated sponsorship deals with companies that are connected with them. They were first approved in December 2021 after the takeover of Newcastle by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

The Premier League confirmed in a statement that amendments had been agreed to the rules by clubs at a shareholders meeting. It said: “Following a full review of the existing Associated Party Transactions Rules and Fair Market Value assessment protocols, clubs agreed to a series of amendments to further enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the system.”

Det ser ud til at FFP skruen strammes yderligere i forhold til sponsorer som kommer fra firmaer som har en forbindelse til ejerne af klubberne. Det bør kunne give en mere fair konkurrence i forhold til enkelte klubber.

Fantastiske nyheder.

Puha hvad kommer der så til at ske med det mystiske firma "Infinite athlete" 😉