The on topic thread 4.0

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

FTOS_Team-of-Year_16x9-1.png


Did lol @ the stupidity of fans picking two right backs (one who missed 10 games and wasn't as good as previous years)
 
Possible Kalvin Phillips to Everton on a season long loan. It makes sense as Toffees still have to offload to meet their financial obligations. Phillips has struggled of late but Dyche seems to be a manager who can get the best out of players.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

A few clubs having to work through their mutual ownerships for the European competitions. Uefa rules restrict the influence any organisation can have over more than one club in the same competition.

Ineos owns a 27.7% stake in Man United and are in control of the club's football operations. They also own Nice. Both clubs have qualified for the Europa League. Nice finished higher so United face being demoted to the Conference League.

Manchester City and Girona are both part of the City Football Group and have qualified for next season's Champions League.
 
A few clubs having to work through their mutual ownerships for the European competitions. Uefa rules restrict the influence any organisation can have over more than one club in the same competition.

Ineos owns a 27.7% stake in Man United and are in control of the club's football operations. They also own Nice. Both clubs have qualified for the Europa League. Nice finished higher so United face being demoted to the Conference League.

Manchester City and Girona are both part of the City Football Group and have qualified for next season's Champions League.

Article 5 says only if there is a shareholder majority by the same owner there is an issue


Sportswashers own 47% of Girona with Pep's brother one of the other major shareholders. So they should be fine.
 
Article 5 says only if there is a shareholder majority by the same owner there is an issue


Ineos need to restructure.
  1. No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
    1. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
    2. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
    3. being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
    4. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.
 
Ineos need to restructure.
  1. No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
    1. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
    2. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
    3. being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
    4. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.

They own 25% of Utd only so don't see an issue here. 2/3/4 were not a problem for the RB clubs, won't be an issue for Utd/Nice.
 
They own 25% of Utd only so don't see an issue here. 2/3/4 were not a problem for the RB clubs, won't be an issue for Utd/Nice.

It's not just about share ownership. As part of his deal with the Glazers Ratcliffe took full control of football operations at United. For example, he has the final say about hiring the manager, sporting director and executives. If Ineos retains control at Nice then it would breach the rules.
 
Ineos and CFG have some convincing to do at UEFA. Options are restructure (they've spoken about CFG selling shares in Girona or handing control to a blind trust run by UEFA (ha, as ****ing if).

Or one of the sides (Girona and United) drops down to the next tier comp.
 
It's not just about share ownership. As part of his deal with the Glazers Ratcliffe took full control of football operations at United. For example, he has the final say about hiring the manager, sporting director and executives. If Ineos retains control at Nice then it would breach the rules.

The share ownership is the main issue.

At the end of the day the Glazers have delegated football stuff to INEOS but still have the absolute final say. They have to with 75% of shares.
 
The share ownership is the main issue.

At the end of the day the Glazers have delegated football stuff to INEOS but still have the absolute final say. They have to with 75% of shares.

It's control of football operations, not necessarily control of the company.
 
Ineos and CFG have some convincing to do at UEFA. Options are restructure (they've spoken about CFG selling shares in Girona or handing control to a blind trust run by UEFA (ha, as ****ing if).

Or one of the sides (Girona and United) drops down to the next tier comp.

It would be ludicrous if Ratcliffe claimed he wasn't in control of the football department at United. But they'll come up with some fudge.

The initial UEFA ruling was that RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg could not both play in the Champions League.

The teams won their appeal after a host of changes, particularly at Salzburg, allowed the clubs to persuade UEFA that they were no longer linked. A number of Red Bull employees who held management positions at Salzburg departed, meaning there were no longer any individuals who could exert influence on both clubs. Red Bull also reviewed and reduced the scope of its financial commitment to the Austrian club.​
This article might be paywalled.

 
True. But they can just say on paper they (Glazers) have the final say and that should settle it. RB clubs probably came up with something similar when both were in the same comp.
I think its a bit more structured than that.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top