Bang on Hammo , honestly don’t think they’ve ever took the club with respect in how we go about things it’s a different entity from what they and their friends go about things City have announced it’s the real deal and game on.I hope the Premier League are so ill equipped it will be like trying to defend a Tomahawk missile with a bow and arrow, they really are "Robin" bastards, Friar Tuck the lot of them.
Beehive yourselfYou must have been buzzing.
It's absolutely nailed on this is the yanks vs the middle east.Imagine if city had hard proof that the rules were changed because they were discriminating against gulf ownership.
A leaked email perhaps. Maybe several witnesses who are no longer with those hateful 8.
We could blow the whole lid off this
Totally. Fucking stinks of scouse shithousery of the highest order.Anyone think the dippers have leaked this to try and get the news away from their gun running bank sponsor ?
He won’t comment unless the case has been decided.Khadoon Al Mumbarak's post season interview maybe more interesting than usual.
This case hasn't just been brought against the Premier League, it was brought after the rule change in February. So in my opinion it has nothing to do with the main case . Journalists linking the two and saying City are doing this because we are trying to distract from the '115' are being disingenuous .Whether that’s true or not, you just know that’s the optics that are going to be even more amplified in the media now.
Not sure I’m liking this at all.
Just me perhaps. Not sure I can take much more of this.
I liked football when it was just a game.
We have laws in this country that are totally opposite to your gut reaction
Certainly it is unclear. The Times is behind a paywall but the Guardian reports that "according to the Times, an independent tribunal has been convened for next week to hear it (City's case). The use of the word "tribunal" doesn't suggest a court. On the other hand it doesn't sound like an independent commission if it seems to have the power to award damages, though perhaps such powers would not be unprecedented. It does sound a mess that a hearing is going to consider the validity of a kind of sponsorship deal which exists only in PL financial regulations. Either way I think City's chances of a favourable ruling are high since PL rules are governed by English law.
I don't normally subscribe to the idea of racism being a prime factor used by those who dislike our ownership.However the picture here of pep with Mansour,Khaldoon and others in Muslim dress is definitely being used to feed into a bigotry that exists against us.
Great postJust a quick question to those who are disappointed in our club taking this action.
What would you have them do instead? Would you have them meekly accept that our commercial and sporting rivals - an executive of one of which who has apparently made, let’s be charitable here, “discriminatory noises” about our club and executive team/ownership - should also have the right to decide how much sponsorship City are allowed to have? And from whom it should come?
We have tried that for 16 years and been progressively and repeatedly slapped down by the PL. Over and over again.
What more could the club do without finally resorting to the law? How many more insults should they accept? How many more sponsorships should they see go begging on account of the PL’s blatant racism (at worst) or protectionism (at best)?
How many more times should our executive team see their efforts to build this team, this club, this deprived area of Manchester and all its’ inhabitants up to world class standards be stymied because they are too brown/too Muslim/too good at it whilst our rivals see much bigger deals being waived through on a nod, a wink, a straight arm salute?
Win or lose this action I for one am more than proud of my clubs actions today. I’m humbled by it.
We didn’t start this fight. We tried to stop it ever becoming a fight. We tried to be decent and professional about it. We failed because we were never going to be allowed to succeed.
Thst is what the law is for. And I am glad, proud, and relieved that this club, my club, our club, have finally said “Enough. This far and not one step further”
If that makes no marks and twats on social media give you a hard time, stand up and fight for your club.
They’re fighting for you.
I was moreso thinking along the lines of we could move players between CFG clubs for virtually no fees whatsoever. We want Savinho from Girona? Ok, well there's no ATP rules in the way anymore so we can bring him in for literally free.Rather than moving players being clubs for inflated prices it is probably about City wanting to continue to achieve big joint sponsorship deals with other clubs in the CFG like New York City FC. For example City are now the most watched club in the USA and New York City FC are preparing for their new stadium. That should provide a lot of commercial opportunties. Perhaps the Pep to New York rumours make sense.
This crossed my mind too. Especially after seeing how many Ineos companies sponsor Nice.It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s United that are the other club voting with us on this latest development
I think there's a complication here. If the ruling in the UK is that the rule violates competition law then it is nulll and void in England, but since competition law in England and competition law in the EU are identical it is unlikely the ECJ would not accept the decision of an English court and UEFA has a real dilemma. If the decision concerns only "associated parties" there is no problem for UEFA but if City broaden the case to find that limits on owner investment breach competition law UEFA are in real trouble.It is the definition of “related” which is specified in IAS 24 against the definition of “associated” which is a construct of the PL which is the issue. City are objecting to the PL rule, while accepting the UEFA rule. The PL Rule is, in City’s submission, not lawful ie breaks competition law.
We’ve got the exposure and the investors to get whatever sponsor deals we want now.
Loving your last few lines .I think there's a complication here. If the ruling in the UK is that the rule violates competition law then it is nulll and void in England, but since competition law in England and competition law in the EU are identical it is unlikely the ECJ would not accept the decision of an English court and UEFA has a real dilemma. If the decision concerns only "associated parties" there is no problem for UEFA but if City broaden the case to find that limits on owner investment breach competition law UEFA are in real trouble.
I think there's a complication here. If the ruling in the UK is that the rule violates competition law then it is nulll and void in England, but since competition law in England and competition law in the EU are identical it is unlikely the ECJ would not accept the decision of an English court and UEFA has a real dilemma. If the decision concerns only "associated parties" there is no problem for UEFA but if City broaden the case to find that limits on owner investment breach competition law UEFA are in real trouble.
And have massive investments in Abu Dhabi and SaudiThis crossed my mind too. Especially after seeing how many Ineos companies sponsor Nice.
Just a quick question to those who are disappointed in our club taking this action.
What would you have them do instead? Would you have them meekly accept that our commercial and sporting rivals - an executive of one of which who has apparently made, let’s be charitable here, “discriminatory noises” about our club and executive team/ownership - should also have the right to decide how much sponsorship City are allowed to have? And from whom it should come?
We have tried that for 16 years and been progressively and repeatedly slapped down by the PL. Over and over again.
What more could the club do without finally resorting to the law? How many more insults should they accept? How many more sponsorships should they see go begging on account of the PL’s blatant racism (at worst) or protectionism (at best)?
How many more times should our executive team see their efforts to build this team, this club, this deprived area of Manchester and all its’ inhabitants up to world class standards be stymied because they are too brown/too Muslim/too good at it whilst our rivals see much bigger deals being waived through on a nod, a wink, a straight arm salute?
Win or lose this action I for one am more than proud of my clubs actions today. I’m humbled by it.
We didn’t start this fight. We tried to stop it ever becoming a fight. We tried to be decent and professional about it. We failed because we were never going to be allowed to succeed.
Thst is what the law is for. And I am glad, proud, and relieved that this club, my club, our club, have finally said “Enough. This far and not one step further”
If that makes no marks and twats on social media give you a hard time, stand up and fight for your club.
They’re fighting for you.