City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
I think the most encouraging aspect of yesterday’s announcement is the way it has been egregiously reported. By the paid hacks, the twitterati and some on here.
It’s got NOTHING to do with 115. End of.
It’s got everything to do with the arbitrary nature or PL rule making that are changed, seemingly on a whim from certain vested interests.
‘Fair value’ is not an alien concept in any way but, having someone else decide what is ‘fair value’, especially if it’s from the same country as your owner is from seems like a giant step to far.
Not only that, one thing that’s always been accepted, even lauded by the usual suspects, is being able to ‘spend what you earn’, again perfectly reasonable.
Then City start serial winning and, consequently, earning huge amounts of prize money (over £175M last year) and also have an academy that’s pumping out profit after profit on player sales.
A transfer team that’s buying Akanji, Alvarez and Ortega, for example, for less than £30M between them and they now want to tie spending to the earnings of the BOTTOM placed team in the PL!

You can be certain that if Pep leaves, city drop off and Radcliffe is successful in his OT transformation, that rule will be gone almost immediately.

Finally, the phrase ‘tyranny of the majority’ reflects that City are a single shareholder in the PL, but it’s reported as ‘but they’ve got more than almost everyone else so what are they moaning about’ by the usual suspects who are either very ill informed or spectacularly good at misdirection. Given that this has been in train since February and certain other news came out yesterday, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s the latter.
Click to expand...


The idea of every member having a vote and then a rule being passed if there's enough votes seems (on the face of it) pretty fair to me.

However, who is it who decides what proposals get voted on? I have zero idea on this part.
 
All these journalists are making into a bigger thing than it is for their own end
Aricles
Profiles
Etc etc

All trotting the same line

We are challenging a rule but they are making it out like we’re challenging the whole premier league

They don’t understand the shote they talk about
They have been spoon fed a leak but one of three red clubs
 
Dubai Blue said:
I'm way behind here, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but I thought 14 clubs had to vote for something in order for it to be passed?
Click to expand...
I think you are correct, my understanding is that it hasn't been passed yet. We were vocal at the time about the legality of the rule and this is the challenge that we threatened the PL with. It would be quite ironic if we failed in this challenge and then the other PL clubs didnt vote it through.
 
domalino said:
I have absolutely zero insight but if the PL rules were on genuinely shaky legal ground, I feel that Newcastle would have challenged them when they came in 3 years ago. These rules were very clearly brought in to stop Newcastle, the meeting to vote on them was called almost the same day the takeover got approved.

Reading through, it doesn't sound all that convincing to the layman.

It's worth remembeing City didn't vote in favour of the rules at the time though and the papers said this was because they thought it wasn't legal. So it's not a new theory at the club.

Other than that it's interesting that it's come from Lowton not Ziegler as the latter has had all big scoops for City v PL lately. And the reporter has clearly seen the actual documents and quoted from them.
Click to expand...
Fortunately City don’t employ laymen to argue their case in court, City will have been through this with a microscope and I expect them to prevail.. The PL will be shitting themselves ..
 
Dubai Blue said:
I'm way behind here, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but I thought 14 clubs had to vote for something in order for it to be passed?
Click to expand...
From the PL website:

Clubs have the opportunity to propose new rules or amendments at the Shareholder meeting. Each Member Club is entitled to one vote and all rule changes and major commercial contracts require the support of at least a two-thirds vote, or 14 clubs, to be agreed.
Click to expand...
 
City should release a statement today
They should go for them all for leaking details once again and put forward in one sentence why the case is being bought.
‘We don’t think the February rule changes are fair and are discriminatory’

If they weren’t scared of the outcome they would just hear the case without trying to influence it once again
 
mattcity5 said:
The idea of every member having a vote and then a rule being passed if there's enough votes seems (on the face of it) pretty fair to me.

However, who is it who decides what proposals get voted on? I have zero idea on this part.
Click to expand...
Some ‘rules’ they could get quite a lot of teams to vote for.
“Any newly promoted team can only spend half as much as the team that finished 4th bottom last season”.

Any team the wins the PL 3 seasons out of 5 starts the following season on minus 10 points, or can’t bring any new players in.

What they’ve gone with this time is.
Any global company that wants to sponsor a team, if the sponsor is based in the same country as the owner, will be subject to having their books scrutinised by likely competitors AND will have an opaque group decide if they’re offering too much!
Money earned will be largely irrelevant, if you’re successful, because we will pin spending to the 22nd placed team in the PL!

The first one looks like it’s potentially aimed at 2 clubs but both together look like they’re aimed at one club in particular.
 
Centurions said:
BTW, this is Matt Lawson who "believes" that 10 to 12 clubs are supporting the PL. So again, all speculation and pure guesswork if not just outright bollocks to support the chosen narrative.
Click to expand...
It probably is guesswork on his behalf, but given that the initial vote was 12-6 in favour of the changes it would make sense.
 
BlueMoonz1977 said:
Well its being reported on ssn this morning by 2 tabloid pundits (one was winter, the other i think they said his name was cross?)

It was the latter i only caught saying everyone needs to stand against city for good of the game
Click to expand...
Saw that. As I see it (& it’s just my opinion based on no expertise) the trouble is he has got it all wrong. We’re not challenging the PL per se. We’re challenging one rule that, when it was proposed, only had support of 12 clubs (& not the required 14) and so has not yet been passed although the PL want to bring it in anyway. To do that would be against their own procedures!! By now, more clubs might vote against it which would scupper their proposal anyway.

You’d think we’d challenged the very existence of the PL to hear Cross talk.
 
mattcity5 said:
The idea of every member having a vote and then a rule being passed if there's enough votes seems (on the face of it) pretty fair to me.

However, who is it who decides what proposals get voted on? I have zero idea on this part.
Click to expand...
Two thirds majority leaves it open to manipulation by the yank owned clubs and always has. It should be a larger majority. Abstentions should be banned too, either back the proposal or don't.
 
CC1 said:
Saw that. As I see it (& it’s just my opinion based on no expertise) the trouble is he has got it all wrong. We’re not challenging the PL per se. We’re challenging one rule that, when it was proposed, only had support of 12 clubs (& not the required 14) and so has not yet been passed although the PL want to bring it in anyway. To do that would be against their own procedures!! By now, more clubs might vote against it which would scupper their proposal anyway.

You’d think we’d challenged the very existence of the PL to hear Cross talk.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what he's saying is it not?
 
butlerkb said:
Makes us look greedy and dismissive of the league as a whole.At the same time they are defending the 115 charges too, so I’m sure greater minds than mine are behind this, but it won’t win us any popularity contests.Also, if unlimited spending prevails, we risk turning premier league into La Ligurian or SPL !Not sure how I feel on this.
Click to expand...
This is a PL that continues to fiddle with their own FFP rules, as soon as they start to negatively affect the top red tops; fail to address rags game that had to be cancelled because of a fan demonstration; ignore the expenditure of dippers for a stadium rebuild that didn’t actually happen but helped them pass FFP etc etc. They screw us over in every way they can & are now scrutinising all Arab sponsorship despite the standard charter issue.
 
mattcity5 said:
The idea of every member having a vote and then a rule being passed if there's enough votes seems (on the face of it) pretty fair to me.

However, who is it who decides what proposals get voted on? I have zero idea on this part.
Click to expand...

Well that's the issue. A governance structure like that needs a strong executive to make sure proposals put to a vote will benefit the league as a whole.

What do we have? Masters and Brittain. And the organisation is lurching from one stupid rule to another ....

Masters needs to be tougher, say no if a proposal doesn't benefit the league as a whole and say if you don't like it, sack me. 14 votes should do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top