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

[halfcenturyup]

Sam Wallace in the Telegraph with a lengthy article detailing how the club is attempting to destroy the PL by being allowed unlimited spending. Possibly supported by Newcastle (surprise surprise) but no other club.

I suppose he has never heard of UEFA PSR?

 

[Gaz in Zurich]

Could this be part of a 3D chess move to drain the PL of money, fighting this case, so that they have less resources to use towards the 115 court case?

 

[halfcenturyup]

These are quite different claims. The top one makes more sense, but does anyone know where/how this will be heard?

Yes :)

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Yet again we've lost control of the narrative and the optics of this to the general public are poor.

Whoever is repsonsible for PR at our club should have been fired long ago.

The club could be negotiating a peace deal in Ukraine and Gaza and there would be some hack trying to write negatively about the club.

Fuck the general public and the media, we’ve seen what happened with CAS them get it very wrong which way they thought things would happen. All the club can do is remain quiet, the other side had someone leak the details of proceedings which means advantage City on that count.

 

[Lee won pen]

The social media morons are misreading this as City wanting to have an unfair financial advantage, when in fact, we don’t want be unfairly penalised. This is what the fools don’t get, why should we roll over and allow four clubs to be in cahoots with football’s governing bodies to restrict reasonable sponsorship that would be allowed at other clubs? They’re trying to tie weights to our feet and this is most likely linked to the ‘115’ as if we receive a footballing punishment, they want to make it as hard as possible for us ever to rise to the same position of power. It’s clear and orchestrated and all of it is linked in my eyes.

Corrupt to the core, bring on the independent regulator.

City’s intent may well be as you state, an unintended consequence of a City victory in this case is that it could result in no rules around sponsorship which could effectively end the competition

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Could this be part of a 3D chess move to drain the PL of money, fighting this case, so that they have less resources to use towards the 115 court case?

It will certaily be a strategic move.

 

[dadnlad]

You've got me doubting myself now, I could have sworn they said Cross from The Sun but perhaps you're right.

Edit: yes, I just rewound and it is John Cross from The Mirror, not The Sun.

you missed devastated arsenal fan off list

 

[Milesvk]

From my understanding Matt Lawton has written that city are saying there is a narrative against gulf owned clubs, I presume he is saying that going of the tone of his article, but he has just been on bbc radio five explaining what city want and used city & Newcastle as an example, that may want to sponsor themselves for 2 billion quid compared to another club at say 70 million quid.
The thick twat is highlighting city's point with his analogy.

 

[Norbert D]

I've tried to look back at previous voting on new PL rules but it's hard to find exactly who has voted for/against/abstained on the 2021 regulations we're challenging. Interestingly, when it came to the specific rules regarding Newcastle's ownership and sponsorship we abstained citing that it was unlawful - so this has been building for some time and long before the 115 charges were brought against us. So I think any panic about this being a "last gasp" attempt to change something in that case is completely misplaced. This is entirely separate and something we've spent a long time building towards.

As it's an ongoing legal action, we are unlikely to make a comment. This has been leaked and the PL haven't made an official comment either.

We don't seem particularly concerned by external noise, we will do our battles where it matters.

I was unfortunate enough to be in a car with Talk Sport on in the background for a few minutes this morning. First of all a snippet from that completely unbiased “journalist” Jamie Jackson “I m not sure why City are doing this, they need to come out and explain themselves” next Henry Winter “City want a free for all with no controls”.

I think City have had enough of this bullshit and are going for broke, the EPL who I think Stefan said ages ago just aren’t geared up to be constantly fighting legal battles, well welcome to the new normal, you want to fuck us about, let’s dance.

 

[Suffolk Blue]

I'm getting far too old for all of this now, I always thought a private hearing was private but obviously not if the Times have seen the 165 page legal document and quoted from it (below). The BBC then pick it up on their 'Have your say' page, which is their way of 'weaponising' the mob, and of course the mob duly obliged, all in the public interest of course. Simon Cowell I give you your next game show 'Britains Got Justice' where the mob vote on the verdict - haters gonna hate

However, The Times,, external says it has seen a 165-page legal document in which City claim they are victims of "discrimination", that the amended rules were approved by rivals to "stifle" their success on the pitch, and call it "a tyranny of the majority".

 

[remember arthur mann]

Funny isn't it but City are fighting to save the game from the Americans

Obviously this goes far deeper than football.

 

[imrebanana]

Stefan is on White and Jordan this morning. Although it's Matterface and Murphy he's schooling today.

 

[Centurions]

Could this be part of a 3D chess move to drain the PL of money, fighting this case, so that they have less resources to use towards the 115 court case?

One of the daftest conclusions so far on this thread, well done.

 

[Milesvk]

I think the case is basically asking "Is football a sport or a business"? If it's a business then any club should be allowed to spend what they want to improve that business and sink or swim based on their business acumen. If it's a sport then every competitor should arrive at the start line with only their sporting talents to be judged not their wealth.

Now, probably, since the demise of the players maximum wage in the 1960's football has drifted from a sport where football teams from Burnley, Ipswich, Derby, Preston, Wolverhampton, West Brom, Huddersfield etc could win the League to one where only the massively wealthy can win. i.e Tesco build a multi store and put all the (normal) corner shops out of business.

So, I'd argue that the Premier League is and was formed to be a money earning enterprise. It's a business where (location, location, location) only the big city teams can prosper and the smaller town teams have to accept that the 'Usain Bolt' teams are actually given a huge start every race and their role is to shake 'Usain Bolt's hand at the end of the race.

Finally, I'd accept every club getting to the start line on relatively equal terms but I do not accept a group of red topped clubs being given a 'start' in every race based on historic rather than current performance.

Especially when the red clubs have had sustained amount of years of top of the prem league tv money and champs league money to widen the gap then invent some rules to prevent other clubs getting anywhere near them.

 

[Norbert D]

From my understanding Matt Lawton has written that city are saying there is a narrative against gulf owned clubs, I presume he is saying that going of the tone of his article, but he has just been on bbc radio five explaining what city want and used city & Newcastle as an example, that may want to sponsor themselves for 2 billion quid compared to another club at say 70 million quid.
The thick twat is highlighting city's point with his analogy.

I guess this Lawton twat is the stooge who was briefed to leak this once the dipper Standard Chartered scandal broke.

 

[flb]

Sam Wallace in the Telegraph with a lengthy article detailing how the club is attempting to destroy the PL by being allowed unlimited spending. Possibly supported by Newcastle (surprise surprise) but no other club.

The stupid twat hasn't grasped that it would be unlimited spending for all PL Clubs, it will encourage investment and keep the dream alive for other clubs who may get taken over, cant the silly **** see that it benefits all clubs including his beloved united?

 

[Norbert D]

One of the daftest conclusions so far on this thread, well done.

In fairness it was mentioned that this action from City had caused the Premier League to split legal resources to deal with this when they should be focused on the job in hand ie. doing over City. The Premier League bunker will be a hive of activity today.

Let’s sue the bastards every week!

 

[JASR]

Could this be part of a 3D chess move to drain the PL of money, fighting this case, so that they have less resources to use towards the 115 court case?

No.

As pointed out by Stefan iirc, the PL could divert all their income to their expenditure (legal etc), before dolling out any prize money to its members.

 

[give it to gordon]

I still think this was leaked to try and daw attention away from the dippers blood money sponsor

 

[remember arthur mann]

I was unfortunate enough to be in a car with Talk Sport on in the background for a few minutes this morning. First of all a snippet from that completely unbiased “journalist” Jamie Jackson “I m not sure why City are doing this, they need to come out and explain themselves” next Henry Winter “City want a free for all with no controls”.

I think City have had enough of this bullshit and are going for broke, the EPL who I think Stefan said ages ago just aren’t geared up to be constantly fighting legal battles, well welcome to the new normal, you want to fuck us about, let’s dance.