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

Tim of the Oak said:
We’ve no idea. The messages might show sweet FA or they might even reveal why Utd received no sanction for getting a game abandoned at OT to stop the bin dippers handing us the League. We have no way of knowing at this stage.

There is a reason somebody paid the Portuguese fraudster to hack our emails. These sources of information can be a gold to some.
Click to expand...

You're right, maybe it could.

I just think it's very, very unlikely.

The PL wouldn't hand over emails so easily that show corruption.
 
Last edited:
Damanino said:
yep pretty sure we have some nasty emails, text from various time periods. test is now PL has to make sure they provide these as well otherwise there is a mismatch which makes it even worse for the PL.
I do expect some email like between rags, Arse, Levy, dippers and Masters talking to each other like "we need to stop these brown skin arabs no matter what rules we make up"
Click to expand...
On reflection I think its more likely that this is the sort of stuff Pep has been shown rather than some convoluted accounting and treasury transactions. So maybe we have known for quote some time.
 
KS55 said:
FYI: The PL cannot run illegal rules, they are subject to the laws of England. Nor could they have a rule stating that English law does not apply. If the PL rules break Competition Law, they must change them. This will not be easy to prove.
Click to expand...
And that why I as a fair minded person who just happens to be a Chelsea supporter am ok with City testing the rule.
I however am far from sure re the aspect where they challenge a 75% majority and suspect based on simple company provision which require special resolutions majority of that same % may well be justified although it’s fair to note that simple resolutions require just a majority. I am far from an expert in this field but I would imagine that this requirement isnt going away if it does I would imagine the Artickes of association would be re written
 
JewelZee said:
Sounds worse than Raggish. Sounds like a complete buffoon. So an ownership group based anywhere in the world should not include any investment in terms of sponsorship from wherever they are from? Fucking ridiculous to think all parties are related and thus inflated. The business world is filled with symbiotic relationships. What this bozo is proposing is that City be held to a different standard. A much more restrictive one. Take the bullshit elsewhere Mr. Atom...
Click to expand...
So basically its a big FUCK OFF from you toward Atom. ;)
 
Even though the final verdict isn’t going to be made public, there is absolutely no way it won’t get out into the public domain. Somebody will leak it. (to a journalist) We’ll find out the outcome of the hearing eventually.
 
I'm Blue said:
So we only need one more club to support us and we can vote the rule out anyway.
Click to expand...
Supporters, not clubs, unfortunately. Clubs with little or no threat from City are still voting on the side of the PL and the red shirt cartel clubs.
 
Wonder if everton will provide support now they are getting a new owner worth 100billing. dell is going to look good on the front of their shirt.
 
terraloon said:
And that why I as a fair minded person who just happens to be a Chelsea supporter am ok with City testing the rule.
I however am far from sure re the aspect where they challenge a 75% majority and suspect based on simple company provision which require special resolutions majority of that same % may well be justified although it’s fair to note that simple resolutions require just a majority. I am far from an expert in this field but I would imagine that this requirement isnt going away if it does I would imagine the Artickes of association would be re written
Click to expand...
When this broke, or was leaked as usual last week, that was a phrase I was uneasy with.
However after Stefan’s Talksport spot with Danny Murphy, I got my head around it a lot better.
The Tyranny of the Majority….. hmmm! Anti-democratic?
Well that depends doesn’t it. It is a legal phraseology and really without us seeing the context of where it is referred to in the 165 page document, we should not jump to conclusions, although I have my suspicions as to what it may be referencing.
Majority rule is democratic but not necessarily always just.
You can see where that could be going when having your competitors having the power to make rules that hamper you alone.

I work with many Liverpool and United supporters and at least one Arsenal supporter too. I was off work last week and am expecting a barrage of abuse/banter when I go in tomorrow.

The example of Tyranny of the majority that I plan to use, bearing in mind im Irish working in Dublin goes as follows…. Without wishing to offend any sensibilities in the UK…
We have a long history on this island of although being in the majority as Catholics, being in the minority, represented in parliament. Why? Catholics couldn’t stand for parliament before emancipation. Laws kept in place by a governing majority. Were they just? Well let’s just say, it caused a lot of bother over here for a long time.

Spring forward to an even better example in 1960’s Northern Ireland. There was a Protestant majority in the North and they liked to keep it that way. Even in constituencies that they didn’t necessarily have the majority. Gerrymandering of constituency borders was the order of the day to achieve this goal. Had councils got the majority vote to do this? Yes.
Does it make it right?
Well let’s just say this and the civil rights being undermined in general, caused a spot of bother up there.
Not sure if you noticed or not.

Anyway, like I said, Ive no wish to make anyone uncomfortable with a somewhat political contribution, but it does demonstrate the principle of tyranny of the majority, in my book and hopefully will hit a nerve over here when trying to explain what’s going on.

Incidentally all’s good that ends well. How was the North resolved. By inclusiveness and sincere dialogue (the GFA)

Let’s hope what comes out of this PL/Cartel debacle will be every bit as innovative.
 
terraloon said:
And that why I as a fair minded person who just happens to be a Chelsea supporter am ok with City testing the rule.
I however am far from sure re the aspect where they challenge a 75% majority and suspect based on simple company provision which require special resolutions majority of that same % may well be justified although it’s fair to note that simple resolutions require just a majority. I am far from an expert in this field but I would imagine that this requirement isnt going away if it does I would imagine the Artickes of association would be re written
Click to expand...

I doubt very much City are "challenging" the two-thirds rule. I think they are challenging the APT rules as onerous, discriminatory and unnecessary from a sporting viewpoint.

The reference to voting, I would imagine, is just to support the idea of discrimination. "Tyranny of the majority" after all is a construct in support of the rights of minorities (which is also enshrined in corporate law along with the idea of a two-thirds majority). I think the point is: when you have discriminatory rules, in a conspiratorial environment, the minorities lose out.

And I think City can prove that. I also think the email disclosure requirement will support it (especially as I think it is likely the club already has some incriminating correspondence). Whether that is enough to prove the rules are anti-competitive, we will have to wait and see.
 
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