Even if influence was equal, it would not be a democracy. The voters are commercial rivals and nobody else e.g. fans, players. Even if we look just to the football universe, it is just a sample of interested parties and that is why the PL has a duty to propose only rules which are equal in their effect. A good example of this is heavily indebted clubs are treated just the same as clubs with minimal debts but rules can affect these two groups differently. That is why regulating the P&L but not the balance sheet is wrong.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
You have absolutely no idea what context it was used in. None of us do. Therefore you can't say that with any meaning whatsoever.
Can you imagine how much digging on the PL, Masters, and the Red Shirt clubs, Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mansour, Khaldoon, secret agents, speacial agents, secret agencies, private investigation companies, private detectives, etc have been doing over the last year or two.
OK, I might have gone a bit OTT, but you know City have been digging.
OK, I might have gone a bit OTT, but you know City have been digging.
Brightwell Bros.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 8,711
It's not a phrase I'd be using in my local Levenshulme pub, but in private legal document it's not exactly a wildly out of place term. And it's used frequently in press reporting and in political debate.
Abolishing the filibuster won’t lead to a ‘tyranny of the majority’. It’s quite the opposite
What defenders of the filibuster want is minority rule – and a government unable to deliver anything meaningful to its people
www.theguardian.com
The tyranny of the majority
Opinion: the government claims it can right any wrong, tax any event, intrude upon any relationship, even suppress any speech that it chooses.
eu.njherald.com
UK a 'tyranny of the majority' for England, says Welsh Green Party councillor
The UK is not an equal union of nations but a “tyranny of the majority” for England, a Welsh Green Party member has said. Chris Evans of the Swansea and Gower Green Party made the comment after the UK Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Scottish Government does not have the power to call...
nation.cymru
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
View attachment 121802
The only thing dodgy about this is, Etihad Airways and related parties have got it on the CHEAP !!!
Last edited:
The Times Online are leading with another 'Exclusive' (leak) regarding tomorrow's hearing.
Apparently the first hour will be taken up with legal argument about how the case will be decided.
The Premier league want to use the one potato two potato system whereas City lawyers are insistent on Rock Paper Scissors.
Apparently the first hour will be taken up with legal argument about how the case will be decided.
The Premier league want to use the one potato two potato system whereas City lawyers are insistent on Rock Paper Scissors.
Tim of the Oak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 20,916
Who are you kidding.
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
Point of order: Quinny had been subbed by then and was running down the touchline telling the team we needed to win as we were keeping it in the corner.
Tim of the Oak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 20,916
City should have assumed the document would get leaked and this phrase would be picked apart in the Court room of Talkshite. Anyway. what's done is done.It's not a phrase I'd be using in my local Levenshulme pub, but in private legal document it's not exactly a wildly out of place term. And it's used frequently in press reporting and in political debate.
Abolishing the filibuster won’t lead to a ‘tyranny of the majority’. It’s quite the opposite
What defenders of the filibuster want is minority rule – and a government unable to deliver anything meaningful to its people
The tyranny of the majority
Opinion: the government claims it can right any wrong, tax any event, intrude upon any relationship, even suppress any speech that it chooses.eu.njherald.com
UK a 'tyranny of the majority' for England, says Welsh Green Party councillor
The UK is not an equal union of nations but a “tyranny of the majority” for England, a Welsh Green Party member has said. Chris Evans of the Swansea and Gower Green Party made the comment after the UK Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Scottish Government does not have the power to call...nation.cymru
I am serious. A) it wasn't a public comment, it was in a confidential submission to an arbitrator. B) Nobody knows the context, it is a catchy phrase easy for the media to run away with. C)It is not the club that used it, presumably, it was the lawyers.
Last edited:
Tim of the Oak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 20,916
The document was always likely to get leaked. We are at loggerheads with the Prem who are shady fookers. A PR specialist should have checked the wording of the document for own goals, regardless of who wrote the paper. Be prepared for the worst.
Would love to see how a well paid top lawyer would respond to a PR specialist correcting his arguments, in case simon jordan tweets something poncey about it.
But happy to leave it there pal, I have said what I had to say. Cheers.
I would invoke the “Liar Liar pants on Fire Act of 2008.”
Tim of the Oak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 20,916
They wouldn’t be correcting an argument. Just suggesting a less contentious form of wording that wouldn’t make us look so bad if / once the document was leaked. Wouldn’t really need to be a PR specialist. Just anyone with awareness of the slimy Prem. Anyway the lesson will now have been learnt.
It’s very rare I agree with Talkshite but the argument was pretty irrelevant and counter productive. It would make more sense if we were arguing that the Prem didn’t get 14 votes but I guess they didn’t need to.
chesterguy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Messages
- 1,533
As has been mentioned the words were written in a legal submission presented by our legal team. There is no context to the words used and to argue that a legal submission needs to be put through a PR company in order for the wording to be checked as the submission will be leaked by the PL is a nonsense
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
Have to disagree, we shouldn't be tailoring the serious submissions in our defence to cater for the thick twats that pollute social media.
I was having a senior moment.
We can obviously stop any new rules being voted in if we have group of seven to oppose it.
Don’t mind me I’ve had 12 hours sleep in total over the last 3 days : )
Tim of the Oak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 20,916
Yes that’s nonsense because I haven’t said the document needs to be put through PR company. There’s no context where this wording looks good once leaked to the media. No doubt the lawyers thought the Prem would be more responsible with the document.
Tim of the Oak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 20,916
I welcome a difference of opinion. I’ve been in a situation where an entice document I’ve written was leaked to the national press. Once bitten.
The lawyers would have written the document in good faith that it wouldn’t be leaked. The outcome is we’ve been shafted.
Waffling...