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

mancboy said:
we do that every year pick one, the centurions year, the aguero moment, the domestic clean sweep, the treble, every one of these has absolutely destroyed football for the istry clubs.
Click to expand...
Yes yes but apart from that , when does jurgone get his knighthood
 
r.soleofsalford said:
In that case this is the end of the premier league as a major league.
Click to expand...
This is where rest of the clubs /fans fail to understand this simple shit .
When someone throws cheat/ 115 shit at me , I just ask them one simple question “do you want pl to become mls?” majority don’t even know what mls stands for.
 
Protein Junkie said:
Bumped into a Bar Codes supporter yesterday at work.
Started talking Football and our cause. I need not have gone into detail - he was fully aware and 100% with us.
Just nice to know not everyone is an enemy of Gods own.
Click to expand...
You found a rare one then as most newcastle fans are on the city cheat bandwagon blinded by the media lies
 
abu13 said:
They need to start afresh with the financial rules, and the first line should be a commitment that all clubs must be debt free within the next 10 years.

I cant believe how little is made of the fact that FFP was initally muted under the guise of stopping clubs going bust, debt management being a huge part to this. Instead it has become all about stopping money coming into the league for certain clubs.

While I dont like people using the Race card, you do have to question why every single modification to the rules has been to target us.
Click to expand...
The rules regarding financial governance were originally intended to prevent unscrupulous owners coming in, landing a football club in mountains of debt chasing the dream, then buggering off leaving the club in danger of going out of business.

Seems to me a sports governing body has a legitimate interest in preventing this, so some sort of regulation regarding the maximum amount of debt allowable (say a certain percentage of turnover) would be justified and also easily verifiable.

This isn't what we got, we actually got a very complicated, overly intrusive, and anti competitive restriction on owner investment. We all have our suspicions regarding how we ended there and who was behind this change in emphasis. In simple terms, who would have been the most severely affected by an attack on debt, and who has been the most severely affected by the attack on owner investment?

My issue with the club is that we should have been far more aggressive against these rules from the start, both in the court of public opinion and the law courts. We have a good story to tell. We're standing up for ourselves against a cartel of powerful clubs who have clearly used their influence to shape these rules in such a way as to protect their own advantage and to prevent healthy competition.

Our fight against this is our own, admittedly we are acting in our own self interest, but these rules also will impact the ability of others to to follow in our footsteps. We're living the dream so why shouldn't supporters of Newcastle, Aston Villa, Everton, Wolves, etc, get the same opportunity?

So why haven't we challenged FFP under competition law? Not just the AP provisions, but the whole thing? Does a sports governing body get to dictate how much of his own money a businessman can invest in his own company in order to compete against rivals with access to superior resources? Can they demand commercially sensitive material? On what authority?

We need to go after these tossers and stop reacting to every new moving of the goalposts because this isn't going to stop until they starting feeling the pain.
 
flb said:
Rags v Dippers eh? When the PL viewing figures coming out of America show its City who are the big draw out there. Its just another example of how big and mighty those two clubs think they are. City's Instagram followers eclipse Liverpool's, and we are gaining fast on the shower of shit from Trafford. United, living off dominance twenty years ago, Liverpool , a club that relies heavily on YNWA pumped through speakers at the beginning of a game, one fucking title in 30 years. Kids of today don't really give a shit about either club, they want to see breath taking football on the pitch which City serve up season in season out.
Click to expand...
I pop onto RAWK occasionally - they are utterly deluded and this is a particular example.

They are obsessed and take comfort from their view that them and the redscum are so massive around the world and that there is no interest in CITY.

And there are also lots of posts where mention is made of starting to see CITY shirts more and more and how it is important for the red shirts to act to stop that trend

Just how the fuck do they think they got their following themselves - by exactly the same way - a period of domination.

In the world of today there is a far greater coverage and exposure - so our growth as a global brand will be quicker and wider.

If they fade towards mid-table mediocrity and lower - they will become a team that only has history to reflect on as they will become increasingly a non-entity globally after 15-20 years

This is their period of existential threat - it would be great to see them fade over the next years and hear their whinging
 
chesterguy said:
I think this is the point though. For American owners don’t think long term and are out for short term profits. They see the money and think it will always be there. They don’t understand that the money came from the ability to attract the best players. By putting a cap on the money will lead to a reduction in the quality of players and therefore a diminution in the quality of the league in the long term. The Americans are used to assured success see NHL NFL NBA they don’t understand relegation they don’t understand qualification for CL they don’t understand a 20 team league. They certainly don’t care about our game the only reason they invest is to make money whereas other owners like us Newcastle have invested in clubs for completely different reasons. One thing is for sure if the TV deal monies dry up I can guarantee that the American will pull out of the UK quicker than a jack rabbit
Click to expand...
The thing they don't understand the most is that there are alternatives to the Prem. La Liga, the Bundesliga, Serie A, etc. If the Prem drop the ball there are other leagues waiting in the wings to prosper. It's not like some of the other leagues haven't been at the top of the financial food chain in the past. The player supply is also much different. Not every top player around the world has to play in the Prem the way they do in the NFL or NBA. Think of how many South Americans, Africans, and Eastern Europeans play in the so called top 5 leagues (plus Portugal and the Netherlands). It's an entirely different environment from American sports and these a holes are trying to apply their tried and true, monopolistic methods to the Prem. The biggest problem is they own all 3 of the cartel clubs, not by accident, and the rest of the clubs, minus City and Chelsea, are willing to be led around by their noses even if it's to their own long term detriment...it's ridiculous...
 
Protein Junkie said:
Bumped into a Bar Codes supporter yesterday at work.
Started talking Football and our cause. I need not have gone into detail - he was fully aware and 100% with us.
Just nice to know not everyone is an enemy of Gods own.
Click to expand...
Have a look at the Newcastle-Online forum, you will see there are many of the posters are fully behind City with this case, it isn’t just the odd supporter.
 
Gingers Dad said:
I don't see any need at all for spending limits. I can't see what they achieve.
Click to expand...
Agree, but if you are going to impose such limits they can't be different for every team. A spending cap is agreed to and everyone is subject to the same limit. This idea of applying limits on a club by club basis stemming from "revenue" is preposterous especially when the so-called revenue is defined by a whole bunch of subjective, convoluted made up rules. Restricting owner investment is even more absurd. I don't see any world where any of the PSR rules would stand up in a court of law. It's always been the richest clubs win the most. And that was always OK and understood. Until someone richer came along. These rules are an obvious response to such one-time clubs being unhappy with someone richer joining the party. It's a fucking disgrace and mind boggling to me that it's been allowed to go on for so long unchallenged in a court of law. And in the Prem it's actually gotten further and further away from legal competitive principles. The ironic thing is if these same American owners tried this shit in the US it wouldn't stand a chance. Thus the salary caps used in the NFL, NBA, and NHL. Imagine telling the Dallas Cowboys they can spend half a billion while telling the Jacksonville Jaguars they can only spend 200 mil because Dallas has more fans, more commercial income, and a bigger "history" regardless of the fact that the Jaguars' owner might be twice as rich as the Cowboys owner? (hypothetical) Insanity, pure insanity...
 
Sk@mcfc said:
No news is good news
Click to expand...
There's unlikely to be any news whatsoever until the judge's decision which could still be months away. Civil cases dealing with competition law are pretty unsexy and uninteresting as far as the media is concerned - proceedings tend to be (unless you're a keen student of cases like this) somewhat tedious and rarely if ever get reported by news platforms irrespective of how high profile the case is until there's a decision.
 
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