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

bluenova said:
I don't think so, and I'd be wary of being too loose with the term.

A lot of people mocked the club when they suggested Klopp might be racist, but I think his statement was. He suggested three clubs (and he was talking about those with Middle Eastern owners) could outspend Liverpool, which is obviously nonsense, particularly given how PSR has prevented Newcastle getting within a few hundred million of Liverpool's income.

In this case, it's a legitimate concern that Newcastle and City do have the ability to bring in vastly more money from related parties than any other PL clubs. While we're not technically state owned, the links between our owners and chair, and a huge number of state linked companies in the UAE is a matter of fact.

So, while it was racist to single out the clubs with Middle Eastern ownership with a bogus argument, I don't think it's racist to link them when the concerns are based on a legitimate one (even if it's one that many here don't agree matters).
Click to expand...
Roan is racist to the core but the BBC lawyers keep his effluent in check. The redshirt anti-arab propaganda and their "financially doped/sportswashed/ dirty cheating oil club" narrative is imprinted on his ugly City-hating brain.
 
Last edited:
bluenova said:
I don't think so, and I'd be wary of being too loose with the term.

A lot of people mocked the club when they suggested Klopp might be racist, but I think his statement was. He suggested three clubs (and he was talking about those with Middle Eastern owners) could outspend Liverpool, which is obviously nonsense, particularly given how PSR has prevented Newcastle getting within a few hundred million of Liverpool's income.

In this case, it's a legitimate concern that Newcastle and City do have the ability to bring in vastly more money from related parties than any other PL clubs. While we're not technically state owned, the links between our owners and chair, and a huge number of state linked companies in the UAE is a matter of fact.

So, while it was racist to single out the clubs with Middle Eastern ownership with a bogus argument, I don't think it's racist to link them when the concerns are based on a legitimate one (even if it's one that many here don't agree matters).
Click to expand...

Like the Liverpool owner his first shirt sponsors was initially 16m then he got one from someone he new in a company for 25m so big business people who are worth a fortune always have a pull in the sponsor world!
 
manimanc said:
I know. I actually didn't read it before I posted but wow, what's going on?
Click to expand...
It is a well written piece. I can’t believe the BBC has reported actual facts rather than another snide opinion article. It’s what the BBC are meant to do. A rare thing indeed. No repetition or spelling mistakes either. A complete one-off I guess.
 
adrianr said:
Before I give that knob a click have the club made any official statement or comment on this whatsoever? Or is that headline typical misleading bollocks?
Click to expand...
There’s been no statement from the club, other than a spokesman saying “As you know, we are not in a position to comment…”.

Lawton is clearly well connected though, with one of his close colleagues being married to Arsenal’s CCO, so I think it’s naive to suggest that he’s purely guessing here. I imagine he’ll know the mood music around the PL about how the hearing went.
 
Cobwebcat said:
It is a well written piece. I can’t believe the BBC has reported actual facts rather than another snide opinion article. It’s what the BBC are meant to do. A rare thing indeed. No repetition or spelling mistakes either. A complete one-off I guess.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing Slimey Stone didn't write it then.
 
Cobwebcat said:
It is a well written piece. I can’t believe the BBC has reported actual facts rather than another snide opinion article. It’s what the BBC are meant to do. A rare thing indeed. No repetition or spelling mistakes either. A complete one-off I guess.
Click to expand...
That or they both know the result but can't comment (yet / ever).

The good part of it is, that it's now fairly clear that we didn't try to get it all thrown out, just this years changes, and also that there now seems to be some support for the club from other clubs.
 
Gordyola said:
The 120 years is wrong should be 32, since 1992 PL was formed
Click to expand...

Nobody ever questioned the Premier League becoming a farmers league when United won 13 titles in 20 years
Again would anybody have Questioned the rules and brought in FFP if Sheikh Mansour bought United

United can go and fuck off if they want their ball back because NO fucking rule changes will make Manchester City a little club, CITY vs UNITED is a simple answer, one club thinks football owes them everything and should roll over because of a badge, and the other earned every single point and titles and silverware with players and managers giving 110% blood sweat and tears fighting against the other
 
waspish said:
Like the Liverpool owner his first shirt sponsors was initially 16m then he got one from someone he new in a company for 25m so big business people who are worth a fortune always have a pull in the sponsor world!
Click to expand...

I don't think there's much point comparing the two. Clearly our owners have the clout of a nation state, not just access to the occasional friendly deal.

There are plenty of arguments to make against the shit that people throw at City, but I think it's self evident that our owner and chair have more direct influence, over more companies, and more wealth, than the owners of any PL club apart from Newcastle.
 
HelloCity said:
View attachment 133044
BBC
Click to expand...
This is exactly the end game the PL want imo…..they can’t win but will cite ‘legal costs’ as a reason to settle….I hope we tell them to fuck off….rinse them for every penny, get masters fired, then pursue every single media outlet that has sullied our good name for the past decade.
 
cleavers said:
That or they both know the result but can't comment (yet / ever).

The good part of it is, that it's now fairly clear that we didn't try to get it all thrown out, just this years changes, and also that there now seems to be some support for the club from other clubs.
Click to expand...
Yes agreed. Rival fans will still believe what they want but not much anyone can do about that.

Good to hear that with legal cases affecting 25% of the clubs already and the legal bill at 50 million and rising the clubs are starting to question what the point of it all is.

American owners are ruining our National sport. They look to dominate not with investment of their own but eliminating investment from other rival clubs. It’s a race to the bottom.
 
bluenova said:
I don't think there's much point comparing the two. Clearly our owners have the clout of a nation state, not just access to the occasional friendly deal.

There are plenty of arguments to make against the shit that people throw at City, but I think it's self evident that our owner and chair have more direct influence, over more companies, and more wealth, than the owners of any PL club apart from Newcastle.
Click to expand...
I think you need to blend into your analysis the blatant protection racket, sickening corruption and openly racist prejudice they face as owners competing fairly and honestly with a relentless, decade-long, vicious economic attack from the threatened elite clubs and their parasite media.
 
Last edited:
From what I can fathom… the media is in a bit of a meltdown… having to see the alternative to their media spiel since 2022… the media now are having to be dragged to see what if City aren’t guilty of any of the charges… the bbc article is an eye opener… especially their last two paragraphs on this.. they’re now worried… bring it on…
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9845.jpeg
    IMG_9845.jpeg
    198.2 KB · Views: 283
bobbyowenquiff said:
Why should investments from Middle East clubs be curbed. It is racist. Not a surprise from Roan though.
Click to expand...
Exactly and this quickly written “piece” is abrupt and reactionary… I’m loving what’s coming… they are rocked… let the hilarities begin… the premier league opened this can of worms… lets open it further
 
DenisLawBackHeel74 said:
This is exactly the end game the PL want imo…..they can’t win but will cite ‘legal costs’ as a reason to settle….I hope we tell them to fuck off….rinse them for every penny, get masters fired, then pursue every single media outlet that has sullied our good name for the past decade.
Click to expand...

Yes we're not having that fucking settling shite. They started this. Since we became a threat to their favoured clubs, the horrible bastards of UEFA and the premier league have accused us of cheating and done everything in their power to sully our achievements.
Nothing but an unreserved apology will do. I'd personally go further and want it stated that those clubs conspired to put us out of existence. Then sue them and every fucking media twat who aided and abetted them.
 
bluenova said:
I don't think there's much point comparing the two. Clearly our owners have the clout of a nation state, not just access to the occasional friendly deal.

There are plenty of arguments to make against the shit that people throw at City, but I think it's self evident that our owner and chair have more direct influence, over more companies, and more wealth, than the owners of any PL club apart from Newcastle.
Click to expand...
This is true, of course, but equally I think companies like Nissan, Puma, Sony etc just want to be associated with the dominant team in the most popular league in the world. It’s clearly not mere cronyism. The likes of Jamie Carragher may not understand the shifting sands, but the times they are a-changing.
 
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