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

[bobbyowenquiff]

Yeah, I didn’t think the Middle Eastern reference was particularly racist in the context of that article. It’s hardly akin to Barney Ronay’s “grinning beards” comment.

It has been a consistent theme for Roan though.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Does this affect the 115 case though?? Stefan was saying on talksport the other day that this case is totally unrelated to the 115 case and it will have no bearing on it,

But something tells me we were advised off our legal team to do this because they must see something in it to help us towards the 115 case?

Completely unrelated.

 

[John Wayne]

Well, no, I think that diminishes any argument about racism.

If you tell a rival fan that the US owners of Arsenal, United and Liverpool, nicknamed our owners "terrorists", then it's an easy argument to win, and most people would agree that's racism.

If you try and suggest every mention of "Middle East" owners is racist, when there are differences that do only currently apply to them, then anyone who doesn't support City is likely to roll their eyes, and it weakens any genuine arguments about racism.

I agree with this view. The fears about Middle Eastern ownership aren't necessarily racist. The fear for most is that Middle Eastern owners are highly ambitious, serious and willing to invest large sums of money into the game that many of their counterparts from other countries simply cannot afford. As you rightly say, if our executives are referred to as "terrorists" then the racism is blatant. Context is key. It is acceptable to reference Middle-Eastern ownership as being different or better for the same reason that it is acceptable to criticise the American ownership model.

 

[johnny crossan]

Well, no, I think that diminishes any argument about racism.

If you tell a rival fan that the US owners of Arsenal, United and Liverpool, nicknamed our owners "terrorists", then it's an easy argument to win, and most people would agree that's racism.

If you try and suggest every mention of "Middle East" owners is racist, when there are differences that do only currently apply to them, then anyone who doesn't support City is likely to roll their eyes, and it weakens any genuine arguments about racism.

Just to be clear, you don't think their "dirty, cheating, sportswashing state-controlled arab oil club" narrative is overtly racist?

 

[bluenova]

Do you think their "dirty, cheating, sportswashing state-controlled arab oil club" narrative isn't overtly racist?

Apologies for being direct Johnny, but I don't think that makes any sense as a reply to my comment.

I've given a couple of examples of what I believe is racism against our owners, so of course I believe there is a racist element. I am not sure how much clearer I can be, that this doesn't automatically make every discussion about ours and Newcastle's owners racist.

 

[TheGhost]

Yep. Thats when the cartel shafted the rest of the football pyramid for their own gain

PJ Swales was at the forefront of that shafting

 

[BringBackSwales]

PJ Swales was at the forefront of that shafting

I still get the fucking blame for everything even decades after my death

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I still get the fucking blame for everything even decades after my death

Get back in the ground you wig wearing ****

 

[meltonblue]

I agree with this view. The fears about Middle Eastern ownership aren't necessarily racist. The fear for most is that Middle Eastern owners are highly ambitious, serious and willing to invest large sums of money into the game that many of their counterparts from other countries simply cannot afford. As you rightly say, if our executives are referred to as "terrorists" then the racism is blatant. Context is key. It is acceptable to reference Middle-Eastern ownership as being different or better for the same reason that it is acceptable to criticise the American ownership model.

The issue to me is the Newcastle deal should
never have been allowed, there was always going to have to be some form of APT rules as soon as it was.

Some could argue that applies to us too and the other court case ongoing might show that, but the key differentiator being we’re privately owned, albeit from a member of the ruling family of a state rather than the state itself.

 

[I'm Blue]

Does this affect the 115 case though?? Stefan was saying on talksport the other day that this case is totally unrelated to the 115 case and it will have no bearing on it,

But something tells me we were advised off our legal team to do this because they must see something in it to help us towards the 115 case?

No it doesn’t.
It does play a huge part in emptying the PL bank account though : )

 

[RodneyRodney]

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

and fans

 

[BringBackSwales]

Get back in the ground you wig wearing ****

That’s a bit fucking harsh, even by bluemoon standards

 

[gray740]

Fuck the media and the so called press fuck them all. Goodnight and bless all the the blues.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I hate to post from the BBC, but in this case it bears repeating whole, with special consideration given to the comments at the end!

City KNOW where this WAS going and are trying to stop it…for ALL concerned…

What is the APT case?​

It had been felt that Manchester City's challenge to the Premier League was that they wanted to scrap Associated Party Transaction rules completely.
But from talking to sources with an understanding of City's motivations, BBC Sport has learned the club's argument was not against what they deem to be proportionate and fair regulation.
In this instance, what they actually argued against were the changes. City argued the initial rules, in place up to 2021, were fine.

The club did not believe there had ever been an indication of a need to change those rules, and no proposal to do so had been put forward.

It is also worth bearing in mind that under these rules, all City's partnership deals had been annually reviewed and none were considered to be related party transactions.

So, their conclusion was that the changes - which they believe were rushed anyway considering the complexity of the arguments - came about as a result of club politics.

The rules were changed following a vote in February that was not unanimous.

Last November plans to block loan deals between associated clubs and also wider commercial transactions both fell short of gaining the required two-thirds majority.

This confirmed to City the plans were wrong, and would lead to substantial argument and legal bills on both sides. They felt the new rules would be used to target certain clubs.

They also question that if 14 clubs - or in this instance 12 given two abstained - can effectively change the economics of rival clubs, what would stop them doing so in an even clearer way by, say, centralising commercial contracts, as is the case in Major League Soccer.

(Can you say American owners taking care of themselves?!)

This last argument does appear a bit of a stretch, nevertheless, it is what City felt and the argument they made.

-/-/-/-

City…always ahead of the curve with their WORLD CLASS GLOBAL MANAGEMENT!

 

[Blue Mist]

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.

I disagree. They have all the money they want to pay legal fees. It will just mean less money is distributed to the clubs. They will use that, through the media, to make us look bad and turn the clubs against us.

 

[city2]

All I want for Xmas is City to destroy the red cartel. Not much to ask for is it.

 

[ufo]

All I want for Xmas is City to destroy the red cartel. Not much to ask for is it.

 

[Ysabel 123]

Is this the start of the slow drip into the mainstream that the premier league are going to let Manchester City "get away with it" for the good of the league itself...still painting City as the bad guys who cheated, but the pl simply couldnt afford to prove it?

Or maybe it's just the ramblings of two barely coherent racist BBC goons?

I hope it is mate!

This is the same mainstream media who positively get hard/wet when discussing Kobie Mainoo playing for England! Whilst never mentioning Rico Lewis! Last night the commentators were amazed that Mainoo became the first ever England player to play in a final for his country before he played in a European completion (Europa league) for his club!

They didn't mention that Rico Lewis won the Treble before he was capped!

Rico is 6 months older than Mainoo!
Rico has won 7 trophies in 2 and half years, (that's more than united have since Bacon Face left)!



Mainoo wont!

 

[Ysabel 123]

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).

I don’t consider Spurs a cartel club, they are just saps doing the bidding of the red cartel.

None of them can be described as a Cartel, Cartels are powerful, in charge have the most money and win!

 

[Ysabel 123]

The 120 years is wrong should be 32, since 1992 PL was formed

We don't brag about our history mate!

we laugh about the the 90's with our kids! ha