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

At near 74 years of age I think I`ve mellowed quite a lot but over these past couple of years or so I`ve gone from despair to "fuck `em all" and I feel so much better for it.
My local boozer of 52 years is a Scouse habitat and I cannot wait for the outcome of these 115 so called "charges" and both barrels will be given to all the twats (thats assuming we are "cleared".) ;)
Please let me know which boozer it is !!!!
 
It’s incredibly unlikely the PL will be running out of money, mate.

It’s the media laying the groundwork to use it as an excuse for when we slap them.
Can you imagine if the PL were to run out of money with and there only option was to ask our owner for a loan now that would be the cherry on the cake
 
The OP asked if a particular reference to the Middle Eastern owners was racist. It wasn't, and it's a fairly straightforward argument why.

The fact that the two clubs in the PL with Middle Eastern owners have so much more wealth, power, and influence over a huge number of companies, is factual. It is absolutely vast in comparison to any other owners, who are already some of the wealthiest individuals around. It's therefore a legitimate concern for the PL, that currently only applies to the two Middle East owned clubs. Describing them as such is factual, not racist.

If you want to accuse someone of racism, then stick to incidents which are clearly racist, of which there are plenty. Don't give them an easy argument by overstretching.

It reminds me of a lecturer I had at University. He worked with Government ministers, and said that if they didn't want to do something, they would never try to challenge the hard argument. They'd pick up on something easy, and say 'if you got that wrong, then the rest of your argument is probably rubbish too'.
Could just say very wealthy owners.
It's like when people mention the ethnicity or sexuailty of a person without any need to.
It's probably subliminal and unintentional, but discriminatory nonetheless.
 
Guessing United, Liverpool and Arsenal after a meal somewhere.
Imagine if one of them remembered to take a MacBook and type up their ideas for rule changes rather than scribbling them on the back of napkin with crayons usually provided with the children's menu.
 
Khaldoon signed a £ 9 billion £ joint development arrangement twixt Mubadala & Aldar last week.

National companies supporting other National companies for the benefit of the nation....the UAE is a master in economic growth strategies which is why its one of the fastest developing economies and societies on the planet.

BTW...the % of crime per capita in the UAE is 0.001% !!
It does, and whilst it’s very safe and I’ve never once felt threatened or intimidated living here, there’s a certain degree of censorship when it comes to reported crime, so I’d take it with a pinch of salt.
 
The mention of hedge funds etc just made me think - if some American owners are basically funded by hedge funds, then surely the PL should need to know what those hedge funds are investing in?

I know very little about this, so if it's basically nonsense I apologise.

But if a hedge fund invested into a company such as... Team Viewer, for example. And then that company goes on to sponsor a club, surely that would break some kind of rule?

Is this possible? And are there checks?

People who invest into a hedge fund I think have anonymity so if that the case we don't know what's going on with them! Think it's one of the reasons hedge funds purchases of sporting clubs are not allowed in America..
 
People who invest into a hedge fund I think have anonymity so if that the case we don't know what's going on with them! Think it's one of the reasons hedge funds purchases of sporting clubs are not allowed in America..

Does that mean that there's no way of telling what's a related party transaction for clubs owned by hedge funds?
 
Could just say very wealthy owners.
It's like when people mention the ethnicity or sexuailty of a person without any need to.
It's probably subliminal and unintentional, but discriminatory nonetheless.
There is clearly a huge difference between 'oil money' and any other sort of money......
 
Could just say very wealthy owners.
It's like when people mention the ethnicity or sexuailty of a person without any need to.
It's probably subliminal and unintentional, but discriminatory nonetheless.

I understand that point, but I don't think this is the same, because my argument is that it's relevant. It's not just very wealthy owners, it's owners with the resources of a nation state (which our owners indirectly have, even if we're not state owned).
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top