City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

flb said:
I’d be amazed if it’s United , Liverpool , Arsenal , Spurs , Villa , Newcastle and Chelsea who have sided with the PL , those , aswell as City are the biggest losers if these sanctions are allowed to continue, I doubt it if it’s the likes of Wolves , Palace et al that have sided with City , but at the end of the day these restrictions affect all PL clubs , all City are doing is telling the PL to fuck off for everyone’s benefit aren’t they?, there seems to be a 50/50 split , I don’t see Everton or Forest voting against us , they’ve been shafted more than any club with these rules the PL have dreamt up. It’s one rule for all that City are after.
Click to expand...

The rules we are challenging aren't the newly proposed ones. They're ones that brought in a rule on related people and fair value on sponsorship, which was specifically introduced after Newcastle's takeover. Their owners seem to prefer to play ball off the pitch for now, but I would be stunned if they weren't the club supporting us on this.

Everyone else under American ownership panicked. The media are reporting this as if those clubs are owned by paupers. It's simply the fact they don't want to have to spend more money investing in their clubs to make profit. And they don't have the business acumen to secure revenues like we could.
 
mrbelfry said:
Not sure how serious this is so happy to be corrected by the forum big wigs but the original report was very hyperbolic and we are just challenging a Premier League rule with the rules set out by the Premier League. Hardly a Civil War that will shake the foundations of the league.

The accusations of bias and racism are very strong though only if we have concrete evidence to back it up. It may lead to people resigning but I doubt there is a house of cards that is going to tumble down if the tribunal finds in our favour. The accusations of racism just add a little colour to our complaint but would just demonstrate one person was racist rather than the system is.

Glad to see the club standing up for itself but unless we are challenging the majority rule stuff in general rather than again adding colour I'm not sure how damaging this will be to the EPL if they lose
Click to expand...
I think calling our CEO a terrorist is more than enough evidence of rascism
 
Vic said:
It's a criticism of democracy. See India.
Or Israel. Not Britain where FTPT has meant tyranny of the minority.
Click to expand...
In the US, the electoral college runs that risk. After all Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote but Trump disastrously won in the college.
 
KS55 said:
Yes. The tyranny of the majority has always been my criticism of Utilitarianism. The greatest good to the greatest number sounds fine until you ask: “But what happens to minorities.?” Utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham never answered this question. In the nineteenth century women were treated as a minority and the women’s suffrage movement both here and in the US had to overcome utilitarian ideas in smug parliaments. That in itself was a huge struggle.
Click to expand...
You make a great point but as someone with a utilitarian outlook in general I don't think it applies here. It's straight forward bullying , hypocrisy and even racism. I would like to think utilitarianism has moved on since Bentham and has adopted more inclusivity to those minority groups.
 
The discrimination point I can't see standing up, but it's worth making anyway.

The fair value point is the big issue, but whether this arbitration can decide on it is for more qualified people to determine.

The key point with sponsorship is that we can make a strong business case on it being a heavy sum initially on the basis we will grow the club. Inflated value on day 1 but below market value on years 5-10. And based on our growth in the previous decade we have delivered and some. Going from no trophies for 35 years to absolutely dominating domestically, winning the treble and the Club World Cup to become the most successful English side ever.

The American owners are just playing a very good game of suggesting those rules make things unfair when they could easily do exactly the same if they put their money where their mouth is.
 
supercity88 said:
The rules we are challenging aren't the newly proposed ones. They're ones that brought in a rule on related people and fair value on sponsorship, which was specifically introduced after Newcastle's takeover. Their owners seem to prefer to play ball off the pitch for now, but I would be stunned if they weren't the club supporting us on this.

Everyone else under American ownership panicked. The media are reporting this as if those clubs are owned by paupers. It's simply the fact they don't want to have to spend more money investing in their clubs to make profit. And they don't have the business acumen to secure revenues like we could.
Click to expand...
I think only Everton currently are not part of a multi club ownership set up. Many of these groups are just as rich as Mansour, at least in terms of how much you need to support clubs royally. How rich is Fenway?
 
Cobwebcat said:
Tebas must be delighted that the PL is actually destroying itself from a position of extreme supremacy.

No competitive organisation should ever have a big say in the rules of a tournament in which they have a participant. It’s asking for trouble.
Click to expand...
The PL totally lost the plot when they started deducting points for non-football related matters this season. That was an overreach of their administration.
 
mancboy said:
The disingenuous way in which the press are reporting this is to be expected what they are failing to do is give it any context, what city are basically saying is that it is unfair that anybody decides how much money we get to earn and that these rules have only just been put in place to stop us and that is anticompetitive, in no other business in the world does an independent body get to decide the value of something, that is basic economics that the market sets the value, eg quite frankly if any journalists over 10 quid a year then in my opinion they are overpaid and their wages should be cut but i dont set the value and that is why.
Click to expand...

The fact that they are failing to explain that the adjustment proposed for protectionism is being challenged as it’s against UK law, if it was legal arbitration wouldn’t be happening.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.