I agree with much of what you’ve posted here, and certainly (and I’ve previously posted in these terms) it’s difficult to know how successful City have been in terms of this action per se, without knowing what the objectives were.
However, from a strategic point of view I disagree about the implications of this, at least as things presently appear. If our long term strategic aim is to (further) discredit the regulatory body that oversee the club, because they have been acting against it in bad faith, then I would say there are many reasons to believe this has succeeded. Following from the Leicester debacle, it underlines the fact that this is an organisation that isn’t fit for purpose because it is grossly incompetent and/or acting in ways that are improper.
I disagree with the analysis of others because in my view (fwiw) you cannot dress up a finding of unlawfulness in relation to an organisation’s own rules in any way other than hugely significant. They have, once again, wholly misconceived rules which they have constructed and have custody of, which they impose upon other organisations; rules that have been found to be unlawful in ways that are significant. These rules are not some abstract small print, they are front and centre to the way the league is governed. I’m struggling to see how anyone can not see the significance of this, especially placed alongside the misinterpretation of Leicester’s status with those same rules.
I take on board what you say about counselling against a scorched earth policy (in the club’s best interests) but that has to be weighed against the many inferences of the conduct of the PL towards the club. I feel the club is well placed to evaluate this and act accordingly. The unusual existence and robust tone of Cliff’s letter suggests they have done this. They may have done so reluctantly, but out of a sense of necessity.
I have always been confident throughout the last eighteen months that the club’s judgement (correct spelling in this instance!) should be trusted. Moreover, the club wouldn’t have embarked in this course of action, nor sent the letter out, if it felt the associated gains would be nugatory, or even marginal. As that time has passed, it has become increasingly clear (to me at least) that the PL’s judgement, and the advice it has been receiving, has been severely lacking. That is also a material factor when evaluating what the judgment means.
Against all that, I feel that the club wouldn’t have responded in the way it did if it wasn’t supremely confident of the ground it was standing on, or the wider aims of the action, and if I was going to back any particular horse in this race it wouldn’t be the PL.
I therefore feel that the outcome of this action is far more positive than others have posited.
Whether I’m right or not, only time will tell.
And I agree with you that virtually all sports journalists are know nowt cunts :-)
