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

[mattcity5]

I think the most encouraging aspect of yesterday’s announcement is the way it has been egregiously reported. By the paid hacks, the twitterati and some on here.
It’s got NOTHING to do with 115. End of.
It’s got everything to do with the arbitrary nature or PL rule making that are changed, seemingly on a whim from certain vested interests.
‘Fair value’ is not an alien concept in any way but, having someone else decide what is ‘fair value’, especially if it’s from the same country as your owner is from seems like a giant step to far.
Not only that, one thing that’s always been accepted, even lauded by the usual suspects, is being able to ‘spend what you earn’, again perfectly reasonable.
Then City start serial winning and, consequently, earning huge amounts of prize money (over £175M last year) and also have an academy that’s pumping out profit after profit on player sales.
A transfer team that’s buying Akanji, Alvarez and Ortega, for example, for less than £30M between them and they now want to tie spending to the earnings of the BOTTOM placed team in the PL!

You can be certain that if Pep leaves, city drop off and Radcliffe is successful in his OT transformation, that rule will be gone almost immediately.

Finally, the phrase ‘tyranny of the majority’ reflects that City are a single shareholder in the PL, but it’s reported as ‘but they’ve got more than almost everyone else so what are they moaning about’ by the usual suspects who are either very ill informed or spectacularly good at misdirection. Given that this has been in train since February and certain other news came out yesterday, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s the latter.

The idea of every member having a vote and then a rule being passed if there's enough votes seems (on the face of it) pretty fair to me.

However, who is it who decides what proposals get voted on? I have zero idea on this part.

 

[Tb1981]

All these journalists are making into a bigger thing than it is for their own end
Aricles
Profiles
Etc etc

All trotting the same line

We are challenging a rule but they are making it out like we’re challenging the whole premier league

They don’t understand the shote they talk about
They have been spoon fed a leak but one of three red clubs

 

[abu13]

I'm way behind here, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but I thought 14 clubs had to vote for something in order for it to be passed?

I think you are correct, my understanding is that it hasn't been passed yet. We were vocal at the time about the legality of the rule and this is the challenge that we threatened the PL with. It would be quite ironic if we failed in this challenge and then the other PL clubs didnt vote it through.

 

[Tb1981]

Henry winter in talk sport now
Gaslighting again on how great the team are
At the same time saying it’s a shame that a court will decide!!!!!
Meaning it’s a shame that city might be right legally

 

[Blue Til Death]

I have absolutely zero insight but if the PL rules were on genuinely shaky legal ground, I feel that Newcastle would have challenged them when they came in 3 years ago. These rules were very clearly brought in to stop Newcastle, the meeting to vote on them was called almost the same day the takeover got approved.

Reading through, it doesn't sound all that convincing to the layman.

It's worth remembeing City didn't vote in favour of the rules at the time though and the papers said this was because they thought it wasn't legal. So it's not a new theory at the club.

Other than that it's interesting that it's come from Lowton not Ziegler as the latter has had all big scoops for City v PL lately. And the reporter has clearly seen the actual documents and quoted from them.

Fortunately City don’t employ laymen to argue their case in court, City will have been through this with a microscope and I expect them to prevail.. The PL will be shitting themselves ..

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

Remember 10:15 on Talksport. Something about the weather. ;-)

 

[Ric]

I'm way behind here, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but I thought 14 clubs had to vote for something in order for it to be passed?

From the PL website:

Clubs have the opportunity to propose new rules or amendments at the Shareholder meeting. Each Member Club is entitled to one vote and all rule changes and major commercial contracts require the support of at least a two-thirds vote, or 14 clubs, to be agreed.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

I'm sure we don't know the background as to why we're doing this, but the phrase "tyranny of the majority" is not some made up bullshit from the Times, its not a great look.

It’s just the next noisy neighbours stick.

 

[Tb1981]

City should release a statement today
They should go for them all for leaking details once again and put forward in one sentence why the case is being bought.
‘We don’t think the February rule changes are fair and are discriminatory’

If they weren’t scared of the outcome they would just hear the case without trying to influence it once again

 

[Centurions]

I read it as 10-12 clubs have come out in support of the PL

BTW, this is Matt Lawson who "believes" that 10 to 12 clubs are supporting the PL. So again, all speculation and pure guesswork if not just outright bollocks to support the chosen narrative.