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

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

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.

Some ‘rules’ they could get quite a lot of teams to vote for.
“Any newly promoted team can only spend half as much as the team that finished 4th bottom last season”.

Any team the wins the PL 3 seasons out of 5 starts the following season on minus 10 points, or can’t bring any new players in.

What they’ve gone with this time is.
Any global company that wants to sponsor a team, if the sponsor is based in the same country as the owner, will be subject to having their books scrutinised by likely competitors AND will have an opaque group decide if they’re offering too much!
Money earned will be largely irrelevant, if you’re successful, because we will pin spending to the 22nd placed team in the PL!

The first one looks like it’s potentially aimed at 2 clubs but both together look like they’re aimed at one club in particular.

 

[richards30]

Surely City need to say something about this officially?

 

[Ric]

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.

It probably is guesswork on his behalf, but given that the initial vote was 12-6 in favour of the changes it would make sense.

 

[CC1]

Well its being reported on ssn this morning by 2 tabloid pundits (one was winter, the other i think they said his name was cross?)

It was the latter i only caught saying everyone needs to stand against city for good of the game

Saw that. As I see it (& it’s just my opinion based on no expertise) the trouble is he has got it all wrong. We’re not challenging the PL per se. We’re challenging one rule that, when it was proposed, only had support of 12 clubs (& not the required 14) and so has not yet been passed although the PL want to bring it in anyway. To do that would be against their own procedures!! By now, more clubs might vote against it which would scupper their proposal anyway.

You’d think we’d challenged the very existence of the PL to hear Cross talk.

 

[Centurions]

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.

Two thirds majority leaves it open to manipulation by the yank owned clubs and always has. It should be a larger majority. Abstentions should be banned too, either back the proposal or don't.

 

[Centurions]

Saw that. As I see it (& it’s just my opinion based on no expertise) the trouble is he has got it all wrong. We’re not challenging the PL per se. We’re challenging one rule that, when it was proposed, only had support of 12 clubs (& not the required 14) and so has not yet been passed although the PL want to bring it in anyway. To do that would be against their own procedures!! By now, more clubs might vote against it which would scupper their proposal anyway.

You’d think we’d challenged the very existence of the PL to hear Cross talk.

That's exactly what he's saying is it not?

 

[CC1]

Makes us look greedy and dismissive of the league as a whole.At the same time they are defending the 115 charges too, so I’m sure greater minds than mine are behind this, but it won’t win us any popularity contests.Also, if unlimited spending prevails, we risk turning premier league into La Ligurian or SPL !Not sure how I feel on this.

This is a PL that continues to fiddle with their own FFP rules, as soon as they start to negatively affect the top red tops; fail to address rags game that had to be cancelled because of a fan demonstration; ignore the expenditure of dippers for a stadium rebuild that didn’t actually happen but helped them pass FFP etc etc. They screw us over in every way they can & are now scrutinising all Arab sponsorship despite the standard charter issue.

 

[jamesha]

Latest interview with Mansour

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

Well that's the issue. A governance structure like that needs a strong executive to make sure proposals put to a vote will benefit the league as a whole.

What do we have? Masters and Brittain. And the organisation is lurching from one stupid rule to another ....

Masters needs to be tougher, say no if a proposal doesn't benefit the league as a whole and say if you don't like it, sack me. 14 votes should do it.

 

[Kinkybyname]

Cross from The Sun. The narrative is being set.

John Cross?
Chief football writer @ The Mirror