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

Well considering that this story has been leaked (by some other club executives - or the PL) - and then the total negative uproar and spin being used by the press to again stir up hatred and animosity towards our club and owners only goes to strengthen our hand doesnt it

Highlights everything the club says is happening against us
 
I think calling our CEO a terrorist is more than enough evidence of rascism
Yes but it was one person at one club (we don't know the City are referring to the same incidents) so easy to dismiss by the Premier League as being irrelevant to the rules City are challenging
 
See, we ended up here in the end. Many of us said we should have legally challenged ffp when it was first brought in. We tried to play by the rules, created to stop us and be nice. It didn't work, as we always knew it wouldn't. They just couldn't stop pushing and in the end probably left us with no alternative but to fight them head on. Even if we won the 115 charges hearing they would have been back with something else. No, they wanted a war, well they've fucking got one.
 
Sam Wallace in the Telegraph with a lengthy article detailing how the club is attempting to destroy the PL by being allowed unlimited spending. Possibly supported by Newcastle (surprise surprise) but no other club.
 
Of course you two do...

Get off your high horse mate. My use of an online forum isn't a reflection on anything else. We're not all forum pros like yourself.

Incidentally, you joined shortly after our first title.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PPT
It's fair until it's not. Suppose for example there is a system in place that goes something like this

1) Clubs can raise money through sponsorship of their stadiums, shirts, noodles etc
2) Where a club owner has a related interest in the organisation sponsoring the club this must be noted in the accounts
3) when a sponsorship is from a related party a FMV test is applied and the value maybe amended in a subset of the accounts

Then we get into murky water
4) if the sponsoring organisation is not a related party it may be an associated party. An association can be very broad but let's limit it to one based on geography. If the club owner and the sponsoring organisation all originate from the same country they are associated.
5) in the case of an associated party transaction the deals are subject to further scrutiny and may be prohibited or capped (I think)
6) oh by the way just because you're American and the sponsoring organisation is American it doesn't necessarily mean it's an associated transaction
7) oh you're from a gulf state? Oh definitely associated then
8) therefore out of the 20 teams in the league 2 teams are subject to greater sponsorship scrutiny and caps than the other 18.
9) Etihad could sponsor United for £5billion a year but only be allowed to sponsor City for £50million based on country of origin
10) also we have to send details of our sponsors and 2 failed sponsors to the premier league who are also sponsored by potentially competing organisations in the same industry. The premier league also seems to have difficulty keeping things confidential.

It's fair until the majority uses their power against the minority
Your last sentence sums it up. An extreme example I know, but the way the PL works currently, 19 clubs could vote that City get two points for a win, everybody else three points. It would be a policy nakedly enacted to stiff MCFC because they cannot compete with us, much like the sponsorship rule, which was also directed at NUFC.

What the red shills like Cross and Winter never mention is the shambolic running and administration of their paymaster clubs, which is the real reason they struggle to compete with City, not our UAE sponsorship.
 

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.