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

Oldham Exile said:
Just for some balance regarding what I have been reading as I try to catch-up on this thread.................

On rawk - the redscouse make comments such as these regarding you:

Offline
danm77​

  • Anny Roader
  • *
    *
    *
    *
  • Posts: 367
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
xx.gif

Re: 115 charges for the scorched earth cheating bastards on & off the pitch​

« Reply #9210 on: Today at 10:09:51 am »

Quote from: RedSince86 on Today at 08:51:39 am

Borson really annoys me. He is obviously highly knowledgeable, but his City bias is blatantly obvious
Click to expand...
They see anyone talking remotely in City's favour as biased because the media is filled with everyone being anti City. A lot of us blues complain how Stefan doesn't overly fight our corner and sticks to facts.
 
Dribble said:
This is "istree" vs new normal. How far back have Nielsen gone in their database to assess City's sponsorship potential?

Which dynamics add weight to a clubs saleability? Current success, viewing figures or a clubs historic success.

How far back do the calculations go? The PL era? When Fatty Arbuckle was a Superstar in silent films? City seeking to ascertain the criteria that we are being judged by is perfectly legitimate, & if the PL were honest brokers, they'd be happy with more money coming into the game based on success & ambition.
Click to expand...

Cresta, the Corona pop lorry, Fatty Arbuckle, this thread's like being in a bleedin TARDIS.

You're not wrong though. Irrespective of whatever else rival fans do or don't think, if they have half a brain cell they can see very clearly the PL has been acting in bad faith. We knew that all along but this makes it very clear.
 
Bloom out again as the unnamed premier league unofficial mouthpiece? I bet you wanted to keep them with hundreds of millions in shareholder loans as opposed to a club that is told it cant have sponsorships from a company that is in the same region of the world.

Not unlawful to this premier league wanker who hides his identity as it only targets mcfc and newcastle. The red clubs get the lemmings to do their dirty work via sky so they cant be directly accused.

edit: maybe not bloom this time lol

Palace lol, self righteous pricks.
 
manimanc said:
How could the future and the livelihoods of all these clubs in the league be placed in palm of this fools hands.

He's made the Premier League a laughing stock. I'm surprised there isn't a vote to fuck the fat ponce off.
Click to expand...
They need a head to roll after the 115 charges are thrown out. He’s gone then for sure.
 
johnny crossan said:
It's self-evident that the cartel running the PL want their protection racket rules to stay in place, question is how long they'll stick around when its gone?
Click to expand...

So am I missing something here,

It's Okay for owners to loan their clubs £500million interest-free or charge 6% and then add it to the club's debts. But they want to stop Sponsorship deal investments, so the clubs' debt rises, and then it takes the club's market value down by £500million. OK, that sounds like a great idea for football.

So if our owners want to loan us £1billion it is OK, But if our owners agree on a major deal with a large leading company to Sponsors us it is wrong, Even if our owners did have links to that company and it's a major brand trading legally then it's still a legal business that has to produces annual revenue figures that show that sponsorship deal.

It's full-on Prejudice by the Premier League, WHY not go full on back ball in the bag system with its members voting,
 
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.