I think he was saying a legal challenge would be inevitable if the PL rushed the changes. I don’t think he was saying that challenge would necessarily come from City.
Is this the same clubs we were accused of bullying earlier today?
Thought it was all on here, but probably 200 pages back now. From memory.....(I'm old and could be wrong):Who were the 8?
They do it for sustainability. But what the fcuk do successful business people know about running businesses?In no other sphere of business that I can think of is an owner barred from investing their wealth into their company.
So, the football authorities prevent the investors from investing so that the asset strippers can get on asset stripping. I get it now.Sure - but in any other business, the owners could decide to asset strip and close it down. We only have to look across Manchester to see that a "normal" practice of loading a business with debt when you're buying it, isn't good for football.
I agree that the clubs that happened to be big in the 90s/00s have stitched things up, but football shouldn't be like any other business.
Hahaha, memory like a fucking elephant!You know me well enough to know it’s fully deserved if I’m touchy with someone.
Didn’t you once say he had the sense of humour of a peanut? That did make me chuckle. Especially as peanuts are the least amusing of nuts.
I do wonder if Masters has any kids. The fucker seems to be an expert at "pulling out"...View attachment 134484View attachment 134485
"Masters’ no-show, at a high level shindig with all-important broadcasters who pay billions into the competition’s coffers, will have been a big call. Sky are the main players in a £6.7bn deal along with TNT and the BBC, while NBC will show matches in the vital US market until 2028, which will mark a 15-year partnership. A party of top NBC bosses are in the UK for a week of planning meetings.
Masters will no doubt have spent the time preparing for the crunch, hastily-arranged summit which will take place next Thursday - and could bring face-to-face City’s legal counsel, Simon Cliff, with those who he lambasted in a blistering email on Monday night."
Oh dear... Oh deary deary me... :-)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ers-broadcast-meeting-civil-war-Man-City.html
Our model is better for football, and for Manchester, as well as good for the Sheikh, but let’s not pretend the Glasers haven’t made a mint for themselves.Business is Business mate. How an owner chooses to approach it is purely subjective.
The Glazer's loaded ManUre with leveraged debt. Sheikh Mansour used his own money. Both have spent huge sums, but the Glazer's used the profit & sponsorship money to further invest in the playing side of the club, whilst taking a slice for themselves. Our owner did the same, but has opted to reinvest the slice he's entitled to, to further grow his business. That's the difference.
By doing this, SM has exponentially increased the value of his initial investment from £100m to nearly £6bn, whilst ManUre are £1bn+ in debt.
Rather than compete with this, the cartel have opted to stop City by any means necessary, & if this means trashing the PL in the process, it's evidently a price they're willing to pay.
The regulations (they are not laws) were found unlawful by tribunal, not by a court of law. This may mean that any attempt to enforce the regulations would entitle City (or any other club) to appeal to the High Court and, in view of the eminent persons having already given their award the PL could get a real hiding.The way I see it, an organisation can introduce a rule and until it is proven illegal then it's ok. If the rule is challenged in court and they determine its in contravention with English law then that rule is deemed illegal and regardless of any vote it remains so.
FixedSo, the football authorities prevent the Arab investors from investing so that the American asset strippers can get on asset stripping. I get it now.