Otherwise, is it really a legal action?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Otherwise, is it really a legal action?
Centurions
Well-Known Member
No doubt, Ric pointed out that it was 12-6 voted for them with 2 abstentions. But the only information that seems to have been leaked is City's application, so stating that he 'believes' it's 10 to 12 (why 10 to 12, why not a straight 12?) when he presumably has no info whatsoever beyond that is disingenuous at the very least.The 10-12 clubs could be guesswork based on how many clubs voted in favour a few months back
Betterdeedthan red
Well-Known Member
The rags won 13 out of 31 and they have been shit for 10 years.Whatever the outcome of this and the November hearing the game that we fell in love with has been taken over by the greed of the old cartel.
The great unwashed are claiming that City are trying to run away with the league and make it uncompetitive. Lets not forget that there have been 31 seasons of the prem and united have won 13 of them, that's 41% to just one club. 51 teams have played in the prem since its inception and 7 have won it, that's 13%. It has never been competitive in the sense that a small few always win it.
Now that we are involved in this 'small few' this is no longer acceptable and the good of the game is at stake. The xenophobia on display portrayed as righteousness is sickening and I back the club all the way in fighting what is clear and orchestrated targeting of a club that simply doesn't have the right name and play in the right colours.
If it wasn't for City the league would be less competitive than it is
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Hahaha, get to fuck troll.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.
Whoever it is, they are doing a pretty shitty job at it.Pretty sure for this stuff PR will be controlled by Soriano and clubs legal team.
Don't see how. Don't see any link whatsoever, despite the papers trying to create one.We lose the first case and we are in trouble in my opinion.
I think the case is basically asking "Is football a sport or a business"? If it's a business then any club should be allowed to spend what they want to improve that business and sink or swim based on their business acumen. If it's a sport then every competitor should arrive at the start line with only their sporting talents to be judged not their wealth.
Now, probably, since the demise of the players maximum wage in the 1960's football has drifted from a sport where football teams from Burnley, Ipswich, Derby, Preston, Wolverhampton, West Brom, Huddersfield etc could win the League to one where only the massively wealthy can win. i.e Tesco build a multi store and put all the (normal) corner shops out of business.
So, I'd argue that the Premier League is and was formed to be a money earning enterprise. It's a business where (location, location, location) only the big city teams can prosper and the smaller town teams have to accept that the 'Usain Bolt' teams are actually given a huge start every race and their role is to shake 'Usain Bolt's hand at the end of the race.
Finally, I'd accept every club getting to the start line on relatively equal terms but I do not accept a group of red topped clubs being given a 'start' in every race based on historic rather than current performance.
Now, probably, since the demise of the players maximum wage in the 1960's football has drifted from a sport where football teams from Burnley, Ipswich, Derby, Preston, Wolverhampton, West Brom, Huddersfield etc could win the League to one where only the massively wealthy can win. i.e Tesco build a multi store and put all the (normal) corner shops out of business.
So, I'd argue that the Premier League is and was formed to be a money earning enterprise. It's a business where (location, location, location) only the big city teams can prosper and the smaller town teams have to accept that the 'Usain Bolt' teams are actually given a huge start every race and their role is to shake 'Usain Bolt's hand at the end of the race.
Finally, I'd accept every club getting to the start line on relatively equal terms but I do not accept a group of red topped clubs being given a 'start' in every race based on historic rather than current performance.
BamberBridgeBlue
Well-Known Member
The Western main stream media is owned by the same corporations that own everything else of significance. There isn’t a PR Manager in the world gonna win that battle. That said, I agree with the sentiment and they don’t appear to even try which is unforgivable.Yet again we've lost control of the narrative and the optics of this to the general public are poor.
Whoever is repsonsible for PR at our club should have been fired long ago.
iwasthere1968
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2011
- Messages
- 1,008
I think some of us are guilty of believing the figures that the leak provided.I’d be amazed if it’s United , Liverpool , Arsenal , Spurs , Villa , Newcastle and Chelsea who have sided with the PL , those , aswell as City are the biggest losers if these sanctions are allowed to continue, I doubt it if it’s the likes of Wolves , Palace et al that have sided with City , but at the end of the day these restrictions affect all PL clubs , all City are doing is telling the PL to fuck off for everyone’s benefit aren’t they?, there seems to be a 50/50 split , I don’t see Everton or Forest voting against us , they’ve been shafted more than any club with these rules the PL have dreamt up. It’s one rule for all that City are after.
Not at all.Sitting on the fence, if we were to lose this our reputation is utterly destroyed.