If they attributed these sources to the clubs making the statement then it would soon be apparent that generally it’s the same club(s) and would reinforce the view that there is cabal of clubs operating a mini cartel within the EPLAlways impressed how many of these club executives, supposedly so unhappy with City trying to take over the league, are never willing to put their name to it. "One board member said", "One club executive implied"..
The attempt to create a narrative that the whole league is against us on this when it's most likely just the usual Arsenal/Liverpool/rag executives briefing against us is comical.
This is precisely why I had and always will have a problem with the taking the knee campaign following George Floyd’s death. It’s the rank hypocrisy. Not just of The Premier League but in many organisations. I grew up in Oldham. I’ve seen all aspects of racism. Most people, white, black whatever are racist to some degree. I say that because I’m sure most of us wouldn’t be happy if Irish Travellers pitched up opposite your house. It’s called being honest.to know its racism you inly have to look at how its referred too, our money is consistently referred to as arab money not just by rival fans but by the mainstream media, forests money is never referred to as greek money, villas money is never referred to as egyptian money and wolves is never referred to chinese money, our money doesnt spend differently to any of the other money but is referred to differently and that is quite simply racism.
When it was only 1 club that were threatening the "elite" clubs it was welcomed as a fairy story, still 4 CL places to scrap for, so the likes of Arsenal and Tottenham still had a chance of jumping on the gravy train, so the 4 became 5 , City turned up fucked up the chances for the likes of Arsenal and Spurs chances of regular CL football.The bit i can't fathom is related to Roman Abramovich.
When he bought Chelsea they had more money than you would ever spend on football.
He could spend literally whatever he wanted.
And to be fair, he did.
As i remember it, the media, by and large, loved the Chelsea story.
Football didn't bring in rules to target Chelsea (as far as i'm aware).
Football didn't end.
So why is City's wealth being treated so differently to Chelsea's wealth.
City aren't going to spend ridiculous amounts.
We don't. Just look at the net spend table over the last 10 years.
Pretty sure Newcastle won't either (a splurge to get their act together sure but so what).
ps. For any lurking Chelsea fans, I have no problem at all with the Chelsea money story.
Also, it’s possible that some of these other clubs who have been gullible enough to keep supporting the red shirt cartel clubs (and Spurs) might be having a re-think on their position.Always impressed how many of these club executives, supposedly so unhappy with City trying to take over the league, are never willing to put their name to it. "One board member said", "One club executive implied"..
The attempt to create a narrative that the whole league is against us on this when it's most likely just the usual Arsenal/Liverpool/rag executives briefing against us is comical.
Delaney says:
" There is simply exasperation at the manner that the club have gone against the very idea of the Premier League. Rivals are furious that City’s owners bought into the competition in the knowledge of what it was, aware of the rules"
But Miguel top tier football in England is controlled by the Premier League, if City wanted to participate, what choice did they have but to agree the Cartel rules? Which were then changed "by the majority' to be deliberately stacked against them.
Delaney continues;
"City are instead the first to take a case of this nature, and decide that they don’t need the rules to apply to them."
No Miguel, we have taken the case to prove that the rules as being applied against us were unlawful, unfair and unreasonable. And we proved that, irrefutably. A word you'll hopefully hear again very soon with regard to the 115 BS.
So why is City's wealth being treated so differently to Chelsea's wealth.
Have costs been awarded yet?
Then say we have lost...
All this reminds me of when I moved school as a wee 13yr old. (Now 50)..Cock of the school thought he would just bully me constantly until one day I smacked the fucker so hard I broke my knuckles. He wasn't cock of the school anymore.
Not in my lifetime…The bit i can't fathom is related to Roman Abramovich.
When he bought Chelsea they had more money than you would ever spend on football.
He could spend literally whatever he wanted.
And to be fair, he did.
As i remember it, the media, by and large, loved the Chelsea story.
Football didn't bring in rules to target Chelsea (as far as i'm aware).
Football didn't end.
So why is City's wealth being treated so differently to Chelsea's wealth.
City aren't going to spend ridiculous amounts.
We don't. Just look at the net spend table over the last 10 years.
Pretty sure Newcastle won't either (a splurge to get their act together sure but so what).
ps. For any lurking Chelsea fans, I have no problem at all with the Chelsea money story.
There were plenty of are Chelsea ruining football stories back in the early 2000s, especially when they won the league. But it was never a concerted campaign like the one we have been put under.The bit i can't fathom is related to Roman Abramovich.
When he bought Chelsea they had more money than you would ever spend on football.
He could spend literally whatever he wanted.
And to be fair, he did.
As i remember it, the media, by and large, loved the Chelsea story.
Football didn't bring in rules to target Chelsea (as far as i'm aware).
Football didn't end.
So why is City's wealth being treated so differently to Chelsea's wealth.
City aren't going to spend ridiculous amounts.
We don't. Just look at the net spend table over the last 10 years.
Pretty sure Newcastle won't either (a splurge to get their act together sure but so what).
ps. For any lurking Chelsea fans, I have no problem at all with the Chelsea money story.