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

[TinFoilHat]

Cross from The Sun. The narrative is being set.

Edit: it's John Cross from The Mirror, my bad.

"City didn't like the rule change so they are going to court to get it changed."

 

[Keeper!]

Don't see how. Don't see any link whatsoever, despite the papers trying to create one.

I think if we win the first the second takes care of itself.

 

[Coatigan]

It probably is guesswork on his behalf, but given that the initial vote was 12-6 in favour of the changes it would make sense.

I'm not sure it is guesswork. He clearly has a lot of formal commentary from Kevin Plumb, which is all in the article. I think whatever he is passing off as guesses, has come from him but is being guarded a bit more.

 

[supercity88]

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.

This is the key point and sadly, with the media bias, the other side doesn't get presented.

This isn't a case of good v evil. It's a case of a collection of 20 individual businesses all wanting things that benefit them. You have the red shirts and Spuds who have already got the infrastructure and wealth and want to protect their position. You have a lot of other "smaller" clubs who are swallowing up the rhetoric from those clubs about us threatening their future. But ultimately, the American model of sports ownership poses far more significant risks to football than owners from the middle east who want to spend as much as they can to increase profits.

The Yank's are used to a closed shop sporting system whereby success doesn't really impact their wealth. No promotion, no relegation. Club not making enough money? Move it to somewhere more fans will go. Not enough TV revenue or sponsorship? Take the game abroad. They want a closed PL where they have to spend very little to make a fortune and that is a far bigger threat than having owners pump in as much money as they want.

On that last point though, I'm not sure that's what City even want. They just want a system where the value of sponsorships isn't determined by some biased suit in PL HQ and ratified by the red shirts. Ultimately sponsorship is complicated. You can have a new company willing to plough in a fortune as part of its growth strategy. If it's willing to pay it then there's nothing to see here. People were staggered by our initial sponsorship deal with Etihad, but considering our success and growth, that was a bloody good deal.

 

[tonea2003]

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.

bang on the money mate and what i've being saying for donkeys
i'd go one more step and say the moment you employ and pay people wages its a business

 

[wolfie1988]

The club have clearly been blindsided by this being leaked.

Hopefully this boosts the case because these continuous leaks and dictation of the narrative from one side are troublesome and assume guilt before judgement, as has been the case since the takeover really.

 

[Coatigan]

Saw that. As I see it (& it’s just my opinion based on no expertise) the trouble is he has got it all wrong. We’re not challenging the PL per se. We’re challenging one rule that, when it was proposed, only had support of 12 clubs (& not the required 14) and so has not yet been passed although the PL want to bring it in anyway. To do that would be against their own procedures!! By now, more clubs might vote against it which would scupper their proposal anyway.

You’d think we’d challenged the very existence of the PL to hear Cross talk.

Agree with all that, although as pointed out earlier, the PL procedure is 14 clubs OR two thirds of a vote. With two abstaining, 12 clubs of 18 is 2 thirds, and within the PL procedure.

 

[OntarioBlue]

The stupid twat hasn't grasped that it would be unlimited spending for all PL Clubs, it will encourage investment and keep the dream alive for other clubs who may get taken over, cant the silly **** see that it benefits all clubs including his beloved united?

But it won’t be “unlimited spending by all PL Clubs” Will it ? That will only apply to those Clubs who can afford it or are considered “investible” (a Dragons Den term). That’s maybe a handful of PL Clubs.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

there is literally a public picture of the chairmen of liverpool, arsenal and united having dinner very publicly and while it is far from against the law to have dinner with business associates it would be difficult to argue against some level of collusion between them.

We all know the pic but pretty difficult to prove collusion against us in a court/tribunal from that. Stretching it to even call it circumstantial evidence

 

[Scaring Europe to Death]

I'm obviously missing something but if only 12 clubs voted in favour, and you need 14 for an overall majority, then isn't there a chance of City losing the legal challenge, but the motion not being passed anyway?