This could be for either the media thread or this one but one aspect of all of this that shows what we’re up against is the reporting of “Tyranny of the Majority”. Apologies, this is going to be a long post!
When our confidential submission was leaked to a couple of journalists, a big focus of the reporting at the time was we wanted to rip up the voting rules due to the possibility of tyranny of the majority.
Example here where the article says “City also claim the whole Prem structure - where rule changes need a two-thirds majority - should be ditched”
MANCHESTER CITY’s legal bid to dismantle the Premier League rulebook could do far more than spark “civil war” within the top flight. The Prem kings hope to end up with NO limits o…
www.thesun.co.uk
Or here on the bbc where they say “In addition, City are challenging the Premier League rule that 14 clubs have to agree to something before it can be made into a regulation - scrapping VAR at Thursday's annual meeting for instance.”
Manchester City are scheduled to face the Premier League in a legal battle over the organisation’s commercial rules next week.
www.bbc.co.uk
That led to opinion pieces like this saying we were “tone deaf” and it was a “truly risible delusion” -
Calls to redress financial inequality in football have been gathering pace but City seem hellbent on formalising that very concept
www.telegraph.co.uk
This one said that it was a “naked attack on democracy” -
The champions are selling themselves as freedom fighters - but this is a state wealth power grab dressed up as Robin Hood
inews.co.uk
That led to social media going mad with fans across the board ridiculing the sentiment and outraged we were challenging a democratic process. The whole thing, the leak and subsequent attacks were basically a hit job.
Now we’ve got the judgment though, we can see that was all bollocks all along. The question the tribunal was asked to decide on under the competition law challenge was “Do the FMV rules (and/or the Amended FMV rules) give rise to an abuse of a dominant position by the respodent?”
It was under that question that we find City’s argument around “tyranny of the majority” (points 371 to 389 in the judgment for anyone that wants to read the argument or the findings).
The tribunal had to judge first whether the PL was in a dominant position. Due to the fact that the rules are imposed on clubs even if they vote against them and also on the associated party, they agreed that the PL was in a dominant position (so agreeing with the whole premise of city’s point around tyranny of the majority). Here’s the key points in the judgment -
View attachment 134771
The next question was then pretty easy in terms of did the PL abuse that position? Well, yes, quite obviously. They voted in regulations that were considered unlawful.
So there was no challenge at all on the PL’s voting structure. The assault on democracy didn’t materialise and the tone deaf risible delusions we were apparently experiencing turned out to be perfectly rational arguments that were agreed with by the tribunal.
The reporting since all of this has come out, despite the judgment being available for anyone to read, hasn’t been remotely factually around this though. Several journalists are still saying that the tribunal rejected a challenge on the voting structure, despite it being so blatantly clear that was never a question the tribunal was asked to judge on in the first place.
Example here where the Guardian say “Part of City’s challenge in the APT case saw them take aim at the voting structure of the league, arguing that votes that led to rules being implemented led to a “tyranny of the majority”. This claim was rejected by the tribunal”
The champions’ relentless railing against organisations that challenge them helps rally the troops but do they really have an alternative?
amp.theguardian.com
Or here where Ziegler even more brazenly says “City also failed in its claim that the “tyranny of the majority” — where 14 Premier League clubs can impose rules even though six are opposed — can cause “a competitive detriment of minority clubs”.
Man City could be said to have won their challenge against sponsorship rules on a technicality but there will be repercussions for the Premier League and rival clubs
www.thetimes.com
It wasn’t a claim. It was an argument to support the question of whether the PL was in a dominant position and the tribunal agreed with it. To the surprise of I’m sure no one, Delaney is saying the same thing as Ziegler too.
It’s one thing to deliberately misrepresent what was supposed to be a confidential submission, but to try and continue that misrepresentation on even after a judgment has been issued and available for everyone to read is fucking appalling and shows these journalists have either; not read the judgment and are relying on other’s (incorrect) assessment, so not doing a basic tenet of journalism and checking their source, read and not understood it,so showing they’re morons, or read it and are deliberately misrepresenting it, showing impartiality and a complete lack of integrity.
The judgment is there for everyone to read and very quickly realise the bollocks. They’re taking us for morons and unfortunately most other football fans are willing to pick the baton up for them and run with it too.
I know we’re in a post truth world now where fact and opinion are increasingly blurred but don’t stand for it. Call them out every time and demand they correct their reporting. And for fans of other clubs parroting the same thing, expose them for the morons they are.
Rant over!
www.healthline.com
