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

[Stoned Rose]

City can’t be sending letters?

Fuck off you silly little ****.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Not my experience

Good management means that you ensure that you have 'all your ducks lined up' before the vote

Perhaps just the sectors that I have worked in

It's not a board meeting anyway, it's a shareholders' meeting. There isn't the same sort of relationship as there is between board members.

 

[Oldham Exile]

Not sure they’re allowed to do that.

Oh - there are certainly ways of working with your stakeholders to be able to gauge which way they will vote

 

[ayrshire_blue]

What time is the vote?

Quarter past one (am).

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Quarter past one (am).

Sneaky....

 

[Oldham Exile]

It's not a board meeting anyway, it's a shareholders' meeting. There isn't the same sort of relationship as there is between board members.

I would suggest that it's the same principle - if Masters was any good and was working with all 20 clubs - not just a few - he would have the relationships in place to be able to gauge (and perhaps steer) how clubs will vote.

Anyway I will get off this topic - I don't want to distract. It just seems standard good stakeholder management to me - happens all the time

 

[Blue Mist]

I keep borrowing @TinFoilHat hat,
maybe it's time I got my own but.....
Since the tribunal, the Pl have scheduled one meeting but then cancelled and now organised tomorrows vote. Between the 2 nothing changed so why the need for tomorrow's meeting ?
I reckon the sole reason for doing this is to keep showing City in a bad light via the media.
They know it is sensible to wait for the full verdict but that doesn't allow the media to paint us as the bad guys.
(Don't forget who interviewed Masters before he was allowed to get the job.)

The problem with doing it this way is that people are starting to realise how bent/incompetent the Premier League is.
The cartels plan could end up back firing.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I would suggest that it's the same principle - if Masters was any good and was working with all 20 clubs - not just a few - he would have the relationships in place to be able to gauge (and perhaps steer) how clubs will vote.

Anyway I will get off this topic - I don't want to distract. It just seems standard good stakeholder management to me - happens all the time

From what I remember, board meetings are like herding sheep. Shareholder meetings are like herding cats.

But I do take your point that the PL should only be proposing votes that are in the interest of the league as a whole. It would be much easier to determine voting intentions in that case. Although the unruly mess we have at the moment makes that almost impossible, I imagine.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I keep borrowing @TinFoilHat hat,
maybe it's time I got my own but.....
Since the tribunal, the Pl have scheduled one meeting but then cancelled and now organised tomorrows vote. Between the 2 nothing changed so why the need for tomorrow's meeting ?
I reckon the sole reason for doing this is to keep showing City in a bad light via the media.
They know it is sensible to wait for the full verdict but that doesn't allow the media to paint us as the bad guys.
(Don't forget who interviewed Masters before he was allowed to get the job.)

The problem with doing it this way is that people are starting to realise how bent/incompetent the Premier League is.
The cartels plan could end up back firing.

Not sure any of that matters, even if it is a nuisance for City fans in England.

But I can't help thinking there is a cartel-inspired strategic reason for having the vote, come what may. Maybe it's just as simple as presenting the tribunal with a fait accompli - we have implemented new rules, problem over - in the hope that is the end of it. Or maybe it's to counter a more sophisticated, as yet unknown, attack strategy from City.

The vote can still get pulled, of course.

I suppose we will find out soon enough .....

 

[halfcenturyup]

An enormous word salad.

Not sure what his point was.