Public perception and winning the case are unlikely to be mutually exclusive.The media would have portrayed us negatively whether that phrase was included or excluded. They hate us. If it helps us win the case, then include it. The best chance of winning the case should be the only consideration here, not public perception.
I’m pretty sure City would have considered how things will be presented by the media but they know the media will twist anything and everything to suit the narrative anyway. We know how it works and what we’re up against.
Oh I accept they can certainly make mistakes. I just don't take it for granted they have made one every time the media misrepresent something out of context.
There are far bigger misconceptions out there because of this btw, that the media have twisted out of this one.
I.e, that this is an attack on football as a whole and a retrospective attempt to abolish FFP. It is not, City have been on board with FFP for a decade, and with FMV for 3 years. It is one change, challenged as soon as it came about.
That it is a cynical attempt at tying up the PL resources to delay or stifle the 115 case.
That it is a revolt and an attempt to split and destabilise the league. To what benefit? It was the PL that is reported to have approached other clubs for statements of support, not City.
That City 'want to' inflate their deals and pump artificial money into the club. Says who, who can know such inner plans of the club? When so far that has been proven not to be the case.
And so on, many more.
Have the club then 'dropped a clanger' with every one of those, by not considering the PR fallout of the media twist on all of the above? C'mon, the club would never attempt Anything, not even one player signing, if they based their decisions on how the media present things to their audiences.
There will be far heavier words used than 'tyranny of the majority' in the submission. Like for example this being done by 'clubs intent on pursuing their own commercial interests'. That imo is far more openly critical, and direct, than a philosophical metaphor. Why hasn't That been discussed as much by the media though? Because it is harder to portray as one sided, and just Might lead to actual questions and heaven forbid discussion of other clubs' potential interests here.
I’ve not run with any interpretation. I’ve shared how the media have been reporting this phrase. If you can’t accept that City / our lawyers can make a genuine mistake then that’s up to you. It has already died down helped by very knowledgable Blues who have explained they City are almost certainly not taking on the Prem’s two thirds majority voting rule.
People who have worked on highly contentious legislation / litigations will understand how important the Comms often are.
I've learned a lot from Bluemoon. I had not come across the phrase in question (tyranny of the majority) before last week, and I was pleased to read and learn what it meant.Public perception and winning the case are unlikely to be mutually exclusive.
Absolutely cracking point!!They can all fuck off,
Arse, we practically paid for their fucking stadium by signing players from them at inflated prices.
Spuds, 50m for Walker. Levy was delighted.
Wolves, nice money for Nunes
Bournemouth, big wedge for Ake
Have I missed any?
These fucking Clubs are so repulsed by City but as soon as their is a whiff of £££, they can't help themselves.
Maybe problems with the out of context media usage but perhaps an example to the Panel of how leaks are still happening and how the media twist its meaning?Yes that’s nonsense because I haven’t said the document needs to be put through PR company. There’s no context where this wording looks good once leaked to the media. No doubt the lawyers thought the Prem would be more responsible with the document.
Nice one lolI've learned a lot from Bluemoon. I had not come across the phrase in question (tyranny of the majority) before last week, and I was pleased to read and learn what it meant.
Another phrase I first heard about on Bluemoon is the one about a strange hill to die on - when someone becomes so entrenched in a position that they defend it to the death, despite overwhelming opposition. That's your prerogative though, and I respect that.
I can see that too.Especially, when there appears to be no urgency from the Prem to identify the parties involved in the leak and to eradicate them.Maybe problems with the out of context media usage but perhaps an example to the Panel of how leaks are still happening and how the media twist its meaning?