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

[halfcenturyup]

It certainly seems that way but why are the PL clubs that won't be in the ESL supporting this stupidity?

Because their objectives are different but what they all want often meets. The clubs at the bottom want to be able to invest and stay in the PL; the clubs in the middle don't want the bottom clubs investing and catching them up with them; the clubs below City either want to invest to catch up to City, or just want to cripple City so they can catch up without investing (in either case, they don't want any newcomers investing and overtaking them). So you get turkeys voting for more food, but then Christmas comes along.

There is nothing wrong with a two thirds majority, of course. The problem lies in which votes are put before the meetings in the first place. Someone needs to be filtering out proposals for votes which are not in the interest of the league in the long term. Proposals which are legally suspect, for one, and proposals that restrict investment, for another. It's Masters' job. And he is piss awful at it.

 

[spiny]

Masters really is an idiot. Not qualified for the job with no obvious leadership skills. Scudamore was much smarter and cunning.

Masters has proved a USEFUL idiot to the red cartel. I can understand why others before him rejected the job.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Masters has proved a USEFUL idiot to the red cartel. I can understand why others before him rejected the job.

His actions are destroying the PL. He can’t blame it all on the clubs. Trying to reduce external investment in any business is just madness. The issue has always been debt.

 

[mancboy]

They probably see a win-win scenario whatever the outcome. Either City are destroyed or the PL is so discredited they get the super league. Potentially they could get both if the American owners totally dominate majority voting to push through any changes they please.

If local supporters boycott games they can relocate the franchise eg as the New York Rags, Boston Dippers, California Arse and so get their games in the USA. They only see the money they can make.

This obsession with getting games in the usa is a weird one for me because while you may get a big crowd in for a one off game like a pre season friendly, it is not sustainable at all because as much as we all love football in america it is an incredibly poor relation behind the nfl, nba, mlb and even nhl and it just wouldnt draw people away from that on a regular basis, and even if you got 1 game there say the rags vs the dippers the most you could get is 120 000 in a college stadium and i wouldnt imagine a tremendous amount for the broadcasting rights, i just dont see where the big financial upside is over a sustained period of time.

 

[Dubai Blue]

I don't see any need at all for spending limits. I can't see what they achieve.

Fair enough. Just being realistic, I guess. We're never going to get back to a point where an owner can theoretically splurge billions on a club every year while everyone else is left scrambling behind.

 

[BlueAnorak]

The problem for the Cartel is they're all loaded up with debt and can't compete with a relatively debt free organisation. (Hence the UEDA 70% spending rule). And now a similar rule for the rest of the Prem - even though they don't have UEFA competition cash.

 

[flb]

Because their objectives are different but what they all want often meets. The clubs at the bottom want to be able to invest and stay in the PL; the clubs in the middle don't want the bottom clubs investing and catching them up with them; the clubs below City either want to invest to catch up to City, or just want to cripple City so they can catch up without investing (in either case, they don't want any newcomers investing and overtaking them). So you get turkeys voting for more food, but then Christmas comes along.

There is nothing wrong with a two thirds majority, of course. The problem lies in which votes are put before the meetings in the first place. Someone needs to be filtering out proposals for votes which are not in the interest of the league in the long term. Proposals which are legally suspect, for one, and proposals that restrict investment, for another. It's Masters' job. And he is piss awful at it.

The puppet Masters should be fucking ashamed of himself, Everton and Forest escaped relegation by the skin of their teeth season just gone, points deducted through the disgusting rules and regulations that he endorsed, almost nearly finished Everton as a football club, Forest another club , wanting to invest in themselves to climb the PL ladder. All we have heard off the fans of both clubs "what about City?" If the penny hasn't dropped for both of those clubs then it never will. The January transfer window has become largely a non event, clubs looking over there shoulders with an eye on June 30th , clubs shitting themselves , selling players below market value to stay on the right side of sanctions. Its an absolute fucking disgrace tbh. The shit would have really hit the fan if either of those clubs had been relegated through point reductions. You can bet Masters was relieved that neither club went down. Their is a root and branch trimming of overheads at United , even that shower of shit are panicking, if the stories are true that potential suitors turned down the job because of no real pot to buy players with then that says it all, and it still wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that scruffy Jim is siding with City on this, or put it this way, it could be just that he's a shit house who cant be seen to be siding with City because of the almighty, superior standing that he thinks his club still has, they need sponsors and revenue more than any club in the league, there are only so many noodle sponsors you can have to keep the wolf away from the door. Associated sponsorship might be our problem today, but you can 100% be sure it will be uniteds problem tomorrow.

 

[khoitnm]

Because their objectives are different but what they all want often meets. The clubs at the bottom want to be able to invest and stay in the PL; the clubs in the middle don't want the bottom clubs investing and catching them up with them; the clubs below City either want to invest to catch up to City, or just want to cripple City so they can catch up without investing (in either case, they don't want any newcomers investing and overtaking them). So you get turkeys voting for more food, but then Christmas comes along.

There is nothing wrong with a two thirds majority, of course. The problem lies in which votes are put before the meetings in the first place. Someone needs to be filtering out proposals for votes which are not in the interest of the league in the long term. Proposals which are legally suspect, for one, and proposals that restrict investment, for another. It's Masters' job. And he is piss awful at it.

That's basically "one sheep and 2 wolves vote for the breakfast" story.

 

[East Level 2]

Because their objectives are different but what they all want often meets. The clubs at the bottom want to be able to invest and stay in the PL; the clubs in the middle don't want the bottom clubs investing and catching them up with them; the clubs below City either want to invest to catch up to City, or just want to cripple City so they can catch up without investing (in either case, they don't want any newcomers investing and overtaking them). So you get turkeys voting for more food, but then Christmas comes along.

There is nothing wrong with a two thirds majority, of course. The problem lies in which votes are put before the meetings in the first place. Someone needs to be filtering out proposals for votes which are not in the interest of the league in the long term. Proposals which are legally suspect, for one, and proposals that restrict investment, for another. It's Masters' job. And he is piss awful at it.

I find it hard to believe that fans on a City forum can see the medium and long-term problems for these mid and lower-table clubs, but they can't see it for themselves. Blinded by the light, or blinded by the red shite?

 

[flb]

This obsession with getting games in the usa is a weird one for me because while you may get a big crowd in for a one off game like a pre season friendly, it is not sustainable at all because as much as we all love football in america it is an incredibly poor relation behind the nfl, nba, mlb and even nhl and it just wouldnt draw people away from that on a regular basis, and even if you got 1 game there say the rags vs the dippers the most you could get is 120 000 in a college stadium and i wouldnt imagine a tremendous amount for the broadcasting rights, i just dont see where the big financial upside is over a sustained period of time.

Rags v Dippers eh? When the PL viewing figures coming out of America show its City who are the big draw out there. Its just another example of how big and mighty those two clubs think they are. City's Instagram followers eclipse Liverpool's, and we are gaining fast on the shower of shit from Trafford. United, living off dominance twenty years ago, Liverpool , a club that relies heavily on YNWA pumped through speakers at the beginning of a game, one fucking title in 30 years. Kids of today don't really give a shit about either club, they want to see breath taking football on the pitch which City serve up season in season out.