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

I don't think so, and I'd be wary of being too loose with the term.

A lot of people mocked the club when they suggested Klopp might be racist, but I think his statement was. He suggested three clubs (and he was talking about those with Middle Eastern owners) could outspend Liverpool, which is obviously nonsense, particularly given how PSR has prevented Newcastle getting within a few hundred million of Liverpool's income.

In this case, it's a legitimate concern that Newcastle and City do have the ability to bring in vastly more money from related parties than any other PL clubs. While we're not technically state owned, the links between our owners and chair, and a huge number of state linked companies in the UAE is a matter of fact.

So, while it was racist to single out the clubs with Middle Eastern ownership with a bogus argument, I don't think it's racist to link them when the concerns are based on a legitimate one (even if it's one that many here don't agree matters).
Roan is racist to the core but the BBC lawyers keep his effluent in check. The redshirt anti-arab propaganda and their "financially doped/sportswashed/ dirty cheating oil club" narrative is imprinted on his ugly City-hating brain.
 
Last edited:
I don't think so, and I'd be wary of being too loose with the term.

A lot of people mocked the club when they suggested Klopp might be racist, but I think his statement was. He suggested three clubs (and he was talking about those with Middle Eastern owners) could outspend Liverpool, which is obviously nonsense, particularly given how PSR has prevented Newcastle getting within a few hundred million of Liverpool's income.

In this case, it's a legitimate concern that Newcastle and City do have the ability to bring in vastly more money from related parties than any other PL clubs. While we're not technically state owned, the links between our owners and chair, and a huge number of state linked companies in the UAE is a matter of fact.

So, while it was racist to single out the clubs with Middle Eastern ownership with a bogus argument, I don't think it's racist to link them when the concerns are based on a legitimate one (even if it's one that many here don't agree matters).

Like the Liverpool owner his first shirt sponsors was initially 16m then he got one from someone he new in a company for 25m so big business people who are worth a fortune always have a pull in the sponsor world!
 
I know. I actually didn't read it before I posted but wow, what's going on?
It is a well written piece. I can’t believe the BBC has reported actual facts rather than another snide opinion article. It’s what the BBC are meant to do. A rare thing indeed. No repetition or spelling mistakes either. A complete one-off I guess.
 
Before I give that knob a click have the club made any official statement or comment on this whatsoever? Or is that headline typical misleading bollocks?
There’s been no statement from the club, other than a spokesman saying “As you know, we are not in a position to comment…”.

Lawton is clearly well connected though, with one of his close colleagues being married to Arsenal’s CCO, so I think it’s naive to suggest that he’s purely guessing here. I imagine he’ll know the mood music around the PL about how the hearing went.
 
It is a well written piece. I can’t believe the BBC has reported actual facts rather than another snide opinion article. It’s what the BBC are meant to do. A rare thing indeed. No repetition or spelling mistakes either. A complete one-off I guess.
I'm guessing Slimey Stone didn't write it then.
 
It is a well written piece. I can’t believe the BBC has reported actual facts rather than another snide opinion article. It’s what the BBC are meant to do. A rare thing indeed. No repetition or spelling mistakes either. A complete one-off I guess.
That or they both know the result but can't comment (yet / ever).

The good part of it is, that it's now fairly clear that we didn't try to get it all thrown out, just this years changes, and also that there now seems to be some support for the club from other clubs.
 
The 120 years is wrong should be 32, since 1992 PL was formed

Nobody ever questioned the Premier League becoming a farmers league when United won 13 titles in 20 years
Again would anybody have Questioned the rules and brought in FFP if Sheikh Mansour bought United

United can go and fuck off if they want their ball back because NO fucking rule changes will make Manchester City a little club, CITY vs UNITED is a simple answer, one club thinks football owes them everything and should roll over because of a badge, and the other earned every single point and titles and silverware with players and managers giving 110% blood sweat and tears fighting against the other
 
Like the Liverpool owner his first shirt sponsors was initially 16m then he got one from someone he new in a company for 25m so big business people who are worth a fortune always have a pull in the sponsor world!

I don't think there's much point comparing the two. Clearly our owners have the clout of a nation state, not just access to the occasional friendly deal.

There are plenty of arguments to make against the shit that people throw at City, but I think it's self evident that our owner and chair have more direct influence, over more companies, and more wealth, than the owners of any PL club apart from Newcastle.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.