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

[bobbyowenquiff]

Yeah, I didn’t think the Middle Eastern reference was particularly racist in the context of that article. It’s hardly akin to Barney Ronay’s “grinning beards” comment.

It has been a consistent theme for Roan though.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Does this affect the 115 case though?? Stefan was saying on talksport the other day that this case is totally unrelated to the 115 case and it will have no bearing on it,

But something tells me we were advised off our legal team to do this because they must see something in it to help us towards the 115 case?

Completely unrelated.

 

[John Wayne]

Well, no, I think that diminishes any argument about racism.

If you tell a rival fan that the US owners of Arsenal, United and Liverpool, nicknamed our owners "terrorists", then it's an easy argument to win, and most people would agree that's racism.

If you try and suggest every mention of "Middle East" owners is racist, when there are differences that do only currently apply to them, then anyone who doesn't support City is likely to roll their eyes, and it weakens any genuine arguments about racism.

I agree with this view. The fears about Middle Eastern ownership aren't necessarily racist. The fear for most is that Middle Eastern owners are highly ambitious, serious and willing to invest large sums of money into the game that many of their counterparts from other countries simply cannot afford. As you rightly say, if our executives are referred to as "terrorists" then the racism is blatant. Context is key. It is acceptable to reference Middle-Eastern ownership as being different or better for the same reason that it is acceptable to criticise the American ownership model.

 

[johnny crossan]

Well, no, I think that diminishes any argument about racism.

If you tell a rival fan that the US owners of Arsenal, United and Liverpool, nicknamed our owners "terrorists", then it's an easy argument to win, and most people would agree that's racism.

If you try and suggest every mention of "Middle East" owners is racist, when there are differences that do only currently apply to them, then anyone who doesn't support City is likely to roll their eyes, and it weakens any genuine arguments about racism.

Just to be clear, you don't think their "dirty, cheating, sportswashing state-controlled arab oil club" narrative is overtly racist?

 

[bluenova]

Do you think their "dirty, cheating, sportswashing state-controlled arab oil club" narrative isn't overtly racist?

Apologies for being direct Johnny, but I don't think that makes any sense as a reply to my comment.

I've given a couple of examples of what I believe is racism against our owners, so of course I believe there is a racist element. I am not sure how much clearer I can be, that this doesn't automatically make every discussion about ours and Newcastle's owners racist.

 

[TheGhost]

Yep. Thats when the cartel shafted the rest of the football pyramid for their own gain

PJ Swales was at the forefront of that shafting

 

[BringBackSwales]

PJ Swales was at the forefront of that shafting

I still get the fucking blame for everything even decades after my death

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I still get the fucking blame for everything even decades after my death

Get back in the ground you wig wearing ****

 

[meltonblue]

I agree with this view. The fears about Middle Eastern ownership aren't necessarily racist. The fear for most is that Middle Eastern owners are highly ambitious, serious and willing to invest large sums of money into the game that many of their counterparts from other countries simply cannot afford. As you rightly say, if our executives are referred to as "terrorists" then the racism is blatant. Context is key. It is acceptable to reference Middle-Eastern ownership as being different or better for the same reason that it is acceptable to criticise the American ownership model.

The issue to me is the Newcastle deal should
never have been allowed, there was always going to have to be some form of APT rules as soon as it was.

Some could argue that applies to us too and the other court case ongoing might show that, but the key differentiator being we’re privately owned, albeit from a member of the ruling family of a state rather than the state itself.

 

[I'm Blue]

Does this affect the 115 case though?? Stefan was saying on talksport the other day that this case is totally unrelated to the 115 case and it will have no bearing on it,

But something tells me we were advised off our legal team to do this because they must see something in it to help us towards the 115 case?

No it doesn’t.
It does play a huge part in emptying the PL bank account though : )