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

bluenova said:
The OP asked if a particular reference to the Middle Eastern owners was racist. It wasn't, and it's a fairly straightforward argument why.

The fact that the two clubs in the PL with Middle Eastern owners have so much more wealth, power, and influence over a huge number of companies, is factual. It is absolutely vast in comparison to any other owners, who are already some of the wealthiest individuals around. It's therefore a legitimate concern for the PL, that currently only applies to the two Middle East owned clubs. Describing them as such is factual, not racist.

If you want to accuse someone of racism, then stick to incidents which are clearly racist, of which there are plenty. Don't give them an easy argument by overstretching.

It reminds me of a lecturer I had at University. He worked with Government ministers, and said that if they didn't want to do something, they would never try to challenge the hard argument. They'd pick up on something easy, and say 'if you got that wrong, then the rest of your argument is probably rubbish too'.
Click to expand...
I think you need to be carful that you don’t fall into the trap of our detractors.

We are not invested in by a state or or state company, or sovereign wealth fund.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Silverlake or Todd at Chelsea have more invested in / control / influence more companies than Sheik. Khaldoon as high up at Mabuala excuse the spelling. Would be another.

The sheik does however perhaps have the most connections of anyone but a lot of that politics. And even in business how many will do he a favor to the level required to be an issue e.i sponsors over what would be fair. Connections only get you so far. You need a good offer legitimate offer a side offer deal off the books or control via shares. There is also a limit to how many sponsors anyone can get especially at the high end. 1 shirt sponsor but maybe a banking partner per region. The sheik could get 1000 mates to agree to sponsor us but if they pay market rates or clash with existing sponsors it doesn’t make any difference
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Or they might just wonder why it's teams from the lower end of the PL who fall foul of the regulators ... apart from the mighty "Man" Utd's city rivals. And the "other" Merseyside club!
Click to expand...
The "lower" teams have to look after their interests, just as the giants do, this is a ruthless business, don't think we are not trying to look after ourselves.
 
Academica said:
Thinks we lost on the main points of the case, otherwise the Premier League would have already have changed the rule book.
Click to expand...
Trouble is - as Stefan says - we don’t know exactly what City were challenging & which issues they wanted to win. I’m not sure they wanted the rules changing - more the way they are applied & they may have been successful in that aspect???
 
Gordyola said:
Tony Book should have told Swales to fuck off but his love of the club and his respect for Mal he didn't Mal was suppose to be assistant but his personality took over He wrecked the team that had finished second in the First Division which we never really recovered from
Click to expand...
True but sadly Tony did as he was told.
 
jrb said:
For a change, the vast majority of comments under the article in the Daily Mail from fans of other clubs are seeing Masters and the PL as they are. And as we know they are.

And no surprise, there are hardly any comments from the Red Shirt cartel fans, who would have been all over the article if City had lost and the PL had won.
Click to expand...
Incredible isn't it, I read the article and scrolled down to the comments expecting the usual bile, I nearly spat my coffee out reading them, the tide is changing?
 
bluenova said:
The OP asked if a particular reference to the Middle Eastern owners was racist. It wasn't, and it's a fairly straightforward argument why.

The fact that the two clubs in the PL with Middle Eastern owners have so much more wealth, power, and influence over a huge number of companies, is factual. It is absolutely vast in comparison to any other owners, who are already some of the wealthiest individuals around. It's therefore a legitimate concern for the PL, that currently only applies to the two Middle East owned clubs. Describing them as such is factual, not racist.

If you want to accuse someone of racism, then stick to incidents which are clearly racist, of which there are plenty. Don't give them an easy argument by overstretching.

It reminds me of a lecturer I had at University. He worked with Government ministers, and said that if they didn't want to do something, they would never try to challenge the hard argument. They'd pick up on something easy, and say 'if you got that wrong, then the rest of your argument is probably rubbish too'.
Click to expand...

Agree with the above - merely refrring to them as Middle Eastern owners is factual. However, the fact is that the Middle Eastern owners operate within the same rule book as all the other club owners - the FFP/PSR and FIFA, UEFA, PL, FA rulebooks. If any owner decides that they wish to operate out of those rules and, say, spend hundreds of millions extra on their club, then they would be brought to task by the relevant authorities as we all know...

So what is racist (or probably more accuratly xenophobic) is the assertion that because the Middle Eastern owners have access to huge funds, they will go out to break the rules to allow them to spend more. Unlike the other owners who, depsite often having equally large disposable incomes, do not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.