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

The Stockport Iniesta said:
FFP, was originally about controlling debt but the G14 wouldn't have it, Platini said this was the initial aim but he was scared of a breakaway if he took them on.

Then once the City takeover happened the G14 went back to Platini and basically forced a bastardised version of FFP that was aimed at stopping investment.

We know which clubs are cheats, and City's not one of them. We also know which individuals are bent, and non of them are in the boardroom at City either.
Click to expand...

Platini should be called as a witness.
 
Chris-NCL said:
This is something that I have argued.

If they really wanted to protect clubs from going bust, then debt would be how you control it. Teams are allowed to be in debt. Man Utd are somewhere between £600m-£1bn in debt, depending on who and when you ask the question. Spurs have financed a stadium of £1bn, Arsenal were in debt on their stadium for a long time, and possibly still are. The Premier League green lighted a leveraged takeover of Burnley who were getting relegated.
Debt, and in particular external debt is the threat to a clubs existence, not ownerships who are willing to put money into a club.

It’s amazing, at the beginning of the year my local non-league club nearly went out of business. The money isn’t there for non-league clubs, and they basically run off the fact that you have owners who put money into them, without taking it out to keep them going. Our whole non-league pyramid survives on this concept, yet get further up the league and it’s not allowed?
Click to expand...
100% Just wait until Wrexham get up there...and they will....
 
Chris-NCL said:
This is something that I have argued.

If they really wanted to protect clubs from going bust, then debt would be how you control it. Teams are allowed to be in debt. Man Utd are somewhere between £600m-£1bn in debt, depending on who and when you ask the question. Spurs have financed a stadium of £1bn, Arsenal were in debt on their stadium for a long time, and possibly still are. The Premier League green lighted a leveraged takeover of Burnley who were getting relegated.
Debt, and in particular external debt is the threat to a clubs existence, not ownerships who are willing to put money into a club.

It’s amazing, at the beginning of the year my local non-league club nearly went out of business. The money isn’t there for non-league clubs, and they basically run off the fact that you have owners who put money into them, without taking it out to keep them going. Our whole non-league pyramid survives on this concept, yet get further up the league and it’s not allowed?
Click to expand...
Your right it's a massive contradicton
 
JCB001 said:
100% Just wait until Wrexham get up there...and they will....
Click to expand...
It would seem totally unfair that Wrexham have a famous bona-fide superhero in Deadpool running the club and fighting off rivals when the world's biggest club only have Worzel Gummidge. His only power is touching up Aunt Sally round the back of the barn or Old Trafford as some ptefer to call it..

Steps must be taken.
 
hilts said:
It would seem totally unfair that Wrexham have a famous bona-fide superhero in Deadpool running the club and fighting off rivals when the world's biggest club only have Worzel Gummidge. His only power is touching up Aunt Sally round the back of the barn or Old Trafford as some ptefer to call it..

Steps must be taken.
Click to expand...

Because he is world famous look at the sponsors he is able to get as I've said before it's always who you know that gets you what you want or job wise
 
inbetween said:
To be fair, anybody could argue that United bring in their own income which is fair enough.

However, even if United bring in X income, what's the argument? Is that to say that it's better and fairer for United to win the league and get the best players because of their income? It's a shit argument and it reduces football to nothing more than an excel spreadsheet.

If anything, the only way to break the Premier League in terms of competition is to allow clubs to compete and unfortunately in this day and age that means allowing them to spend money.
Click to expand...

StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
We oldies can remember when United did not by any stretch of the imagination bring in their own income. In fact the last time was when Ferguson became manager and the club tried to knock Liverpool "off the f****** perch" by embarking on a massive spending spree to rebuild their squad. In fact they rebuilt it three times, each time funded by asking the shareholders to dip in their pockets. Funnily enough they changed their minds on the wisdom of allowing "other clubs" to take this approach and so, ironically, it was United who proposed regulations to limit severely the money owners could put into their clubs, because it was only fair play to do so because it ruined the profitability and sustainability of such clubs, whereas a debt of £1 billion did not.
Click to expand...
"March 1902, at a meeting in the New Islington Hall, Stafford announced to Newton Heath supporters that he, Davies and three other local businessmen had agreed to invest £200 each in the club in order to save it after a winding-up order had been issued two months earlier.[11]

The grave of John Henry Davies in Southern Cemetery, Manchester
Under Davies's stewardship, the club changed its name to Manchester United FC and switched colours from white and navy to the now-famous red, white and black."

"Only 3,507 fans turned up to watch the club's first home game of the 1931/32 season, Southampton ending 3-2 winners, and by the start of December, United sat 14th in England's second division. The magnificent Old Trafford stadium was almost empty, its team a shadow of their former selves.

So, December came, and Crickmer, still fulfilling his duties as club secretary as well as manager, went to the bank to pick up his players' wages. They waited patiently in his office, but Walter was delayed. At the bank, he was told that MUFC could not pay its players' wages."

The ONLY reason why trafford exist now is because they were bankrolled TWICE.
 
halfcenturyup said:
That would be three embarrassing defeats for the PL in a row: not understanding their own rules, adopting rules that are illegal, and making serious allegations of fraud they can't prove.

Perfect hat trick!
Click to expand...

We still get fined £50 million and a suspended points deduction for 'non cooperation" to keep the redshirts happy to continue chatting shit about us.
 
Last edited:
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.