City launch legal action against the Premier League | Unconfirmed reports that City have secured "potentially significant victory" (p 808)

flb said:
The muted club world cup has two English clubs invited, us and Chelsea, now that really is boiling piss for the two red shirted clubs.

www.nytimes.com

The new Club World Cup will miss many of the world's biggest sides. Does it matter?

FIFA's latest brainchild will be missing some major stardust when it begins next summer. How does that affect its potential appeal?
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t wipe my arse with it, even if it’s on my iPad, let alone pay £1 a month for 12 months to read it.

IMG_1419.jpeg

Something we all thought would be different at the start, but it eventually turned into yet another Red Shirt Cartel online football tabloid.

As for the NYT, just replace that with J.W. Henry, FSG and LFC, who were part owners of the NYT, hence why it got and published all the UEFA FFP leaks about City, as well as running all the anti-City articles and stories.
 
JewelZee said:
Agree, but if you are going to impose such limits they can't be different for every team. A spending cap is agreed to and everyone is subject to the same limit. This idea of applying limits on a club by club basis stemming from "revenue" is preposterous especially when the so-called revenue is defined by a whole bunch of subjective, convoluted made up rules. Restricting owner investment is even more absurd. I don't see any world where any of the PSR rules would stand up in a court of law. It's always been the richest clubs win the most. And that was always OK and understood. Until someone richer came along. These rules are an obvious response to such one-time clubs being unhappy with someone richer joining the party. It's a fucking disgrace and mind boggling to me that it's been allowed to go on for so long unchallenged in a court of law. And in the Prem it's actually gotten further and further away from legal competitive principles. The ironic thing is if these same American owners tried this shit in the US it wouldn't stand a chance. Thus the salary caps used in the NFL, NBA, and NHL. Imagine telling the Dallas Cowboys they can spend half a billion while telling the Jacksonville Jaguars they can only spend 200 mil because Dallas has more fans, more commercial income, and a bigger "history" regardless of the fact that the Jaguars' owner might be twice as rich as the Cowboys owner? (hypothetical) Insanity, pure insanity...
Click to expand...
Cut n pasted this to use in the increasingly hysterical and quite nasty WhatsApp shit I’m getting from mates of other clubs. Well put mate
 
Alfie Budd said:
There's unlikely to be any news whatsoever until the judge's decision which could still be months away. Civil cases dealing with competition law are pretty unsexy and uninteresting as far as the media is concerned - proceedings tend to be (unless you're a keen student of cases like this) somewhat tedious and rarely if ever get reported by news platforms irrespective of how high profile the case is until there's a decision.
Click to expand...
Yes mate but even in the past when we had good news they spin it around like cas for example just glad of a few days piece from the fuckers
 
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.