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

[Newman Noggs]

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'.

Whilst I, largely, agree with you, I think there is an underlying assumption propagated by the media that Middle Eastern businesses which choose to sponsor a club with a Middle Eastern owner are doing so for something other than commercial reasons. It doesn't make sense.

The fact is, that for a club today, a mega-wealthy owner is an absolute necessity if they want to break into the top 4 where the most income is. It is not Jack Walker, it's a Jim Ratcliffe, Sheikh Mansour, Abramovic or one of the many other billionaire owners that is required.

The difference is that there is a general assumption that the motivation for someone from the Middle East to own a club is different to that of, say, an American. As Sheikh Mansour has shown, this is not true. Other clubs are far outspending us driving up transfer fees and wages. The same goes for Middle East sponsors. There is an assumption that they are sponsoring a club because of the undue influence of the owner rather than for commercial reasons. Again, this has proved to be wholly untrue. When you compare the success of the Etihad sponsorship with, say, Team viewer, Chevrolet or Standard Chartered, there would be no argument that their sponsorship of City was anything other than a commercial one based on complete faith in our owner and his business record.

I think the "sportswashing" nonsense has provided the "fig-leaf" behind which to hide flagrant sabotage of a rival's business strategy.

 

[johnny crossan]

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'.

If you compare the liquid resources available to the UAE or Saudi sovereign wealth funds with those of hedge funds behind ownership of the US branded PL clubs they are actually very similar despite the overall total size difference.

I would also argue as a result the cartel club investors have as much power and influence over companies as well as equally usable wealth. The legitimate concerns of the PL should therefore extend to all such ownership models. Consequently your first premise fails if my contentions are correct.

The continuous use of the ethnicity linked via ''state control','sportwashing','hr abuser', 'dirty oil cheats' tropes in the US cartel propaganda is clearly discriminatory by CRE definition and used to feed their openly racist media attacks.
Thus I would argue your second premise is also ill-founded.

So go ahead and I look forward to your thoughts on my refutation of your 'hard argument' - but please resist facile 'factual' embellishments that add nothing to logical cogency of your case (which relies on its form not its content btw - in case you bump into your old lecturer again ;-)

 

[TheGhost]

Omar will be the source.

But I am still very unsure we have got what we really wanted, the rules were not changed yesterday, so let's not get too carried away yet.

He’s more leaky than a colander

 

[Resurrection Joe...]

He’s more leaky than a colander

aye...they call him 'the stadium roof....

 

[Keeper!]

He’s more leaky than a colander

Like his gaffs roof ;)

 

[Oldham Exile]

must have been a real joy to be able to speak without being talked over

 

[Stoned Rose]

That just about sums up how fucked everything is.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Whilst I, largely, agree with you, I think there is an underlying assumption propagated by the media that Middle Eastern businesses which choose to sponsor a club with a Middle Eastern owner are doing so for something other than commercial reasons. It doesn't make sense.

The fact is, that for a club today, a mega-wealthy owner is an absolute necessity if they want to break into the top 4 where the most income is. It is not Jack Walker, it's a Jim Ratcliffe, Sheikh Mansour, Abramovic or one of the many other billionaire owners that is required.

The difference is that there is a general assumption that the motivation for someone from the Middle East to own a club is different to that of, say, an American. As Sheikh Mansour has shown, this is not true. Other clubs are far outspending us driving up transfer fees and wages. The same goes for Middle East sponsors. There is an assumption that they are sponsoring a club because of the undue influence of the owner rather than for commercial reasons. Again, this has proved to be wholly untrue. When you compare the success of the Etihad sponsorship with, say, Team viewer, Chevrolet or Standard Chartered, there would be no argument that their sponsorship of City was anything other than a commercial one based on complete faith in our owner and his business record.

I think the "sportswashing" nonsense has provided the "fig-leaf" behind which to hide flagrant sabotage of a rival's business strategy.

Top post.

 

[Paladin]

We talk about the outcome being confidential between City and the PL. The PL isn't just Masters, it is all of the clubs within the league, so am I right in thinking that all the clubs will know the outcome of the ATP hearing? Surely, leaks to the media are somewhat inevitable if this is the case.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

We talk about the outcome being confidential between City and the PL. The PL isn't just Masters, it is all of the clubs within the league, so am I right in thinking that all the clubs will know the outcome of the ATP hearing? Surely, leaks to the media are somewhat inevitable if this is the case.

Matt Lawton has just been on TS saying that both us and the Premier league must give permission, to inform the other clubs. We don't have to tell them the result.