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

Chris-NCL said:
Thing is, if Man Utd never bought the league starting in the 50’s, then again in the 90’s, would they have the income they do now to be able to argue that?

The same old story with football and all sports, right from PNE first paying their players. In every sport, it’s always been the same reason why one team is better than the other, money. I could go around the corner to the notorious Meadowell estate and find you a dozen people who have the great ability to race a car, but it was Hamiltons dad with the money and the F1 connections that allowed him to go go-carting since the age of 4 and made him into a champion.
Football isn’t about to introduce a global spending and wage cap, nor is it going to introduce rules that you can only field players who were raised within a certain radius of the club, a la Bilbao. Until they do either, I’ll forever argue that it’s unfair to simply get to a point and cut off the people who have money, from those who don’t.
Click to expand...
I agree totally. United, Arsenal and Liverpool were in the right place at the right time to ride the wave of money growth in football, especially the TV money which let's face it has destroyed grass roots football. Youngsters today basically can't watch live football unless their parents can afford Sky.

It's the TV money and explosion of sponsorship that has changed the field today but the league has had no problem with that have they? We'd probably be nowhere today without the investment but that's because Sky have been pumping United full of £m's whilst we were in Division 2 getting probably £10k for winning the playoffs.

When it comes to fairness they need to stop asking us why we're spending our own money and start asking why the winner of the Championship gets £6m and the club that gets relegated from the Premier League and finishes 20th gets £100m. It's no bloody wonder some clubs are poor and some are rich with that impossible gulf between them.
 
inbetween said:
I agree totally. United, Arsenal and Liverpool were in the right place at the right time to ride the wave of money growth in football, especially the TV money which let's face it has destroyed grass roots football. Youngsters today basically can't watch live football unless their parents can afford Sky.

It's the TV money and explosion of sponsorship that has changed the field today but the league has had no problem with that have they? We'd probably be nowhere today without the investment but that's because Sky have been pumping United full of £m's whilst we were in Division 2 getting probably £10k for winning the playoffs.

When it comes to fairness they need to stop asking us why we're spending our own money and start asking why the winner of the Championship gets £6m and the club that gets relegated from the Premier League and finishes 20th gets £100m. It's no bloody wonder some clubs are poor and some are rich with that impossible gulf between them.
Click to expand...

" Yes but a strong MU is good for the PL " I believe was a famous quote.

The PL and Masters the redshirt puppet seems to think that situation should be maintained at any cost, even if it is totally undeserved and not based upon footballing merit.

The PSR " allowances " granted to the rags would seem to confirm their stance is resolute and probably corrupt. Apparently the rags were the only club in the UK who were affected by Covid .
 
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.