City launch legal action against the Premier League

Even though the final verdict isn’t going to be made public, there is absolutely no way it won’t get out into the public domain. Somebody will leak it. (to a journalist) We’ll find out the outcome of the hearing eventually.
 
I'm Blue said:
So we only need one more club to support us and we can vote the rule out anyway.
Click to expand...
Supporters, not clubs, unfortunately. Clubs with little or no threat from City are still voting on the side of the PL and the red shirt cartel clubs.
 
Wonder if everton will provide support now they are getting a new owner worth 100billing. dell is going to look good on the front of their shirt.
 
terraloon said:
And that why I as a fair minded person who just happens to be a Chelsea supporter am ok with City testing the rule.
I however am far from sure re the aspect where they challenge a 75% majority and suspect based on simple company provision which require special resolutions majority of that same % may well be justified although it’s fair to note that simple resolutions require just a majority. I am far from an expert in this field but I would imagine that this requirement isnt going away if it does I would imagine the Artickes of association would be re written
Click to expand...
When this broke, or was leaked as usual last week, that was a phrase I was uneasy with.
However after Stefan’s Talksport spot with Danny Murphy, I got my head around it a lot better.
The Tyranny of the Majority….. hmmm! Anti-democratic?
Well that depends doesn’t it. It is a legal phraseology and really without us seeing the context of where it is referred to in the 165 page document, we should not jump to conclusions, although I have my suspicions as to what it may be referencing.
Majority rule is democratic but not necessarily always just.
You can see where that could be going when having your competitors having the power to make rules that hamper you alone.

I work with many Liverpool and United supporters and at least one Arsenal supporter too. I was off work last week and am expecting a barrage of abuse/banter when I go in tomorrow.

The example of Tyranny of the majority that I plan to use, bearing in mind im Irish working in Dublin goes as follows…. Without wishing to offend any sensibilities in the UK…
We have a long history on this island of although being in the majority as Catholics, being in the minority, represented in parliament. Why? Catholics couldn’t stand for parliament before emancipation. Laws kept in place by a governing majority. Were they just? Well let’s just say, it caused a lot of bother over here for a long time.

Spring forward to an even better example in 1960’s Northern Ireland. There was a Protestant majority in the North and they liked to keep it that way. Even in constituencies that they didn’t necessarily have the majority. Gerrymandering of constituency borders was the order of the day to achieve this goal. Had councils got the majority vote to do this? Yes.
Does it make it right?
Well let’s just say this and the civil rights being undermined in general, caused a spot of bother up there.
Not sure if you noticed or not.

Anyway, like I said, Ive no wish to make anyone uncomfortable with a somewhat political contribution, but it does demonstrate the principle of tyranny of the majority, in my book and hopefully will hit a nerve over here when trying to explain what’s going on.

Incidentally all’s good that ends well. How was the North resolved. By inclusiveness and sincere dialogue (the GFA)

Let’s hope what comes out of this PL/Cartel debacle will be every bit as innovative.
 
It should be what the UN do. Any 1 vote against can veto a resolution.
 
terraloon said:
And that why I as a fair minded person who just happens to be a Chelsea supporter am ok with City testing the rule.
I however am far from sure re the aspect where they challenge a 75% majority and suspect based on simple company provision which require special resolutions majority of that same % may well be justified although it’s fair to note that simple resolutions require just a majority. I am far from an expert in this field but I would imagine that this requirement isnt going away if it does I would imagine the Artickes of association would be re written
Click to expand...

I doubt very much City are "challenging" the two-thirds rule. I think they are challenging the APT rules as onerous, discriminatory and unnecessary from a sporting viewpoint.

The reference to voting, I would imagine, is just to support the idea of discrimination. "Tyranny of the majority" after all is a construct in support of the rights of minorities (which is also enshrined in corporate law along with the idea of a two-thirds majority). I think the point is: when you have discriminatory rules, in a conspiratorial environment, the minorities lose out.

And I think City can prove that. I also think the email disclosure requirement will support it (especially as I think it is likely the club already has some incriminating correspondence). Whether that is enough to prove the rules are anti-competitive, we will have to wait and see.
 
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.