Or finish top and win nothing (which Spurs would end up doing)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Much appreciated.I did click on it because Stefan is there but didn’t bother listening to Jordan’s apparent diatribe the other day.
My opinion;
Stefan- Controlled, factual, right on point. Deals with what is known and dismissed the reported rubbish regarding the consequences of a verdict either way.
Puts paid to the idea that this and the 115 charges are in any way related as none of the APT rules we are querying were in place for the period we are being charged for, for alleged accounting irregularities/fraud.
Jordan on the other hand- Agrees with Stefan but……
Here’s the bit I’m gathering isn’t normal for him when people who know better than him aren’t about.
But - I have tried my best to look at the whole interview impartially. It’s difficult I know as a City supporter who takes umbrage with the normal diatribe rubbish he is reported to come out with, along with many other clickbait media outlets…….
But, has the guy listened back to what he actually said.
He is saying that city are wrong, because we signed up to the rules of a club.
It was pointed out the rules were changed in 2013 after our first title.
We still prospered under the rules.
We prospered very well indeed and the rules were changed again in 2021, and we went with them although we expressed dissatisfaction with the expansion of rules that seemed aimed at one sector and the last straw was the further expansion which we deem illegal in February 2024.
I’ll paraphrase, but he basically interjected to say that we did very well and dominated under the rules for a decade and rules of games evolve in modern times and if we get these new rules overturned, imagine how successful we will be.
It’s mind boggling to him and he looks at it as City wanting an unfair advantage that nobody will be able to cope with.
Does he not realise he is basically admitting that the reasons for the rule changes all along have been to curb City and now the likes of us also.
That’s it there plain and simple. It is an open admission of what this is all about and yet he tries to maintain City are the bullies in how they are going about things.
He has also said yes, that makes him part of the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’.
Damn right it does as he and his media ilk openly peddle that message only dressed up nicely for their Majority audience who couldn’t give a fuck whether it’s tyranny/just/racist/ or not.
If this is the best that they can wheel out in the media to express the cartel victim card, then surely any neutral cannot be swayed by such drivel.
solley attwell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 2,338
Mmmm I can see that being popular with the red cartel boysAnd top four play off to be title champions! So finish fourth and could win the title
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
He made the comment City would be building “supremacy on top of supremacy” if the new APT rule got fucked off.I did click on it because Stefan is there but didn’t bother listening to Jordan’s apparent diatribe the other day.
My opinion;
Stefan- Controlled, factual, right on point. Deals with what is known and dismissed the reported rubbish regarding the consequences of a verdict either way.
Puts paid to the idea that this and the 115 charges are in any way related as none of the APT rules we are querying were in place for the period we are being charged for, for alleged accounting irregularities/fraud.
Jordan on the other hand- Agrees with Stefan but……
Here’s the bit I’m gathering isn’t normal for him when people who know better than him aren’t about.
But - I have tried my best to look at the whole interview impartially. It’s difficult I know as a City supporter who takes umbrage with the normal diatribe rubbish he is reported to come out with, along with many other clickbait media outlets…….
But, has the guy listened back to what he actually said.
He is saying that city are wrong, because we signed up to the rules of a club.
It was pointed out the rules were changed in 2013 after our first title.
We still prospered under the rules.
We prospered very well indeed and the rules were changed again in 2021, and we went with them although we expressed dissatisfaction with the expansion of rules that seemed aimed at one sector and the last straw was the further expansion which we deem illegal in February 2024.
I’ll paraphrase, but he basically interjected to say that we did very well and dominated under the rules for a decade and rules of games evolve in modern times and if we get these new rules overturned, imagine how successful we will be.
It’s mind boggling to him and he looks at it as City wanting an unfair advantage that nobody will be able to cope with.
Does he not realise he is basically admitting that the reasons for the rule changes all along have been to curb City and now the likes of us also.
That’s it there plain and simple. It is an open admission of what this is all about and yet he tries to maintain City are the bullies in how they are going about things.
He has also said yes, that makes him part of the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’.
Damn right it does as he and his media ilk openly peddle that message only dressed up nicely for their Majority audience who couldn’t give a fuck whether it’s tyranny/just/racist/ or not.
If this is the best that they can wheel out in the media to express the cartel victim card, then surely any neutral cannot be swayed by such drivel.
That is literally all we need to know.
Last edited:
Impeccable One
Well-Known Member
Can I just be stupid for a moment … If the PL voted on anally abusing the ref at half time and the vote was successful, 15-3-1, isn’t the point that the 1 who abstained, or the 3 who voted against, could take the PL to court as this PL rule is against the law. It’s that simple !?
‘Private Clubs’ no matter what members agree to when they join, can’t implement rules that are against the law of the land.
The below equation should help explain.
View attachment 122040
In English the above means… the menu said chicken for 1 was $39 and chicken for 2 was $78. Given chicken for 1 was $39 it is surplus to requirements for the menu to then say 2 was $78 when 2 x 39 is 78, it’s not like they are knocking anything off. I quipped that I bet chicken for 3 would be 117 (3 x 39) and then a couple of people related that to our 115 charges hence the $115 response.
Impeccable One
Well-Known Member
And top four play off to be title champions! So finish fourth and could win the title
And the red tops ask for a rule to change it to top six !
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,124
American owners want ROI ASAP and want to control spending in the PL because the outsized revenues help boost their ROI and allow them to fund OTHER THINGS.
Sheikh Mansour has created a system whereby he injected monies upfront, built a strong commercial enterprise which bacame a big deal in his home market. Home market companies latch on to the home market favorite for their sponsorship and Mansour adds other global companies as the success grows. Profits get reinvested, project becomes self- sustainable, American ownership groups object…while they all try to develop the EXACT SAME MULTI-CLUB GROUP STRUCTURE, albeit not always on the same sport!!
American sports are pretty socialist in their structure EXCEPT when it comes to the riches the ownership groups can cull from the commercial enterprise!!!
Revenue sharing of TV contracts, player salary caps, key player contracts to hold onto “franchise players,” and the MLS even owns the Adidas contract for every team’s kit, which is why NYCFC wear Adidas not Puma!
American leagues are set up to REWARD OWNERSHIP, even without success!!
The Premier League rewards WINNERS! However, now CITY ARE PERENNIAL WINNERS and the American clubs are not reaping those outsized rewards, THEY WANT NEW RULES!!
Transparent as anything and, if Arsenal, Liverpool and United started winning everything AGAIN, you wouldn’t hear a peep!
Sheikh Mansour has created a system whereby he injected monies upfront, built a strong commercial enterprise which bacame a big deal in his home market. Home market companies latch on to the home market favorite for their sponsorship and Mansour adds other global companies as the success grows. Profits get reinvested, project becomes self- sustainable, American ownership groups object…while they all try to develop the EXACT SAME MULTI-CLUB GROUP STRUCTURE, albeit not always on the same sport!!
American sports are pretty socialist in their structure EXCEPT when it comes to the riches the ownership groups can cull from the commercial enterprise!!!
Revenue sharing of TV contracts, player salary caps, key player contracts to hold onto “franchise players,” and the MLS even owns the Adidas contract for every team’s kit, which is why NYCFC wear Adidas not Puma!
American leagues are set up to REWARD OWNERSHIP, even without success!!
The Premier League rewards WINNERS! However, now CITY ARE PERENNIAL WINNERS and the American clubs are not reaping those outsized rewards, THEY WANT NEW RULES!!
Transparent as anything and, if Arsenal, Liverpool and United started winning everything AGAIN, you wouldn’t hear a peep!
Bit of an extreme example but I get your point, I’d have gone with serving alcohol to under 18’s personally but each to their own! :)Can I just be stupid for a moment … If the PL voted on anally abusing the ref at half time and the vote was successful, 15-3-1, isn’t the point that the 1 who abstained, or the 3 who voted against, could take the PL to court as this PL rule is against the law. It’s that simple !?
‘Private Clubs’ no matter what members agree to when they join, can’t implement rules that are against the law of the land.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Can I just be stupid for a moment … If the PL voted on anally abusing the ref at half time and the vote was successful, 15-3-1, isn’t the point that the 1 who abstained, or the 3 who voted against, could take the PL to court as this PL rule is against the law. It’s that simple !?
‘Private Clubs’ no matter what members agree to when they join, can’t implement rules that are against the law of the land.
Tbf most of them deserve a severe bumming so I’d be all for that such a rule change.