The Stockport Iniesta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 9,617
Samwallace is the Swahili word for nonce.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | Unconfirmed reports that City have secured "potentially significant victory" (p 808)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Fuck__ ing___ hell!
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
Smith Bros Animal Products - the Kingston Stink. Appalling beyond imagination.
More proof for us not co-operating with the amount of leaks
spider blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 277
How unfortunate, would have done a great job for us.
BeerIsTheBest
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 1,918
The Associated bit is in my view the nub. An extended Middle Eastern ruling family will have multiple people ‘associated’ with the head of the State in positions of authority and power.
The PL change to move to ‘associated’ created a subtle (and overtly racist in my view) blunt instrument tor the PL to use against us. It’s no wonder we abstained from the vote on its introduction and have taken action.
It’s also no wonder that the PL Chairman chose as part of the ‘associated’ Regs to insert the clause to give themselves immunity from personal prosecution on decisions on sponsorship etc. They knew at the time of the introduction that this would probably come back to bite arses.
Take a look at the attached article from the Athletic (2022) which I remember posting a while back. It shows examples of how ‘associations’ could be used punitively against us. E.g PL decide that ‘they can’t sponsor you coz your daughter / brother/ first cousin is on the Board,’
www.nytimes.com
The PL change to move to ‘associated’ created a subtle (and overtly racist in my view) blunt instrument tor the PL to use against us. It’s no wonder we abstained from the vote on its introduction and have taken action.
It’s also no wonder that the PL Chairman chose as part of the ‘associated’ Regs to insert the clause to give themselves immunity from personal prosecution on decisions on sponsorship etc. They knew at the time of the introduction that this would probably come back to bite arses.
Take a look at the attached article from the Athletic (2022) which I remember posting a while back. It shows examples of how ‘associations’ could be used punitively against us. E.g PL decide that ‘they can’t sponsor you coz your daughter / brother/ first cousin is on the Board,’
Special report: Manchester City's sponsors, the links to Abu Dhabi and what it means for Newcastle United
Many of City's sponsors have links to people who run the club, their families or others in Abu Dhabi
www.nytimes.com
eastmanc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 7,916
- Team supported
- Manchester city
The damage was done years ago. I for one am glad we are pushing back finally.
City really needed to make an official statement, or at least brief their side to a friendly journalist, to counteract some of the nonsense like this that we’re going to see in the coming days.
There is a Light
Well-Known Member
Bring it on
Legal Alien
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2021
- Messages
- 3,536
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I said this the other day, the initial Etihad sponsorship deal was for 10 years and while i agree it was inflated and over valued at the beginning when looked at it in yearly isolation, once we won the league in 2012 with the best PL ending ever seen, which was broadcast all over the world, everyone knew our name and our success on and off the pitch took off.
Consequently at the end of the 10 years the deal was so under valued it wasn't even funny.
The thing that i find amazing is that no one in the media has even bothered to recognise that the value for money our sponsors and owner have had over the last 14 years has been staggering and unmatched by any other club in England.
Long may it continue!
I'm all for us going after them all. Let them have it CITY!!!!