Premier league Civil War

[TremulousTetra]

I'm a City fan, and my speculation is this;
It depends whether you want football to be a sport, or a business competition.

The Premier League is a business.
The Premier Leagues formation was a wealth grab, where the founding members of the Premier League got a bigger share of the revenues from Sky TV et cetera than non-Premier League members. The old football league used to be run on a more egalitarian, sporting competitive format. Where the richest clubs to some extent subsidised the poorest clubs, to make the leagues a more sporting level playing field. This meant that clubs like Nottingham Forest could come out of the 2nd division, win the first division and win the European cup. For not only was the English league and more sportingly even league, so was Europe. The European cup was just a European wide sporting competition, not the massive profit producing Champions League we have today.

The Champions League and the Premier League created super wealthy clubs like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, and others. Every year their bench was more valuable than most other teams whole team. And where Real Madrid and Barcelona would often have "Galactico" players for which was paid world-record prices. Since the Premier league Manchester United has broken the "record spend on a player record" more times than any other club in history. Manchester United would use its economic power to nobble opponents, such as Newcastle, by buying their star player for a record price, Andy Cole.

Did Abramovich by Chelsea as a plaything, I'm not sure. His spending blew everybody else out of the water. But he also had a long term plan of stockpiling players throughout Europe, upon which he made money, but never played for Chelsea. Perhaps he saw a gap in the market.

A lot of people thought the Sheikh had bought Manchester City as a plaything. More recently "sports washing". But the truth is, this is a BILLIONAIRE interested in diversifying his wealth production from oil, to other fields. In this case wealth production through sports ownership, not just in England, but 13 clubs throughout the world. This will be done by creating a brand through a major club, Manchester City, through the use of business best practice in every area of the club. Not just the best manager in the world, but the best in the world of physios, secretaries, CEOs, EVERYWHERE. This guy isn't motivated by image, religion, or anything else other than MAKING MONEY.

This is nothing new. Harry Redknapp, I think, said a long time ago "if you look at the wage bills of any teams in the Premier league in a league table, the league table of wages virtually perfectly matches where the team will end up in the Premier League at the end of the "sporting" season. The Premier league is an ECONOMIC competition, to make the biggest profits, and through that produce the best football teams ever seen. The Premier League is already the European Super League. Throughout the league from top to bottom we have the best football athletes in the world. The Premier League is more competitive now, with the first time in its history a 3 horse race for winning the Premier league (2 within 2 weeks for 3 teams, and on the final day of the season for 2), than it's ever been. The champions league, less so. As the Premier league is economically crushing all the other European leagues. THIS is why so many of the old money clubs of Europe are desperate for the European Super League, because without that money trough they will become extinct. Look for example at Barcelona and all the other the old money clubs of Europe, they are becoming economically derelict.

Show Sheikh Mansour is interested in nothing else but making money. This is one business competing with other businesses according to the rules.

Competition Laws.

LAW, trumps any organisation's rules in a country. So the Premier League can have any rules it wants, but if they do not comply to the law of the land, they are illegal in this country so they are null and void. City fans have been trying to explain this to other fans for years now.

The old money clubs like Manchester United had a monopoly. Every year they created massive profits, every year they bought the best players, every year they won the best prize money, every year they created massive profits, every year they bought the best players, every year they won the best prize money, for 13 Premier League titles out of 18!!! Manchester United absolutely economically dominated the league, and through the economic domination dominated the league in 'sport' (well sport without a sporting chance). Teams like Leeds and Manchester City have lashed out the cash to trying catch United a couple of decades ago, and it almost broke both clubs. City have always been one of the biggest spenders in England's top flight, through which it amassed the 6th highest points tally in the history of the English top-flight. But United crushed as a business allcomers. United never had any limits on what they could spend, and nor did Arsenal Liverpool Blackburn and Chelsea.

In 2021 The Premier League brought in the "Newcastle rule". A rule specifically designed to stymie Newcastle from using its newfound wealth to outcompete the old money businesses of United Liverpool and Arsenal. This is why Pep Guardiola said about the 115 charges "as Julius Caesar said there are no friends there are no enemies, there are only interests (economic)". The majority of clubs in the Premier league have got together and said "look, if we don't protect what we've got we will lose the lot, as these new billionaires run their clubs more efficiently and just blow us out of the water. So we will create this rule that stops Newcastle from financially doping the team, like United Arsenal Liverpool Blackburn and Chelsea did." Does this Premier league rule break England's business antimonopoly laws on competition? The lawyers will decide.

 

[twistedAM]

Another City fan chipping in.
I've long thought that the Abu Dhabi involvement in football is of course about money but is also about a lot more than football. I haven't looked at all 13 markets that City Football Group has invested in in depth, but I'd hazard a guess that a lot of those cities offer great investment opportunities for urban redevelopment, Etihad Airways and other Abu Dhabi businesses.
And, as you rightly pointed out they're more efficient than the old money crew, some of whom see football clubs as a nice asset strip.
It's essentially an economic battle between oil states and American capital.

 

[Cerberus]

Thoughtful and well made points above. I’m not a legal expert and sports washing / capitalism leaves me feeling cold (sick). In short, I find it vulgar and unedifying but I’m also a football fan (Spurs btw) so I’m obviously a hypocrite - as we all are as football fans who crave success, the best players, results etc.

The short and personal answer to this is to walk away and go to watch lower league football. Although, all professional football is effected by what happens at the very top of the game.

Be that as it may, there’s a cultural (if you will) aspect to all this. I honestly don’t think City attracts the kind of ‘feeling’ or even enmity that United did in their pomp, or Liverpool or Leeds before them. It all feels so remote due to the nature of globalisation. Where once, a rich local businessman would get involved and pump large amounts (actually small amounts) into their clubs (Jack Walker let’s say, maybe even Peter Swales) it’s now a sovereign territorial state. And one that is morally questionable, if not morally bankrupt.

I spoke to a Fulham fan on the way home from watching City pump them 4-0. He’d spent several hours in the pub with other Fulham fans who all agreed City had ‘killed football’. The main point being that the sort of players they had at their disposal both starting and on the bench allied to how the manager wanted to completely dominate has stymied completion. Of course, the 115 charges were mentioned. We agreed that City didn’t appear to pay the biggest transfer fees but there must be something going on with wages - where the extra cash has been diverted into players accounts!? I don’t know?

Either way, we just saw a robotic win machine built by an oil rich state looking to diversify before the black stuff runs out. I don’t really have any feeling about City. I’m a Londoner and a Spurs fan though and my focus is Arsenal and Chelsea when it comes to rivalry. On Chelsea - I’m hindsight, should Abramovich have been allowed to take over at Chelsea? I see Man City in the same light (minus the local rivalry).

If I was an Everton fan or a Forest fan I’d be demanding to know why City and Chelsea haven’t been dealt with yet - from my layman’s perspective, am I correct in thinking it’s the power and ability to ‘lawyer up’ of City/Chelsea?

 

[pbsmooth]

I'm a City fan, and my speculation is this;
It depends whether you want football to be a sport, or a business competition.

The Premier League is a business.
The Premier Leagues formation was a wealth grab, where the founding members of the Premier League got a bigger share of the revenues from Sky TV et cetera than non-Premier League members. The old football league used to be run on a more egalitarian, sporting competitive format. Where the richest clubs to some extent subsidised the poorest clubs, to make the leagues a more sporting level playing field. This meant that clubs like Nottingham Forest could come out of the 2nd division, win the first division and win the European cup. For not only was the English league and more sportingly even league, so was Europe. The European cup was just a European wide sporting competition, not the massive profit producing Champions League we have today.

The Champions League and the Premier League created super wealthy clubs like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, and others. Every year their bench was more valuable than most other teams whole team. And where Real Madrid and Barcelona would often have "Galactico" players for which was paid world-record prices. Since the Premier league Manchester United has broken the "record spend on a player record" more times than any other club in history. Manchester United would use its economic power to nobble opponents, such as Newcastle, by buying their star player for a record price, Andy Cole.

Did Abramovich by Chelsea as a plaything, I'm not sure. His spending blew everybody else out of the water. But he also had a long term plan of stockpiling players throughout Europe, upon which he made money, but never played for Chelsea. Perhaps he saw a gap in the market.

A lot of people thought the Sheikh had bought Manchester City as a plaything. More recently "sports washing". But the truth is, this is a BILLIONAIRE interested in diversifying his wealth production from oil, to other fields. In this case wealth production through sports ownership, not just in England, but 13 clubs throughout the world. This will be done by creating a brand through a major club, Manchester City, through the use of business best practice in every area of the club. Not just the best manager in the world, but the best in the world of physios, secretaries, CEOs, EVERYWHERE. This guy isn't motivated by image, religion, or anything else other than MAKING MONEY.

This is nothing new. Harry Redknapp, I think, said a long time ago "if you look at the wage bills of any teams in the Premier league in a league table, the league table of wages virtually perfectly matches where the team will end up in the Premier League at the end of the "sporting" season. The Premier league is an ECONOMIC competition, to make the biggest profits, and through that produce the best football teams ever seen. The Premier League is already the European Super League. Throughout the league from top to bottom we have the best football athletes in the world. The Premier League is more competitive now, with the first time in its history a 3 horse race for winning the Premier league (2 within 2 weeks for 3 teams, and on the final day of the season for 2), than it's ever been. The champions league, less so. As the Premier league is economically crushing all the other European leagues. THIS is why so many of the old money clubs of Europe are desperate for the European Super League, because without that money trough they will become extinct. Look for example at Barcelona and all the other the old money clubs of Europe, they are becoming economically derelict.

Show Sheikh Mansour is interested in nothing else but making money. This is one business competing with other businesses according to the rules.

Competition Laws.

LAW, trumps any organisation's rules in a country. So the Premier League can have any rules it wants, but if they do not comply to the law of the land, they are illegal in this country so they are null and void. City fans have been trying to explain this to other fans for years now.

The old money clubs like Manchester United had a monopoly. Every year they created massive profits, every year they bought the best players, every year they won the best prize money, every year they created massive profits, every year they bought the best players, every year they won the best prize money, for 13 Premier League titles out of 18!!! Manchester United absolutely economically dominated the league, and through the economic domination dominated the league in 'sport' (well sport without a sporting chance). Teams like Leeds and Manchester City have lashed out the cash to trying catch United a couple of decades ago, and it almost broke both clubs. City have always been one of the biggest spenders in England's top flight, through which it amassed the 6th highest points tally in the history of the English top-flight. But United crushed as a business allcomers. United never had any limits on what they could spend, and nor did Arsenal Liverpool Blackburn and Chelsea.

In 2021 The Premier League brought in the "Newcastle rule". A rule specifically designed to stymie Newcastle from using its newfound wealth to outcompete the old money businesses of United Liverpool and Arsenal. This is why Pep Guardiola said about the 115 charges "as Julius Caesar said there are no friends there are no enemies, there are only interests (economic)". The majority of clubs in the Premier league have got together and said "look, if we don't protect what we've got we will lose the lot, as these new billionaires run their clubs more efficiently and just blow us out of the water. So we will create this rule that stops Newcastle from financially doping the team, like United Arsenal Liverpool Blackburn and Chelsea did." Does this Premier league rule break England's business antimonopoly laws on competition? The lawyers will decide.

unfortunately, this is misguided. whether through ignorance or standard football fan blinkers.

some reading for you:

https://archive.ph/hhqVg

https://archive.is/HCBjQ

 

[The39thStep]

Thoughtful and well made points above. I’m not a legal expert and sports washing / capitalism leaves me feeling cold (sick). In short, I find it vulgar and unedifying but I’m also a football fan (Spurs btw) so I’m obviously a hypocrite - as we all are as football fans who crave success, the best players, results etc.

The short and personal answer to this is to walk away and go to watch lower league football. Although, all professional football is effected by what happens at the very top of the game.

Be that as it may, there’s a cultural (if you will) aspect to all this. I honestly don’t think City attracts the kind of ‘feeling’ or even enmity that United did in their pomp, or Liverpool or Leeds before them. It all feels so remote due to the nature of globalisation. Where once, a rich local businessman would get involved and pump large amounts (actually small amounts) into their clubs (Jack Walker let’s say, maybe even Peter Swales) it’s now a sovereign territorial state. And one that is morally questionable, if not morally bankrupt.

I spoke to a Fulham fan on the way home from watching City pump them 4-0. He’d spent several hours in the pub with other Fulham fans who all agreed City had ‘killed football’. The main point being that the sort of players they had at their disposal both starting and on the bench allied to how the manager wanted to completely dominate has stymied completion. Of course, the 115 charges were mentioned. We agreed that City didn’t appear to pay the biggest transfer fees but there must be something going on with wages - where the extra cash has been diverted into players accounts!? I don’t know?

Either way, we just saw a robotic win machine built by an oil rich state looking to diversify before the black stuff runs out. I don’t really have any feeling about City. I’m a Londoner and a Spurs fan though and my focus is Arsenal and Chelsea when it comes to rivalry. On Chelsea - I’m hindsight, should Abramovich have been allowed to take over at Chelsea? I see Man City in the same light (minus the local rivalry).

If I was an Everton fan or a Forest fan I’d be demanding to know why City and Chelsea haven’t been dealt with yet - from my layman’s perspective, am I correct in thinking it’s the power and ability to ‘lawyer up’ of City/Chelsea?

Seeing as Chelsea reported the breaches themselves to the EPL I wouldn't think the delay is anything to do with being lawyered up tbh. The breaches were made during the Abramovich era , not under the new owners . All in all, it seems that a fine will be the penalty, obviously if the club thought any sanctions was onerous they would then appeal and bring the lawyers in.

 

[twistedAM]

Thoughtful and well made points above. I’m not a legal expert and sports washing / capitalism leaves me feeling cold (sick). In short, I find it vulgar and unedifying but I’m also a football fan (Spurs btw) so I’m obviously a hypocrite - as we all are as football fans who crave success, the best players, results etc.

The short and personal answer to this is to walk away and go to watch lower league football. Although, all professional football is effected by what happens at the very top of the game.

Be that as it may, there’s a cultural (if you will) aspect to all this. I honestly don’t think City attracts the kind of ‘feeling’ or even enmity that United did in their pomp, or Liverpool or Leeds before them. It all feels so remote due to the nature of globalisation. Where once, a rich local businessman would get involved and pump large amounts (actually small amounts) into their clubs (Jack Walker let’s say, maybe even Peter Swales) it’s now a sovereign territorial state. And one that is morally questionable, if not morally bankrupt.

I spoke to a Fulham fan on the way home from watching City pump them 4-0. He’d spent several hours in the pub with other Fulham fans who all agreed City had ‘killed football’. The main point being that the sort of players they had at their disposal both starting and on the bench allied to how the manager wanted to completely dominate has stymied completion. Of course, the 115 charges were mentioned. We agreed that City didn’t appear to pay the biggest transfer fees but there must be something going on with wages - where the extra cash has been diverted into players accounts!? I don’t know?

Either way, we just saw a robotic win machine built by an oil rich state looking to diversify before the black stuff runs out. I don’t really have any feeling about City. I’m a Londoner and a Spurs fan though and my focus is Arsenal and Chelsea when it comes to rivalry. On Chelsea - I’m hindsight, should Abramovich have been allowed to take over at Chelsea? I see Man City in the same light (minus the local rivalry).

If I was an Everton fan or a Forest fan I’d be demanding to know why City and Chelsea haven’t been dealt with yet - from my layman’s perspective, am I correct in thinking it’s the power and ability to ‘lawyer up’ of City/Chelsea?

Loads of points there which I largely agree with and raise more points
1. Sportswashing and all this stuff about a tyrannical state with crap human rights. The USA has used sports and culture to wash since forever. I hate both for the record.
2. Lower league football. Tbh all this winning had made it less fun to follow Man City from the days when they were better known as Typical City. I've taken a lot more interest in the Irish League over the past few years and even in that twelve team league it's dominated by the four big Belfast teams (including Linfield that gets a handy paycheck from the IFA for Windsor Park) and new money Larne who got a big wad from the guy who founded Purple Bricks. So teams like Dungannon Swifts have to battle relegation year in year out and hope for a purple year where they might scrape into Europe and get beat over two legs from a team from the Faroe Islands. Capital just has a way of creating and elite that is hard to break into.

 

[two sheds]

unfortunately, this is misguided. whether through ignorance or standard football fan blinkers.

some reading for you:

https://archive.ph/hhqVg

https://archive.is/HCBjQ

Interesting, I hadn't realized what it was about:

Introduced in December 2021 in the wake of the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle United, the rules are designed to maintain the competitiveness of the Premier League by preventing clubs from inflating commercial deals with companies linked to their owners. The rules dictate that such transactions have to be independently assessed to be of “fair market value” (FMV).

But within an 165-page legal document City argue that they are the victims of “discrimination”, describing rules they say have been approved by their rivals to stifle their success on the pitch as a “tyranny of the majority”.

If City are successful in their claim — and some rival clubs fear they will be — it could enable the richest clubs to value their sponsorship deals without independent assessment for the league, vastly boosting the amount of money they can raise and therefore giving them far greater sums to spend on players.

The league’s other 19 clubs have been invited to participate in the legal action and The Times understands between ten and 12 have stepped forward, providing either witness statements or a letter detailing evidence in support of the Premier League’s defence against the claim. Those who have provided witness statements may be called by the tribunal to give evidence at the hearing.

It has been alleged that City concealed payments made by their owner Sheikh Mansour through third parties and disguised them as sponsorship revenue, which in itself was inflated. Even before the more recent moves by the Premier League to tighten regulation around APTs, there was a requirement under the league’s rules that related party transactions must be of fair market value. If such rules are now deemed unlawful, it could significantly strengthen City’s defence at the hearing later this year. City have denied any wrongdoing relating to the 115 charges.

City want the right to make inflated payments so they can corner all the best players because they can afford them? So, really to carry on what they have been doing even though it's banned by the FA? Looks to me like a lawyers' response to being found out in something illegal to avoid punishment.

eta: 'tyranny of the majority'

 

[TremulousTetra]

unfortunately, this is misguided. whether through ignorance or standard football fan blinkers.

some reading for you:

https://archive.ph/hhqVg

https://archive.is/HCBjQ

2nd paragraph completely wrong. This is nothing to do with 115. No connection whatsoever. What is being challenged in court is the 2021 rule change.

More importantly, a media company whose only purpose is to make profit from selling advertising space, has cherry picked from the document, instead of releasing the whole document to public scrutiny. So all the arguments in that are pure speculation as to what the truth is of this document.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Interesting, I hadn't realized what it was about:






City want the right to make inflated payments so they can corner all the best players because they can afford them? So, really to carry on what they have been doing even though it's banned by the FA? Looks to me like a lawyers' response to being found out in something illegal to avoid punishment.

eta: 'tyranny of the majority'

like Blackburn, Chelsea, did and United Liverpool Arsenal did having sole access to the champions league through their economic power?

 

[two sheds]

Well surely that's even more reason to try to prevent it. I did feel that your original post was saying that the Premier League's "wealth grab" was wrong but that Man City's wealth grab is good. It's going to come at the expense of the other clubs, though.

 

[two sheds]

2nd paragraph completely wrong. This is nothing to do with 115. No connection whatsoever.

It obviously is though

 

[TremulousTetra]

Thoughtful and well made points above. I’m not a legal expert and sports washing / capitalism leaves me feeling cold (sick). In short, I find it vulgar and unedifying but I’m also a football fan (Spurs btw) so I’m obviously a hypocrite - as we all are as football fans who crave success, the best players, results etc.

The short and personal answer to this is to walk away and go to watch lower league football. Although, all professional football is effected by what happens at the very top of the game.

Be that as it may, there’s a cultural (if you will) aspect to all this. I honestly don’t think City attracts the kind of ‘feeling’ or even enmity that United did in their pomp, or Liverpool or Leeds before them. It all feels so remote due to the nature of globalisation. Where once, a rich local businessman would get involved and pump large amounts (actually small amounts) into their clubs (Jack Walker let’s say, maybe even Peter Swales) it’s now a sovereign territorial state. And one that is morally questionable, if not morally bankrupt.

I spoke to a Fulham fan on the way home from watching City pump them 4-0. He’d spent several hours in the pub with other Fulham fans who all agreed City had ‘killed football’. The main point being that the sort of players they had at their disposal both starting and on the bench allied to how the manager wanted to completely dominate has stymied completion. Of course, the 115 charges were mentioned. We agreed that City didn’t appear to pay the biggest transfer fees but there must be something going on with wages - where the extra cash has been diverted into players accounts!? I don’t know?

Either way, we just saw a robotic win machine built by an oil rich state looking to diversify before the black stuff runs out. I don’t really have any feeling about City. I’m a Londoner and a Spurs fan though and my focus is Arsenal and Chelsea when it comes to rivalry. On Chelsea - I’m hindsight, should Abramovich have been allowed to take over at Chelsea? I see Man City in the same light (minus the local rivalry).

If I was an Everton fan or a Forest fan I’d be demanding to know why City and Chelsea haven’t been dealt with yet - from my layman’s perspective, am I correct in thinking it’s the power and ability to ‘lawyer up’ of City/Chelsea?

yes I agree with all that, But would go further.

If you're interested in sport and its death, then the Premier league and the Champions League are far more the culprits than Manchester City. Manchester City are the end result of the Thatcherisation of English football. All you accuse Manchester City of doing, Manchester United did before them. They ran Manchester United as a business, financially out competing others, then sporting out competing others by breaking the transfer record over and over and over. The Socialist worker newspaper predicted in 1990 that the richest club would dominate, and as a city fan I knew would be United, And they did with 13 titles out of 18. It was a champions league that created super spending by superrich clubs. Man city just came in and out businessed the old money businesses.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It obviously is though

well we will see in 6 weeks time when just like CAS they will say there is no evidence of international accountancy fraud by Citigroup and Etihad and several other companies. Do you really think a billionaire who is interested in nothing else but making money would jeopardise billions of investments in 14 different clubs around the world without decent accountants? do you really think Etihad would open its books to scrutiny by going public, if there was evidence of fraud?

 

[two sheds]

The thing with billionaires is that they tell the best accountants and lawyers exactly what they want to do, and the best accountants and lawyers go off and try to justify what they want to do.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Well surely that's even more reason to try to prevent it. I did feel that your original post was saying that the Premier League's "wealth grab" was wrong but that Man City's wealth grab is good. It's going to come at the expense of the other clubs, though.

no mate, I'm not saying Sheikh Mansour's money grab is good. Just a continuation of what Manchester United and Chelsea Liverpool Arsenal and Blackburn have done. No different, they just did it more professionally in every single area. That's all we're doing cheering on the greatest businesses. Thankfully as Manchester city fan is quite delightful to watch, day out to the pub and the match LOL

 

[TremulousTetra]

The thing with billionaires is that they tell the best accountants and lawyers exactly what they want to do, and the best accountants and lawyers go off and try to justify what they want to do.

precisely, just like Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Blackburn Rovers. That's why this isn't about the 115, they've already dealt with that years ago. Really look at the findings of the CAS. The media has pretended they haven't, because of click bait. Money. It's the story of everything.

 

[two sheds]

Must admit I know sod all about this, though, so I'll bow out. I heard that Greaves sold for £99,000 because he didn't believe any player was worth £100,000 and I feel it's sort of gone downhill since then.

 

[belboid]

yup, there is absolutely no difference between a nation state and the bloke who owned a dozen butchers shops.

City fans really are delusional.

 

[RD2003]

Interesting, I hadn't realized what it was about:






City want the right to make inflated payments so they can corner all the best players because they can afford them? So, really to carry on what they have been doing even though it's banned by the FA? Looks to me like a lawyers' response to being found out in something illegal to avoid punishment.

eta: 'tyranny of the majority'

City are challenging a rule which has not yet come into effect. and which is an amendment to a rule they previously accepted. Any club has the right to do this within the PL's own constitution. If succesful the challenge will see things revert to how they were before February.

Talk of PL 'civil war' is pure hyperbole.

 

[The39thStep]

The thing with billionaires is that they tell the best accountants and lawyers exactly what they want to do, and the best accountants and lawyers go off and try to justify what they want to do.

or they employ the accountants who devised the FFP

 

[Pickman's model]

City are challenging a rule which has not yet come into effect. and which is an amendment to a rule they previously accepted. Any club has the right to do this within the PL's own constitution. If succesful the challenge will see things revert to how they were before February.

Talk of PL 'civil war' is pure hyperbole.

Yeh but hyperbollocks get attention

 

[Maltin]

The OP was TLDR. Can someone summarise? I assume it’s mostly suggesting that City are hard done by and it’s unfair to punish them for breaking any rules?

 

[Pickman's model]

I miss the auld man city, the days of a trip to maine road meaning a reliable 3 points are sadly long gone

 

[Pickman's model]

The OP was TLDR. Can someone summarise? I assume it’s mostly suggesting that City are hard done by and it’s unfair to punish them for breaking any rules?

I think so, I didn't read it all either

 

[tommers]

The OP was TLDR. Can someone summarise? I assume it’s mostly suggesting that City are hard done by and it’s unfair to punish them for breaking any rules?

They're just the latest in a long line of people buying the league and it's not fair that they're not allowed to.

And everybody is jealous of their magical football or something.

 

[RD2003]

yup, there is absolutely no difference between a nation state and the bloke who owned a dozen butchers shops.

City fans really are delusional.

Not that City are really owned by a nation state, but the days when blokes owning a chain of shops could run successful football clubs are lost in the mists of time.

The top clubs at the time thought they'd cornered the market with the formation of the PL, not realising that in making it all about the money more than ever before, bigger and better 'players' would move in.

Football has become embroiled in a business war. The self-entitled clubs in the PL and other top European leagues can't afford to let new challengers in as missing out means losing tens upon tens of millions. For US owners in particular, with their model of taking out more than they invest in a club, this is unacceptable.

 

[two sheds]

If succesful the challenge will see things revert to how they were before February.

what changed in February?

 

[RD2003]

The OP was TLDR. Can someone summarise? I assume it’s mostly suggesting that City are hard done by and it’s unfair to punish them for breaking any rules?

It's simple. City deny breaking any rules and so have mounted a legal challenge, as is the right of any club.

 

[RD2003]

what changed in February?

Look it up. It's pointless commenting on something if you don't know what the issue even is.

 

[two sheds]

Not that City are really owned by a nation state, but the days when blokes owning a chain of shops could run successful football clubs are lost in the mists of time.

The top clubs at the time thought they'd cornered the market with the formation of the PL, not realising that in making it all about the money more than ever before, bigger and better 'players' would move in.

Football has become embroiled in a business war. The self-entitled clubs in the PL and other top European leagues can't afford to let new challengers in as missing out means losing tens upon tens of millions. For US owners in particular, with their model of taking out more than they invest in a club, this is unacceptable.

this would make it even worse though?

It's all fucking meaningless, obscene amounts of money the wankers and (worse) their agents make. A lot of the improvements in the game since Greaves' time come down to today's training methods rather than players being more motivated by earning huge amounts. If players can't be motivated to play the best they can unless they're paid more than say £100,000 a year then fuck them, they should go and do something else.