Premier league Civil War

[TremulousTetra]

Where are the allegations of money laundering? Can you quote them? As for allegations of 'cooking the books,' as I say, wait and see what the IC decides.

Pbsmooth shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about in conflating the hearing currently under way with the supposed '115 charges,' when they are two entirely separate cases. He does it again in calling the former a 'court case' when it isn't being heard in any law court, and indulges in the media-driven hyperbole about 'bringing down the league,' after it has already been pointed out that it's a challenge to a rule change not yet in effect which will result, if successful, in merely taking things back to how they were last February.

Lastly, Blackburn had to do nothing of the kind because... no such rules and regulations existed at the time, and club owners were allowed to spend their money as they saw fit. United were able to dominate during that period, picking off other clubs' best players, precisely for that reason. When they were no longer able to dominate on the pitch, and when Ferguson's retirement revealed them to be a bit of a shambles behind the scenes, they got together with other clubs to try and re-establish the previous situation through bureaucratic methods.

and you correctly point to the malevolent intent in FFP. For the only way you can assess a new rule, is to weigh up how would off affected the past. If you take the title off FFP transgressors since 1992, and give the title to the team who came 2nd, you end up with United 19 PL titles, Arsenal 8, Liverpool 4 and nobody else.

 

[tommers]

I think we should call an intervention.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think the argument is that more money will solve the problems of big money fucking up football, but only if you're a Man City supporter.

as a city fan, I think the formation of the Premier league and UEFA fucked it up, and city are just part of that fuck up now.

 

[RD2003]

Anyway, for anybody who's interested, here's a sensible article on the case that's currently in process.


'In a nondescript chambers in the EC4 area of London, an arbitration is taking place that will change football for ever. Or maybe not. That will usher in a duopoly lasting decades. But probably won’t. That will destroy the very fabric of the game we know and love. Although that’s really quite unlikely.

We’ve heard from everybody in the past week, since The Times broke the story of Manchester City’s challenge to the Premier League. Henny Penny, Cocky Locky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey, Ducky Lucky, Chicken Licken. They’re all on the move because the sky’s coming in, if you know your European folklore, or maybe just your Happy Mondays.

But it’s not. The sky isn’t falling, no matter what the arbitrators decide. Teams can field only 11 players. Good players do not want to be in the reserves. Managers leave. Bad decisions get made. Nothing is for ever, not even in the Bundesliga, as Harry Kane rather frustratingly discovered.'



' “The tyranny of the majority,” claimed Manchester City, and everyone laughed. It’s called democracy, they sneered. But it’s not. At the risk of explaining John Stuart Mill to the Oxbridge set, in football, if every rule, every policy, every regulatory development, is intended to be a curb on the same minority — and backed by the prevailing opinion — that is as much tyranny as democracy. And since Financial Fair Play was introduced, in whatever form it is manifested, it has always been aimed at specific clubs. First Chelsea, then City, now Newcastle.

When FFP was initially discussed it was to address debt, which would have hugely affected Manchester United under the Glazers. Then it pivoted, so the bogeyman became owner investment and putting money into football became a bigger crime than taking it out. The multi-club ownership model was also going to be a problem, until more established members of the elite copied the Red Bull, City Football Group idea, so now that threat seems to be receding too. Remember, it’s only dirty oil money when it’s buying players for City. Not when it’s sponsoring Arsenal’s stadium, or is the longest-running commercial partnership at Old Trafford.'

The sky won’t fall in even if Manchester City win their court case

The Premier League’s rules were always going to be challenged by one of the clubs they were designed to stop – but whatever the outcome football will continue

www.thetimes.com

 

[TremulousTetra]

and this is from the CAS decision document.

 

[TremulousTetra]

 

[TremulousTetra]

I know these facts will have not convinced anybody, the science predicts that. But people must concede when you actually LOOK at the CAS decision, a lot of the narrative in the media is shown to be nonsense. Why do they print nonsense? Click bait makes more money than the truth.

I am quite happy to look at any evidence countering my argument.

 

[belboid]

yawn.

 

[Charles Ufarley]

I'd like to see Jesse Plemons in it.

 

[belboid]

I'd like to see Jesse Plemons in it.

he'd be great as Pochetino

 

[Don Baumgarten]

yawn.

TremulousTetra are you a Man Citeh wu-mao ?

 

[RD2003]

'Manchester United co-owner Jim Ratcliffe understands why rivals Manchester City are challenging Premier League financial rules, and warned the competition faces "ruin" if regulation goes too far.'

Ratcliffe 'understands' City suing Premier League

Manchester United co-owner Jim Ratcliffe understands why rivals Manchester City are challenging Premier League financial rules, and warned the competition faces "ruin" if regulation goes too far.

www.rte.ie