Citee suing the Prem 05:52 - Jun 6 with 1455 views | davman | Utterly abhorrent. Yes, FFP / P&S are flawed and work in favour of the big clubs, but there is something very, very wrong about signing up to the rules and then crying foul when you fail to follow them. If they win, you might as well give up and just let them take over from the Premier League. BUT, if they do then surely that MUST set a legal precedent for QPR and other teams punished by such rules to challenge. If it was/ is unfair all along then it has to bring those decisions back into the spotlight. Just like QPR were, Citee MUST be tried against the rules in place that they signed up to and charged accordingly. If those rules are then deemed unfair, the Prem then need to change those rules, but AFTER the punishment.. What will happen though is that this will be used in some way to reduce their punishment to a fine lower than the one we got with a "light" transfer embargo and no other punishment. They will then be freed up to do wtf they want. Unless the rules are truly illegal, it has to be a condition of membership of the FA and the Premier League to sign up to the rules and agree to abide by them WITHOUT resorting to the courts. The authorities attitude should ALWAYS be: "if you REALLY want to take us to court, fine, but we revoke your membership". Surely, they have that right? I suppose they do, but they do not have the spine to do any such thing... [Post edited 6 Jun 5:54]
| |
| | |
Citee suing the Prem on 07:02 - Jun 6 with 1313 views | dmm | We've already got this thread going, davman. Man City - "Tryanny of the majority" by Konk 5 Jun 9:45https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/04/manchester-city-launch-legal-action-against-premier-league-over-sponsorship-rules
If Abu Dhabi Carpet Showrooms want to pay £300m a season to have some adverts by the hand driers in the bogs at Man City, why should Man City have to turn that down? If the Abu Dhabi Auto repairs centre wants to pay £500m to sponsor Phil Foden's away socks, then shouldn't they be able to? Market forces and all that.
I'm wishing Man City all the best in their noble struggle against "the tyranny of the majority" Why should a club's autocratic, authoritarian owners have to operate in anything vaguely resembling a democracy? Given that the 7 richest PL clubs can veto any proposal from the others, and can use their influence to force through changes, you could argue that the majority aren't actually operating much of a tyranny.
I really, really, really hate the Premier League, and I really, really, really hate what Man City have become. A club I have always had a soft spot for, and I found myself in the very, very weird position of being almost desperate for Manchester fu cking United(!) to beat them in the cup final. And that was almost universal amongst my mates, all of whom hate Man Utd.
| | | |
Citee suing the Prem on 07:56 - Jun 6 with 1216 views | QPR_John | “ The authorities attitude should ALWAYS be: "if you REALLY want to take us to court, fine, but we revoke your membership". Surely, they have that right?” Often wondered about this however is it legal to threaten someone against hearing their case in court. | | | |
Citee suing the Prem on 08:01 - Jun 7 with 920 views | saxbend | That's why it doesn't need to go to court. Man City have the option of not following the rules by way of terminating their membership of the premier league. I don't like the premier league for enough reasons that not getting promoted from the championship isn't ever that disappointing for me (though there is always disappointment when we miss out on success of the kind that has promotion as a consequence). City on the other hand clearly do like being in the Premier League, and they will have to accept the rules thereof. I'm sure any court would tell them that as they aren't forced to remain in the league and the league rules do not require any club to break the law, then the rules aren't in contradiction with the law. [Post edited 7 Jun 8:03]
| | | |
| |