Man City launch unprecedented legal action against Premier League

[exAtyeoMax]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Football as a whole isn't a long term plan industry. In the modern era especially.

There are absolutely exceptions and some are huge clubs or hugely successful clubs so can rather absorb but football as a whole is quite short termist..The good times roll and will continue to roll- trophies soon, that shiny player now.

Etc.

Hmm. It'll crash and burn at some point. The TV deals aren't what they were. I can't see it'll be sustainable if it follows the model it is doing at the moment.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Hmm. It'll crash and burn at some point. The TV deals aren't what they were. I can't see it'll be sustainable if it follows the model it is doing at the moment.

Tend to agree, and some of these new rules may help but the problem is you are always getting new investors and subject to the inherited FFP position the spending begins again.

Look at Birmingham, Coventry, Hull under new ownership!

[38MC]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Football as a whole isn't a long term plan industry. In the modern era especially.

There are absolutely exceptions and some are huge clubs or hugely successful clubs so can rather absorb but football as a whole is quite short termist..The good times roll and will continue to roll- trophies soon, that shiny player now.

Etc.

it’s a really good point. But I think your second paragraph highlights why the premier league is better than the rest. 

if we look to Spain, France, Germany, Italy, you can generally tell between 1 or 2 clubs who will win. Consistently

if we take our domestic competitions though, with a few exceptions clubs seem to dominate for 5-10 years or so, then die a death. 

Liverpool in the 80’s, United in the 90’s, United Arsenal and Chelsea over the 00’s. They’ve all had some really bad periods following their success. Man City’s time will come. I expect over the aftermath of pep’s departure when they’re on their 3rd manager in 24 months. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

25 minutes ago, 38MC said:

it’s a really good point. But I think your second paragraph highlights why the premier league is better than the rest. 

if we look to Spain, France, Germany, Italy, you can generally tell between 1 or 2 clubs who will win. Consistently

if we take our domestic competitions though, with a few exceptions clubs seem to dominate for 5-10 years or so, then die a death. 

Liverpool in the 80’s, United in the 90’s, United Arsenal and Chelsea over the 00’s. They’ve all had some really bad periods following their success. Man City’s time will come. I expect over the aftermath of pep’s departure when they’re on their 3rd manager in 24 months. 

I do take your point, post Pep I would expect Man City to take a bit of a hit, it's inevitable. How big and how long who knows

Italy is more varied really, there were periods of dominance but you have the Milan clubs and Juventus minimum. The Rome clubs and Napoli have also won titles. Italy has had more depth England excluded really.

Germany kind of was but isn't anymore, Bayern have always been up there though.

France really really was, the recency bias is since PSG were brought by Qatar.

Spain had the big 2 and at times Atletico..Valencia and Deportivo strongly mismanaged and haven't really come close since.

Btw Juventus had a bad period post Calciopoli, took a number of years. Then again are stumbling.

Edited June 4 by Mr Popodopolous

[Sir Geoff]

I know there are cons against this, but would it be so bad if clubs were allowed to spend what they want. They can only field 11 players at one time. Man City would still win the league every year, Real Madrid would still win the Champions League, PSG Ligue one, Bayern the Bundesliga etc. Clubs would still go bust.

5 years time there will be 2 x 16 club leagues called Prem 1 and Prem 2.

I hate everything about the PL and the greedy fekkers in charge. Seriously hope it goes bang soon.

 

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

Just kick 'em out of the league for bringing the game into disrepute. 

[Taz]

1 hour ago, westonred said:

Wouldn't it be great if they lost and got kicked out the league

Well you say that in jest, but if the EPL had any balls and really wanted to set an example, then in theory they could just action all of the points deductions, banish them from the league and drop them down to League 2. 

As someone else has mentioned (sorry missed who it was and isn't be arsed to scroll back through!) These wealthy owners took over the club(s) knowing full well what they could and couldn't do with regards to finances. It's a bit like a legally binding contract of sorts I guess, you've agreed to participate in the league, these are the rules. Break them and there are consequences. These rich owners are used to getting their own way though so just keep pushing and pushing. Eventually something has to give - perhaps this is it.

Agree with the consensus - if you're innocent and can prove so, then just let it ride out and present the evidence. If you can't, then what better way of dragging things out than by setting up a counter argument and threatening to sue the people looking into your finances.

I seriously doubt that Man City will be kicked out of the league, but it would make the rest of the football world sit up and take notice though.

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

5 years time there will be 2 x 16 club leagues called Prem 1 and Prem 2.

This has been forecast on and off ever since the early 2000s in varied guises, you think it may become different next time?

[Crackers Corner]

20 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

I know there are cons against this, but would it be so bad if clubs were allowed to spend what they want. They can only field 11 players at one time. Man City would still win the league every year, Real Madrid would still win the Champions League, PSG Ligue one, Bayern the Bundesliga etc. Clubs would still go bust.

5 years time there will be 2 x 16 club leagues called Prem 1 and Prem 2.

I hate everything about the PL and the greedy fekkers in charge. Seriously hope it goes bang soon.

 

For me if man city win this will lead to breakup of prem and inevitable super league. It's high time the FA grow a pair and make an example. Why can the "poorer" prem teams be punished quickly but FA walking on treacle when dealing with man city.

[Kid in the Riot]

1 minute ago, Crackers Corner said:

 Why can the "poorer" prem teams be punished quickly but FA walking on treacle when dealing with man city.

Because Man C have their own massive in-house legal team funded by an oil-rich, authoritarian nation state, which also happens to be an ally of the United Kingdom. And so the UK government/establishment feels it has to tread very carefully in terms of what Man C are accused of and how they are dealt with, and ultimately punished. 

The horse has already bolted, basically. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Crackers Corner said:

For me if man city win this will lead to breakup of prem and inevitable super league. It's high time the FA grow a pair and make an example. Why can the "poorer" prem teams be punished quickly but FA walking on treacle when dealing with man city.

I get the sentiment but the bigger and more complex the charge sheet, the longer it can sadly take- especially when one party are fighting it all the way.

If it was a straight forward breach of Spending Limits..there are set procedures there, this is basically suggesting that the Accounts were false, the Auditors, Governing bodies and everyone were mislead for 10 to 15 years.

The bigger the punishment if guilty too, the more the party will resist.

Finally the total number of charges, the more charges the more drawn out.

Edited June 4 by Mr Popodopolous

[38MC]

26 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I do take your point, post Pep I would expect Man City to take a bit of a hit, it's inevitable. How big and how long who knows

Italy is more varied really, there were periods of dominance but you have the Milan clubs and Juventus minimum. The Rome clubs and Napoli have also won titles. Italy has had more depth England excluded really.

Germany kind of was but isn't anymore, Bayern have always been up there though.

France really really was, the recency bias is since PSG were brought by Qatar.

Spain had the big 2 and at times Atletico..Valencia and Deportivo strongly mismanaged and haven't really come close since.

Btw Juventus had a bad period post Calciopoli, took a number of years. Then again are stumbling.

That’s fair. I am probably coming from the perception of recency bias.

Maybe what I really mean is the EPL is the most competitive because once you’re in that league you’re on at least one investors radar so you may just  financially cheat you’re way to the top (Man City), whereas overseas leagues don’t quite attract the same level of investment as widely as diversely  

[LondonBristolian]

What annoys me - not just with Man City but with a lot of the clubs protesting legal actions this season - is this concept of "I'm innocent of breaking the rules because I didn't agree with the rules in the first place".

Whether Man City succeed or fail with this case doesn't make a difference to the fact that they had signed up to a competition with a set of rules in place and agreed to abide by them. If they want to claim those rules should be changed in the future, that's their business and the case can be decided on that. But, either way, they signed up to a set of rules and should be penalised if they did not abide by them. 

[chinapig]

4 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Because Man C have their own massive in-house legal team funded by an oil-rich, authoritarian nation state, which also happens to be an ally of the United Kingdom. And so the UK government/establishment feels it has to tread very carefully in terms of what Man C are accused of and how they are dealt with, and ultimately punished. 

The horse has already bolted, basically. 

There is little doubt that the government 'advised'the PL to wave through the Saudi takeover of Newcastle for the reasons you give. It was then announced before telling the other clubs. Ironically, Man City were among the clubs that were furious about it.

And the Independent Regulator will be required to take into account government foreign and trade policy. So any odious state that buys our weapons will be welcomed with open arms so to speak.

[chinapig]

37 minutes ago, Taz said:

Well you say that in jest, but if the EPL had any balls and really wanted to set an example, then in theory they could just action all of the points deductions, banish them from the league and drop them down to League 2. 

The PL is not some separate body with power over the clubs, it is the clubs.

Only the Independent Commission has the power to decide if they are guilty of any or all charges and if guilty what sanction should be imposed.

Edited June 4 by chinapig

[Kid in the Riot]

4 minutes ago, chinapig said:

There is little doubt that the government 'advised'the PL to wave through the Saudi takeover of Newcastle for the reasons you give. It was then announced before telling the other clubs. Ironically, Man City were among the clubs that were furious about it.

And the Independent Regulator will be required to take into account government foreign and trade policy. So any odious state that buys our weapons will be welcomed with open arms so to speak.

Yes, and this is why I think Man C's punishments when found guilty (and I'm sure they will be) will sadly be on the lenient side. 

[BCFCGav]

I’ve not often got why fans of clubs in the EFL, ie us, often hate the bigger clubs. I’ve no ill will towards Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea, whoever. Barely ever seen us play them.

Man City are helping me understand. I hate their bland pass-to-death football, their psychopath manager, and now this nonsense. ‘War on the Premier League’ - as soon as rules don’t suit the cheating farts. 

[Shauntaylor85]

6 hours ago, chinapig said:

They claim to have irrefutable evidence that they are innocent. So why not expedite the independent commission hearing to prove it?

Answers on a postcard ...

They’ve apparently assured Pep the 115 charges aren’t going to be an issue. 

[Shauntaylor85]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Yes, and this is why I think Man C's punishments when found guilty (and I'm sure they will be) will sadly be on the lenient side. 

I don’t think the points deductions will happen or titles stripped, fines perhaps or transfer embargo but it goes back to 2017. 

[Dr Balls]

This is another cynical ploy by the wealthiest club, owned by a foreign petrochemical state, that severely represses free speech by its own population (the vast majority of which are foreign workers from South Asia being paid a pittance). Using expensive lawyers to argue the case about why the laws that govern everyone else shouldn’t apply to you is also absolutely from the “do you know how rich I am?” playbook. 

Many supporters of other clubs may have disliked the winning runs of Liverpool in the 80s or Manchester United in the 90s/00s but there wasn’t this feeling that they had cheated financially to get there and keep winning. When even my Scouser Liverpool-supporting brother-in-law was rooting for United to beat Man City in the FA Cup Final, (and I am sure he was far from alone) you appreciate how bad it has got.

But then monopolies of the richest are exactly what happens if you allow a completely “free market” with no rules, or at best very lax rules on competition and finance. And that’s clearly what the Emirati want. No FFP etc for them, which is a bit like those bonkers libertarians who believe athletes should be allowed to take performance-enhancing drugs.

The Man City owners aren’t really interested in sport as competition, which is why in my own cynical way, I find it quite funny that despite all of their money they still can’t really compete with Real Madrid at a European level. You can’t buy your way to that level of history. Also maybe it’s because Ancelotti is a better manager than Guardiola!

 

[ExiledAjax]

I really don't understand the argument about the "tyranny of the majority".

It's reported as City are taking aim at the league’s voting rules. The requirement that 14 of 20 clubs must vote in favour of any proposal in order for it to be adopted has long been hailed as one of the competition’s strengths, meaning that clubs must align behind any change before it is implemented. According to the Times, however, City’s suit claims the voting system preserves “the tyranny of the majority”.

But this kind of voting system is found in the vast majority of companies. A majority of shareholders can vote through decisions. I've not checked the details but I'd be absolutely certain that in Man City's own company constitution it's a majority that rule. They will be governed by a so-called "tyranny of the majority".

Add to the that the fact that in reality it is often the minority who hold power in this scenario. Not only can 14 pass a rule, but only 7 clubs are needed to block a rule. A minority, barely one third of the clubs, can stop a rule change from happening if they don't like it. 

It's just not anti-competitive to have decisions made by a majority vote of the members of a company. If it is then every Ltd company is probably guilty of having an anti-competitive constitution.

It's maddening and tbh I can only assume this is a cynical counter-case designed to tie up the PL's lawyers and budget...although those lawyers are Linklaters so they do kind of have bottomless pits of human and financial resources so I'm not sure it will work.

Edited June 5 by ExiledAjax

[Davefevs]

Just boot them out!

[exAtyeoMax]

10 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Yes, and this is why I think Man C's punishments when found guilty (and I'm sure they will be) will sadly be on the lenient side. 

Would a new government have a different perspective?

[Kid in the Riot]

23 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Would a new government have a different perspective?

Very doubtful I'd think. 

Strong political and economic ties between both countries. 

Only this year the Royal Air Force opened a permanent military base in UAE too.

That said, as a big Arsenal fan, Starmer may well be more comfortable seeing a heavy penalty dished out to them!

[Barrs Court Red]

11 hours ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Hmm. It'll crash and burn at some point. The TV deals aren't what they were. I can't see it'll be sustainable if it follows the model it is doing at the moment.

People (myself included) have been saying that since the late 90s when transfer fees started to hit the 10s of millions.  
 

While yes, “at some point” it will inevitably eat itself, I don’t think we’re anywhere close. 

I’ve said this before, and it’s probably absolutely fantasy land stuff, but I think the “end state” will be a global league.  

 

[exAtyeoMax]

26 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

People (myself included) have been saying that since the late 90s when transfer fees started to hit the 10s of millions.  
 

While yes, “at some point” it will inevitably eat itself, I don’t think we’re anywhere close. 

I’ve said this before, and it’s probably absolutely fantasy land stuff, but I think the “end state” will be a global league.  

 

And that will be the end. Small clubs will fold and football as we know it will change forever, unless the big boys leave the football league and play in their own franchise and leave us football fans to carry on as before.

[exAtyeoMax]

29 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Very doubtful I'd think. 

Strong political and economic ties between both countries. 

Only this year the Royal Air Force opened a permanent military base in UAE too.

That said, as a big Arsenal fan, Starmer may well be more comfortable seeing a heavy penalty dished out to them!

Too many fingers in too many pies.

Yes one good thing Starmer could do

[chinapig]

4 hours ago, Dr Balls said:

But then monopolies of the richest are exactly what happens if you allow a completely “free market” with no rules

It's one of the shibboleths of free market capitalism that competition leads to optimum outcomes for all parties. Yet as you suggest it often leads to monopolies or at least companies with market dominance viz the likes of Microsoft, Alpha and Meta.

What City appear to want is market dominance over smaller clubs to cement their already effective dominance of the Premier League title.

Which is why effective regulation is essential.

 

[chinapig]

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I really don't understand the argument about the "tyranny of the majority".

It's reported as City are taking aim at the league’s voting rules. The requirement that 14 of 20 clubs must vote in favour of any proposal in order for it to be adopted has long been hailed as one of the competition’s strengths, meaning that clubs must align behind any change before it is implemented. According to the Times, however, City’s suit claims the voting system preserves “the tyranny of the majority”.

But this kind of voting system is found in the vast majority of companies. A majority of shareholders can vote through decisions. I've not checked the details but I'd be absolutely certain that in Man City's own company constitution it's a majority that rule. They will be governed by a so-called "tyranny of the majority".

The implication is that their interests should have greater weight than those of smaller clubs. I'm sure the likes of Newcastle would agree.

The biggest clubs have already engineered a higher proportion of broadcast revenue for themselves.

I wonder therefore whether in future we might see the introduction of A shares for the big clubs with more voting rights. It just seems a logical trajectory from the current position.

[ExiledAjax]

17 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I wonder therefore whether in future we might see the introduction of A shares for the big clubs with more voting rights. It just seems a logical trajectory from the current position

Not under the current "tyranny" of the majority we won't