schmunk
Centrist Dad
Hang on, if Man City are kicked out of the PL, does that mean their place would be filled by Leeds...?
Whoa, whoa, whoa - let's not do anything too hasty...
Whoa, whoa, whoa - let's not do anything too hasty...
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Man City launch legal action against Premier League
- Thread starter macbeth
- Start date
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
Having a big, expensive legal team doesn’t mean you’ll win, it just means you’ll have the best people arguing for you and looking for loopholes making it more likely you’ll get off a flimsy-ish charge.
I was sitting in court one day and we had BT up for a (IIRC) road works offence. I had to recuse myself as I worked for them so there was a conflict of interest. They trooped in with a legal team of four people, one of whom was a barrister (this was for a minor case in a mags court) and argued the tits off of everything in mitigation.
With the Man City affair, I think the culture in some countries is a bit different whereby bribery is perfectly acceptable and wealth trumps everything, hence their attitude.
um bongo molongo
Well-known member
I agree with half of your post and not the other half. Personally I think the PL without the big 6 (or 7 with Newcastle) would be great. We’d have been in with a chance of winning it last year! It’d have less big name players, and a lot less money, but would be more competitive - I enjoyed the Championship more than I have the PL anyway. And m as an added bonus we’d lose all the armchair big 6 w****s from discussions about proper football. Replace the 7 breakaway teams with the top 7 of last season’s championship and let’s got on with it.
I agree with you if money isn't a thing, 100% the top flight would be great - we'd also be one of the best teams in the division all of a sudden. Unfortunately, money is a thing, and there is no way the Super League will let any competing competitions thrive. They'll destroy them - it won't be fun.
Those top 6/7 sides won't disappear from Football, they'll get stronger, they'll have less regulation (probably no transfer windows, unlimited spending, insane contracts - all funded by TV money that used to go to the domestic pyramid). I think it's naïve to believe it would be better for us - the football would be worse, the infrastructure would crumble eventually, there'd be no opportunity for owners to make any profit unless they become trading grounds for the Super League. This would result in the best players leaving almost immediately. It wouldn't be a more even pyramid, it would be a feeder league for the Super League, they wouldn't let it be anything else.
um bongo molongo
Well-known member
I’m less pessimistic than that. We have 50% of it already - we have the Champions League, which is where the big money is and where the big players want to play and the big managers want to manage. There’s an illusion of competitiveness but in practice it’s the same sides competing every year. I couldn’t give two hoots about it. I watch the odd game from QFs onwards with a passing interest.
The resulting PL would be less lucrative than the current one, but probably better off than the Championship. And with some good historic clubs with big fan bases competing to win it. TV rights would be down and players would have to be paid a bit less. That’s no bad thing. I doubt attendances would change at all. Bring it on I say.
The really damaging option would be ESL and the clubs allowed to have sides in domestic leagues as well.
TWOCHOICEStom
Well-known member
I just keep thinking about the term "tyranny of the majority" and laughing to myself. Incredible.
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
But they would feel that way, given how 'democratic' the gulf states are.
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,254
Might Man City win on the claim that PSR is a restraint of trade?
Has either PSR or FFP been tested as lawful in the courts? Despite the beneficial (in my view) effects, I can't deny they do both have the effect of restricting free and fair competition
OK, the circumstances were very different, but sporting bodies have lost restraint of trade cases before (Kolpak and Bosman), despite presumably taking legal advice that their position was legal.
Has either PSR or FFP been tested as lawful in the courts? Despite the beneficial (in my view) effects, I can't deny they do both have the effect of restricting free and fair competition
OK, the circumstances were very different, but sporting bodies have lost restraint of trade cases before (Kolpak and Bosman), despite presumably taking legal advice that their position was legal.
That phrase tells us all we need to know about their owners
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
But even of that was proven, the Premier League is a private members club to all intents and purposes. Their rules are part of the membership.
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,254
This was why I bought up other restraint of trade examples in sporting leagues.
Sporting leagues are obviously structures differently to ordinary businesses, but competition law has still been applied.
Got to admit I studied this stuff, but my memory is very hazy about the legal principles to be applied here.
Screaming J
He'll put a spell on you
I've come to the conclusion that a ESL might be a good thing for football, if (and only if) it's members are kicked out of domestic leagues. Let them get on with their meaningless comp where they all play each other every year, slavishly watched on TV and 'supported' by people across the globe. With any luck it'll collapse after a while through ennui, once the novelty wears off. Then the big 6 can start again in the N West County League (or equivalent) whilst the rest of us get on with something resembling an actual league competition.
Man City's current action seems to mirror the political approach taken by their owners. Add to that the approach taken by the Glazers at Utd, Boehly and that other bloke at Chelsea et al and I can't say that I'd miss any of them. Never mind 100 years plus of each of the big 6 clubs 'heritage'; they've well and truly besmirched that in recent years.
Man City's current action seems to mirror the political approach taken by their owners. Add to that the approach taken by the Glazers at Utd, Boehly and that other bloke at Chelsea et al and I can't say that I'd miss any of them. Never mind 100 years plus of each of the big 6 clubs 'heritage'; they've well and truly besmirched that in recent years.
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,254
That's obviously not how it will work
TomandJerry
Well-known member
- Oct 1, 2013
- 12,323
BBassic
I changed this.
- Jul 28, 2011
- 12,844
Manchester City chair warns Premier League is to become less competitive
Manchester City’s chairman, Khaldoon al-Mubarak, has claimed rules introduced during the past 12 months will make the Premier League less competitive, and he has called for more “sensibility in regulating”.
Manchester City chair warns Premier League is to become less competitive
Manchester City’s chairman, Khaldoon al-Mubarak, has claimed that rules introduced during the past 12 months will make the Premier League less competitive
www.theguardian.com
Less competitive? They're claiming that a league which has been dominated by one team, a team that has won 6 of the last 7 titles, is going to be less competitive? As if its actually competitive now?
pigmanovich
Good Old Sausage by the Sea
Perhaps the Guardian have misunderstood the tenor of his comments and he's celebrating how uncompetitive the league has become?Manchester City chair warns Premier League is to become less competitive
Manchester City’s chairman, Khaldoon al-Mubarak, has claimed rules introduced during the past 12 months will make the Premier League less competitive, and he has called for more “sensibility in regulating”.
Manchester City chair warns Premier League is to become less competitive
Manchester City’s chairman, Khaldoon al-Mubarak, has claimed that rules introduced during the past 12 months will make the Premier League less competitive
Less competitive? They're claiming that a league which has been dominated by one team, a team that has won 6 of the last 7 titles, is going to be less competitive? As if its actually competitive now?
I partly agree with you.
The thing is, if some of the top teams in various European leagues are kicked out of their current domestic leagues and cup competitions because they want to form a Super League and make lots more money, only one team can win the Super League each year. Most years it would probably be Real Madrid, so teams like Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea, PSG, Milan, Inter, Juventus, Porto etc would rarely be winners of anything. Global fans tend to only support winning teams, so many Super League teams would probably see their fan base and marketing opportunities decrease unless the Super League is run along the lines of the NFL with no relegation and a fairly equal distribtion of income (can't see Real Madrid or Man City buying into that!).
Can't see all the top players joining a Super League if the majority of them are not going to win any medals. Maybe many top players would just join the Super League towards the end of their careers when they want to get a final pension injection.
How many teams would join a Super League if in doing so they are automatically kicked out of all of their domestic Competitions? The EPL and other domestic leagues hold a lot of cards if they want to play them and they are prepared to jetison Super League teams. I am sure most of the fans of clubs not joining a Super League would gladly say "good riddence, just go and play with yourselves". Proper competition and jeopardy is more important to match going fans and armchair TV audiences than just making mega rich owners more money .
Also, how many teams in the EPL would be prepared to annoy their own domestic fan base and join a Super League if in doing so they are kicked out of all domestic competitions. There wouldn't be that many who would try. Maybe Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Man Utd whose (majority) owners already hold their own club's fans in contempt. I am not certain these owners could deal with the domestic fan backlash, but would they care if all of their "home matches" are played at diferent locations around the world to cater for their global fan bases? The Man Utd and Chelsea owners would also save money in not having to redevelop their delapidated stadiums.
A highly competitive EPL would still raise good TV monies from the domestic TV audience. Revenues from overseas TV deals are increasingly being hijacked by the big mega rich EPL clubs, so how much would other clubs really be losing? Less and less as deals are renegotiated.
The bottom line should be teams playing in domestic league and cup competions should abide by the democratically agreed rules. If they don't, kick them out of the competions.
You could argue it should be Luton, as Man City would be taking the third relegation spot from them.Hang on, if Man City are kicked out of the PL, does that mean their place would be filled by Leeds...?
Whoa, whoa, whoa - let's not do anything too hasty...
In fact, that would be hilarious. Leeds fans would be incensed. Marvellous scenes.
Take away the big 6/7 and a new big 3 would appear, soon to be joined by 3 or 4 others. These would be dominated by clubs with (owners who have) the deepest pockets. It may be fun for a few seasons but would revert back to how it has always been, just with different names at the top.