Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Man City to sue PL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saint Domingo said:
If City want to destroy the whole thing I’ve got no problem with it. Do people think the alternative is some utopia where Everton get a fair crack of the whip? Of course it isn’t. The alternative is a league completely owned by the sky six, especially United and Liverpool, with points deductions galore for any team that dares try to break in. Spending profiled by revenue will keep every club in their lane and Everton will never win anything ever again.

If City destroy the whole thing then it opens up billionaires buying Everton and having a chance to compete again. Under the current format we have no chance.

What’s embarrassing is how meekly Evertonians accept their lot under the PL rather than all this faux moral opposition to City fans on the internet. I wish we’d won 4 PLs in a row and still had the stones to sue the premier league rather than us being pleased with the PL for saying we didn’t act in bad faith when they changed our points deduction from 10 to 6 then gave Forest 4 for good behaviour which they then appealed against.
Click to expand...
Having morals is meek? People find city and their ownership obscene and rightly so.
 
Walken said:
Having morals is meek? People find city and their ownership obscene and rightly so.
Click to expand...

Which is fine but these people aren’t out there protesting much against City or Newcastle’s takeovers are they? They can own clubs as long as they don’t win stuff?

Where does anyone draw the line? No banks with any ties whatsoever to terrorist groups? That rules out most of them from any involvement in football. Any company that has dealt with any arms manufacturers? They’re all complicit in killing people. God forbid what connections Usmanov or Abramovich may have had.

If I could go back and shut the door on rich billionaires owning PL clubs I would as it’s done the game no favours whatsoever.

Why does the objection seem to come the loudest though the second it’s about whether these state owned teams can spend money to win things? Not enough people are that arsed when Newcastle are finishing 8th but if they start throwing money about and winning trophies suddenly it’s a problem. Does winning to tiles make City’s owners any less repugnant? No, so why do people mention it most when they’re winning stuff. The arguments about whether it’s unfair from a competetive point of view to be state owned, or whether it’s immoral to be state owned at all are completely different, but people seem to want to conflate them. ‘We need regulations to stop uncontrolled spending of state owned clubs’. Why isn’t about them winning, it should be ‘ we need regulations so there’s no state owned clubs’ even if it’s Accrington Stanley they’re buying.

Equally if a Middle Eastern state tried to buy us tomorrow the amount of objections on here would be miniscule, just as it was when an oligarch with connections to Putin was pumping his cash into us.

I’m not saying having these morals is wrong at all, it just seems be a bit convenient that some people, not all, only have a staunch moral problem with it when those teams start winning things. They’re two different discussions but keep getting dragged into the one argument. ‘Its unfair that City are winning because they’re state owned’, no it should be ‘its immoral that City are state owned’, them winning is irrelevant to that argument.
 
Saint Domingo said:
Which is fine but these people aren’t out there protesting much against City or Newcastle’s takeovers are they? They can own clubs as long as they don’t win stuff?

Where does anyone draw the line? No banks with any ties whatsoever to terrorist groups? That rules out most of them from any involvement in football. Any company that has dealt with any arms manufacturers? They’re all complicit in killing people. God forbid what connections Usmanov or Abramovich may have had.

If I could go back and shut the door on rich billionaires owning PL clubs I would as it’s done the game no favours whatsoever.

Why does the objection seem to come the loudest though the second it’s about whether these state owned teams can spend money to win things? Not enough people are that arsed when Newcastle are finishing 8th but if they start throwing money about and winning trophies suddenly it’s a problem. Does winning to tiles make City’s owners any less repugnant? No, so why do people mention it most when they’re winning stuff. The arguments about whether it’s unfair from a competetive point of view to be state owned, or whether it’s immoral to be state owned at all are completely different, but people seem to want to conflate them. ‘We need regulations to stop uncontrolled spending of state owned clubs’. Why isn’t about them winning, it should be ‘ we need regulations so there’s no state owned clubs’ even if it’s Accrington Stanley they’re buying.

Equally if a Middle Eastern state tried to buy us tomorrow the amount of objections on here would be miniscule, just as it was when an oligarch with connections to Putin was pumping his cash into us.

I’m not saying having these morals is wrong at all, it just seems be a bit convenient that some people, not all, only have a staunch moral problem with it when those teams start winning things. They’re two different discussions but keep getting dragged into the one argument. ‘Its unfair that City are winning because they’re state owned’, no it should be ‘its immoral that City are state owned’, them winning is irrelevant to that argument.
Click to expand...
Actually there were protests from Newcastle fans, I believe they are still active. I don't recall any such protests from city fans.

Secondly, marching on the streets is not a requirement to have a legitimate moral objection.

As for where to draw the line, that will depend on the individual and their knowledge of the owners involved. Personally I feel murdering journalists, treating workers as slaves and locking people up for their sexuality would be a tipping point for me. All of that is besides a craven desire for unfettered capitalism to dictate a sport which has already seen it competitiveness diluted by such forces, not for me.

As for the projection of what others in the fan base would do, that's up to them, it's not for me. I love the club and mys days out that revolve around it, I've no desire to exchange sycophancy for trophies.
 
Walken said:
Actually there were protests from Newcastle fans, I believe they are still active. I don't recall any such protests from city fans.

Secondly, marching on the streets is not a requirement to have a legitimate moral objection.

As for where to draw the line, that will depend on the individual and their knowledge of the owners involved. Personally I feel murdering journalists, treating workers as slaves and locking people up for their sexuality would be a tipping point for me. All of that is besides a craven desire for unfettered capitalism to dictate a sport which has already seen it competitiveness diluted by such forces, not for me.

As for the projection of what others in the fan base would do, that's up to them, it's not for me. I love the club and mys days out that revolve around it, I've no desire to exchange sycophancy for trophies.
Click to expand...

This is a good point
 

I honestly don't know how I'd feel if Everton found themselves in a City/Newcastle/PSG situation

My first instinct after years of being an Evertonian would likely be to think "Well then, let's see how we mess THIS one up"

Aside from that though, I'm not sure what I'd do

Probably the same thing I did with 777, which is tell anyone who will listen that it's a bad thing but ultimately fail in achieving anything with it because there's not much a regular person can do when stuff like that happens

Would I have stopped supporting the club if 777 had taken over for instance? I don't think you ever just stop supporting a club outright when you've spent so many years and money on supporting it. Would I have finally jacked in the season ticket and just watched highlights on MOTD from my armchair? Maybe

Would I do similar if we got bought out City style? Who knows. Maybe, maybe not

It's unlikely that I'll ever have to worry about it

Even if the rules were relaxed and every billionaire/trillionaire/country out there could just buy any club they wanted and pump money into it, I'm pretty certain we'd be near the back of the queue. As much as we Evertonians love the club, and as much a positive as the new stadium has potential to be, to the football world at large we're the football equivalent of Pedro Morales during the Hulkamania Era. We used to be Champion, and we still have decent support from our core fan base, but to everyone else we're a washed up journeyman who is there to do jobs for the real stars. Why invest in us when you've got the likes of Roddy Piper, Demolition, The Hart Foundation, Rick Rude, Ultimate Warrior, British Bulldogs etc to choose from instead?
 
hallamblue said:
Football has always allowed unlimited spending, it's only changed very recently. I don't agree with faking sponsorship deals but I don't see why clubs can't spend whatever they like on players if they can afford it.
Click to expand...
No issue with this. My issue is who is allowed to own clubs. Nation states are unregulatable. Therefore, they cannot be fit and proper - and that's before we get to head-chopping.
 

Everton is backing City (for now) because Russia would be trying to do the same thing the Saudis are doing if their money hadn't been run out of the PL.

A new set of owners would likely feel differently.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
Don't think so. Do you know chords? If so, just go check the chord structure in 'Don't look back in anger' for starters. If not, then you don't know what you're talking about...
Click to expand...
Yeah right, there’s a massive six chords in that song (seven if you play E7 instead of E major during the bridge), the entire progression being utilised countless times previously in popular music. If YOU know chords you’ll realise the switch from F major to F minor featured on a number of early McCartney songs, Gallagher is nothing but a musical/lyrical magpie. Good ear for a melody though.
 
Bishop Thumpety-Thump said:
Yeah right, there’s a massive six chords in that song (seven if you play E7 instead of E major during the bridge), the entire progression being utilised countless times previously in popular music. If YOU know chords you’ll realise the switch from F major to F minor featured on a number of early McCartney songs, Gallagher is nothing but a musical/lyrical magpie. Good ear for a melody though.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall it has a G#dim chord in it.
Borderline jazz that. 🤔😆
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top