- Man C v the Premier League: this now is the all or nothing moment
- This time Man C have gone too far and the rest won’t stand for it
- As we predicted, the war with Man C has gone legal
By Tony Attwood
Last night as the story “Newcastle reluctant to join Man City in fight against Premier League” emerged in the Telegraph I posted a comment under my own name and email address, with no mention of Untold.
The comment read,
“I’m trying to read all the commentaries on this but no one seems to be addressing the issue of whether clubs can resign from the Premier League, just as they previously did from Football League Division One.
“If they can, then clubs that don’t like Man City and Newcastle can indeed simply resign and set up their own League under their own League management structure, that would leave Man City to play Newcastle, and maybe Chelsea. And perhaps Leicester and PSG and some other clubs from the City group.”
The Telegraph then immediately removed the comment.
Of course no explanation is given as to why that comment was deemed unacceptable but it happened so quickly I suspect either I’m now considered as a persona non grata (although I can’t think that I have ever posted a comment to the paper before, so that seems a bit tough especially as I am a subscriber) or the suggestion of resignation from the league is considered unacceptable.
But it made me wonder if my notion of mass resignation from the League in the light of Manchester City’s assault was somehow not viable. So I went to Section 3e of FA Rules and there indeed is provision for resignation. It reads
“A Full Member Club or Associate Member Club may resign its status as such to have effect only at the end of the playing season.”
And indeed clubs have resigned in the past although usually because they have gone bust, not because one of their number has brought a huge set of legal claims against the League, which threatens to put the League itself into financial meltdown.
And it has to be remembered that the Premier League has considered and indeed modified its rules in the past. For example at a Premier League meeting just after the October 2021 there was a debate about changing the rules of the League.
And at that time, Lee Charnley who at the time was a director of Newcastle United, is said to have read out a statement in which he said proposed changes to the existing rules were “unlawful, discriminatory and prejudicial.”
It was reported (again in the Telegraph) that Newcastle were threatening “legal action against not only the Premier League but team executives… if Newcastle were blocked from signing lucrative sponsorship deals.”
It was also reported at the time that Newcastle’s co-owner, Amanda Staveley, wrote to the rest of the league saying that the new rules that were being proposed were anti-competitive.
However, at that time, the rest of the league failed to be bullied into submission by Newcastle and 18 of the then members of the League voted for the new rules. Neither Newcastle nor Manchester C, the two clubs that voted against the change in the rules, took any action. And it may well have been that experience that moved Newcastle to take a back foot in discussions so far.
Certainly, the move by Manchester City has so far been a PR disaster, with, for example, the Independent running the mega-sized headline, “Manchester City’s case against the Premier League is an assault on the fabric of football”
Of course the Premier League doesn’t have to carry the media with it when it wants to do something, but the fact is that a move by the League to change its ways which (as with this example of Manchester City’s attack on the rest of the League over the rules) is universally unpopular, would radically change the way in which the club is reported in the media.
Until now the media has largely focussed on the club’s record breaking run, but if they continue in the current vein that is not only going to impact on Man C (although they won’t care) but on the public attitude to the whole league.
Although we are now used to English football being seen as important and worthy of interest, if one looks back to the 1980s – a period in which for example Liverpool FC were banned completely from Europe because of the behaviour of its supporters, and English football was seen as a pariah – there have been times when Europe and England have gone their separate ways in footballing terms.
The mood among the media and the authorities is rapidly swinging against Manchester C, and I am not sure they, nor the rest of the City Group of clubs, nor their agricultural equipment suppliers, will be able to get it back, no matter what happens in court.
This comment from a Mancheseter City supporter was not publsihed as it contained anti-semitic commentary.
Editor’s note:
The comment that was posted under this name was one of a number that come from supposed Manchester City supporters, and as with previous articles that we have published considering the Manchester City case, it contained either abuse or childish commentary, and a false email address as the sender.
Quite why Manchester City have so many supporters who like to comment under false names and refuse to give their identity I don’t know, but when we publish commentaries which raise questions about the behaviour of other clubs we don’t get this.
Maybe it is just a coincidence or maybe Manchester City FC does attract a higher percentage of people who will only write unde make-believe addresses.
The PL 115 charges action is not a judicial action, it is not being heard by a court of law, it is being determined by a tribunal appointed by the PL to determine if the accused has broken their rules, not the law of the land. It is a requirement for all organisations and individuals to adhere to the law of the land and all are answerable through the judicial process. Manchester City are entitled to challenge a perceived breach of law in the PL’s rules and it is the court’s duty to determine the case and issue judgement. If the PL/FA were not aware of their responsibilities that is their problem. It is unlikely that the case will be dismissed out of hand, City have an impressively qualified team of lawyers, so it could be a knock down drag out affair. One thing seems clear to me, unless the PL have compelling new evidence, over and above that rejected by CAS when UEFA took a pop at City, the PL would be ill advised to seek penalties based on the basis of the old claims that were not upheld by CAS. Whilst the PLs non-judicial process has no formal review procedure, the FA is subject to the law of the land which includes common law as well as specific commercial laws. The highly qualified (and paid) lawyers on both sides of the table are fully aware and Manchester City seem determined to defend their integrity to the bitter end. That being so there remains the potential for further litigation.
Indeed you are right this is not a court action, but I would take up your reference to “when UEFA took a pop at City”. The Uefa case was thrown out by the CAS appeal because it was out of time. Quite how Uefa could be so grossly incompetent as to take too long to get their appeal lodged with the court has never been explained, but does lead to the suggestion that Uefa were either a) so grossly incompetent that they should not be handling such important matters or b) someone nobbled thhem. Neither explanation is particularly encouraging.
Tony
This is an excellent initiative on your part and I entirely agree that the degree of opprobrium generated against C115y is so enormous that they will struggle to recover from it. Furthermore do we want to play in a league with a team in it with such selfish motives and lack of respect for the league. Their suggestion that financial constraints would stop a club with unlimited wealth from contributing to the local community sums up the moral bankruptcy inhabiting that awful club
@Bertie Mee,
it City115 find a way to stay, all teams ought to field their youth players against City, all 38 gameweeks long.
And the PL should vote to give out a second trophy to the no 2 team, and vote to award the CL places from position No 2….
They may change the rules as they wish. They could always state that the most important thing is participating, as in the Olympics and thank City115 for their service.
Good idea Chris. I’d go with that.
The PL is a private organization that can set its own rules as it likes. Were the PL to say no member can wear a light blue shirt in matches, that would be that. What C115y are doing is Trumpian in intent. They are trying to delay, delay, delay.
this just got published.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Gunners/comments/1d9ntl0/pl_statement_clubs_agree_at_agm_to_trial_an/
@ Ben
“non-binding” would appear to have zero value if you ask me.
When you think how many football clubs were started by factory workers, villagers & town workers to play football at the weekends to break up the drudgery of work and to see were it is itoday in the hands of oil rich states with ullteria motives in the 21st century you can only shake your head in despair.
As always the Globalists see something making money they don’t control & move in to take it over for their own benefit with no thought of the fans.
The other clubs need to break away and let City play with themselves & make up a league with all the other clubs the oil state owns across Europe & America.