Salary caps produce a certain kind ot competitiveness in that it rewards how well you use your allocation rather than how much money you have. But I don't think it's compatible with the kind of competiveness that promotion and relegation produce.

Leaving aside the law's ups and downs, the only point in City's favour is that the system its owners bought into has always been unfair. But that's true of every regulatory environment: that's why things get regulated.

This gambit is otherwise a vast, incoherent insincerity. City are trying to argue ordinary competition law should allow them to be arbitrarily unprofitable, while also having been the "winningest" club in a competition of which the administrator must retain the power to arbitrarily regulate clubs—necessarily with economic consequences—in order to function.

It stinks of childish arrogance on the part of Mansour and City Group. There is no categorical imperative in action: they want everything their way, forever, and they're happy to destroy or destabilise the league to get it. They don't grasp the perceived (if not real) probity of the league is what legitimates their victories. This undignified legal escalation on ulterior motives detracts embarrassingly from any legitimacy they've had.

On the bright side, this is the kind of existential threat to English football about which Johnson's threat of an independent regulator was raised. The Premier League will have to be very committed to putting City back in their box, so as to avoid losing control itself.

They're throwing the first punch. Horrible club. But the Premier League has created this mess of a regulatory system. "Fit and proper" my arse.

very much a hail Mary. Reeks of desperation.

Gazza M It's so inconsistent when the only point they've got that lands is that United's impregnable financial might is an unfair artefact of history. A point you can't imagine, say, Arsenal daring to put forward with such an engineered lack of self-reflection.

    barney ronay had a piece in the guardian that summed up what I said to one of my mates when this news broke. basically, how trumpian citys tactics are. brazenly break the rules, then proceed to gaslight people into viewing them as a victim, and start to undermine/attack the process. even their supporters argue like trumpsters, just endless strawman whataboutism.

      Gazza M DARVO is the acronym that gets used to describe certain rape trial defences … "deny, attack and reverse victim and offender"

      So we're expected to credit that City Group has been hard done by, that the rest of the league are tyrants, and that Manchester City's persistent flouting of the collectively agreed financial regulations is a natural expression of the organisation with no clear link to its winning six titles in seven seasons.

          I bet theyre arrogant enough to think they've sufficiently sportswashed their reputation over the last 15 years, and poisoned football culture enough, to the point that they believe they've moved the goalposts enough that public opinion might actually be on their side. the dangerous thing is, if you allow another 10 years of this, society might be dumbed down enough to fall for it. hopefully the wider football community keeps it a buck, and city are left scratching their heads when the court of public opinion blows them up the same way it blew up the super league

          Burnwinter it’s an audacious position by City - perhaps hoping that enough owners would want to advance the agendas of affiliated company sponsorship/ multi-club ownership - a org that United and Chelsea are already on.

          The other thing that is likely happening here is that City is just tying up the league in legal preparation and fees at a time when the league should be focusing resources on the 115 charges. City will always have the ability to throw hundreds of lawyers at this case, but the league has a finite budget, so this will in the end advantage City in the war.

              The good news is people are starting to see the wolf behind the sheep costume. Finally getting some negative pieces in the media.

              That Boehly is supporting them shows what a moron he is. Want’s to show an extra 15m on his sponsorship deals so is willing back the guys who can afford to boost their deals by billions.

              Reading Ronay's piece on the situation, it seems inevitable that City are going to destroy the PL with their army of lawyers and the political ties between England and UAE means the government is not going to intervene.

              Bring back the Super League unless something drastic happens and City are thrown out of the league system.

              Claudius You can have all the lawyers you want but when you have emails literally saying "pay us the money you're not allowed to pay us through entity X so they won't find out", I really don't know why that should matter. A monkey should be able to win the case against City. Then again it's the UK so anything is possible I guess.

              As a lawyer myself, I've taken some borderline shameful positions in my career. But reading those City arguments I truly wonder how anyone can make those statements without blinking or bursting out laughing. It's just next level clutching at straws on a level that is too childish even for a high school moot court. "Others are in London and can charge higher ticket prices and that's super unfair so I must be allowed to pump unlimited money in from the Gulf"? Jesus...

                Claudius The other thing that is likely happening here is that City is just tying up the league in legal preparation and fees at a time when the league should be focusing resources on the 115 charges

                The fact they're suing over the delays is a strong sign of this. The whole exercise looks ulterior, they're just hoping to reduce or avoid penalties with this tactic of attacking the league's foundations.

                Introducing the element that the league and its agencies are themselves commercial entities with their own conflicts and hazards is vaguely legitimate. I've been feeling that about PGMOL over the VAR controversies. But again, it's strictly ulterior. City Group obviously couldn't give a fuck about probity.

                    Burnwinter it’s called lack of foresight. Too often businesses like to boldly jump into massive revenue opportunities without the proper due diligence. Everyone said bringing in oligarchs and nation states into the ownership community would have dire consequences, but the Premier league focused on the short term gains of accumulating the best players.

                    This is what they’ve sown. As much as I loathe City, all of this was very easily avoidable if the league had taken a a principled approach to keep nations and affiliated actors from owning and sponsoring teams.

                      A prohibition on certain parties owning clubs would have led to protracted legal action as well, not in the least before the EU courts which were competent back then. I wouldn’t rule out that they would have done something equally stupid as Bosman and rubber stamped the death of football forever.

                      The UK government put huge pressure on the Premier League to approve the Saudi takeover of Newcastle too. If states threaten to hold back billions in investment in the UK, they're not going to give a shit about sporting integrity in football.

                      Fair enough tbf, that's on the PL for leaving that loophole open when they knew it was already happening in the EFL who then closed it.

                      PL only now tried and failed to close that loophole. Apparently they'll try again.