The article in the Times makes *’s filing sound pretty amateur, surprising given their allegedly elite legal team.
Unless the KC’s mentioned are lending their name only and these two (courtesy of their fan forum) are running the show;
These two ‘arguments’ have been making my eyes go squiffy, courtesy of a couple of geniuses on bluemoon…
_”The social media morons are misreading this as City wanting to have an unfair financial advantage, when in fact, we don’t want be unfairly penalised. This is what the fools don’t get, why should we roll over and allow four clubs to be in cahoots with football’s governing bodies to restrict reasonable sponsorship that would be allowed at other clubs? They’re trying to tie weights to our feet and this is most likely linked to the ‘115’ as if we receive a footballing punishment, they want to make it as hard as possible for us ever to rise to the same position of power. It’s clear and orchestrated and all of it is linked in my eyes.
Corrupt to the core, bring on the independent regulator.”_
And this
_”I have been having fun on twitter with this argument
If our sponsorship deals have been inflated, then haven’t they done well out of them. They have sponsored a team that has won the treble, achieved 100 points, won 4 PL TITLES in a row and done the domestic treble, signed marketable superstars and are a global brand. For sponsors that is a win win scenario. They get to associate themselves with success.
Other teams sponsors will have put lots of money into sponsorship deals and seen the team they have sponsored finish mid table with a leaky roof, a crap manager whilst being millions in debt. These sponsors associate themselves with mediocrity and decay.”_
The guy ‘having fun on Twitter’ in particular with quite the slam-dunk :🤦
