The strongest No argument was not about whether Manchester City’s investment mattered, but whether it could justify political intervention in a process that should remain independent. No won overwhelmingly, and the most-respected No case boiled the objection down to a question: “Who on earth is voting yes to this?”
A more developed version came from a voter who said they did not care about football: “Surely this is a matter for the club, league, and the auditors etc? Not the politicians”. Others sharpened the charge, calling intervention “naked corruption” and warning that investment must not buy political protection.
The Yes case was brief and direct: “None of this process has been fair or impartial and the ‘rules’ are a joke”. It challenged the legitimacy of the proceedings, but did not explain why Burnham should intervene; the most-respected No arguments, by contrast, focused on the risk of a politician leaning on an independent process.
That concern reaches beyond football to the limits of government influence over powerful investors. One No voter asked what message intervention would send: “Break every financial rule you want, as long as your Gulf owners build a few tram stops and fund local regeneration.” The debate’s dividing question was whether investment could justify an exception to the rules.
35 Opinions
Football clubs are businesses, which rise and fall. Government doesn't jump in and help a business that is falling for any reason. It's not their job. To do so would create a precedence, with other businesses whose loss would also be felt among the public, jumping on the bandwagon. It's a no from me.
There are authorities in place to do this. Why would people even want this to happen? Govt. has it's nasty hands everywhere, why invite them in?
No, he shouldn't interfere., pm. The ruling body must decide the punishment.
There should be zero political interference as it would green light others to do the same and get away with it.
The Premier League and football in general is an important part of many people's lives. This scandal is damaging enough, but political interference would damage its credibility further, with a real cost to fans. Investors in Britain need to play by the rules.
The Football Leagues from Premier to the bottom of th3le pyramid must remain clear from any political intervention in order to keep the competitions true and honest. The moment government intervenes, ntegrity is lost and there will always be doubt over the winners.
Nothing to do with him as an MP. No one intervened with Leicester, Forest or Everton.
Burnham should be seen to be impartial
Andy Burnham shouldn't intervene in anything! Not my PM!! No vote.
A role of Government is to create a legal framework for businesses to successfully operate. It is not to intervene or pressurise parties at will. If this was say Southend on Sea not Manchester City would a Manchester obsessed PM be as interested in intervening? This is what tinpot dictators do…………..Oh