Oh, it's about Mr Manchester

And here was me thinking it was about football.

The Manchester City imbroglio is now being used to put pressure on Andy Burnham. In a "Did He Eat Cake?!" ousting Boris sort of way. What did he know? Who did he meet?

Man City, Manchesterism, Number 10 North, it's all in the same place. (How did I not see this one?) As mayor of Manchester he must have had some dealings with the very naughty City owners. So it looks fishy ..but in that way that always looks fishy whenever you put politicians in the same room as billionaires. They could literally be doing something as innocent as eating birthday cake, but when you're looking for an axe to grind that's generally enough. Next all you need is some kind of technicality - an uncrossed t or undotted i. Better get the fine tooth comb out.

It's hard to imagine yet another prime minister being made to walk the plank, but it is the land of eternal clownery at the moment, so I thought I better make a note of it.

It's a slightly odd one, as you'd think people on the right would be more on the City side of the argument. I've commented elsewhere on the rules that City are being hoisted by. 'Smashing A Beautiful Blue Sportscar' It's all a bit communist. (Actually, I shouldn't say communist, that's very lazy, I'm not on Twitter. It's more just general lefty overregulation type stuff.) Either way, I've had a bee in my bonnet about it for a while.

I think they should just let clubs spend whatever they want. Like in the old days.

There's an argument for socialism and "fairness" when it comes to important things like healthcare. However, no one's going to die if a football club goes out of business. It's just football. For a start, even clubs that do go into administration rarely crash out entirely. Usually some wealthy saviour steps in. Even when they do hit the rocks they don't truly disappear, as if there's a catchment area for support that void will always be filled by a club one way or another. Look at Darlington.

I mentioned in the above linked-to article that these rules were originally brought in to stop clubs going out of business (wrongheaded in of itself), but have since become about imposing "fairness."

"Man City cheated, they spent too much money! It's not fair!! 😢😢"

It's barmy.

What on earth is wrong with these people?

How can you not have unfairness in the world?

If Arsenal play Accrington Stanley in the FA Cup it's inevitably going to be unfair. One is a title-winning Premier League side with a global brand, the other is Accrington Stanley ("Who 'r they?" - Exactly). But so what? As long as the referee treats all the players the same and they're playing by the same rules on the pitch, what's the problem? It's part of the fun of football. That the underdog might beat the giant.

Likewise, if Elon Musk decides to buy Accrington Stanley and then takes them to the Champions League, what's wrong with that either? Are Accrington Stanley fans not even allowed to dream of that happening?

You can see I'm still more concerned about the football than the politics, lol. Although I care about the football so much because it's a perfect illustration of the politics. English football is incredibly successful. It's competitive. It's entertaining. It attracts investment. Yet, here we are, potentially ejecting a successful club from the league, just like we eject our prime ministers. All to satiate the same silly activists that ruin everything with their endless bureaucracy.