I just cant see how though... the drug taking conspiracy is pure boll*cks in my opinion... Not to take anything away from them but from what i saw they scraped wins by the skin of there teeth, long balls to Vardy, have one shot on target and somehow get the 3 points - many times Kasper Schemichal and the defense saved them from defeat.. look at them these last bunch of games under Shakespeare, there playing how they was last season - all working there bollocks off, lets not forget they have a squad of international players - it can be achieved, everything went for them last season - City collapsed, Chelsea imploded under Mourinho and Man Utd were transitional with Moyes and Van Gaal, Liverpool also with Rodgers/Klopp. Needless to say how many would actually have been involved - the players, coaching staff, Ranieri, owners... the list goes on, would be hundreds of people! yes you can point to Lance Armstrong and his crew, but that was minimal in comparison
- unless every club manager sat down with the FA and agreed to let Leicester win the league that season by battering them in games yet lose on most occasions. i dont see it.
Good grief. I'd stop reading the San (as you pronounce it) and falling for the bullshit they spout. EVERY club is in "transition", as there are constant changes to personnel every season, be it players or managers. Football is cyclical, and the top teams of yesterday are no longer the force they were. The only difference today is that the media is all pervasive. They always have had, and always will have, their favourites, and when they struggle, due to increased competition because there is no longer a monopoly at the top for them to grow richer, and thus self-perpetuating, they make the excuse for their decline as "transition" and still praise them, despite their difficulties. The two clubs you highlighted are a case in point.
With regards to Gill and the comment relating to conflict of interest, that, in my opinion, is a valid point. Taking aside my parochial interest, how can a man who is a director of a club be the following?
1. A senior figure in the FA with, no doubt (although I'm speculating) a great deal of say in the day to day running of various committees,
including disciplinary, when it is obvious there is a great deal of difference in the treatment of players from different clubs
for identical offences committed, depending on the club involved. In addition, fines are awarded against clubs for various offences, such as "failing to control players" with certain clubs appearing to be exempt from censure for the same "offence". I do not intend to elaborate further as you have seen that with your own eyes on things like sendings off and bookings.
2. A member of the UEFA executive , and part of his duties include the checking of club accounts where that club may be in breach of FFP, and determining the level of financial punishment to be inflicted. This is despite, in the early stages, his own club was in the Champions League at the same time. Apparently not a conflict of interest, but I'll say no more, and let you consider this point. Initially, he was part of the committee formulating those rules, and when they didn't achieve what they set out to do, ie protect a cartel to maintain the status quo, endeavoured to change the rules (or move the goalposts in football parlance). When that didn't work either, and part of the original cartel fell on hard times (back to football's cyclical nature), the rules were changed again, to something approaching what thy originally were, to help them out!
3. Also on the FIFA panel. This appears to have no impact, I'm pleased to say, on the day to day running of football clubs in England, but if there was................. I'll leave it there.