Search results

Excellent question. If the principle of profits on sales of assets is that they are allowable FFP income (as in Chelsea's case), then it seems the only difference is a PL disclosure requirement for the expenses which would have been paid by the club (unless there is more to Fordham than meets...

Someone asked McNulty on the BBC why does everyone in the press say City have a bigger squad when it's the same size as the others, smaller than most. His reply: they mean a better squad with more depth. Which begs the obvious follow-up question: why the fuck don't they just say that then?

A point which could have been made without getting City fan's knickers in a twist again. Still, good engagement I imagine. There's a word for it, I think.

Who doesn't like a nose-tickler?

Nothing against Everton personally, but it would be funny as fuck if these points deductions sent them down. Silly PL bastards.

Lot of bollocks on this thread from both "sides". Clearly he is having a great season and no-one knows how he will develop as he gets older or how he would have integrated at City in the next two years, but doing him down because penalties this, low-block that, mid-table the other is pretty sad...

:) And you think it would be?

No lawyer, but I think you get charged for criminal offences by the appropriate body. In civil cases one party makes a claim (hence claimant) against the other. So the PL doesn't make charges, it claims breaches of contract when rules are broken. And there isn't a trial, either, in the case...

Well, fuck me. Another thread that needs to be closed down. There will be none left.

. Oh, that's right. Didn't they sell the season documentary to someone? Disney, was it? Will be glorious.

It's amazing how many people address the allegations from so many different angles and all come to the same conclusion. To quote you: the PL hierarchy did not and do not know what they are doing".

Not a big fan of trolling, myself .......

I suppose it's a good way to drive engagement.

Bless

The fact he presented isn't like that at all, tbf. An analogy to WW2 would be stating that the vast majority of countries weren't allied with Germany. How that fact is interpreted is up to the people discussing, but yes I can see this is going nowhere useful so I will take your advice and stop it :)

:) Don't want to get caught up in petty personal disagreements. But he is right in what he said about the vast majority of countries not designating Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations, many western allies included as well as some of the more obvious western "enemies". You can't...

To keep it on topic, I would just like say that some people really shouldn't shave their heads.

Tbf, he said the vast majority of countries don't classify Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorist organisations. Are you disputing that?