As others have said when the narrative changes to its so unfair then the story is coming to an end.
Its no longer relegation, compensation, trophy’s awarded to runners up but loopholes, government interference & expensive lawyers.
I have re-written the headline for them:
"Foreign Office confirm they have no involvement in the PL's independent City hearing. Government and embassies updating each other on developments."
Factual, but not as many clicks, I suppose.
Is that Areola?
Replies are hilarious
Replies are hilarious
If City were found to have broken the rules, there would be complete and utter silence about ‘wouldn’t look good… bent country’ as it would be drowned out by the tsunami of self righteousness bollox wallowing in the demise of City.Just thinking if City were guilty it wouldn't look good on the government for getting billions of investment into the country from a bent country lol
All this is old news from months ago. And you wonder why it's being dragged out again? Also the rumours that the case won't go the full 10 weeks? It seems the media are getting there excuses in early as they know the way its going and its not what they or their paymasters want.IF this is the case then the only place these leaked emails can come from is the PL.
As you say, that's what Embassies do or at least should do to be aware of facts. I'm sure they read the media view of news but facts come from untampered documents.It’s an old story. You would expect this to happen as a matter of routine. Khaldoon runs one of the Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Funds which invests hundreds of millions in the UK. The Embassy will always be working on trade deals and the 115 case could damage relations. Of course the Embassy would be interested. This is what Embassies do. It is a desperate story by Ziegler. I wonder who prompted this story and what was their motive.
Or we could just let them do what they want and if they go belly up then so be it.Loans for Infrastructure are no different to a mortgage imo. You get one based on income & credit worthiness, adjustable by deposit size.
Imagine Ipswich Town applying for a £1.5bn commercial loan to build a 150000 capacity Super stadium, with a retractable roof & rotating pitch. Any sane lender would tell them to go fuck themselves!
HOWEVER, if their owner rocked up with £1.4bn of his own money & gave a personal guarantee by way of a charge against his personal assets of £50m & borrowed the £50m balance on a 25 year deal against the club, most lenders would probably snatch the owner's hand off.
If the owner went belly up, Ipswich Town would only be liable for £50m over 25 years to build this preposterous white elephant, which is easily achievable if they remain the the English Football League & the Premier League.
This way, clubs can dream as big as they like without putting their existences in peril. BUT the total annual servicable debt repayments levied against any club can never exceed ⅓ of their annual turnover. I can see no issues with a football governance proposal along these lines.
It's a regulations vs rules argument. We may operate in a dog eat dog free market capitalist system, but football clubs are representative of their communities & it's understandable that many would want to see clubs protected from going belly up.Or we could just let them do what they want and if they go belly up then so be it.
They're not leaked emails, they were obtained from a freedom of information (FOI) request to the home office(?). The PL isn't involved.IF this is the case then the only place these leaked emails can come from is the PL.
You're absolutely correct of course, but who told the applicant of the FOI, to request those particular correspondence?They're not leaked emails, they were obtained from a freedom of information (FOI) request to the home office(?). The PL isn't involved.
Not sure if serious?You're absolutely correct of course, but who told the applicant of the FOI, to request those particular correspondence?
Why not Israeli - Foreign office or USA - foreign office, surely more news worthy atm. Who told them to apply and why?
(I love a good conspiracy theory )
Yeah, as serious as you can be about this bollocks. I suppose it depends on the parameters of the request. 'Can we see all of the correspondence between both parties for the last 12 months' or ' the last meeting/correspondence'Not sure if serious?
You don’t apply for an FOI. You make it sound like you need to fill in a special form, but you can just ask someone for information. Many people doing FOI requests don’t even know that’s what they’re doing, but the requested party categorises it as such.Yeah, as serious as you can be about this bollocks. I suppose it depends on the parameters of the request. 'Can we see all of the correspondence between both parties for the last 12 months' or ' the last meeting/correspondence'
They knew what they were looking for. I have never made an application for an FOI, but why would you?
Happy to be schooled.
I cannot agree with much of what you say here. No-on is suggesting, or has ever suggested that Ipswich Town should build a 150000 capacity Super stadium but clubs have decided to leave stadia which they consider outdated to move to more modern stadia which provide a much better facilities for fans and greater revenues for the club. Our rag neighbours need desperately either to improve OT or to move elsewhere. The cost is significantly greater than 50% of annual turnover, whether the club was Southampton, Leicester or Everton, Spurs and the rags at the other end of the spectrum. Under FFP investment on such projects can be unlimited subject to meeting the interest payments. Clubs seem to have coped well enough with this: Southampton and Brighton have had to be relatively inactive in the transfer market for a time and Spurs fans have their grievances, real or imagined, but the new stadia are a real asset.Loans for Infrastructure are no different to a mortgage imo. You get one based on income & credit worthiness, adjustable by deposit size.
Imagine Ipswich Town applying for a £1.5bn commercial loan to build a 150000 capacity Super stadium, with a retractable roof & rotating pitch. Any sane lender would tell them to go fuck themselves!
HOWEVER, if their owner rocked up with £1.4bn of his own money & gave a personal guarantee by way of a charge against his personal assets of £50m & borrowed the £50m balance on a 25 year deal against the club, most lenders would probably snatch the owner's hand off.
If the owner went belly up, Ipswich Town would only be liable for £50m over 25 years to build this preposterous white elephant, which is easily achievable if they remain in the English Football League & the Premier League.
This way, clubs can dream as big as they like without putting their existences in peril. BUT the total annual servicable debt repayments levied against any club can never exceed ⅓ of their annual turnover. I can see no issues with a football governance proposal along these lines.
Thanks for the informationYou don’t apply for an FOI. You make it sound like you need to fill in a special form, but you can just ask someone for information. Many people doing FOI requests don’t even know that’s what they’re doing, but the requested party categorises it as such.
Probably just an FOI request to the relevant Govt department. There is nothing secret about this. The Embassy will have just asked to be kept updated by Whitehall. It has no impact on the Judges’ decision. This is just routine stuff Embassies do it all the time no matter how much the media try to distort things. The UK has lots of trade deals which Khaldoon is involved in which have nothing to do with City.IF this is the case then the only place these leaked emails can come from is the PL.