And I was responding to another post which if you’d bothered to follow the thread back you'd have understood.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Jobs would be more than replaced by the development enabled by removing the goods yard.Are you being serious? Your suggesting handing over freight trains to Merseyside which will cost thousands of job in the Greater Manchester area? Also train lines aren't just for passengers they're for goods and capacity on the trains is stretched and what you're suggesting would stretch it even further. Absolute ridiculous suggestion
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
Or even The Council House.The rags need to be careful if they accept government money for their stadium redevelopment. People could refer to them as State Owned Manchester United.
tbh i think the nickname of the rags still applies to them, they started off mooching in their inception and are still mooching now.Or even The Council House.
BerkshireBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 4,485
Temporary jobs you mean while they build itJobs would be more than replaced by the development enabled by removing the goods yard.
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
The government investing so much money just outside Manchester wouldn't go down well with cities like Sheffield and Leeds etc.
Ray bloody Purchase
Well-Known Member
They have been trying for years to change the boundaries around there to include the swamp into Manchester, I remember reading an article about it when they were just talking about the possibity of the Beeb moving there,..it’ll probably be part of the deal, they will get exactly what they tell the gov they want.The government investing so much money just outside Manchester wouldn't go down well with cities like Sheffield and Leeds etc.
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
Proving Starmer a plastic Arsenal fan.They have been trying for years to change the boundaries around there to include the swamp into Manchester, I remember reading an article about it when they were just talking about the possibity of the Beeb moving there,..it’ll probably be part of the deal, they will get exactly what they tell the gov they want.
Gremlin
Well-Known Member
Presumably nothing new or interesting has happened in relation to what the thread is actually about, hence the focus on rail infrastructure?
Lord Blue
Well-Known Member
yep, where are the thread moderators when you need themPresumably nothing new or interesting has happened in relation to what the thread is actually about, hence the focus on rail infrastructure?
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
Off the tracksI came on here to read about the breaches but it looks like the thread has lost its train of thought, I will try again in a couple of days to see if it’s back on the rails !
Derailed
Etc.
cleavers
Moderator
Back on track please.
It depends what they build. Shopping and hospitality the most likely. There could be warehousing. The rags say they would create permanent jobs.Temporary jobs you mean while they build it
Certainly, as you say, plenty of temporary jobs.
Bald fraud
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 5,541
So it turns out when tolmie was talking about soft signals he was on about fuckin trains!?
silva_is_gold
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 359
The threads hit the buffers
Wonder what crossed the line specifically for them to apologise to us on air. Not like its a rare occurrence for someone on Sky to talk bollocks about City.
The full comment was ''They seem to be the only team who can spend money and they’ve got 115 charges over their head. If there’s players available they will go and get them, even if they have to pay over the top, they don’t care. Man City make their own rules up."
He also joked that we may know we have a transfer ban coming up, when asked by Merson.
''Perhaps yeah, they must know something. These players they’ve brought in are certainly for now and the future. They’re trying to build for the future, they made a mistake by not buying in the summer.''
Which of the two comments Sky apologised for, who knows. But both crossed that line in delivery that previously was at least slightly left open to interpretation, even if the innuendo was pretty clear.
The full comment was ''They seem to be the only team who can spend money and they’ve got 115 charges over their head. If there’s players available they will go and get them, even if they have to pay over the top, they don’t care. Man City make their own rules up."
He also joked that we may know we have a transfer ban coming up, when asked by Merson.
''Perhaps yeah, they must know something. These players they’ve brought in are certainly for now and the future. They’re trying to build for the future, they made a mistake by not buying in the summer.''
Which of the two comments Sky apologised for, who knows. But both crossed that line in delivery that previously was at least slightly left open to interpretation, even if the innuendo was pretty clear.
Sky apologised but shouldn't Sherwood too? It's been years of these fuckers saying exactly what they want with impunity and it's getting draining.
BringBackSwales
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 37,142
Sky apologised but basically said the comments aren’t down to them. Two questions arise for me (1) who is paying those “pundits”? (2) if Sky aren’t responsible then why aren’t the “pundits” apologising?Sky apologised but shouldn't Sherwood too? It's been years of these fuckers saying exactly what they want with impunity and it's getting draining.