Listen mate. Don’t speak to me in your bullshit tone - you’ve been rude a million times to me. If you have a question about a point you made and a point I made in response find it (not interested in your usual misquoting) and I’ll try and explain. And if my view has changed I’ll say so. Changing a view based on facts changing is perfectly normal behaviour in the outside world.
Whatever you are referring to was presumably pre Nov 2024. And this explainer is talking about risk - risk the PL can’t afford regardless of the real world impact which I maintain will be nil due to mitigation (ie no club will be punished for doing something that wasn’t against the rules at the time through no fault of their own).
Well in Wolvie. Exactly why I suggested those who wanted to debate the merits of Stefan do so by PM.Reading through this stuff is great. The varied opinions make it all worth while.
The pile on again today against another poster is where it lets itself down unfortunately.
Dribble or Slbsn shouldn’t have to constantly defend their position. Far too many posters policing the thread and far too many easily offended if a point is challenged by supposedly inferior minds.
We all know despite the constant back and forth legal fighting that city will be cleared of any wrongdoing and that is all that matters. The legal/financial aspects in both cases is the only reason this shit show has been going on for so long.
Agreed 100%.They're being spoken about in this way as this drives clicks, comments and newspaper purchases, in the same way that headlines of "Arctic Blasts to Batter Britian" usually means it'll be a bit parky in London.
The judgment could be either eveything City wants it to be with Masters, FSG and Levy led away in chains or the complete destruction of the club with previous trophies handed out to other clubs. In reality it won't be either of those things and will fall somewhere on the spectrum between those two outcomes, judging off past information and the information from knowledgable people it will more than likely be in City's favour with possibly some points of blame laying at City's door. In that eventuality the papers will cry "cheats!", we'll say we're exonerated and hopefully the whole story saga will be finally over aside from snide whisperings from the cartel and their client media.
There's really no point getting worked up about it or speculating why X,Y or Z has or hasn't happened as there's genuinely no way of anyone outside the involved parties knowing what's really going on with it all, we'll find out soon enough and take it from there. It certainly won't be the doom and gloom scenario that people outside the club are hoping for.
Well perhaps it’s your natural tone. But I’ve found it rude a few times and I can’t be arsed with it any more. Nobody wants to hear more of this stuff though. As I said, if you find what you said and what I replied, I’ll see if my view has changed, developed, evolved, “flip flopped”, improved or whatever - I’m not doing based on your recollection.Sorry, It was literally just a question. You're the one firing insults to me for some reason (including a below belt attempt on where I live) This was pre Nov 24 when I was saying the PL had to apply the tweaked rules retrospectively otherwise they'll face another challenge.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I've just checked again & believe this isn't the case.Yes they do
& now the cartel & shills have got together, apparently Sam Wallace has got it right….
Fair play to Kavol (never thought I’d say that)
Aka vertically half cut avacadoA vagina.
Always thought you a bit green tbf.I came for the news but stayed for the avacado history. Cheers
Not much bullshit tone that I can discern in what he said and how he said (wrote) itListen mate. Don’t speak to me in your bullshit tone - you’ve been rude a million times to me. If you have a question about a point you made and a point I made in response find it (not interested in your usual misquoting) and I’ll try and explain. And if my view has changed I’ll say so. Changing a view based on facts changing is perfectly normal behaviour in the outside world.
Whatever you are referring to was presumably pre Nov 2024. And this explainer is talking about risk - risk the PL can’t afford regardless of the real world impact which I maintain will be nil due to mitigation (ie no club will be punished for doing something that wasn’t against the rules at the time through no fault of their own).
There is no way they will apply market levels of interest for historic periods where they cause clubs to breach. That would be obviously unfair and, no doubt, full mitigation anyway
Let it go, mate.Commonsense is all you need.
Perhaps the Editor would not allow his opinion to avoid lack of unlimited click bait.That's a mighty intellect who has to quote Sam fucking Wallace rather than give his own opinion. What is the point of that guy? At least Solkehol had an opinion.
here you go for reference.
my opinion is the PL are really going to struggle to get any rules that will work for the next 3 years. What they need to do is set the rules now for a year one monitoring period then in 3 years start the evaluating rolling period. It's the only way it's fair and legal across all clubs
Not sure I see it that way. They want a workable set of APT rules for ongoing assessments of PSR and City appear to want those rules to incorporate adjustments for FMV for all historic periods and may even be asking the PL to rerun 22/23 and 23/24 tests on such a basis. We simply don’t know.
But if it was just 24/25 and on with 22/23 and 23/24 interest FMVed that seems reasonable presuming fair mitigation is granted to Everton and other clubs with big interest FMV adjustments for 22/23 and 23/24 in such a scenario.
I stand by that. There is no way they are going to, for example, charge Everton an extra £20m for the last 2 years and say another £5m before October such that they fail 22/23 by enough extra for, say, 3 more points, 23/24 for maybe another 3 points and make it near impossible for them to pass 24/25 and 25/26 all due to rules that didn't even exist before October so beyond their control. If you disagree that is also fine.here you go for reference.
my opinion is the PL are really going to struggle to get any rules that will work for the next 3 years. What they need to do is set the rules now for a year one monitoring period then in 3 years start the evaluating rolling period. It's the only way it's fair and legal across all clubs