I couldn’t agree less. What chelsea have done may be legal but if selling hotels basically to yourselves is revenue for psr purposes these are probably the transactions that show more than anything what a corrupt crock of shit psr is, and how bent the premier league is. Absolutely daft, and no way would it be allowable for psr if we’d done it. So it may be legal, it’s certainly clever, but it’s ad bent as fuckI wouldn't put Chelsea's business activities in the same bucket as the rest. What they have done is perfectly legal and allowed transactions, it's not a sale to themselves it's a sale to the owners and basically asset stripping of the club. It's not sustainable and a massive gamble but they should have a right to sell club assets as they please. It should be noted that City and other clubs have also done similar transactions of assets. Chelsea also saw a gap in the PSR rules to do with player contract length which they doubled. Again, this was perfectly legal and in line with the rules. This rule has now changed so you can only split transfer fees over 4 to 5 years instead of 8-10. Was that rule change needed? absolutely not and it's probably another illegal rule the Premier League has forced through. This post sounds like a massive defense of Chelsea, it's not as I think they're fucked in the future. It is however a criticism of the PL and their ridiculous rules that are not fit for purpose and illegal in lots of parts.
But evidence of impartial application of the rules undermines the PL case. City have always held that the investigation is biased and the whole regulatory process is not regulation per se but the operation of a cartel behind a rule book so that there is one rule for the new entrant, and another rule for the established clubs.Doubtful, panels comprising of KC's wouldn't be impressed by whataboutery.
Knickers? I only wear the finest Agent Provocateur lingerie son.Your knickers are miles too tight, you’re a size 20, not a 10.
I could care less.
&$&#&#&@-# &#I could care less.
We are currently building a hotel. A massive hotel.I couldn’t agree less. What chelsea have done may be legal but if selling hotels basically to yourselves is revenue for psr purposes these are probably the transactions that show more than anything what a corrupt crock of shit psr is, and how bent the premier league is. Absolutely daft, and no way would it be allowable for psr if we’d done it. So it may be legal, it’s certainly clever, but it’s ad bent as fuck
Not sure it makes much difference, tbh. The PL and UEFA can include other transactions in the reporting perimeter, if appropriate, I think. Transparency would be nice, though.
Could make it a tifoTo big for a banner sadly
You know the rules ; )Knickers? I only wear the finest Agent Provocateur lingerie son.
I'm not sure what has triggered you, here.The fact you think this qualifies you to discount the belief systems of the entire human race, something independently invented by every single culture in the entire world, is just the absolute peak of arrogance.
Spirituality is part of neurology, for the record. Religious feelings are built into the biology of every human being at a fundamental level which is probably why almost every single human being in history, from untouched Amazonian tribes to proto-civilizations in the Indus Valley region, for the 12,000 years of human settlements before around 1900 believed in some sort of spirituality.
And you weighed up the evidence? Can you explain what you believe the energy levels of higher dimensional spacetime are please? What's your thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of abiogenesis from the conclusions of Miller-Urey? What's the key to the logarithmic sized gaps between the SM and Planck sizes? Doesn't that seem incomplete to you?
Whilst I'm not exactly religion's best friend, don't pretend that your answer for whether a creator exists lies in the realms of evidence and science.
It’s like itv x on here, made a brew in the last ads on here
Immediately discarded, didn't read the rest. Let's have a conversation when you're not acting like some cultist Q guy and you want to talk.I'm not sure what has triggered you, here.
The word "arrogance" seems to be floated about a lot, recently.Talk about arrogant - "Just like religious Johnny's do, you are reading one definition of a multifaceted term to defend an entrenched position."
In addition you speak in absolutes, you put people in boxes, you're sensitive to criticism, you're over dramatic, you want the last word and you have a need for admiration.
You may like to label yourself as atheist but those are all the hallmarks of a religious nut. He was right in what he said. You don't know what you are.
No thanks. Go your own way.Immediately discarded, didn't read the rest. Let's have a conversation when you're not acting like some cultist Q guy and you want to talk.
I think it is valid to argue that "whataboutery" won't cut much ice in City's case but the argument that the PL has introduced a whole battery of regulations not to guarantee sustainability or ensure "financial fair play" but as a weapon to be used by a small number of clubs against their rivals might explain why we are still waiting for a decision. If the PL's evidence against City is flimsy or non-existent City may well have broadened the attack to bring the whole shambolic regulations and their application into the case, maintaining that they have nothing to do with integrity or honesty but are actually unlawful in large parts and are clearly aimed at discriminating against certain easily identifiable clubs for the benefit of certain other easily identifiable clubs. City's case would be that the club is in no way guilty of false accounting, has never disguised owner investment as sponsorship income, but that the 115 charges were simply one step in a campaign to destroy the club to render it incapable of rivalling a group of hitherto successful clubs. further clearly discriminatory measures have been introduced, steps which are unlawful because they apply one standard to one set of clubs and a quite different standard to City, and Newcastle and others. If the IC believes there is great merit in this argument the PL will certainly want time to respond before its whole edifice comes crashing down - and a quick bit of tinkering certainly wouldn't do this time.But evidence of impartial application of the rules undermines the PL case. City have always held that the investigation is biased and the whole regulatory process is not regulation per se but the operation of a cartel behind a rule book so that there is one rule for the new entrant, and another rule for the established clubs.
IMO the PSR regulatory framework is a mess and not even defended by people who believe that such a process is necessary.
What charges? I thought this was the cornbeef thread what's it turned into with all this spiritual stuff. And then you've dropped in something about charges !?!No news on the charges then (sorry to derail the thread)
If you're on a plane and it's going to have a crash landing, when you are told to get in the crash position, I bet most people end up praying to God, regardless of being a believe or non believe
It's a big beautiful hotel, a world beating hotel, it's going to make Manchester great againWe are currently building a hotel. A massive hotel.
It's a big beautiful hotel, a world beating hotel, it's going to make Manchester great again