Some posters simply don't want to read anything that might have even a tiny modicum of negativity to it. All they want to see is 100% positive posts. FWIW, I don't think you're being overly negative at all with what you've said and the impression I get is that you still feel the outcome will be a positive one for us.Such a shit reply. There was no questioning. It was simply you dismissing everything as ill thought through guessing. Which it isn't. And not just me, others on here also give detailed reasoned thinking using their experience. Don't like, don't read.
i have no issue, apart from the last time i gave it out to him i was thread banned so different rules seem to replyYou gave it out to him, he gave it you back and then you complained about it. Not sure what the issue is here.
thanks for your input much appreciated also your input must run that closeThe most tedious post on this thread.
And that’s including everything on corned beef and eggs.
number 1 i didnt dismiss anything, i said that you had said alot without saying anything which is the case, what you said was heavily caveated which it was and you took offence to that and it could go exactly the same way from your response if you dont like what people say back you dont have to read it either, i am not disputing your experience but i am disputing the idea that everything you say is infallable but im not getting into it because the last time i disagreed with you i was thread banned so you have your opinion which is fine and i will have mine and that will be fine.Such a shit reply. There was no questioning. It was simply you dismissing everything as ill thought through guessing. Which it isn't. And not just me, others on here also give detailed reasoned thinking using their experience. Don't like, don't read.
They never seem to have a case to answer despite the constant “write offs” in their 2 sets of accounts. I find this “2 sets of accounts” issue perplexing & astounding. How is it permitted?@slbsn
Kieran Maguire was recently interviewed by the BBC to explain why Man Utd were unexpectedly active in the transfer market https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cj09pn56361o . He explains there that their PSR calculation was based on a UK subsidiary's pre-tax losses (£36.2m) which massively undercut the parent company's (£130m) pre-tax losses. This is reported as a matter of fact way. I have read elsewhere ( https://onefootball.com/en/news/how-man-utd-remain-within-psr-limits-despite-heavy-spending-41207406) that the difference is due to Red Football's accounts as excluding much of their takeover and finance costs.
In a Group of companies, I can understand why you would have different reporting entities relating to different part of the businesses but in Utd's case there is only 1 football club. If I was the regulator and I knew that a club's accounts excluded some costs attributable to the running of that football club, I'd be asking questions and potentially making an adjustment to their adjusted losses.
Do you think Utd have a case to answer?
where did i say i didnt want any negativity, its neither one nor the other, its that heavily caveated that its nothing and that is exactly what i said, im not sure why im not allowed to disagree but clearly it seems im not.Some posters simply don't want to read anything that might have even a tiny modicum of negativity to it. All they want to see is 100% positive posts. FWIW, I don't think you're being overly negative at all with what you've said and the impression I get is that you still feel the outcome will be a positive one for us.
So “slow” (in terms of releasing the result) is not bad then?? They would have to take the same detailed approach in dismissing the PL charges?Personally I don't see it like that. City's defence was always likely to be detailed, thorough and compelling. It could never be simply dismissed. If it is to be dismissed, it will be done so in a thorough way and probably have to make some damning findings that will cause a major stir going forward.
If nobody knows when it’s coming and nobody knows if there have been any unforeseen delays behind the scenes, speculating about signals due to the length of time it’s taking is pointless.Daily rate.
I wrote a whole piece in Feb 2023 saying fans, employees etc all had the right to a public timetable even if it was subject to change. But I am told even the parties don't know when it is coming.
IF they find that the whole charges was down to say 3 or 4 charges and all the rest was to glamarise the case. then could the panel recomend that all cost be burden to them?PL doesn't have a defence. It has its case/claim/complaint. Unless the complaint is found to be completely without any foundation (I really doubt it), then they will be protected from most criticism although they can expect the bulk of the costs if they fail.
Almost every single post on here should be considered to have caveats as nobody knows. Some posters have a lot of experience which they use to make educated guesses. I can't see the point of pulling up Stefan for the same reason re. caveats. If he stated everything he said as facts then maybe.where did i say i didnt want any negativity, its neither one nor the other, its that heavily caveated that its nothing and that is exactly what i said, im not sure why im not allowed to disagree but clearly it seems im not.
Yes, no, maybe I suspect.So “slow” (in terms of releasing the result) is not bad then?? They would have to take the same detailed approach in dismissing the PL charges?
I only ask because there is a more negative slant to your posts just now.
Because even the PL wouldn’t let it get this far with absolutely nothing.
Not looking for faults - or clues - at all!! Just trying to understand the reasoning & a bit worried that, whilst we all know nothing yet, some views seem to have changed to bring a bit less positivity & wondered whyYes, no, maybe I suspect.
I know we're all desperate for this to be over, one way or another, but everyone seems to be finding faults and/or clues in every word uttered.
But you're not questioning though, your being obtuse and pretty much exclusively dismissive of someone who is an actual expert.oh yeah im sorry i forgot its against forum rules to question your analysis isnt it, i do apologise
yes - October/November 2003Was this the original City Store? If so, my current employers introduced the buyer and brokered the debt requirement.
Some sentence that!number 1 i didnt dismiss anything, i said that you had said alot without saying anything which is the case, what you said was heavily caveated which it was and you took offence to that and it could go exactly the same way from your response if you dont like what people say back you dont have to read it either, i am not disputing your experience but i am disputing the idea that everything you say is infallable but im not getting into it because the last time i disagreed with you i was thread banned so you have your opinion which is fine and i will have mine and that will be fine.
Because it is obvious there is a case of some sort to answer.Why do you doubt it?
Because it is obvious there is a case of some sort to answer.