halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,234
That could well be the case. We'll have to wait and see.
Except excluding prior loans would be discriminatory and round and round we go.
Bit of an issue this for the PL.
That could well be the case. We'll have to wait and see.
Hey, that's mine!
Fucking clueless cretin.Who is this Magic hat twat, says City have only won a couple of minor points, good day for the prem league he says. Obviously a red of some persuasion
Given Bishops rant against us if anybody wants tickets to his tour....
Didn't jordan call for us to get booted out of the competition for challenging a rule that turned out to be unlawful?Wait for Simon Jordan’s head to explode tomorrow
Leicester,Everton & Forest did.Wasn't suggesting otherwise (about City).
But there are other clubs who would not have had the balls to take on the Premier League, or the money to do it, who are equally subject to ill-formed laws and unfairness...
I'm struggling to compute the comment of the prem "being in a much, much, better position" than if they lost all the claims against them.
That's like saying a bloke is in a much, much, better position losing only 75% of his monthly pay at the casino than losing 100% of it.
Technically, it is correct, but also he has lost 75% of his money. And in the grand scheme of things, his Mrs is not seeing the much, much, better position.
The premier league have been outed in a brutal fashion, that they clung onto a few scraps of victory is not a result for them at all. The damage to their reputation is immense, no matter how they spin it. When they lose the 115 charges soap opera the whole system will be cleared out.
Tbh i dont think money is the main concern with chelsea, they may see an opportunity where sponsorship dwarves any interest they pay