Without wishing the thread to go round in circles, I think you will find with some certainty that they are adamant that they are not wrong, they have taken a different stance on the findings, which of course is their perogative. ;-)Stefan and Damocles are wrong.
We proved their rules are unlawful. Which is what we set out to do.
wonderful listening
Chef executive Of Etihad on Sky Business news just talking about Man City. He says the sponsorship deals with the club are FMV & in return they get amazing exposure from the club. Just in the last 12 months they have increased turnover by 30%.
Looking at the original sponsorship which many said was inflated now looks like a fantastic deal.
Etihad obviously looked at the project by CFG & liked what they saw.
So the question is what is an over inflated deal?
100% this. Who can say? You might think a deal was over-inflated and someone else might think it wasn't. There isn't a right or a wrong answer is there?So the question is what is an over inflated deal?
Exactly. Stefan and those that agree with him can consider an organisation to have won at an independent tribunal where it has been found that they have abused their dominant position by implementing rules that are unlawful, unfair and unreasonable. The rest of us are allowed a different view.Without wishing the thread to go round in circles, I think you will find with some certainty that they are adamant that they are not wrong, they have taken a different stance on the findings, which of course is their perogative. ;-)
Are they not yanks?That seems to be real stumbling block.
The chairmen of the non-cabal clubs can't be so blind as to see what the redshirts/yanks are doing to achieve their selve-serving approach, to the detriment of everybody else, and yet the fuckers keep getting sucked in.
Chevrolet, TeamViewer, visit Rwanda, warrior sports, standard chartered… for startersSo the question is what is an over inflated deal?
I don't think they said the PL had won, their stance was more like, there is no clear winner?Exactly. Stefan and those that agree with him can consider an organisation to have won at an independent tribunal where it has been found that they have abused their dominant position by implementing rules that are unlawful, unfair and unreasonable. The rest of us are allowed a different view.
The contest between their adamancy and that of the majority on here could perhaps be plotted in relative terms on a graph by one of our many accountants ;-)Without wishing the thread to go round in circles, I think you will find with some certainty that they are adamant that they are not wrong, they have taken a different stance on the findings, which of course is their perogative. ;-)