The PL seems to be somewhat in disarray, not to say in rather a mess. Gone is the certainty that only a blue pencil is required to make the few slight adjustments required and it is recognised that time is "necessary" for the task, and the PL will take the time needed. Then proposals will be put to the FCAG and the PL will presumably vote on them. I suspect that since the PL's welcoming of the award as a victory and vindication of the regulations Masters has been told several times by the PL lawyers that the PL has dug itself into a hole and is still digging, that it has shown a readiness to ignore their advice on the law and that this has forced the legal team, eminent though they be, to defend a set of regulations clearly unlawful and unfair. The Leicester case had already shown the chaos and confusion around one set of regulations and the City case had shown that though the PL seemed to be reasonably good at knowing how to stitch up competitors for certain clubs, they had a tendency to be ignorant of what the law was regarding a whole range of transactions and competition. And over any new regulations is the brooding presence of Manchester City, certainly not blindfolded and waving the scales of justice with a nod and a wink at Mr Masters. Time to talk to clubs (the majority of whom seem to have had their fill of divisive rules and conflict), listen to the lawyers and do football a favour for once. They are supposed to be a governing body.
As someone pointed out the relationship between the PL, SKY and the BBC is highly incestuous. You only have to look at Mai Fyfield who painted herself as some sort of executive hero because she worked soo incredibly hard while rejecting our Ethihad sponsorship. Just look at her CV she's been an executive director at all three of them, and at some stages in her career at the same time !. It's now an all out legal war of attrition, thats until someone like the Minster of Sport or IR steps in and drains that cesspit and swamp of corruption aka as the Premier League executive.
I deemed "cuntish" more appropriate an adjective than "laddish" as used in the post by BobbyOwen'squiff originally, but I'm happy to bow to your preference as you make your point so eloquently.Cuntish is a beautiful word and should, no doubt, have a higher prominence in the English language. However, your use of that word, in this particular context is, unfortunately, inaccurate.
The suffix ‘ish’ is used when describing a quality or, indeed, a flaw, that approximates to that description but may involve, some redeeming qualities.
The 2 aforementioned are, undoubtedly, cunts of the first order, therefore the ‘ish’ is rendered unnecessary. ;-)
Non-exec just means not an employee. Non-execs vote for board decisions but executive directors carry out board decisions.By the way, she is a non-executive director of the PL. I am not sure what she is doing making executive decisions?
As someone pointed out the relationship between the PL, SKY and the BBC is highly incestuous. You only have to look at Mai Fyfield who painted herself as some sort of executive hero because she worked soo incredibly hard while rejecting our Ethihad sponsorship. Just look at her CV she's been an executive director at all three of them, and at some stages in her career at the same time !. It's now an all out legal war of attrition, thats until someone like the Minster of Sport or IR steps in and drains that cesspit and swamp of corruption aka as the Premier League executive.
I find this puzzling. If most owners don't want to invest in a big way, why are they so free with "interest free" (ie often not repayable) loans. These are little more than disguised owner investment.Mate most owners don’t want to invest in a big way. Wherever they are in the food chain they don’t want sink lower. Investing owners coming in below threaten that. Hence the majority in bed with the cartel simples.
That's exactly what I was thinking. When they voted on the adoption of APTs, a purely cartel created legal mythology, what are those non cartel clubs thinking ?
What do they want for themselves?, what do the cartel promise them ?. They can't be that intellectually lacking to just believe the cartel decree "stop City FFS".
For example, West Ham why would they deny themselves a class of potential sponsorship that could transform them like us ? would it be the worst thing in the world to see the Hammers as champions of England. But as sure as God made little green apples that will never happen with the cartel owning the PL.
Aside: On the subject of 'arms length Fair Market Values' who the feck on planet earth could justify paying Masters a salary of £1.8m per annum. What other organisation in the world would be prepared to pay that imbecile that amount ?
Gabapentin might help perhaps?You know what, I was lay here in the night, aching knee doing my brains in, and as usual on bluemoon to pass the time, and it started me thinking.......Anyway, that’s my musings on this Saturday morning, I’ll get back to feeling sorry for myself and wanting to saw my leg off, lol.
I don’t agree.
Liverpool have a good chance of winning the league,but they probably won’t.
If the opinion was that on balance the rules were probably lawful it would have said so. It wasn’t a foregone conclusion but that opinion is an absolute giveaway that the rules were considered to be more likely unlawful than not.
To put the same point another way The PL took a punt on the rules being lawful.
My brain's geriatric too - but I'm still young enough to enjoy the sound of my own voice! Anyway, thanks for the generous words and I'll try to be more brief.Enjoy and agree with your posts @StillBuesinceHydeRoad but could you please break the post down for ease of reading ?
My brain is geriatric and can only accept bite-sized chunks of info.