By applied retrospectively, that presumably means that any existing interest-free loans should start to be given a value from the implementation of new rules. The alternative would be that that value could have accumulated since the loans were made - but surely better to say that would be unfair (just like rules designed to apply retrospectively to City).
I don’t see how the 115 is the same to be fair I don’t see how anything in it is retrospectiveWell if you look at the theory of 115 charges, if one year of what they are accusing Cify of is wrong that means that every year after is wrong. Apply that to the psr rules which were deemed to be illegal. Every club has operated in an illegal manner, back date that over various years. It doesn’t make comfortable viewing.
If you knew about the cartel in 2006 why the fuck did your club write a letter with the cartel asking UEFA to ban City in 2020? FTM
And the unlawfulness, with which the rules were written. Something that won't wash anymore.It certainly helps highlight the absurdity of the rules.
The WhatsApp group will be fire though!Distinct lack of Ben Jacobs discussing all this over the last week.
I guess he’s too busy in Qatar crying.
About four miles, and it did cross my mindHow far away from Piccadealer Gardens are you ? lots of choices, all at fair prices. Better than Boots :O
More leaks than in a Max Boyce sing a longLoving the leaks, City are finally on the front foot and are hopefully smelling blood