SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
The art of getting other people to come up with your ideas or suggestions is an amcient art.
Let them take ownership they may have more success than us.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Let them take ownership they may have more success than us.
flb
Well-Known Member
Bang on mate, its scruff's safety blanket "the rules stop me from spending dont they".The only criticism I have of Martin Samuel's article concerns his discussion of the role of Sir Jim's investment in the rags. Samuel is right to argue that the rags could be involved in the title race if Ineos were allowed to finance the changes needed at the club - but PSR prevents this. This is far too charitable to Sir Jim. There is much more evidence to show that Sir Jim put money into the club BECAUSE the rules would NOT allow him to finance any real change. There is no evidence of any real disagreement with the Glazers and no real evidence of a desire to spend, no desire of real unhappiness with the rules. What we have seen with his other clubs is rather a determination to cut costs and increase profitability at a cost of bringing no success on the field. At the swamp we have seen an emphasis on cutting costs coupled with the worst start to a league season since ... Sir Jim is the kind of "investor" that PSR attracts ... a hard faced "what's in it for me? ... "loads a momey" wide boy. Pay no tax, put nowt in, make a packet and stuff the rest.
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
how much more do they want to spend they just spent 600 millionBang on mate, its scruff's safety blanket "the rules stop me from spending dont they".