JamesMCFC
Well-Known Member
That Alex Baena looks decent.
Hopefully he has release clause we can activate in Jan
Hopefully he has release clause we can activate in Jan
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.
It's Quiet 18 - Wanna ring the bell?
- Thread starter tolmie's hairdoo
- Start date
Gaz (FMwkdsoul)
Well-Known Member
He does, but doubt he leaves mid season with Villareal in 5thThat Alex Baena looks decent.
Hopefully he has release clause we can activate in Jan
richards30
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 28,168
That Alex Baena looks decent.
Hopefully he has release clause we can activate in Jan
Yeah, he looks a top player already and falls nicely into the age bracket that the club normally like for Pep to mould
I think we should have a good idea on punishment. Even the minor parts I would argue affect the accounts make them false. Others say they e.g Mancini are not significant enough I am not so sure.That may be true but the punishment isn't clear cut, if its a 20pt deduction then Viana might not be too worried, relegation and its a bit different. We just don't know.
Then he won't get his big payout next March if he walks himself!
So I see the following possible outcomes and sanctions
false accounting relegation criminal investigations.
None cooperation no sporting advantage no sporting sanction.
Some combination of the above.
Innocent on all counts.
No European football so every chance of leaving. Only tough when it is a CL team.He does, but doubt he leaves mid season with Villareal in 5th
Gaz (FMwkdsoul)
Well-Known Member
and they are chasing that place for next season. cant see an academy lad bailing midchallenge tbh. he might but doubt it.No European football so every chance of leaving. Only tough when it is a CL team.
You’re saying that we are accused of buying success but then go on to explain fraud not PSR breaches which is the point the other poster was making. We might care about optics hence the recent careful spending it could in theory be away of dealing with the consequences of the charges e.g relegation but the optics shouldn’t affect the outcome. If it does the Pannel will themselves be in trouble with our lawyersBeg to differ, from all the analysis in the public domain we have under spent in the windows since 115 day in Feb 2023. Last summer eg we made a large net profit. I personally believe the reason why we accepted the £85m for Alvarez without any replacement was to create the best possible supporting narrative for the hearing, all driven by legal advice. If I'm wrong and we splurge £100m++ in January, I'd be absolutely delighted to apologise for being wrong, it won't be the first time....
115 in a nutshell is our enemies accusing us of buying success with substanial funding of a dubious nature. Our defence in a nutshell is we have used legitimate business investments to create a world class club/business capable of competing on all fronts. It's going to be swayed on interpretation of facts and sadly optics, narratives and opinions will also play a huge role. Our transfer business since 115 has not been conducted by Txikki per se, it's been on legal advice. Pep's knows this too and is probably why he's so frustrated....
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Was that not your intent?It does seem my comment has stirred up some shit. Thanks for the feedback
Just curious lolWas that not your intent?
For your information I wouldn't sign him either, but I do think someone from the Premier League will in the summer.