blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
I know fella, that's why there's a smile on the end of my post.A) I can’t see any outcome and subsequent appeals being done by then, and B) 115 being PL not FIFA, both mean I don’t think that’ll be an issue
I know fella, that's why there's a smile on the end of my post.A) I can’t see any outcome and subsequent appeals being done by then, and B) 115 being PL not FIFA, both mean I don’t think that’ll be an issue
Utter lies again to imply we are state owned.
Ohh ,now I am worried .The proposed amendment says owned or controlled and defines as "A state-controlled club is one which is wholly or majority-owned by individual(s), entities, or entities controlled by individual(s) who are deemed by the IFR or the secretary of state to be under the influence of any state actor, including but not limited to: members of any government or their immediate family, a head of state or their immediate family, diplomats, lobbyists, or other state representatives, or their immediate family, and sovereign wealth funds.”
That covers City and Newcastle, of course. No-one else.
The article this comes from, however, does state:
"Whitehall insiders insist the chance of the amendment being agreed is small, but some Premier League clubs have previously urged the government to introduce such a ban."
and
"The bill was debated in the House of Lords on Wednesday but peers have yet to discuss Bassam’s amendment."
For those interested: https://archive.ph/HW65E
The proposed amendment says owned or controlled and defines as "A state-controlled club is one which is wholly or majority-owned by individual(s), entities, or entities controlled by individual(s) who are deemed by the IFR or the secretary of state to be under the influence of any state actor, including but not limited to: members of any government or their immediate family, a head of state or their immediate family, diplomats, lobbyists, or other state representatives, or their immediate family, and sovereign wealth funds.”
That covers City and Newcastle, of course. No-one else.
The article this comes from, however, does state:
"Whitehall insiders insist the chance of the amendment being agreed is small, but some Premier League clubs have previously urged the government to introduce such a ban."
and
"The bill was debated in the House of Lords on Wednesday but peers have yet to discuss Bassam’s amendment."
For those interested: https://archive.ph/HW65E
Utter lies again to imply we are state owned.
Utter lies again to imply we are state owned.
That's my thought.Must be winning the other case, now trying to find another way to stop us
Utter lies again to imply we are state owned.
Yep I'm pretty sure this goes against FIFA rules of government interference anyway. The Premier League would be stripped of licenses if it went throughMust be winning the other case, now trying to find another way to stop us
I,m just waiting for the Reform lot to join in with the "Pesky (better at running football clubs) Arabs not needed here".That's my thought.
Once these ridiculous stories start surfacing you know the barrel is being scraped.
Especially from slaphead who loves a bit of gaslighting.
Utter lies again to imply we are state owned.
Just more bollox to keep the Red tops clicking. Imagine the fallout if they started banning just Middle East owners who, in their eyes, would see it as completely disrespectful on the world stage.My 10 year old son could write more factual stories than these. They do know (despite what they think) that legally City are NOT state owned. So why would we need to change ownership?
Lord Bassam was sacked from his job as Chief Whip for fiddling his expenses.Ohh ,now I am worried .
Would have a taken a single vote against to remove the amendment apparently - no objectors in the second house. The hate runs deep.Lord Bassam was sacked from his job as Chief Whip for fiddling his expenses.