Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by Chris in London, 14 Jun 2019.
They hate the fact he is staying 2 more seasons here,they want him gone,badly
even liverpool fans are seeing the mail agenda in comments on this last article. says it enough
It's basically a rehash of a similar shite wishful thinking click bait article earlier this week. If City do get the case overturned the media agenda fed rags, dippers and others will just cry fix, oil money, brown envelopes, etc. No way will City be declared innocent, just guilty but got away with it.
The Michael Jackson of football then?
That’s because he pleaded not guilty.
After the trial, it’ll be ‘ex-City player guilty of.....’
That reminds me of a joke doing the rounds in Canada at the time Ben Johnson failed a drugs test at the 1988 Seoul Olympics. The joke went that the headlines in the Canadian papers started with "Canadian wins Olympic gold medal", soon to be followed by "Jamaican-Canadian being investigated for drug taking at Olympics" and ending with "Jamaican stripped of Olympic gold medal for cheating".
For people like me?? Please enlighten me as to what kind of person I am. My comment said IF he hasn’t been paying his staff then he is a shit bag...
I didn’t say I believed he was responsible for what is printed. I agree with other posters that have said that if he wasn’t a City player then it wouldn’t even have made the papers even if he owed her 20k.
I remember your original post, coming across more like a self-righteous brothers sketch.
It’s already started.
It really is f***ing unbelievable how much slack is given to United when it comes to signing players on inflated transfers, and distorting the transfer market again.
A 21 year old 1 season wonder.
I’m not even going to link the shite Charlie Adams is coming out with.
Charlie Adams on BBC Sport.
BC pundit explains why Man Utd's £45m signing is 'cheap' and makes Man City comparison
Manchester United are set to complete the signing of the 21-year-old defender
I remember it too as I wrote it. So you don’t agree that I stated “If it is true ....” and I stand by that statement, we are not talking about a plumber who hasn’t been paid for fixing a leak. We are talking about his nanny. The person who he trusts to take care of his children. So I think he will have regular contact with her and will have been aware of the issue. It could have been resolved earlier. But I go back to the point of “If it is true part of my statement.