It seemed apt.
It seemed apt.
Understand that and all, but would hardly appease broader ruffled feathers.And if they're going to share some sensitive business information to calm ruffled feathers wouldn't that be a good thing?
For most I think it would,as 1894 would be the first to complain if they thought the GA+was an issue, the one or two it's not enough for probably don't want to be appeased.Maybe less "we've been told"more "we've seen" though.Understand that and all, but would hardly appease broader ruffled feathers.
'Worried about the GA+ ruining the stand' 1894 - 'it won't trust us we've been told'. Would that be enough for people?
I think they will be to be fair, that said anyone sat in the GA+ seats will either have to move or pay the inflated price unfortunately as with the other premium/hospitality converted areasCurrent North Stand 2 occupants should have primacy over 1984 when it comes to what happens with their seats, due to the risk of being displaced.
Well I've never been worried about it so you're asking the wrong person ;)Understand that and all, but would hardly appease broader ruffled feathers.
'Worried about the GA+ ruining the stand' 1894 - 'it won't trust us we've been told'. Would that be enough for people?
£450.000 houses in this so deprived area mateManchester as a whole is, and that is one of the worst parts. The top 3 deprived wards in Manchester contain or border the ground.
TBH I thought as much.Under an NDA they won't to be able to say anything unless the club gives the ok to say it.