Baffling how someone of actual no real significance in terms of the main clubs can be considered having influence of any kind,I know he was hinted at by pep a while back in one of his pre match pressers but come on,he’s a laughing stock as much as his comedy club are,although apparently he’s a shrewd operator on transfer dealings big deal..That’s not entirely true. He sits on the board of the ECA, so whilst he may not carry much power, he carries an awful lot of influence
You know what you will get with Jordan. That's the reason I don't listen to him. Do yourself a favour and switch to Classic FM when he and his full of his own self importance prick sidekick are on.I'm tired of Simon Jordan's constant negative comments, attack on Manchester City, and most recently on Pep for the asking to speed up the legal process.
I have listened to him more than once; he argues that Manchester City had previously been convicted in 2014 and paid a 60m fine, and thus, they have done it before, and that everyone was talking about City not cooperating with the investigations (he said it is a constant theme that every judge is accusing them for not cooperating).
Simon Jordan has one thing on his mind: City is guilty!!!!! He doesn't believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty though he said so, and he pretends to be fair. In reality, he has already convicted City. Why does he take the other side's view about City not cooperating when they have said so many times that they have collaborated enough as per the law? Why would he take one side when he doesn't have all the information about the case? Leave it until the legal process is completed, and give your feedback on the final verdict.
No because that would not aid revenue. It’s no secret. Discuss the topic that will get the audience to call in. Arguing for and against city pays either way. He can even change his stance midway through a program to garner more idiots to call in. City must be guilty is an easy bite.I'm tired of Simon Jordan's constant negative comments, attack on Manchester City, and most recently on Pep for the asking to speed up the legal process.
I have listened to him more than once; he argues that Manchester City had previously been convicted in 2014 and paid a 60m fine, and thus, they have done it before, and that everyone was talking about City not cooperating with the investigations (he said it is a constant theme that every judge is accusing them for not cooperating).
Simon Jordan has one thing on his mind: City is guilty!!!!! He doesn't believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty though he said so, and he pretends to be fair. In reality, he has already convicted City. Why does he take the other side's view about City not cooperating when they have said so many times that they have collaborated enough as per the law? Why would he take one side when he doesn't have all the information about the case? Leave it until the legal process is completed, and give your feedback on the final verdict.
I'm not totally sure about that but Pep mentioned Levy by name during THAT presser!
I'm not totally sure about that but Pep mentioned Levy by name during THAT presser!
According to sources he was the main mover behind it all, perhaps that's why it been handled so badly
He did.I thought our owner Sheikh M bailed out Barclay's Bank with a multi billion pound loan that got repaid with plenty of interest.
Nobody ever asks the prick what proof has he got to be on this crusade other than phone-in or media air time to justify his sad existence to say that City is guilty. Is he privileged to information that others are not? SJIACI'm tired of Simon Jordan's constant negative comments, attack on Manchester City, and most recently on Pep for the asking to speed up the legal process.
I have listened to him more than once; he argues that Manchester City had previously been convicted in 2014 and paid a 60m fine, and thus, they have done it before, and that everyone was talking about City not cooperating with the investigations (he said it is a constant theme that every judge is accusing them for not cooperating).
Simon Jordan has one thing on his mind: City is guilty!!!!! He doesn't believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty though he said so, and he pretends to be fair. In reality, he has already convicted City. Why does he take the other side's view about City not cooperating when they have said so many times that they have collaborated enough as per the law? Why would he take one side when he doesn't have all the information about the case? Leave it until the legal process is completed, and give your feedback on the final verdict.
You sound like a pretty chilled guy with lots of time on his hands.All this faux outrage is completely off my radar and I'm only aware of it when I visit this site.
I deleted Twitter last year, don't look at any of those Fan Boy or banter pages on Arsebook, don't read papers or click on links to their articles & I've never and never will listen to Talk Shite or 5 Live.