Because that's pretty much the same as the owner simply putting money in.Yes, sorry, I should have been more specific. Why would sponsorship income funded by the owner be prohibited by FFP?
Because that's pretty much the same as the owner simply putting money in.Yes, sorry, I should have been more specific. Why would sponsorship income funded by the owner be prohibited by FFP?
Because that's pretty much the same as the owner simply putting money in.
It’s not budBecause that's pretty much the same as the owner simply putting money in.
not in my fookin house, man up ffs. :-)'As It Was'? That Harry Styles cove gets everywhere, doesn't he..?!
But our owner isn't supposed to own our sponsors.Tell that to Leicester, pre-takeover Newcastle and many others. Owner sponsorship isn't against FFP. Why should it be as long as it is at fair value?
And they're open about it being owner sponsorship.It’s not bud
Owners can sponsor, as long as the value is ‘market value’
Crossed wires. I thought the poster I responded to was saying an owner couldn’t invest via sponsorships :)And they're open about it being owner sponsorship.
It's 117 charges now.
Yes, but the sheep are not allowed to stop on double yellow lines.I thought he had the freedom of Manchester?
He can close Market street and walk a herd of sheep through the city centre if he wanted to.
Or has that not been awarded yet?