Not true at all. Lots to see not least that it is unlikely the property transaction have the necessary "genuine commercial rationale". Regardless the THREE MILLION views in 12 hours suggests a lot of interest and plenty to see.
We were literally cleared by the court of arbitration for sport and it didnt draw a line under it but they should have theres drawn under it and regardless of the breach or size of it why was it swept under the carpet and a line drawn under it?As far as Liverpool goes, they paid a settlement in 2013 so that was closed off at the time. Whether we could have gone further with that, who knows. Maybe we would have done had this happened after all the other shit we've had.
With United, it was a "minor" breach related to the changes affected by Covid in financial reporting. What exactly isn't widely publicly available, just like the charges we have.
Tbh like everyone else here, I dont know what has triggered an investigation on the Premier Leagues part, and we'll probably never know.
What I would like in future (which we won't get because the Prem are a historically incompetent group of people in all aspects even beyond FFP) is an actual press release explaining which specific rules have been broken rather than saying "rule C17, rule D12" etc.
They have all these handbooks available, why not make the effort? They've set a narrative here by being so haphazard about it.
It doesn't even benefit them, because now you have this unbelievably raised expectation of how severely we'll get punished and whatever they do that isn't throwing us out the league and stripping every trophy since the 1958 FA Cup win (neither of which are going to happen anyway) is going to be seen as going soft on us because they allowed the story to spin out of control by dragging their knuckles.
Fair enough.Do you have proof that the Premier League are soliciting and engaging with the assistance of other clubs in an investigation of Man City's alleged cheating?
I'm not saying those other clubs aren't trying to influence it. I'm saying the Prem isn't going to consult with them on it.
When they punished Everton and Forest, did they punish them based on what Burnley thought of the matter?
Fair enough.
But, the current status of Everton & Forest are not so much of a threat to the Red Arse Cheeks ?
Agree, both of them have previously achieved great things, but they are both currently struggling to stay in the Premier League.
Also, neither Everton & Forest will have the influence with the PL, that the Red Arse Cheek teams possess.
I'm hoping that if City are found guilty of any misdemeanours, City really have a deep dive into the activities of the Red Arse Cheek teams.
The American-owners will no doubt have massively broken rules that City can hopefully expose...
Given that the PL is supposed to endorse or reject within a certain timeframe which they haven't would assume there is an implied acceptance of the hotel deal.Are you surprised Chelsea have done this while the outcome of the hotel sale is still uncertain?
If I was trying to get a £90m potentially dodgy hotel sale through the PL, the last thing I'd be doing is planning to do it again 2x bigger the next year.
It’s plain he doesn’t do irony. It’s not a capital offence.
Gill and ParryProject big picture?
The 2 clubs consulted over the appointment of masters
We were literally cleared by the court of arbitration for sport and it didnt draw a line under it but they should have theres drawn under it and regardless of the breach or size of it why was it swept under the carpet and a line drawn under it?
While i am not necessarily disagreeing with you what i am asking is why every single club hasnt been subjected to the in depth and forensic investigation that we have despite there being ample reason to do so and that is my point, if everybody had been subjected it to it then you could say we have been treated fairly, the fact that they havent is what i question as the bottom line is that if you go into any investigation with the supposition of guilt then you are likely to find something to confirm your bias.
Given that the PL is supposed to endorse or reject within a certain timeframe which they haven't would assume there is an implied acceptance of the hotel deal.
That's true. Irony is a capital offence, irony is a lowercase offence.It’s plain he doesn’t do irony. It’s not a capital offence.