Leicester - Thai OwnersThere does seem to be a pattern.
NDA? If I were him, I would refuse one, and take my chances with a book deal to blow the lid off everything, by disclosing all the corruption that he has been put up to.Masters will be long gone, with an NDA in the bag, before there’s any chance for an enquiry. If/when we are cleared his position will be completely untenable.
It’s telling that no-one in the press appears to have raised this turn of event as a possibility, or moreover asked it of him directly.
Chelsea?Leicester - Thai Owners
Everton - iranian Owners
Nottingham forest - Greek owners
Us - Abu dhabi owners
Four clubs charged and not a single american owner among them despite 50% of the league being under yank ownership.
So PL tell me you're racist without telling me you're racist.
Chelsea?
No charges yet and they approved that minor loophole of selling their own stuff to themselves while saying that no revenue from co-op live could count towards usChelsea?
We can’t count coop live? When did that happen? Seems we are banned from generating any money that counts.No charges yet and they approved that minor loophole of selling their own stuff to themselves while saying that no revenue from co-op live could count towards us
But they are being investigated, and likely to face charges for cooking the books - which they have already confessed to.No charges yet and they approved that minor loophole of selling their own stuff to themselves while saying that no revenue from co-op live could count towards us
I don't think LCFC changes anything on this@slbsn Does this Leicester ruling put paid to any attempt by the PL of charging Chelsea, Everton, Villa et al for acting in bad faith, as the PL had threatened to do, for their end of season "swap" deals, or, for that matter for Chelsea's non-footballing asset sales? After all, there is nothing in the rules to stop them specifically, and the "spirit of the rules" argument seems to have gone out of the window.
Those swap deals can't be picked up by APT either, I don't think because the rules were so specifically written with a 5% common shareholding rule deliberately to exclude clubs in the PL transacting with each other?
It seems to me the PL is in a bit of a mess credibility-wise. Hopefully, City can heap some more pressure on with a favourable verdict in the APT case.