The look of utter contempt from Pep when Stones talks is priceless.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
eyalluvitt
Well-Known Member
Yes, hundreds of ‘City fans to desecrate the dead’ articles followed by radio silence afterwards, although the result may have had a hand in thatVaguely reminiscent of the build up to the 50th anniversary of Munich and then the sense of anti climax when the City fans didn't do anything wrong.
Eccles Blue
Well-Known Member
And the only person, to my mind, who disrespected the dead that day was Ferguson chewing away as he laid a wreath in memorial. Disgraceful.Yes, hundreds of ‘City fans to desecrate the dead’ articles followed by radio silence afterwards, although the result may have had a hand in that
Do you remember that twat that reported that the City fans had booed Milner during Vinny's testimonial and quickly retracted because Milner wasn't even at the game?Vaguely reminiscent of the build up to the 50th anniversary of Munich and then the sense of anti climax when the City fans didn't do anything wrong.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,948
The look of utter contempt from Pep when Stones talks is priceless.
That's his Harris to Trump face.
Rolf or Chopper?That's his Harris to Trump face.
Dannyblue52
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 177
It should not be an arbitrary decision. Allowances should have been made for Covid to all teams as a % of turnover or a similar award. No one can then get favourable treatment. The one I take most exception to is an allowance for the sale of shares by their owners, the Glazers. There is no reason that this should be allowable. It's a normal business expense. Bent as fuck. As a member of the PL our club need to ask questions at the next board meeting as to why this allowance was made and more importantly who made it. I see nothing in the PL rules that allows it. Again bent as fuck.If it's things like Covid allowances, then whether we like it or not United are going to get more of an allowance than most or all the clubs in the league due to their lost match day revenue during the pandemic being higher than pretty much everyone else's. That said, I don't know the figures involved compared to other clubs and whether they've been given more of an allowance than they should. I'm sure the number crunchers would be able to make a fair assessment on that if they had the figures for every club in front of them.
On the face of it, United's latest losses and the 3-year rolling figure of losses look pretty grim reading and you'd have to think that they would be sailing close to the wind with regards PSR, even when allowances are taken into account.
What can't be denied by anybody is that, given the resources at their disposal and their performances on the pitch, they've been the worst run club in the league for fucking years now. How can they be so shit despite spending so much? I'd say that's worthy of an investigation in itself!
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't surprise me if they included scruffy Jim's costs in there as well.It should not be an arbitrary decision. Allowances should have been made for Covid to all teams as a % of turnover or a similar award. No one can then get favourable treatment. The one I take most exception to is an allowance for the sale of shares by their owners, the Glazers. There is no reason that this should be allowable. It's a normal business expense. Bent as fuck. As a member of the PL our club need to ask questions at the next board meeting as to why this allowance was made and more importantly who made it. I see nothing in the PL rules that allows it. Again bent as fuck.
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
I think I would prefer the charges not to even be mentioned. If, say, the verdict ends up being on 65 charges, it will highlight that the original rushed announcement was nothing more than a vindictive publicity stunt.
Absolutely. If it is true that some charges have been dropped before the hearing, then it is remiss of the PL (to put it politely) not to issue a press release correcting their previous release and stating how many, and which, charges are actually going before the IC. After all, they were quick enough to publicise the 115 and are still allowing that narrative to run in the media.
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
115 just caught on but it was never 115. I think it was 124 or something.Absolutely. If it is true that some charges have been dropped before the hearing, then it is remiss of the PL (to put it politely) not to issue a press release correcting their previous release and stating how many, and which, charges are actually going before the IC. After all, they were quick enough to publicise the 115 and are still allowing that narrative to run in the media.