halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,489
Our lead KC is one one too btw.
One one, you say. Is that because Arsenal were playing for a draw again? Bottlers.
Our lead KC is one one too btw.
You have doubts 24/7. Nothing newBut when you're up against a panel which has an Arsenal season ticket holder on board, doubts creep in right?
Yeah, and I held my hands up and admitted I got it totally wrong. I was one of several who were saying the same thing at that point but cheers for singling me out
That’s the way the Glazers commercial property business works. The whole empire is built on a mountain of debt. At some point it will collapse and they will sell up.That's a good point. They clearly give a big weighting to PLC clubs on the 'Good Governance' part of the index because, as they put it, they have a legal requirement for 'Good Governance'. But they also say: Good Governance draws on 55 different metrics and covers areas such as board structure, accountability and transparency. They do note United, Spurs and Celtic have a significant fan presence on their boards, so maybe that adds to the supposed 'transparency' but I don't think Spurs or United fans think the way their clubs are run is transparent.
I'm not sure the PLC status is all that indicative of good governance either personally(though I'm no expert). Or how United ended up with such as high Financial Sustainability score given their debt, wages, netspend and so on. United fans themselves have been complaining for many years about how poorly the club has been ran, how wasteful they have been, the board structure and ownership has been refreshed exactly because it wasn't considered good.
United and their fans use the PLC card way to often, more recently they were using it to explain why they got way more exceptions approved for PSR by the PL. "Because we are more honest, open and transparent and clubs like Everton aren't, that's why we got everything we wanted and they didn't". Which sounds like bullshit, how would they know how transparent Everton or Forest were being with the exceptions they asked for? UEFA denied United all the exceptions they asked for their part, but we are supposed to believe the PL were justified and move on, nothing to see because United released a PR statement...
I've read business insider articles suggesting their corporate structure is that the brand is based in the Cayman Islands and the club itself is a shell corporation.
Hahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bloody hell Fordy you`ve been owned !!!
I would argue that dropping the case would have been bad due to people's assumption of guilt but if the evidence supplied did not show on the balance of probability that there was a case to answer then it is the correct course of action.Once the PL referred the allegations to the IP, I am not sure what else they could do apart from seeing the process through especially if one believes, as I do, that the club has said no to a settlement. It would be professional suicide to drop the case now. Much better to get a verdict and spin it. These guys are akin to politicians anyway. They would be able to point to a success on non-cooperation if they get one, for example, and spin it as the club "playing the game" on the other allegations.
I have explained before why I think they referred the allegations but I think, once that was done, the die was cast.
So if i send a email to the press saying Top hat is a nonce is this true ?Magic Hat
latest .
"If anyone can provide a plausible argument for the existence of these emails other than for the subversion of the rules, I will delete ALL my threads on Man City’s 115. Every single one."
Sorry for seemingly being thick, but I don't understand your question.Why would that be the case seeing as the years they are looking at if I remember rightly are 2009 to 2018