PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

calumdown said:
as far as i know,
the reason for "arms" in pub names has nothing to do with limbs.

it is more about heraldic coats of arms.

so, for example,
a pub called "the bricklayer's arms" was so named because all the local bricklayers got together and drank in there.
nothing to do with their limbs,
just the coat of arms they recognised.

"the royal arms" was where the royalists met for a drink and that.
et cetera.


a long time ago,
14th century at a guess,
pubs were told to distinguish themselves from normal dwellings by having something outside that would become recognisable.

so, for example, a landlord who wanted to attract farmers would put an old plough outside his inne.
hence, over time, it became known as "the plough".

from that advancement came the next...
swinging pub signs.

people couldn't read so much,
a mere painting of a plough was sufficient.

when people began to become more literate the name was also written in words,
but the painting still remained,
as it often does nowadays.

that's what someone once told me, anyway.
Click to expand...
So all the Black lions, White lions and Red lions, had their own public houses, and signs were erected so as to warn us humans not to enter, due to very hungry Lions full of Dutch courage?
 
calumdown said:
as far as i know,
the reason for "arms" in pub names has nothing to do with limbs.

it is more about heraldic coats of arms.

so, for example,
a pub called "the bricklayer's arms" was so named because all the local bricklayers got together and drank in there.
nothing to do with their limbs,
just the coat of arms they recognised.

"the royal arms" was where the royalists met for a drink and that.
et cetera.


a long time ago,
14th century at a guess,
pubs were told to distinguish themselves from normal dwellings by having something outside that would become recognisable.

so, for example, a landlord who wanted to attract farmers would put an old plough outside his inne.
hence, over time, it became known as "the plough".

from that advancement came the next...
swinging pub signs.

people couldn't read so much,
a mere painting of a plough was sufficient.

when people began to become more literate the name was also written in words,
but the painting still remained,
as it often does nowadays.

that's what someone once told me, anyway.
Click to expand...
th-3976743908.jpg

Hans is asking what the etymology for this one is.
 
mol.im

Chelsea owners 'suffer loss of £1BILLION in two years'

Chelsea's ownership group has reportedly posted losses exceeding £1bn over the past two years, casting fresh scrutiny over the club's controversial transfer spending spree and wider financial model.
mol.im mol.im

Cheating chavs.

Sure let’s not make a fuss and keep the language sensible and cordial.

One rule for the tyranny and one rule for the champions…
 
It will be interesting to see how much money these investment groups have lost due to Trump’s incompetence with the US economy and how it affects their positions with their teams…
 
spider blue said:
Yes you’re right but the parade disappeared with the advent of Civic Centre.
Click to expand...
The Greenbrow parade where I lived finally went on the late eighties and was demolished in the nineties. For me that was the end of a community. Remember Mr Spencer’s Hardware shop, the maypole, the bakers (elephants foot with coffee most days). The butchers, The coop. The off-licence next to the coop. Mrs Dobbins Post office and much much more - loved it living there - fucking Sunday shop opening, supermarkets etc killed the whole community.
 
Other clubs resent us because every record broken and title lifted city proved that the rags/arse/dips are no better than us. It makes their little world a little less understandable than it already is.

More than a club became just like any other club with financial backers.

No wonder rat boy and spits at kids amongst so many can’t stand City’s success.

Let’s all cry to the footballing authorities that it’s not fair we burst their illusion.

115/130 success will finally do just that.
 
If we're are found guilty.
Which I don't think we are as it just a farce made up to keep the cartel at the top.
But if we were to be found guilty what different or what effect do the cartel think it had on the league and what we have won.
If we paid manchini through the back door did that really have any effect on peps team winning the treble.
Really what fucking difference did it make.
Just accept we have been better than all the cartel clubs for the last 10 years ish.
Maybe 8 years.
We might never get to those heights again but it's likely no team will do.
Just accept it rags and wall pushers.
Lickle old citeh came along and did what they did.
They were better than you have ever been or probably.
No actually will ever be because team qill will ever win 4in a row again.
And if it happened a few dodgy deals..or paying manchini off the books.
Or even having the wrong length grass had no effect on what we achieved.
Be pleased for fucks sake tell us the outcome of your made up cartel protecting farce investigation it's getting boring now.
We know the truth.
You know the truth..even the dipper wall pushing fans who don't know what true is know the truth.
So fucking publish it.


Oh announce it on the same day the dippers win the worst top flight league since last time they :won it ;
 
HypnoticBlue said:
Understood, thanks ;-)
Click to expand...

Although, you can apparently write-off shareholder loans now to income if it is at "fair market value" (!) and if it's to do with a change in ownership (although that bit won't hold water if it is ever challenged, I imagine).

If I was Arsenal, Everton or Brighton, I would just re-organise the shareholdings now, write-off the shareholder loans to income and threaten to sue the PL under competition law if they disallowed it for PSR. It doesn't make any difference to the shareholders, it gets added to shareholder funds anyway (so they would get it back if they ever sold up) and they would be set for PSR for years .....
 
halfcenturyup said:
Although, you can apparently write-off shareholder loans now to income if it is at "fair market value" (!) and if it's to do with a change in ownership (although that bit won't hold water if it is ever challenged, I imagine).

If I was Arsenal, Everton or Brighton, I would just re-organise the shareholdings now, write-off the shareholder loans to income and threaten to sue the PL under competition law if they disallowed it for PSR. It doesn't make any difference to the shareholders, it gets added to shareholder funds anyway (so they would get it back if they ever sold up) and they would be set for PSR for years .....
Click to expand...

I haven't looked but are these zero interest loans secured against club assets though ? If they are, it would, surely, make a significant difference if the.club they own goes insolvent.
 
Newman Noggs said:
I haven't looked but are these zero interest loans secured against club assets though ? If they are, it would, surely, make a significant difference if the.club they own goes insolvent.
Click to expand...

None of those clubs will be going insolvent and, even if they did, shareholder loans would be subordinate to real debt, wouldn't it? Not sure what difference it would make?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top