Talksport

malg said:
Yep. The outcome of both is absolutely inconsequential to a rather sizeable chunk of PL fans - we're guilty. That's been the narrative since they first sent out the 115 nonsense. There was absolutely no need for them to publish 115 but they did and the reason was to get everyone talking about it. I don't think we've had many speak in our defence. It all seemed to go quiet, then all of a sudden when it looked like we were going to do 4-in-a-row it all started up again. It was as if there was a collective decision to chat about it to take the gloss off the never before achieved 4th straight top flight win......I think!
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 
give it to gordon said:
He does talk shit and it came across as racist in my eyes.
So if I join a private members club and it introduces sex crimes that's perfectly OK as it's a private members club.
Click to expand...

He makes the right point but doesn't connect the dots.

At the very start he mentions about Chelsea and Abramovich and there being no governance, and then lessons were learnt and governance came in and evolved. That's all very well and true, if it's done for the reasons of fairness and sporting merit. If he stepped back and wondered who is driving those rules and governance and why, he'd realise that this isn't a case of good vs. evil it's a group of clubs with their own agenda's trying to bring in rules that do as, if not more damage, to the league and sporting principles than what we're looking to challenge.

He's also obsessing over the decision making and suggesting it's this democratic process. When this is a completely rigged process where groups of vested interests united to challenge and discriminate others. And as you say in your example, views of the majority are not always what we want to, or should be defending.
 
supercity88 said:
He makes the right point but doesn't connect the dots.

At the very start he mentions about Chelsea and Abramovich and there being no governance, and then lessons were learnt and governance came in and evolved. That's all very well and true, if it's done for the reasons of fairness and sporting merit. If he stepped back and wondered who is driving those rules and governance and why, he'd realise that this isn't a case of good vs. evil it's a group of clubs with their own agenda's trying to bring in rules that do as, if not more damage, to the league and sporting principles than what we're looking to challenge.

He's also obsessing over the decision making and suggesting it's this democratic process. When this is a completely rigged process where groups of vested interests united to challenge and discriminate others. And as you say in your example, views of the majority are not always what we want to, or should be defending.
Click to expand...
That is a key question, who keeps asking to change the rules? There has to be someone saying it for it to be brought up, it’s not City and I would think the smaller clubs are that far off it’s not of concern to them, so clearly it’s your nearest rivals that are complaining.
 
Did the 20 clubs get to vote for Richard masters to be given the job of ceo in this democracy that is the premier league or did he just do well in the dipper/rag interview? Does anybody know if they voted on this ?
 
Blue Maverick said:
That is a key question, who keeps asking to change the rules? There has to be someone saying it for it to be brought up, it’s not City and I would think the smaller clubs are that far off it’s not of concern to them, so clearly it’s your nearest rivals that are complaining.
Click to expand...
please keep up the rules evolve with time ;)
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.