manimanc
Well-Known Member
Are you tripping?So you've done a Seaford ?
Are you tripping?So you've done a Seaford ?
Overlooking the fact that Liverpool failed FFP in 2013 and only got away with it because they failed to qualify for Europe and again in 2015 when they fraudulently offset £35 million (some sources quote £50 million) against non-existent stadium expenditure on the non-existent Stanley Park Project. Whatever the figure it's rather a lot for mowing the grass a couple of times.
Stop digging,he has had a long career not just his recent big case obvsI see I’ve come in for some fair abuse on here for an apparently stupid comment.
However, let me just explain why I’m concerned. Reading the 2000 plus pages on here has given me the assurance that City are on safe grounds and will win the case. Ranging from, UEFA didn’t even look at our defence to proof that the Etihad sponsorship was clearly paid by the Executive Council from Abu Dhabi and not from our owners.
The lawyer we hired is famous for a technicality in fighting Brexit. So while I’m as concerned as everyone else here on the outcome, I’m merely questioning the need for this kind of approach for our case. Obviously I don’t want the shittiest lawyers but just asking why we really have to get the best at 20k if we’re sure of our case?
It's a weird article.
It states that Henry bought in largely because FFP allowed those with big incomes to stay on top.
Plus rigging the rules in their favour a generation or so ago. Got no right to call anyone out for cheating.
That carve up was conceived with the express design of fucking everyone one else over. And for quite a while, it worked.Yep. Some of us have long memories. The carving up of gate receipts and the early live TV rights by the so-called “Big Five” was as bent as it gets.
Does a bit.As much as I respect Mullock, that smacks of click-bait nonsense.