Search results

What the hell has that got to do with it? Your argument was Akinfenwa had no right to consider being called a water buffalo offensive because another black man was content enough to voice one in a film. So I'm saying you'd have no right to consider being called a paedo offensive because...

Because he was someone I knew had played a child molester in a film. Akinfenwa doesn't look like Idris Elba.

I reckon Villa might not be a bad shout, or WBA.

For some reason my thoughts just went to "how embarrassed/proud would you feel if you were given offside by your knob?"

Would you be offended if someone described you as a paedophile because Kevin Bacon played one in a film so if, as a white man, he's ok with it what right do you have to be offended?

Of course anything could've happened after that incident in that game and subsequent ones, but it's hard to deny it had a material effect on that game and the outcome. I doubt they'd be able to claim (it must be written in the league contract that no claims can be made due to mistakes due to...

I'm not saying I disagree with it as a whole although I think it's a situation that has been abused somewhat to flout FFP rules and IMO benefit the owners buying the stadium more than the clubs long term and itself is potentially problematic in it's own way. All I'm saying is it still creates...

Can't answer the question I'm afraid but will need to do the searches first etc to make sure there's no rights of way or anything on it. No point trying to extend the garden if any Tom Dick or Harry can walk around it. Also check it is council land, not private. When you say garages are they...

And if ACL struggle it could end up being available. It's not about who'd own it after this legal dispute, it's the theoretical situation that future circumstances would make the stadium available to ownership by our owners

I'm not trying to - I'm just saying that is becoming the ownership model in the current climate and I very much doubt we'd be any different.

I'm not saying they do. I'm just saying that in the highly unlikely event that the stadium were to become available to buy and our owners bought it it wouldn't be in kept in the name of the club. We'd be renting it from our owners.

Undoubtedly. All about the marketing.

Senokot rather than boycott

Even in the very unlikely event the Ricoh were to end up being available CCFC will NOT be the owners. It'll be owned by SISU in a holding company and the club will be renting it. It'd probably be a better deal than we've had in the past, certainly in terms of access to income. But given that...

It was mentioned in the original statement, but carefully worded saying 'last year'. His later response all but confirms that was what he was alluding to in that first statement.

Just seems a bit of a shit way of naming it and mashing two total opposites. One totally against animal products, one based almost solely on it. Neither of those specifically talk about not eating processed foods etc. It's a normal diet that's low on carbs and cuts out processed food so nothing...

I've never said I don't agree with the refusal to sign any contract with an indemnity clause.

It's a very careful way of mentioning the indemnity without specifically saying it was the problem this year, although this was confirmed in the second statement and thus the intent of it being mentioned is pretty much revealed.

Isn't that just called 'eating'?

But didn't the club then break the NDA first in their initial statement announcing us staying in Birmingham by saying that Wasps required indemnity?