Search results

Please do. I may have missed it. And thanks for being polite enough to ask - most people would've just found the quote and posted it.

Racist ;)

Most memorable for me was 5-4 vs Forest in the league cup. And the final game.

We got Coleman because it's who Ranson, SISU's main advisor at the time wanted. He wanted him from the start. Even if Pearson (who I personally don't rate) or anyone else had been available he'd have still picked Coleman. I'd have even preferred Dowie to stay than get Coleman!

It appears to me it's exactly what BSB thinks. Nowhere does he suggest the queen should actually use that power, he just says she has it.

It's like the teachers going on teacher training the day school restarts after 6 weeks off. Only rather than a day it's 3 fucking weeks and you're halfway through the first term.

The question asked was whether the Queen had the ABILITY to stop proroguing. She does have the ability to. She just (wisely) chooses not to do so. But I bet she and her advisors are absolutely livid at Alexander for putting her in such a position. But then he does only ever think of himself.....

Because your Dear Leader never did anything so crass as increase his public profile on HIGNFY numerous times did he......?

Either way we're tenants at someone else's stadium. So IF the option were be to return to the Ricoh for the same rent/conditions asin Brum or staying at St Andrews, pithc issues aside, it'd only make sense to go back for the higher crowds and therefore revenue. Plus if you think about it were...

With Utd and City being such big draws why not just 'Greater Manchester United?' Manchester is always saying how using the city's name brings advantages to the entire metropolitan area (even though many indicators suggest the huge majority of them go to the city and any ill effects are normally...

But you have two governing bodies - the PL and EFL. PL is there to look after the interests of its members, not the EFL's. To distribute more cash down would be then doing something disadvantageous to their own members.

I know I saw at some stage a note to the accounts stating management fees were being paid to SISU. Probably weren't the most recent but I'm absolutely certain I saw it because it took me by surprise.

But is sitting there accruing compound interest instead. They are payable and could be called in at any time the owners choose - we're relying on them not doing so. It's like having a bomb in the corner and saying "it's fine, it's not going to go off". And then putting a hand grenade next to it...

Boris chancers?

Would be a nice roundness to it. Charles I - end of monarchy Charles II - reformation of monarchy Charles III - end of monarchy. So until Charles IV turns up we'd be a republic. To be honest, I think Charles is likely to get the question asked - he likes having his opinion on stuff, esp...

Well it's a bit of both really. They're using the transfer fees but there is also an annual loss that needs to be covered by SISU (which they do stand to gain from long term)

But he could sell the club for its worth AND also the debt he's owed

Just noticed J Burroughs is LB!

It's not artifical though - we may not be PAYING them right now but they are still PAYABLE (and the longer we don't pay them the more interest accrues owed by the club to SISU).

Because one of their other companies is loaning the club money with a decent interest rate on?