David O'Day
SBT Legend
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2015
- Messages
- 31,835
- Reaction score
- 22,416
good luck with this one lads, bold move to use the "it wasn't us it was the people who own us" defence
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Every other politician can answer a question without actually answering itHe should know what not to answer.
good luck with this one lads, bold move to use the "it wasn't us it was the people who own us" defence
They’re fucked ain’t they?
it was rejected in the original hearingThey're using the Fair Market Value ruling as a loophole as it wasn't in place until 2021. They'll basically argue that the sovereign state of Abu Dhabi legitimately chose to overpay for a massive sponsorship campaign to promote the emirate which under the ruling wasn't exactly 'not allowed'.
There will likely be a paper trial or evidence to show that this is complete bollocks and as they coin it a 'concocted plan'.
it was rejected in the original hearing
that isn't going to happenYeah I know. They're only doing it so they can take the PL to the High Court - which you can only do after you've exhausted every possible line of defence.
But was he concerned about the wrong doing, or concerned if they sold the club?Surely everyone is concerned … can’t see what’s the issue there … huge premier league club cheating to win for a decade, the financial recompense and costs, the reputationsl costs to the prem and the country as a massively successful English product… I’d be a very surprised if a PM wasn’t concerned …
Every politician knows how to not answer a question they actually should be answering, so it should be pretty fucking easy to not answer a question you don't need to.Hes PM of the country, hes bound to be asked about it, its naive to think he, or whoevers in charge at the time of events like this wont be.
If you dont like what he had to say then fair enough.
Did you like what he had to say?Hes PM of the country, hes bound to be asked about it, its naive to think he, or whoevers in charge at the time of events like this wont be.
If you dont like what he had to say then fair enough.
And most would choose their answer very carefully. Being mayor of Manchester for 9 years means he should have made sure he was impartial with any reply. He wasn't. It doesn't look good.If Farage was PM he'd be asked about, which is my point, whoevers in charge would be
that isn't going to happen
not before the punishment is already in place
And so they should be. This has cost over 100m to get to this stage because they have refused to comply with the investigation in every way they can. And even though all the evidence is clearly there they are still trying to stretch it out whilst making threats to the Premier League about the financial consequences if they continue to carry on with the charges against them.The tone of some of the language in the PL statement suggests they are totally pissed off with them. But let's see what that translates to in terms of punishment
Did you like what he had to say?
You can't one minute say people in charge of countries shouldn't get involved in football and then try to defend or deflect from others running a country.
No matter what happens this has got nothing to do with anyone but Manchester City, their owners and the Premier League. Can you imagine Burnham making a comment like this and then they get found not guilty of all charges or more or less get away with it?
Nobody has missed a point.I barely took any notice of what he said.
You, like others, have missed my point.
Burnham was always going to ge asked out it. He didnt come out and make a statement about it, he was adked by the BBC.
Plenty of people saying his answer was poorly thought out, I havent said anything to the contary.
Nobody has missed a point.
MP's are very good at not answering questions. He has had many years as an MP, mayor of Manchester and is now our PM.
Of course you have barely taken notice of what he has said. If you had you wouldn't be trying to defend him in any way. He shouldn't be getting involved in this at all.
Every politician knows how to not answer a question they actually should be answering, so it should be pretty fucking easy to not answer a question you don't need to.
He should have just said it was a matter for the PL and for them to sort out.
I think the ground work is already being set for a watered down punishmentThe tone of some of the language in the PL statement suggests they are totally pissed off with them. But let's see what that translates to in terms of punishment
what evidence do you have? or is this nonsense like the time you said lampard would be unhappy with the signing on mfuni?I think the ground work is already being set for a watered down punishment
Yes I agree. I do only see 1 relegation though through a points deduction. Also see a massive fine. They haven't broken any EFL rules so can't see the EFL saying league 2 only.I think it is impossible for them to avoid at least 1 relegation