Yep, I mentioned elsewhere but imagine being so oblivious to the world you live in that, on £400k a week, you talk about how useful the Saudi money would be.
It was written all over his hair cut...
Yep, I mentioned elsewhere but imagine being so oblivious to the world you live in that, on £400k a week, you talk about how useful the Saudi money would be.
Yep, I mentioned elsewhere but imagine being so oblivious to the world you live in that, on £400k a week, you talk about how useful the Saudi money would be.
not at all deluded
potentially huge news, depending on the outcome, city are a horrible club who represent everything that’s wrong with football and i hope they lose. obviously a petulant tit-for-tat in response to the 115 charges
‘tyranny of the majority’? seriously??
Because they had to break them to do so!
Beat me to it!Isn't tyranny of the majority just democracy?
Like they're arguing that every club having an even vote is an unacceptable sharing of control...
Yep. I won’t accept whoever gets voted in at the next election, as that will just be tyranny of the majority!Isn't tyranny of the majority just democracy?
Like they're arguing that every club having an even vote is an unacceptable sharing of control...
Man City owners need to have a think about what winning this action would actually mean for them.
I'm going to guess that City wanted to keep it quiet hence, according to the Athletic, it is due to be heard in a two week private arbitration. Someone spilled the beans to the Times!!Why are we only finding out about this a few days before the court hearing? I thought these things were months in the making?
I'm willing to bet if they win they will be booted out and banned from PLMan City owners need to have a think about what winning this action would actually mean for them.
It is laughable... pretty much an admission of guiltThe (laughable) point is that City are (as well as prosecuting this case) claiming that they didn't break them.