Bruno Mars and Rosé

comment by Insufferable-Piffle (U4388)
posted 9 minutes ago
I know some on here are more aware of what has/hasn't happened but if we're honest I don't think any of us know all the facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly don't and I've probably read over 1.000 articles on the subject.

Devonshire seems to know though, have a word with him as he obviously has the inside track with him being a leading KC.

Apparenly Daniel Levy was bollocked for approaching members of the board dealing with the 115 case directly and asked them if City could be suspended from the Prem until the verdict is announced.

That's why City wouldn't sell Savinho (or anyone else) to Spurs whilst he was in charge.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle (U4388)
posted 9 minutes ago
I know some on here are more aware of what has/hasn't happened but if we're honest I don't think any of us know all the facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly don't and I've probably read over 1.000 articles on the subject.

Devonshire seems to know though, have a word with him as he obviously has the inside track with him being a leading KC.

Apparenly Daniel Levy was bollocked for approaching members of the board dealing with the 115 case directly and asked them if City could be suspended from the Prem until the verdict is announced.

That's why City wouldn't sell Savinho (or anyone else) to Spurs whilst he was in charge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye I've no idea really and pretty sure most of us would be guessing at best? I assume some have an anti City agenda and that's fair enough if that's their opinions but club affiliation aside it's probs mostly guess work?

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle (U4388)
posted 9 minutes ago
I know some on here are more aware of what has/hasn't happened but if we're honest I don't think any of us know all the facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly don't and I've probably read over 1.000 articles on the subject.

Devonshire seems to know though, have a word with him as he obviously has the inside track with him being a leading KC.

Apparenly Daniel Levy was bollocked for approaching members of the board dealing with the 115 case directly and asked them if City could be suspended from the Prem until the verdict is announced.

That's why City wouldn't sell Savinho (or anyone else) to Spurs whilst he was in charge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do realise that no matter how many noughts you add after the decimal point, it's still just 1 article?

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle (U4388)
posted 9 minutes ago
I know some on here are more aware of what has/hasn't happened but if we're honest I don't think any of us know all the facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly don't and I've probably read over 1.000 articles on the subject.

Devonshire seems to know though, have a word with him as he obviously has the inside track with him being a leading KC.

Apparenly Daniel Levy was bollocked for approaching members of the board dealing with the 115 case directly and asked them if City could be suspended from the Prem until the verdict is announced.

That's why City wouldn't sell Savinho (or anyone else) to Spurs whilst he was in charge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do realise that no matter how many noughts you add after the decimal point, it's still just 1 article?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I thought I'd typed a comma.

comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 7 hours, 9 minutes ago
I'm not happy about no details on the settlement, feck knows why City agreed to this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because we’ve obviously done well out of it. We had nothing to lose aside from costs in challenging the rules again, that the PL have settled means they’ve made concessions.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 7 hours, 9 minutes ago
I'm not happy about no details on the settlement, feck knows why City agreed to this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because we’ve obviously done well out of it. We had nothing to lose aside from costs in challenging the rules again, that the PL have settled means they’ve made concessions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
After all the sh!t that's gone down over this we deserve open and transparent details

I wonder if the £1bn deal with Puma had anything to do with it?

The PL could hardly say the deal with Etihad that they blocked wasn't VFM when it was worth substanially less.

I don't know why Liverpool are included. Our owner's loans was for the main stand expansion. Nothing to do with the playing squad like most of the other clubs.

comment by Michael Edwards FC 2.0 loading…I am you... (U2720)
posted 28 minutes ago
I don't know why Liverpool are included. Our owner's loans was for the main stand expansion. Nothing to do with the playing squad like most of the other clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that’s the case then it shouldn’t be.

And the people who wrote that article highlighted Chelsea in an example to put them in a good light

They’ve forgotten about all the money Roman wrote off before he sold Chelsea.

I know it’s not really relevant to this case but it would have been highlighted if it had been City

To a point, I actually get the principal behind City's argument...but at the end of the day it's City that are highlighting these things.

It's like Trump telling China implementing tariffs of their own, on the rest of the world, is bad.

It's like Elon Musk, who is a South African, complaining about immigration on Twitter

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
They’ve forgotten about all the money Roman wrote off before he sold Chelsea.

I know it’s not really relevant to this case but it would have been highlighted if it had been City
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 20 minutes ago
They’ve forgotten about all the money Roman wrote off before he sold Chelsea.

I know it’s not really relevant to this case but it would have been highlighted if it had been City
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not forgotten, just ignored because it's about defending their team.

We all do it.

comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 8 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 7 hours, 9 minutes ago
I'm not happy about no details on the settlement, feck knows why City agreed to this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because we’ve obviously done well out of it. We had nothing to lose aside from costs in challenging the rules again, that the PL have settled means they’ve made concessions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
After all the sh!t that's gone down over this we deserve open and transparent details
----------------------------------------------------------------------

For the main case against us I agree. This one was always going to be end up in something like this though.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 8 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 7 hours, 9 minutes ago
I'm not happy about no details on the settlement, feck knows why City agreed to this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because we’ve obviously done well out of it. We had nothing to lose aside from costs in challenging the rules again, that the PL have settled means they’ve made concessions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
After all the sh!t that's gone down over this we deserve open and transparent details
----------------------------------------------------------------------

For the main case against us I agree. This one was always going to be end up in something like this though.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah you're right, it's just frustrating, it just would have been nice to get some meat off the bone

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 hours, 39 minutes ago
Clubs with Significant Shareholder Loans (as of late 2024/early 2025)

Everton: £451 million
Brighton: £373 million
Arsenal: £259 million
Chelsea: £146 million
Liverpool: £137 million
Leicester City: £132 million (figure reduced after some loans were converted to equity)
Bournemouth: £115 million
Wolves (Wolverhampton Wanderers): £65 million

Clubs with No Listed Shareholder Loans (as of late 2024) Manchester City, Manchester United, Newcastle United, Tottenham Hotspur, and West Ham United

The American owned clubs must be laughing their bollox off.

"We spend our own money"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
u realise what a loan is right? its paid back it is their own money.

Difference being,
Liverpool expand stadium build training ground etc = heres a loan from the owners interest free, club pays it back to them.

City build training grounds etc owners pay for it straight up.

Not sure what Boring Boris issue is here or what hes getting at but ok.

comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 hours, 39 minutes ago
Clubs with Significant Shareholder Loans (as of late 2024/early 2025)

Everton: £451 million
Brighton: £373 million
Arsenal: £259 million
Chelsea: £146 million
Liverpool: £137 million
Leicester City: £132 million (figure reduced after some loans were converted to equity)
Bournemouth: £115 million
Wolves (Wolverhampton Wanderers): £65 million

Clubs with No Listed Shareholder Loans (as of late 2024) Manchester City, Manchester United, Newcastle United, Tottenham Hotspur, and West Ham United

The American owned clubs must be laughing their bollox off.

"We spend our own money"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
u realise what a loan is right? its paid backit is their own money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve obviously missed the point, loans aren’t included in PSR so it was a loophole that owners were using to put their own money in.

The whole motive behind FFP and PSR was to stop clubs with wealthy owners doing that

But you named clubs like Liverpool why? you think their loans are to get around PSR?

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 hours, 39 minutes ago
Clubs with Significant Shareholder Loans (as of late 2024/early 2025)

Everton: £451 million
Brighton: £373 million
Arsenal: £259 million
Chelsea: £146 million
Liverpool: £137 million
Leicester City: £132 million (figure reduced after some loans were converted to equity)
Bournemouth: £115 million
Wolves (Wolverhampton Wanderers): £65 million

Clubs with No Listed Shareholder Loans (as of late 2024) Manchester City, Manchester United, Newcastle United, Tottenham Hotspur, and West Ham United

The American owned clubs must be laughing their bollox off.

"We spend our own money"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
u realise what a loan is right? its paid backit is their own money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve obviously missed the point, loans aren’t included in PSR so it was a loophole that owners were using to put their own money in.

The whole motive behind FFP and PSR was to stop clubs with wealthy owners doing that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As opposed to signing stupidly over inflated sponsorship deals that were way above market value, deals that the biggest clubs on the planet couldn't achieve.

comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
But you named clubs like Liverpool why? you think their loans are to get around PSR?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I copied the latest available data, I didn’t compile the list which is why I agreed money for stadium upgrades shouldn’t be included

comment by פlǝuƃɥᴉs (U19365)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 hours, 39 minutes ago
Clubs with Significant Shareholder Loans (as of late 2024/early 2025)

Everton: £451 million
Brighton: £373 million
Arsenal: £259 million
Chelsea: £146 million
Liverpool: £137 million
Leicester City: £132 million (figure reduced after some loans were converted to equity)
Bournemouth: £115 million
Wolves (Wolverhampton Wanderers): £65 million

Clubs with No Listed Shareholder Loans (as of late 2024) Manchester City, Manchester United, Newcastle United, Tottenham Hotspur, and West Ham United

The American owned clubs must be laughing their bollox off.

"We spend our own money"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
u realise what a loan is right? its paid backit is their own money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve obviously missed the point, loans aren’t included in PSR so it was a loophole that owners were using to put their own money in.

The whole motive behind FFP and PSR was to stop clubs with wealthy owners doing that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As opposed to signing stupidly over inflated sponsorship deals that were way above market value, deals that the biggest clubs on the planet couldn't achieve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d love to see an example, before Puma our biggest deal was £20m a year for shirt AND stadium rights at a time United were getting £75m a year just for their training tops

They were on a hiding to nothing anyway.