It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
it’s gonna be one of those games , Dortmund better team but Real will sucker punch them and win
and they have scored
2-0 - Surely job done
Pass the fucking sickbag.
Nice interview with Jude - Appeared humble at what he had just been part off - And note no ego's on display in that team - RM looks like a team - But will that change next season when ego boy arrives with his big chip on his shoulder - On that basis I hope this will be the last CL for RM for a while - But they are one hell of a team
How the mighty have fallen ...
I’d love to see his fast, creative, exciting, attacking football at ManU …
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/crggez4w209o
Ebay mark7777_1
ManU must be pretty pissed off though. They used to be the most hated team in the PL, but now City have taken that title too.
Ebay mark7777_1
But you make a good point about Liverpool.
soundcloud.com/thecolourbox-1
youtube.com/@TheColourboxMusic
Ebay mark7777_1
This case, to be discussed at the meeting is not about the 100 plus cases than Man City will have to answer, at a hearing in due course, but a case of do the PL and its shareholders have the right to make up and amend such rules and for these to be signed off by at least 14, out of 20 equal shareholders - If City win, this it effectively undermines the whole PL structure, authority and voting rights
The Times reporter (and I forget his name now) understands that Man City have one major ally in this debate but he would not say who it was, at this stage - My hunch is Newcastle, for obvious reasons
The rule in question was effectively about 'additional' funding/sponsorship that is classified as OTT - ie - If you sign a shirt deal with say Adidas and the sponsor is TeamViewer and the sponsor agrees a deal worth around 50 million over 5 years then that is considered an 'appropriate' fair market price - On that basis you can't have Man City agreeing a deal with Etihad for say 500 million, again on a 5 year deal - It is unfair and not representative of a fair market price - It makes such transactions unfair, hence the PL rule about associated party transaction (APT) rules - It is this rule that all 20 PL teams/shareholders signed up to, but now Man City want to say it is illegal
If City win this it will seriously under mine so much of what the whole equal share holders vote on and the PL's authority - Which then in due course will under mind the PL's authority to question Man City about the other 115 charges at a later date - In effect Man City are testing the waters
soundcloud.com/thecolourbox-1
youtube.com/@TheColourboxMusic