project big picture

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
captain wrong said:
It's to stop any takeover that would compromise the order at the top. It's clear to me that what's happened at Chelsea, City along with seeing Everton doing big things that they said enoughs enough this summer when the Toon takeover had them shirting their pants, so they want to remove the thing that haunts their dreams.. takeovers of clubs outside the cartel. They'll just say no to anything that concerns them and yes to anything they can still trample over.
Click to expand...

Or. They couldn’t stop it because U.K. law will supersede the wishes of a corrupt cartel.

I think it’s been blown out of proportion tbh.
 
astro said:
It's to take the decision away from the cowardly PL who were willing to entertain a murderous dictator taking over a club as a PR tool.
Click to expand...

Your owners are happy to take £40m a season in sponsorship off a bank that moves money around to fund terrorism so I highly doubt they give a **** about the morals of the Saudis.

What they wouldn't like is the possibility of another team competing, look at how emotional you all get about City.

That's all the veto is aimed that, to ensure nobody could ever threaten the top clubs again. As if FFP wasn't anti-competitive enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes
Solid_Air 2 said:
err actually my view is that comparing it to Adolf Hitler is just a ****ing nonsense .
Click to expand...


Trying to take control of things that don't belong to you, an abuse of power and a belief its for the greater good.

I'll leave this here

A good day to you sir
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sucky
I Love Heung Min Son said:
That's all the veto is aimed that, to ensure nobody could ever threaten the top clubs again. As if FFP wasn't anti-competitive enough.
Click to expand...

So just let the clubs who haven't been successful enough collapse like any other business. Is that competitive enough?
 
<3 6ix9ine Is Dreamy said:
You all going to have to do what my late mate Stan did and go n watch your local non league teams
Click to expand...
Been so long I've almost forgotten about creepy Stan. Gave Tobes the keys to the vault and skipped Town after pm ban gate
I bet he still reads here though.

Yo @Stan you drippy ****<laugh>
 
Mick O'Toon said:
Is it though? Liverpool didn't think about the small clubs when they furloughed their staff a few months ago albeit they backtracked but the intent was still there.
Click to expand...

So they didn't furlough the staff then? Btw, were Liverpool evil for allowing their staff to avail themselves of NHS facilities during the pandemic when they could have paid for it all privately themselves? Or are they just evil because they're just evil? :emoticon-0108-speec
 
I Love Heung Min Son said:
You can do that without wanting special voting rights. One doesn't have to come with the other.

Convenient you completely ignored the other part of my post btw.
Click to expand...

I ignored the part where you tried to compare a sponsorship contract signed years ago with a multinational company which has faced recent allegations to the case of a dictator saying "I take responsibility for the brutal murder of a journalist who criticised me" one week and then "I feel a deep connection to the working class city of Newcastle" the next.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps and Ivan Dobsky
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back