St James Holdings could respond by saying that a healthy PL with competition from all increases attractiveness, finances and will in fact benefit the whole pyramid. Particularly if the consortium plans about investing and forging links with local non league clubs is true.
You told them all because you knew there was no legal case for punishment as none of the Premier League’s rules had been broken. The fine will be token because the minute it starts taking the piss the big clubs will obliterate the PL. You’ve been crying since the minute you woke up you pathetic little tampon, stfu and get some fresh air.
Another thing is I was quite said That the government had shafted us in secret last summer. It's since been revealed they had secret talks with the premier league where they basically took the piss and now they've said they have no minutes and nothing recorded of those talks... That tells me that nufc have **** all from that and asked for it.
Stfu Tel you don't know the history of the conversation It's so easy talking like that behind your pc mate Get ****ed.
Except they have broken PL rules. Rule B16 - the duty to act in utmost good faith towards the other member clubs. Each of the six, by failing to seek approval has acted non bona fides. That brings them under the relevant sanctions under B6.
Yes we all knew that and that was the reason you had grounds to suggest a punishment should be made. I simply said it wouldn't and I also said I didn't want the fans of those clubs to be impacted because they saved the game imo
If they fail to punish then any club that breaks PL rules can argue that they should receive a token fine only. No points deductions.
What a cop out I,m asking you a question and your reply is google it? Smells of double standards that Do you use oat milk on oats or porridge? Does it make it more oaty?
Mate I just like coffee made using oatmilk and it's got less fat in it. It makes or more smooth and creamy.
The thing is there's no clear indication of what the punishment would be under that section of the rulebook.
Funny that, you normally don’t have a problem constantly repeating yourself. You claim Carroll being offered a new deal means the CAT case has been thrown out yet agree that Carroll may have already been considering an offer thus destroying your own argument.
State of you ya dopey ****in mess Biggest tampon on the site, constantly getting yourself into bi-polar rages, desperately looking for the opposite side of the fence to everybody else.
Baffles me how anyone receiving a punishment for breaking rules gets to agree what that punishment is. It might not be a clear cut set punishment but the offender shouldn’t get a say in it.
