You didn’t, correct. But neither did I state the punishment would be greater. Correct.No he said 99.9% expected more.
I quite clearly wasn't one of them.
Correct?
And here’s me thinking you hadn’t won one discussion yet. But I do like you.I have to say @the [HASHTAG]#Cans[/HASHTAG] Master is a glutton for punishment.
He's like a weeble.
He's sound though

You didn’t, correct. But neither did I state the punishment would be greater. Correct.
And here’s me thinking you hadn’t won one discussion yet. But I do like you.
![]()
I did. Or is English not your first language?Here we go again with the buts
Can't you ever just answer a question?
You didn’t, correct. But neither did I state the punishment would be greater. Correct.

I did. Or is English not your first language?
And as I answered your question it would only be manners if you answered mine.
![]()
You must log in or register to see images
So basically the big 6 owners fall foul of one of the criteria listed above. And thus under the annual review should be removed from position. Right?
Breaches of certain key football regulations.Wrong
Breaches of certain key football regulations.
Setting up a separate league is a breach.
They exist for some clubs and not for others.There seems to be a failed misunderstanding that these rules actually exist.
I can tell you now from experience that people don't read rules
Is there two premier league guideline books. One for the dirty half dozen and one for the minions?
Without approval they have breached the rule.
And the onus would be on the Premier League to prove what damages they’ve incurred as a result of their brand being brought into ‘disrepute’ by the actions of six clubs, hence their was never a solid case and they would have been trampled all over by the behemoth clubs that built that very brand in the first place. Slap on the wrist and a pathetic fine was as good as they were ever going to get.
Look we're trying to be positive on here today