duffen a cloud of **** as usual ... he paid ryan france 26k a week ffs and the club had to adhere to that after he moved on ... boating 38k a week .. bullard we all no about .. okocha 1£m pronotion bonus ... and his daughter on stupid 60k a year wages to "cover things" .,.. the guy is a crook ... and "some people refuse to believe .. hey I was working there then .. I saw it first hand
but on the flip side .. it was not duffen who did it .. it was more Bartlett and what pearson had promised on contracts before duffen took over
The ONLY possible reason for the Allams possibly bringing Duffen back into the fold is to piss of Adam Pearson, that is all. How do I know this? Duffen is a smug, self-serving, bell-breaking **** that has the look and manner of a dodgy car salesman. Even if he is totally innocent of everything he is alleged of doing (which I doubt) he still offers nothing. His connects are small time, his wealth is small time, his skills are small time; everything about him is ten a penny. AP may be in the dog house at the minute, but without him CITY would not longer have existed, and his skills and nous are 100x that of Duffen in terms of developing and running a football club, ****-messrs Duffen and Bartlett lucked-out and piggybacked on the success and hardwork of Phil Brown in the Championship season and the immense team spirit we had. He deserves no credit for our promotion at all and he should **** OFF.
It seems that Duffen's defence for signing such **** deals, was incompetence, rather than criminality. Some defence, even if it was true.
So long as Duffen's no longer employed in any capacity by the Club then what went on before is history. I know who I would trust between AP and Duffen and it ain't the latter that's for sure.
My brother told me that the BBC legal folks told them to avoid it. Whatever anyone thinks of Duffin, any member of the public could easily commit libel whilst having a rant. RHumb doesn't use a delay, (in my days there they did for certain programmes) so probably a good idea not to have a phone in. The fines are pretty hefty.
I wonder what it feels like to be right http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A23698254 And someone clearly has too much time on their hands http://www.wikipeetia.org/Paul_Dufen
Would RH be liable is a caller committed libel? Seems a bit off, surely it would be the caller? Or is it both? If they were worried about that, they must have understood the reasons why someone would do that, so why wasn't that pushed? Or do you think it was, but cut for the libel reasons?
