I think probably paid about $100 a ticket in Charlotte (honestly don't remember) - but that wasn't for the cheapest seats, one of the cheaper seats but not the cheapest. I'm going to have to sit out this one even though it's on my doorstep. Can't afford that. (or rather, won't afford that... it's too much). Last time I watched Liverpool in Charlotte they were really treating it as just a warm-up exercise, no urgency by either team, it was pretty dull, put me off spending too much on summer friendlies.
Its crazy money, the prices over in the far east for bayern v lfc were sky high too. there's a lot of people in the mix taking a cut here and fans get absolutely ripped off.
£800 GBP or 16,000 shillings if you prefer. or 192,000 old pennies. 925 Euros 150,000 Yen 57,000 Ethiopian Birr 10, 000 Dogecoin
So in conclusion to the 'legal' mistakes the Commission made, I know everyone, including me, probably aren't really that bothered or interested anymore: 1. The failure to impose a sanction without taking into account existing and relevant benchmarks. - Not legal for obvious reasons given how they've worded it. Points deductions are used in the EFL and are clearly laid out. The Commission should have used this when assessing their points deduction. 2. The findings of (i) "less than frank" and (ii) a breach of rule B.15 (utmost good faith) as aggravating factors. - Not legal because the Commission was only to answer the charges put forward by the PL in regard to Everton's breaches and the PL had not charged Everton with a breach of rule B.15, so it wasn't for the Commission to decide that that rule had been breached and then to make it an aggravating factor which meant it alone carried a point deduction. (An analogy would be asking a panel to review a red card decision and whilst looking at that, they determined that player x should also have had a yellow card. That not being part of the job they were asked to do.) Also it was determined that the words "less than frank" should not have been used by the Commission to explain parts of Everton's reporting on overspending. The appeal board said that the Commission was to determine whether a breach had been made based on "factual findings" alone, of which the misrepresenting of stadium funding was one, and that was the aggravating factor. The Commission's findings should not have been "accompanied by any particular mental element on the part of the Club or any of its officials" (by regarding the club's reporting of the stadium spend as less than frank). "Less than frank", they said, is not part of the PL rules, neither is it a legal term and should not have been used when assessing the sanction. None of this will have any bearing on city's charges.
We will see. I think you are right but i think city will still use it. They will claim they fully complied anyway and now its clear in any event the punishment precedent is no points. (even if it was not ruled that way)
They will face some sort of punishment. One interesting thing to come out of the Decision is the appeal board's strong agreement with the Commission that breaching PSR should result in "nothing less than a points deduction" as "a sporting advantage and consequently the sanction for breach can legitimately focus on sporting disadvantage".
Not only that, he did it in England, a league that Kane found too difficult so he stepped down a level.
They should just tell them they no longer want them in their league and expel them They can play in the FAs EPL and go no higher End of
It’s not been brought up anywhere And to top it off Deano is on talkSPORT asking where the defender was It just defies belief sometimes Tbf I have no problem with either goal because I just don’t think you can stop that in football But to not discuss it after the weekend just seems bonkers
Obviously, it's being defended. Apparently, Man Utd didn't stop the player/defender involved whereas Endo stopped Colwill who was "marking" VVD
