1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Monday 28th November)

Discussion in 'Leeds United' started by ellandback, Nov 28, 2022.

  1. Eireleeds1

    Eireleeds1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2011
    Messages:
    25,830
    Likes Received:
    20,320
    I seem to remember Heidi saying how unimpressed she and othe fans were at our antics in the carabau cup and they spent good money travelling to the game
     
    #61
  2. Aski

    Aski Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    4,502
    Lol ok I will make it even easier for you.

    If was after the 2012-13 season when we draw at home to Birmingham 1-1 and won the replay 2-1, beating Spurs at Elland Road in the 4th round before losing to Man City in the 5th Round at the Emirates. This is what I would have given as my answer before looking up the details to find I was wrong :)

    It was also before we lost away at Newport County in 2017/18 season.

    So there you go, you have 5 seasons of F A Cup 3rd round ties to look at to find the answer.

    An additional clue, is that it's a Yorkshire team ;) and Doukara and Carayol were the scorers of our 2 goals
     
    #62
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2022
  3. stonkin

    stonkin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,655
    Likes Received:
    3,587
    ...and we got stung in the 5th round
     
    #63
    Aski likes this.
  4. Aski

    Aski Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    4,502
    But not by the Bees, nor the Wasps (mainly because Alloa Athletic aren't allowed in the FA Cup ;) )
     
    #64
  5. Poly

    Poly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    427
    Let's put it a different way
    Finishing mid table or
    Finishing 18th and winning the FA Cup ?
     
    #65
  6. Poly

    Poly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    427
    Winning every game they play is absolutely NOT the aim of any football club in the world.

    Note: that's not the same as the XI selected for any given game, won't try to win, because they will
    But the club itself does not aim to win every game it plays in a given season.
     
    #66
  7. Aski

    Aski Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    4,502
    I'd still take the FA Cup. The club have spent more time out of the top division than in it since I started to seriously support them in 1973, so I will enjoy our time in the top English division, but I ain't going to be buying souvenirs from the club gift shop celebrating finishing 12th in the Premier League, but could easily be persuaded to part with my cash to buy an FA Cup winners scarf, shirt, pennant, and any other memorabilia that the club owners decided would be an apt way for us fans to show our pleasure at the winning of silverware
     
    #67
  8. Poly

    Poly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    427
    I guess that's where we differ. For me, no number of FA Cup wins is worth being relegated from the Premiership - not even once.
     
    #68
  9. Aski

    Aski Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    4,502
    So in the last 40 years, have you disowned the club on the 3 occasions that we have been relegated, or have you continued to support them to the same extent that you do now, no matter which league we were playing in ?.
     
    #69
  10. Poly

    Poly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    427
    Three ?
    Of course not
    I bitterly remember 1982 and 2004...what was the third occasion, in the last 40 years, in your memory ?

    At the start of the season, if you were offered 17th place and a third round FA Cup exit, or winning the FA Cup and relegation, you'd really take the cup ?

    The FA Cup is no better than a cheap souvenir compared to a place in the Premiership.
     
    #70

  11. Aski

    Aski Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    4,502
    2006/2007 season when we got relegated to League One, I never said relegated from the Premier League, I just mentioned 3 relegations in the last 40 years.

    And yes I would take the FA Cup, it is something I can get excited about. I didn't ring all of my non Leeds supporting mates to celebrate the fact that we didn't get relegated on the last day of Premier league last season, but I can guarantee I would have done if we had won the League or FA Cup.

    I totally accept that the FA Cup, The League Cup, and even the Uefa Cup (or Europa cup as it is now) have been devalued due to the amount of money that can be earned from the Premier League or the European Cup (can't remember what its called now), and as much as I would love us to be able to compete for those trophies I also accept that at present we can't. However neither can I accept that we give up competing in ever competition we as a club enter, on the basis that we may find ourselves in a relegation battle. Well we found ourselves in one of those last year, despite not having a cup run.

    Have a good cup run, or being safe from relegation is not mutually exclusive, so as a fan I want my team to go out there and win every game that they possible can.

    I understand that the people who own the club and put up significant more money than I will ever spend, have a different priority, and I can accept that position even if I don't agree with it, but for a fan to admit that they are happy for the club he supports to not try in every competition, on the basis that we are not a very good team, but we must preserve our league status so we can be a not very good team again next season, seems bewildering to me.

    We all have our differing views, but when I am eventually laid to rest, the thought that maybe my coffin could be draped in a Leeds flag highlighting a major trophy win of any sort in this century, is more appealing to me than a Leeds flag celebrating 30 years of survival in the Premier League :)


     
    #71
  12. Poly

    Poly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    427
    OK, I thought you meant from Division 1/Premier League
    The relegation to League 1 was a low too...no way would an FA Cup win have compensated for that.

    Then we think differently
    Of course we could get excited over winning the FA Cup, but it's like winning a Social Club raffle the same week your house got burned down.


    It's the UEFA Champions League

    How do you explain the weakend teams we put out in cup ties ?
    How is that competing 100% ?

    And it's not just us, most Premiership teams do it - at least for the early stages of a cup competition

    And the UEFA cup used to be the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup; I was at the 2nd leg of the 1971 final
    Pop quiz, what future England manager played in that game ?


    No, especially if you're Man City and your 2nd XI is still better than most team's first XI, but we are no Man City. There's something of a significant quality gap between out 1st and 2nd choice teams

    Playing a mid-week cup tie that goes through extra time and penalties is both physically and mentally draining on the players

    If we were to play say Leicester in the league and saw them play 120 mins plus penalties the previous Wednesday (while we were rested for 7 days), you'd figure we'd have an edge over them.

    I doubt that the FA Cup qualifies as a Major Trophy anymore.
     
    #72
  13. Aski

    Aski Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    4,502
    I think it's fairly obvious we think differently, and there is no harm in that, I am just trying to understand your point of view, as I presume you are trying to understand mine, although maybe I am wrong with that presumption.

    How do I explain weakened teams, that we and other clubs put out. That is people who run the clubs putting money before everything else, and as I said I understand their point of view even if I disagree with it. As a fan I want my club to be successful. Obviously different fans have different levels of success. Whilst I am sure everyone on here would love to see the best players in the world playing every week for Leeds, as we pick up our consecutive Champions League Trophy (thanks for reminding me of the name, I could have looked it up before I posted, but I'm happy to show my own short fallings when making posts, I accept that I am not infallible :) ). My definition of success is winning something, yours appears to be survivability in the top league. Others want some multi billionaire to take us over and just buy success. Possibly all valid arguments, but neither of the last two excite me as much as winning something through merit.

    Thanks for the lesson about the Inter Cities Fairs Cup, I did already know its former name, and I presume you mean Capello, given that he played for Juventus in that game ;)

    As for last season FA Cup, Watford and Burnley both went out the same round as ourselves, so not having a cup run didnt save them. nor did reaching the semi finals seem to give Crystal Palace any issues, nor did it stop Notts Forest getting promoted despite reaching the last 8. I am sure we can both give more examples to support our positions, but a poor cup run doesn't keep you from relegation and a good cup run doesn't mean you fail to stay up or win promotion, although I fully accept that it is easier for some clubs to be able to achieve both.

    I accept that you don't consider the FA Cup a major trophy, again that is your prerogative, obviously I do hence why I used the term, but I will rephrase my comment if it makes you happy by saying I would rather have my coffin draped in a Leeds flag showing a trophy that presently provides a qualification place for a European competition than one that celebrates participation in a competition.

    Anyways I at least understand your point of view, even though I disagree with it. Whether you wish to comment further is up to you, but our last few posts just seem to be rehashing the same things back and forth, so if you wish a further reply, then just confirm that you are happy for me to reply by PM, just to save everyone having to read our repeated drivel
     
    #73
  14. Aski

    Aski Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    4,502
    Making no comments just highlighting the facts that led to the decision. If I miss any facts that seem relevant to others, then I apologise but its a long document to read through. I've provided a link to the full document, and also included spoilers regarding the relevant issues, this is still a long read, so you have been warned.

    CAS Decision re Augustin

    https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_8229__FINAL_.pdf

    Summary of points relied upon in reaching decision.

    The purchase contract referred to the end of the 2019/2020 season. There is mention of 1st July 2020 at certain other points of the contract, but as it is 1:30am I'm starting to get lost in the legal arguments, but basically the judge didnt consider the date to be relevant in the overall scheme of things

    The Loan agreement had an end date of 30 June 2020

    The purchase contract would still be valid even if the loan agreement ended

    The completion of the contract was delayed by 22 days, thus LUFC could not rely upon "force majeure" in relation to COVID, and financial restrictions imposed due to same.

    Any issues arising from Augustin joining FC Nantes would have resolved separately


    Subject to contract and the player passing a medical, we would like to make the following offer to Red Bull Leipzig for the loan of the [Player] until 30th June 2020: • We will cover all the contract that the player currently has in AS MONACO • Obligation to buy the player at the end of the season on the condition that [LUFC] is promoted to the Premier League for €21,000,000 (inclusive of solidarity) in 3 instalments as follows: €7,000,000 on 30th September 2020 €7,000,000 on 30th September 2021 €7,000,000 on 30th September 2022




    The abovementioned Purchase Option according to Clause 9 shall be considered to be automatically executed by [LUFC] without a respective notice being required, if and when the following condition precedent occurs: The [LUFC] 1st men's team is promoted to the Premier League at the end of the 2019/2020 season and thus qualifies for participation in the Premier League in the 2020/2021 season. If the aforementioned condition precedent occurs, the Purchase Option shall be triggered without any additional declaration and the Player shall be permanently transferred to [LUFC] with effect as of July 1, 2020. CAS 2021/A/8229 Leeds United Football Club – Page 5 Limited v. RasenBallsport Leipzig GmbH In this case the transfer fee in the amount of € 21,000,000 (in words: twenty-one million Euro) shall become due and shall be paid to [RB Leipzig] less any Deductions within the abovementioned due dates.”


    “LUFC’s obligation to enter into an employment contract with the Player following any Permanent Transfer shall be subject to the satisfaction in full of the following conditions precedent on or before the 30 June 2020 (“Conditions Precedent”): (i) LUFC being promoted to the Premier League at the end of the 2019/20 season; (ii) the Club and RB Leipzig agreeing to enter into a long-term transfer agreement in connection with the Permanent Transfer; (iii) the Player being registered with the Club by the EFL and the FA; and (iv) FIFA approving the Permanent Transfer and issuing an International Transfer Certificate in connection with the Permanent Transfer.”



    Also on 26 January 2020, RB Leipzig entered the Purchase Obligation into FIFA Transfer Matching System (the “FIFA TMS”), which was later “matched” by LUFC:

    “verpflichtende Kaufoption gem. Loan Agreement Artikel II. 9. und 10. sofern [LUFC] zum Ende der Saison 2019/2020 in die Premier League aufsteigen sollte.”

    “binding Purchase Option pursuant to the Loan Agreement Article II. 9. and 10. if [LUFC] promotes to the Premier League by the end of the season 2019/2020.


    There are lots of quotes of correspondence between all the parties concerning dates and the fact that the purchase contract also mentions "end of the season 2019/2020"



    On 5 October 2020, the Player was registered as a free agent with the French club FC Nantes. Upon the request of FC Nantes, LUFC confirmed that it considered that the Player was “a RB Leipzig player” and as such, did not seek a transfer fee from FC Nantes. Also RB Leipzig confirmed to the Player that “RB Leipzig will not make any claims based on your past employment contract neither against you nor against FC Nantes”, but that it could not “make any comment on whether you may be currently bound to another football club (other than FC Nantes)”.


    In this sense, the Single Judge is of the opinion that the constant reference by the various agreements to the dates of 30 June and 1 July 2020 shall be interpreted as a simple formality related to the dates of the anticipated conclusion of the season 2019/2020 and the beginning of the season 2020/2021, as originally scheduled by the pertinent organizing institutions. The Single Judge is comforted in his conclusion by analysing [LUFC’s] offer to [RB Leipzig] which was made in the middle of the 2019/2020 season and which only referred to the obligation to ‘buy’ the player at the end of the season, without any specific dates being mentioned.

    The Single Judge held that the mentioned parts of the COVID-19 Guidelines do not specify that any given clause in a valid loan agreement would automatically become null and void after its original expiry. It is the Single Judge’s opinion that even if the Player would have left [LUFC] after 30 June 2020, the “Purchase Obligation” would still have been triggered by the mere fact that [LUFC] achieved promotion, as per the clear intention of the parties when entering into the [Loan Agreement]. The COVID-19 Guidelines do therefore not invalidate the option clause, and the pandemic cannot release [LUFC] from its payment obligations since no specific recommendations or guidelines were introduced by means of which clubs could delay or reduce payments due in accordance with transfer agreements.


    Is the Purchase Obligation triggered?

    87. The Panel finds that the dispute between the Parties boils down to the question at what moment did the Purchase Obligation have to be complied with in order to oblige LUFC to acquire the services of the Player from RB Leipzig for a transfer fee of EUR 21,000,000? 88. If the decisive moment was 1 July 2020, as argued by LUFC, the Purchase Obligation would not have been satisfied. 89. However, if the decisive moment was the end of the 2019/20 season, as argued by RB Leipzig, the Purchase Obligation would have been satisfied. 90. To answer this question, clause 10 of the Loan Agreement requires interpretation

    The Panel commences its analysis with the wording of the actual condition precedent in clause 10 of the Loan Agreement, which provides as follows: “The [LUFC] 1st men’s team is promoted to the Premier League at the end of the 2019/2020 season and thus qualifies for participation in the Premier League in the 2020/2021 season.”

    The Panel observes that this provision does not refer to the date of 1 July 2020. 95. However, other parts of the Loan Agreement and related contracts do refer to 30 June and/or 1 July 2020. The references considered most relevant by the Panel in this respect are paraphrased here below. 96. Clause II.5 of the Loan Agreement provides, inter alia, as follows: “The Player herewith explicitly undertakes and confirms: […] c. that he agrees with the terms of the permanent transfer contemplated by this Agreement and in the event that the Purchase Option is exercised or the Purchase Obligation triggered, he shall enter into a full employment contract with [LUFC] at the earliest opportunity permitted by the relevant football regulations (and in any event before 1 July 2020)”

    The Panel infers from the above citations that the Parties clearly had in mind that the 2019/20 season would finish before 1 July 2020, but that the condition precedent itself does not refer to such date. 104. Due to the unusual circumstances related to COVID-19, the EFL Championship did not finish by 1 July 2020, but only on 22 July 2020, at least this was the date that LUFC secured its promotion to the Premier League, which was subsequently formalised at the English Premier League Annual General Assembly on 6 August 2020. 105. Neither of the two interpretations advanced by the Parties is perfect and the two interpretations cannot be reconciled. Either the date of 1 July 2020 would have to be read into the condition precedent while it is not there, or the condition precedent does not align with other clauses in the Loan Agreement referring to 30 June or 1 July 2020.

    At the outset, the Panel considers it relevant that the Purchase Obligation is a provision that mainly protects the interests of LUFC in that it would be relieved of the duty to acquire the services of the Player on a permanent basis if it would not be promoted to the Premier League. At the same time, even if the Purchase Obligation would not be triggered, LUFC could still invoke the Purchase Option and acquire the services of the Player for the 2020/21 season without requiring RB Leipzig’s consent and for the same transfer fee of EUR 21,000,000. The combination between the Purchase Option and the Purchase Obligation thereby provided LUFC with a significant degree of certainty and flexibility.

    By agreeing to the Purchase Obligation, LUFC accepted a serious financial commitment, solely dependent on its promotion to the Premier League. The Purchase Obligation did not leave LUFC any discretion to step away from its commitment based on circumstances other than a potential failure to be promoted to the Premier League. For example, if LUFC felt that the Player would not live up to the expectations or if he sustained a serious injury, this would not allow LUFC to step away from its commitment.

    An important element in the Panel’s analysis is that the condition precedent not only refers to “the end of the 2019/2020 season” as the triggering element, but also indicates that LUFC “thus qualifies for participation in the Premier League in the 2020/2021 season”.

    The Panel finds that LUFC did not put forward any convincing reasoning as to why the date of 1 July 2020 was of particular importance to it, other than it simply being the date usually dividing two football seasons. 116. Mr Kinnear’s explanation that the date of 1 July 2020 “was specifically intended to tie the purchase obligation to the date on which the Loan Agreement was due to expire, so that it could not be triggered after the player’s employment with RB Leipzig was reinstated” is – in the view of the Panel – not convincing, because the reinstatement of the Player’s employment relationship with RB Leipzig as from 1 July 2020 did not prevent the Player from transferring to LUFC on a permanent basis on a later date, i.e. the Purchase Obligation survived the Player’s loan to LUFC.

    This may have been different, if the end of the EFL Championship would have been postponed for a significant period of time (e.g. many months), or the start of the 2020/21 Premier League season would have been delayed significantly. However, a delay of only 22 days is insignificant and does not appear to cause any meaningful prejudice to LUFC. To the contrary, LUFC would save itself about three weeks of salary due to the later entry into force of the employment contract with the Player.


    As to LUFC’s argument that, had it known about the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact thereof on its financial situation, it would not have concluded the Loan Agreement at all, the Panel finds that this argument must be dismissed. While COVID-19 undoubtedly had a negative impact on LUFC’s financial situation, the extent thereof is unclear. While Mr Kinnear testified that COVID-19 had a “catastrophic impact on the Club’s finances”, LUFC did not present any evidence demonstrating the extent of LUFC’s financial hardship. 123. RB Leipzig alleges that, notwithstanding the COVID-19 pandemic, LUFC still spent a reported GBP 100,000,000 on acquiring the services of new players during the delayed summer 2020 transfer window, which allegation remained uncontested by LUFC and which appears to be corroborated by the (admittedly not 100% reliable, but publicly available) information presented on www.transfermarkt.com. The Panel finds that such expenditure, in combination with a significant increase of revenue due to the promotion to the Premier League, cannot be reconciled with the financial catastrophe alleged by LUFC.

    The Panel also considers the timing relevant, in particular that LUFC proposed to RB Leipzig on 24 April 2020 to extend the term of the Loan Agreement and the Purchase Obligation “in the event that [the current season] is extended beyond 30th June 2020”, for the same transfer fee of EUR 21,000,000, but subject to a delayed payment schedule. 125. In this respect, while Mr Kinnear testified that such proposal was made “only on the basis that we could renegotiate down the transfer fee, in light of the changes in the Club’s financial circumstances”, the Panel notes that LUFC did not attempt to renegotiate the transfer fee of EUR 21,000,000, but that it only sought to delay the payment terms. 126. While this offer of LUFC was ultimately declined by RB Leipzig, the Panel considers it telling that, when the EFL Championship was already suspended since 13 March 2020 due to the outbreak of COVID-19, more than a month later, in a period of deep uncertainty as to how COVID-19 would impact on the football industry, LUFC was still prepared to extend the Loan Agreement and reconfirmed its commitment to the Purchase Obligation for the same transfer fee, only subject to a delayed payment schedule. 127. In such circumstances, the Panel finds that LUFC’s argument that it would not have extended the deadline of 1 July 2020 to a later date at the moment of conclusion of the Loan Agreement had it foreseen the impact of COVID-19 unconvincing, as it proposed just that at a moment when the outbreak of COVID-19 had already evolved into a pandemic.

    RB Leipzig’s two-month silence may have been caused by a myriad of reasons, not least the fact that LUFC did not approach RB Leipzig directly with its offer, but that it presented its offer to the Player’s Agent as a consequence of which it is not clear when LUFC’s offer reached RB Leipzig. Consequently, for all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Purchase Obligation was triggered

    Finally, the present dispute involves LUFC and RB Leipzig. The Panel noted that the Player was ultimately registered by FC Nantes on 5 October 2020. The Panel wishes to specifically state that it does not pronounce itself on the legal relationship between either of the Parties and FC Nantes and/or the Player. Any such potential disputes would have to be resolved separately.


    Conclusion 149.

    Based on the foregoing, the Panel holds that: i) The Purchase Obligation was triggered; ii) LUFC shall pay to RB Leipzig EUR 6,740,174 as the first instalment of the transfer fee, plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 October 2020 until the date of effective payment; iii) LUFC’s appeal is dismissed and the Appealed Decision is confirmed in full. 150. All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.


     
    #74
    Jammy 07 likes this.
  15. Poly

    Poly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    427
    Yes, though our opinions seem poles apart, I respect your opinion.

    If that were the case, wouldn't Premiership clubs seek to win every competition and therefore maximize their prize money and TV cash ?
    But clearly that is not the case if they're putting out weakened teams in the early stages of domestic cup competitions.

    If I was a Man City fan, my criteria for success would be to win the title and/or the Champions League, with domestic cups an added bonus if they happen
    Short of a multi-billionaire sugar-daddy, my criteria for success is stay in the Premiership year after year.


    Yes and I saw that game. Did you know about Capello or look it up ?


    I'm not saying that a cup run condemns a club to relegation, or that an early exit saves them, but IMO a cup run diminishes a club's performance while it lasts....for the top clubs, it's hardly noticeable, but for lesser clubs, it can mean the difference between relegation and survival.


    Cheers.
     
    #75
  16. Emu

    Emu Firpo is Shit

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2019
    Messages:
    7,028
    Likes Received:
    12,917
    That's an insane statistic. I knew it was bad but not that bad. That's astonishing.
     
    #76
    Jammy 07 likes this.
  17. Aski

    Aski Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    4,502
    Well I was only 5 at the time and due to a family friendship with Gordon Banks I was a Stoke fan, as much as a 5 year old could be in the early 70s, so didn't see the game myself, was another 2 years before an uncle took me to see my first live game at Elland Road.

    The Capello thing I remember reading about in some article when he was appointed England manager. The other thing I remember from the article was that Capello scored the only goal, in what was Bobby Moore's last game for England
     
    #77
  18. Eireleeds1

    Eireleeds1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2011
    Messages:
    25,830
    Likes Received:
    20,320
    This year was a prime example of the utter nonsense of the way cups are treated. We had a very winnable Game against Wolves in Carabao and a first team on its day capable of beating anything left in it, including the reserve teams the top four or five will play. A clubs history is defined by the silverware in the trophy cabinet. I'll hopefully soon be bringing the eldest grandson to his first game. First stop will be the stadium tour and a visit to the trophy room. That's the Leeds I most associate with and not these multi millionaires only in the game for the money and couldn't give a crap who they play with once the cheques big enough. All this talk about the big money of the pl, who gives a toss, the players and owners are getting it all. Grow some balls and for the sake of a handful of extra games you're damn well paid for, contest the cups properly
     
    #78
    Jammy 07 likes this.
  19. Infidel

    Infidel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,794
    Likes Received:
    5,420
    Interesting
     
    #79
  20. Infidel

    Infidel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,794
    Likes Received:
    5,420
    Week after…… you mean 48 hrs after they played at Wembley, fkg corrupt FA
     
    #80

Share This Page