The Footie Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
Is it under different rules ?
It's fiddling finances and dodgy payments. Personally I'd say that was worse than over spending, it's trying to deceive.

A cynical / bitter fan could argue it's under different rules as somehow rules are judged differently for certain teams. I'm not that cynical or bitter though :whistle:
 
It's fiddling finances and dodgy payments. Personally I'd say that was worse than over spending, it's trying to deceive.

A cynical / bitter fan could argue it's under different rules as somehow rules are judged differently for certain teams. I'm not that cynical or bitter though :whistle:

I have no doubt they are scared to go hard on the ā€œbig clubsā€
 
It's fiddling finances and dodgy payments. Personally I'd say that was worse than over spending, it's trying to deceive.

A cynical / bitter fan could argue it's under different rules as somehow rules are judged differently for certain teams. I'm not that cynical or bitter though :whistle:
You have to remember that they can use the ā€œnew ownersā€ clause.šŸ˜‡
 
You could say (as reported) that they admitted the crime and worked with the authorities - but where is the fun in that?
Oh well that will be ok with the Everton and Forest fans then - the crime is worse than theirs because it’s pretty much cheating but because they put their hands up and admitted it then the punishment will be irrelevant
 
Oh well that will be ok with the Everton and Forest fans then - the crime is worse than theirs because it’s pretty much cheating but because they put their hands up and admitted it then the punishment will be irrelevant
Never said that. Just explained one of the reasons the punishment was less for Chelsea, instead of trying to peddle internet rumours about them buying their way out.
 
Top