It is and I'd be staggered if we were any different to any of the other clubs claiming to conform. It's a bollocks system and the clubs are treating it as such.
Jumpers for goalposts and all that.So in summary, the reason we're supposed to be fine is because we have sold the advertising rights in Thailand for ****ing loads of money to a man and his dog in a parking lot in Sheffield? This is why I fell in love with football
FFS this is the most cunning of cunning plans .....exactly how long has Baldrick been employed by LCFC?
Embarrassing
Do you know it's any different from the rest? I'm fairly sure Man City came under scrutiny for something very similar last season when they signed a new sponsorship deal.
I guess we could live with thatDidn't they get a fine and have their Champions league squad restricted as a result
I think that Sven would be ideal to head up this innovative project.
Which book?It feels disloyal to my team, but they deserve to get the book thrown at them for this!
Which book?
Which book?
Which book?
And what for? Nothing I have read points to any wrongdoing. Innuendo yes, but that's not evidence, is it.
Even if there is evidence, is any of it illegal? Or does it just break the nonsensical rules of ffp?
Heaven knows FFP is not perfect, but it is the best that we've got to rein in the 'money rules' attitude to football. If we lose FFP, I foresee a Premier League that cuts itself off from the lower leagues.
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Liverpool | 11 | 28 |
2 | Manchester C | 11 | 23 |
3 | Chelsea | 11 | 19 |
4 | Arsenal | 11 | 19 |
5 | Nottm F | 11 | 19 |
6 | Brighton | 11 | 19 |
7 | Fulham | 11 | 18 |
8 | Newcastle | 11 | 18 |
9 | Aston Villa | 11 | 18 |
10 | Tottenham | 11 | 16 |
11 | Brentford | 11 | 16 |
12 | Bournemouth | 11 | 15 |
13 | Manchester U | 11 | 15 |
14 | West Ham | 11 | 12 |
15 | Leicester | 11 | 10 |
16 | Everton | 11 | 10 |
17 | Ipswich | 11 | 8 |
18 | Palace | 11 | 7 |
19 | Wolves | 11 | 6 |
20 | Southampton | 11 | 4 |