Ikon Posted Tuesday at 18:08 Share Posted Tuesday at 18:08 How much do people think Dibling would go for? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronson333 Posted Tuesday at 18:12 Share Posted Tuesday at 18:12 3 minutes ago, Ikon said: How much do people think Dibling would go for? £40m Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted Tuesday at 18:13 Share Posted Tuesday at 18:13 5 minutes ago, Ikon said: How much do people think Dibling would go for? Post relegation? £25m Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted Tuesday at 18:15 Share Posted Tuesday at 18:15 Wrong thread mates. Take it elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted Wednesday at 17:06 Share Posted Wednesday at 17:06 House of Lords is now discussing the amendment in the football governance bill that would effect us. https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/73011c64-91aa-47aa-98ab-0c8378d3e047 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted Wednesday at 17:19 Share Posted Wednesday at 17:19 Sounds like something out of Game of Thrones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted Wednesday at 17:28 Share Posted Wednesday at 17:28 Amendment withdrawn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted Wednesday at 17:34 Share Posted Wednesday at 17:34 6 minutes ago, Stifler said: Amendment withdrawn. Fucking chancers. At least Baroness Brady will be happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted Wednesday at 17:41 Share Posted Wednesday at 17:41 13 minutes ago, Stifler said: Amendment withdrawn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted Wednesday at 18:12 Share Posted Wednesday at 18:12 What does that mean ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted Wednesday at 18:39 Share Posted Wednesday at 18:39 26 minutes ago, Ben said: What does that mean ? It means it was rejected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted Wednesday at 18:52 Share Posted Wednesday at 18:52 29 minutes ago, Ben said: What does that mean ? For extra context. In the proposed bill that would form the regulation that the football regulator would have to adhere too/police, a Lord who has previously claimed to be a Liverpool (but during the discussion of this bill claimed to be a Brighton fan) proposed an amendment that would mean that no club that is owned by a foreign state, including public investment funds would be granted a licence to play football within the top 5 leagues of English football. The proposed amendment also forbid any government employee from being an owner or director (including our own government, which would have affected Karen Brady as well). The government minister who is advising the House of Lords on the bill asked them to withdraw the proposed amendment, as they don’t want to exclude people unfairly from owning or being a part of football clubs. It also had a number of reservations being asked about it by a number of Lords. When a government minister asks for it to be withdrawn, it pretty much means that the government won’t adopt it further down the line, if the Lord who proposed it still insists on it. As it happens the Lord who proposed it withdrew it. An objection to it by any other Lord would have seen it not moved (also rejected) as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted Wednesday at 18:52 Share Posted Wednesday at 18:52 11 minutes ago, Stifler said: It means it was rejected. Gotcha, looking forward to buying Foden and Stones in a few weeks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted Wednesday at 19:13 Share Posted Wednesday at 19:13 1 hour ago, Stifler said: Amendment withdrawn. Was always going to happen. Why more at stake than little old Newcastle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe1984 Posted Wednesday at 19:15 Share Posted Wednesday at 19:15 1 minute ago, Hudson said: Was always going to happen. Why more at stake than little old Newcastle. Way more... 😄 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted Thursday at 14:52 Share Posted Thursday at 14:52 Not sure how much sense is spoken here, but interesting take if nothing else Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Thursday at 19:15 Share Posted Thursday at 19:15 4 hours ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said: Not sure how much sense is spoken here, but interesting take if nothing else This is what some of us have been saying for a while. It’s really odd that PIF has been so inert. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andycap Posted Thursday at 19:22 Share Posted Thursday at 19:22 The bill is bordering on racist in a way. No sovereign states no investment funds. When it's the American consortiums that's destroying our game before our very eyes. Send the buggers back 😂 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted Thursday at 19:26 Share Posted Thursday at 19:26 3 minutes ago, andycap said: The bill is bordering on racist in a way. No sovereign states no investment funds. When it's the American consortiums that's destroying our game before our very eyes. Send the buggers back 😂 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andycap Posted Thursday at 19:29 Share Posted Thursday at 19:29 (edited) All city have done is be ambitious and spend and invested. Like Liverpool and man utd have done in the past. Now it seems it's not good for the game because these clubs don't want to spend anymore. And lose out. Edited Thursday at 19:30 by andycap Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted Thursday at 19:35 Share Posted Thursday at 19:35 1 minute ago, andycap said: All city have done is be ambitious and spend and invested. Like Liverpool and man utd have done in the past. Now it seems it's not good for the game because these clubs don't want to spend anymore. And lose out. It's an iteresting take like, but didn't the Qatari owners spend a lot of money regenerating parts of the city? If the owners wanted to pump money into the club and it was coming from outside, isn't that a benefit for both Manchester and Britain in general? Or would we have been better if those areas had remained run down and Man City just stayed a shit-stained shadow on Man U's doorstep? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fak Posted Thursday at 19:36 Share Posted Thursday at 19:36 10 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted Thursday at 19:46 Share Posted Thursday at 19:46 9 minutes ago, TRon said: It's an iteresting take like, but didn't the Qatari owners spend a lot of money regenerating parts of the city? If the owners wanted to pump money into the club and it was coming from outside, isn't that a benefit for both Manchester and Britain in general? Or would we have been better if those areas had remained run down and Man City just stayed a shit-stained shadow on Man U's doorstep? Man City are owned by Abu Dhabi, PSG are owned by Qatar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted Thursday at 20:07 Share Posted Thursday at 20:07 20 minutes ago, Stifler said: Man City are owned by Abu Dhabi, PSG are owned by Qatar. For some reason I always think Abu Dhabi is a city. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted Thursday at 20:12 Share Posted Thursday at 20:12 2 minutes ago, TRon said: For some reason I always think Abu Dhabi is a city. It is a city the capital of UAE just not as touristy as its neighbour Dubai. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now