Original Dub wrote:So the government have laid out several "recommendations" that need to be adhered to by start of 2013/14 season.
There's the usual financial talk, but there was something mentioned about the governing body being made up of more independant members as opposed to those with vested interests?
Hopefully this means what I think it does.
What do you reckon?
Ted Hughes wrote:
There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.
I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.
MilnersJaw wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:
There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.
I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.
Cameron was at the fa cup final?
MilnersJaw wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:
There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.
I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.
Cameron was at the fa cup final?
Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:MilnersJaw wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:
There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.
I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.
Cameron was at the fa cup final?
Apparently, he's a big fan of soccer.
Dameerto wrote:Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:MilnersJaw wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:
There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.
I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.
Cameron was at the fa cup final?
Apparently, he's a big fan of soccer.
He's a big fan of anything that gets his increasingly pudgy face on the TV. I had him down as more of a polo fan anyway for some reason.
MilnersJaw wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:
There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.
I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.
Cameron was at the fa cup final?
Nigels Tackle wrote:
don't forget roger milla at italia 90
Original Dub wrote:Ssn never cease to amaze.
They have turned this whole topic on its head and their "report" is completely about government setting new rules so clubs like city and chelsea don't ruin everything. Completely financial and no mention whatsoever about the proposals of independent members who have no vested interest in any one club.
Lord triesman was on live earlier and he said he felt this should have been the way years ago and that he was all for it when he was in charge.
That part of the interview has not been repeated once.
What a fantastic propaganda machine ssn is for the bully boys.
I wonder has David Gill's efforts to leave the FA and join the board of UEFA have anything to do with being informed of the government's plans?
The english government might be able to take out the rag influence in the FA but not in UEFA and certainly not in the media.
Arjan Van Schotte wrote:Original Dub wrote:Ssn never cease to amaze.
They have turned this whole topic on its head and their "report" is completely about government setting new rules so clubs like city and chelsea don't ruin everything. Completely financial and no mention whatsoever about the proposals of independent members who have no vested interest in any one club.
Lord triesman was on live earlier and he said he felt this should have been the way years ago and that he was all for it when he was in charge.
That part of the interview has not been repeated once.
What a fantastic propaganda machine ssn is for the bully boys.
I wonder has David Gill's efforts to leave the FA and join the board of UEFA have anything to do with being informed of the government's plans?
The english government might be able to take out the rag influence in the FA but not in UEFA and certainly not in the media.
I've said it before mate, i've no problem with FFP rules being put in place, so long as they're not purely there to protect the interests of the already established clubs.
FFP should mean salary caps, player trades, even a draft system. Not billions of debt, and the obscene TV deals such as in spain.
Ted Hughes wrote:Arjan Van Schotte wrote:Original Dub wrote:Ssn never cease to amaze.
They have turned this whole topic on its head and their "report" is completely about government setting new rules so clubs like city and chelsea don't ruin everything. Completely financial and no mention whatsoever about the proposals of independent members who have no vested interest in any one club.
Lord triesman was on live earlier and he said he felt this should have been the way years ago and that he was all for it when he was in charge.
That part of the interview has not been repeated once.
What a fantastic propaganda machine ssn is for the bully boys.
I wonder has David Gill's efforts to leave the FA and join the board of UEFA have anything to do with being informed of the government's plans?
The english government might be able to take out the rag influence in the FA but not in UEFA and certainly not in the media.
I've said it before mate, i've no problem with FFP rules being put in place, so long as they're not purely there to protect the interests of the already established clubs.
FFP should mean salary caps, player trades, even a draft system. Not billions of debt, and the obscene TV deals such as in spain.
I've said the same. You either have 'fair play' or you don't.
Why the fuck should any competition introduce rules to favour of the biggest earners, so they can spend & others can't ? If it was trying to be fair & equal, it would be biased against them & help the clubs who are skint.
Arjan Van Schotte wrote:
I've said it before mate, i've no problem with FFP rules being put in place, so long as they're not purely there to protect the interests of the already established clubs.
FFP should mean salary caps, player trades, even a draft system. Not billions of debt, and the obscene TV deals such as in spain.
Arjan Van Schotte wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:Arjan Van Schotte wrote:Original Dub wrote:Ssn never cease to amaze.
They have turned this whole topic on its head and their "report" is completely about government setting new rules so clubs like city and chelsea don't ruin everything. Completely financial and no mention whatsoever about the proposals of independent members who have no vested interest in any one club.
Lord triesman was on live earlier and he said he felt this should have been the way years ago and that he was all for it when he was in charge.
That part of the interview has not been repeated once.
What a fantastic propaganda machine ssn is for the bully boys.
I wonder has David Gill's efforts to leave the FA and join the board of UEFA have anything to do with being informed of the government's plans?
The english government might be able to take out the rag influence in the FA but not in UEFA and certainly not in the media.
I've said it before mate, i've no problem with FFP rules being put in place, so long as they're not purely there to protect the interests of the already established clubs.
FFP should mean salary caps, player trades, even a draft system. Not billions of debt, and the obscene TV deals such as in spain.
I've said the same. You either have 'fair play' or you don't.
Why the fuck should any competition introduce rules to favour of the biggest earners, so they can spend & others can't ? If it was trying to be fair & equal, it would be biased against them & help the clubs who are skint.
started with the removal of the "away gate share (25%?)" in about 1989 mate. Responsible? The "Big Five".
(in fact it may have started earlier than that, but that's when my awareness started.)
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Harry Dowd scored, Nigels Tackle and 301 guests