Klopp on LFC vs MUFC (March 9th 2016) - "This is why I love football. This is why we watched it when we were young. I can still not have enough of it."
Always, keep your face to the sun, and shadows will fall behind you.
Klopp on LFC vs MUFC (March 9th 2016) - "This is why I love football. This is why we watched it when we were young. I can still not have enough of it."
Always, keep your face to the sun, and shadows will fall behind you.
They might as well throw the towel in on the 115 charges too - the games completely ****ed.
Certainly doesn't bode well.
The only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can't ignore it, top it; if you can't top it, laugh at it; if you can't laugh at it, it's probably deserved.
The verdict has been announced in Manchester City's legal case against the Premier League over its associated party transaction (APT) rules.
City had some complaints upheld, with two aspects of the APT rules deemed unlawful by a tribunal.
But the Premier League says the tribunal rejected the majority of Manchester City's challenges and "endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system".
APTs are aimed at the value of sponsorship deals with companies linked to clubs' owners.
This case is not directly related to the Premier League disciplinary commission which will hear 115 charges against City for allegedly breaching its financial regulations, some of which date back to 2009.
What do you mean it could've been anyone? Name me one person who's got a grudge against penguins
Whilst this may be true, (the ruling on the legitimacy of sponsorship deals), it’s not exactly at the heart of the cases against them from what I remember. They still have plenty to answer to in terms of transparency and accuracy in accounting which is not affected by the ruling on sponsorship legitimacy.
Comment