we are to be investigated

[kurtangle01]

Not so. They might not have got good footage, the persons might have pulled out, they might not have got concrete evidence. Lots of reasons.

I think the "big one" who scarpered before Knut could meet him was Ferguson. In the build up to that part of the program they showed a picture of Patrice Evra......

Are you sure that was Evra? All the talk of a defender being signed in January etc..etc.. fits in with it being him. I'm not 100% certain it is him though.

[Reece]

Are you sure that was Evra? All the talk of a defender being signed in January etc..etc.. fits in with it being him. I'm not 100% certain it is him though.

Vidic?

[Rich]

More to do with who we were allegedly tapping up, another PL club's youngster, whereas others were involved in FA's breach of rules, so one breach only involves the FA, while tapping up allegations of another PL clubs player up breaches PL & FA rules.

As to why club & player being named, and it's not as if Paci is with us now, so they can't name him,. but they can name the club(s) involved.

Clearer?

Frank Arnesen and Paco were dealing/talking about the same thing - yet we are named and Chelsea are not.

And why can't they investigate him, if it was him doing the tappin' up?!?

You aren't going to tell me, that if Harry Redknapp did some dodgy dealing at Southampton they wouldn't investigate him for doing that tapping up/brown envelope collecting?

[animal magic]

it looked like evra to me looks like we are heading to a ****-storm the premierleague investigation is due in a couple of weeks

[kurtangle01]

Frank Arnesen and Paco were dealing/talking about the same thing - yet we are named and Chelsea are not.

And why can't they investigate him, if it was him doing the tappin' up?!?

You aren't going to tell me, that if Harry Redknapp did some dodgy dealing at Southampton they wouldn't investigate him for doing that tapping up/brown envelope collecting?

Paco didn't speak though he was sat listening. It was the other guy who wasdoing all the talking.

[Bob]

Are you sure that was Evra? All the talk of a defender being signed in January etc..etc.. fits in with it being him. I'm not 100% certain it is him though.

I thought it was a French manager, because he was said to have used the word, "piège"!

Can't see the tramp coming out with that!

[KK07]

you make a good point if is proved that a few premiership managers took bungs it harms the profile of the league could affect advertising marketing etc

You see I make sense when I'm sober and not looking at porn!

[Tom]

Are you sure that was Evra? All the talk of a defender being signed in January etc..etc.. fits in with it being him. I'm not 100% certain it is him though.

Watched it again this morning. The picture is blurred but I'm sure it's him.

[animal magic]

You see I make sense when I'm sober and not looking at porn!

how often is that

[animal magic]

I thought it was a French manager, because he was said to have used the word, "piège"!

Can't see the tramp coming out with that!

so its wenger then

[KK07]

how often is that

Not often

[Tom]

I thought it was a French manager, because he was said to have used the word, "piège"!

Can't see the tramp coming out with that!

no that's the phrase that the agent used, not the manager.

[lfc4ever]

Frank Arnesen and Paco were dealing/talking about the same thing - yet we are named and Chelsea are not.

And why can't they investigate him, if it was him doing the tappin' up?!?

You aren't going to tell me, that if Harry Redknapp did some dodgy dealing at Southampton they wouldn't investigate him for doing that tapping up/brown envelope collecting?

We are named due to Paco moving on, he was acting on our behalf at the time.

Arneson is still there, so it is he who will be investigated, on behalf of Chelsea.

You are reading too much into it.

[animal magic]

Not often

never mind

[Rich]

We are named due to Paco moving on, he was acting on our behalf at the time.

Arneson is still there, so it is he who will be investigated, on behalf of Chelsea.

You are reading too much into it.

You might be right, I might be reading too much into it - however, equally, you might not be reading enough into it, and I'll be right.