I used then when I meant than, though.
If anything that deserves neg not pos rep.
"dogy" was worse
I used then when I meant than, though.
If anything that deserves neg not pos rep.
The fact is plenty of businesses do dodgy accounting things and it only comes out years later if at all.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a far more powerful argument then "if they were doing something dogy they'd have been caught"
Is anyone actually arsed by this or are we all just pretending?
Is anyone actually arsed by this or are we all just pretending?
INTERNET FORUMS ARE MADE FOR ARGUMENTS
OK????????
No they aren't.INTERNET FORUMS ARE MADE FOR ARGUMENTS
OK????????
The reality of the numbers give some an opportunity to expand on their idealistic agendas.
Our current incumbents are falling short IMO but not by as much as sone would have us believe.
The solution to our financial woes do not lie in a sausage roll or a shirt sold in India
Yes he did. You used the following to say everything at Everton is kosher:
He simply used the fact a different club used the exact same legal framework and everything certainly wasn't kosher.
So you used the same thing he said to validate your opinion, and he used the same criteria to invalidate it.
No matter what you say, just because Everton work inside the legal framework that every other business does isn't definite proof that Everton operate soundly.
Wrong petal
As the inference that I was referring to relates to the nonsense unsubstantiated continually referenced, but never openly accused............removal of cash via some back door exit, that is both baseless & bollocks (IMO)
His reference to Rangers avoiding taxation in order to gain a competitive advantage is a horse **** comparable