https://www.skysports.com/football/n...emain-as-owner
Of course if you believe it then you're dumber than a very dumb thing.
Which i suspect Uefa are as it makes a mockery of their rules.
Looking less likely it matters now anyway
Just read this elsewhere on socials and it raised a smile.
I like the moment they cut to their fat chairman slumped across 2 seats with grease marks all down his marquee, sorry, shirt.
I also realised that their supporters don't understand football, presumably due to their mental incapacity. Every time a f*rest player goes down in the box, they scream for a penalty, regardless of why they went down. At one point Dewsbury Hall cleared the ball and 2 f*rest players kicked him, banged into each other and fell over. Cut straight to a six finger knuckle dragger in the crowd screaming at the ref that it was a clear penalty.
We may be a long way behind them on the pitch but I'm just pleased I'm not one of them.
I did like that they banned Gary Neville from the ground yesterday. If a few more clubs did that life would be much better for Sky subsctibers
Lol. You might find it superficially amusing, GP, as might I, but it’s a ridiculous precedent and all too typical (over) reaction, imo, to ban a pundit because you don’ t like their criticism.
Almost guarantees a home draw for Forest against Salford in one of next season’s cup competitions.![]()
Why would making life for Sky subscribers be a plus? Isn't the money from Sky thats inflated footballers wages and resulted n games being arranged for Sky Tv's convenience and scheduling rather than fans a negative?
As RA rightly points out, banning journalists or media from anywhere on the basis of you don't like them or what they say (echoes of Trump here) then that's a negative for free speech and a dangerous precedent.
I thought you were making the argument on here that all views should be heard and not cancelled?