Lil’ bit of nerdy stuff, lil’ bit of sporty stuff, a lot of moaning.
- Tweets 30,293
- Following 1,614
- Followers 306
- Likes 40,131
It should’ve been Watch Dogs 2 💔
EXCLUSIVE: Watch Dogs: Legion 'Director's Cut' Planned For First Half of 2027
insider-gaming.com/watch-dog…
30
Finally finished Wolverine.
It’s fun, once you get all the upgrades the combat really slaps.
For the most part I thought the story was fine, the Essex stuff was good.
I just was not a fan of a lot of their big swings, the core relationship did NOT do it for me.
24
Hahahahahaha what the fuck
An Arizona man convicted of killing a road-rage victim will be resentenced after an AI-generated video of the victim forgiving him was improperly used during sentencing.
The initial judge said he felt that the AI-generated depiction of the victim portrayed “genuine forgiveness.”
35
Haven’t Villa just been absolutely gutted to comply with financial regulations haha?
Between 2009 and 2018, Manchester City's transfer business significantly weakened their Premier League rivals.
From losing Gareth Barry to Samir Nasri, teams including Aston Villa and Arsenal suffered directly as a result of City's squad building over the period for which they have now been found guilty of breaching financial rules.
@JackPittBrooke analyses the lasting damage inflicted on other teams by the club's transfer policy in that time.
🔗 nytimes.com/athletic/7653100…
32
Fuck sake man we’re beyond the pale.
I spent years exposing Man City's cheating while their plutocratic regime believed they could get away with it all. While my wife lay dying, these are the threats, ugly tactics and intimidation the club and their fans used against me, writes NICK HARRIS trib.al/wPeFRFL
104
Sensationalist framing. Don’t disagree with the main point but calling it a hammer blow is overstated haha
This is a hammer blow to Man City’s narrative that the payments to its sponsors were not from ADUG but from the CPC.
If Man City had called an exec from Etihad as a witness to support their defence argument of the CPC explanation, they would have been torn apart on the stand.
2
1
5,042
The 2015 filing was lobbying in a US trade dispute, not evidence in this case. 'No subsidies' is a narrow aviation law claim, and it doesn't rule out shareholder funding.
‘Torn apart on the stand' is speculation. The burden is on the PL, and one old document doesn't settle.
1
96