Cristiano Ronaldo

Twigglett said:
Most of you are taking this whole sponsorship-funded transfer out of context. It would be entailed as part of the new Nike deal. The money Nike put forward would come solely from the contract, meaning United will get less annual money from it. However, they would most likely still profit from the increased shirt sales.

There's nothing corrupt about it.

OK Etihad decide they need more exposure so they decide to increase the sponsorship with City, to increase the marketing value, they Buy Messi for 200,000,000 and say it comes from the increased sponsorship deal.
 
Jc3065 said:
crystal_mais said:
Marvin said:
Utd spent £80m on a combination of players last season.

And AON will pay Utd £160m to rename their training ground. Chevrolet will pay Utd £45mpa

Don't delude yourself that they are paupers

Was told last year that both Chevrolet & Nike were combining to help fund Tranny back at the swamp

Can't see Nike subsidising any transfer. The fall out from all the other clubs they have deals with would be phenomenal

This.

If nike to indeed fund trannys return to the swamp, I won't be buying any of their stuff ever again....
 
richball_PF55 said:
Jc3065 said:
crystal_mais said:
Was told last year that both Chevrolet & Nike were combining to help fund Tranny back at the swamp

Can't see Nike subsidising any transfer. The fall out from all the other clubs they have deals with would be phenomenal

This.

If nike to indeed fund trannys return to the swamp, I won't be buying any of their stuff ever again....

...but millions of people around the globe will because of it.... Nike will make money out of it, make no mistake.

But i agree, the reaction from other clubs would be pretty big i suspect... Can't see it happening..
 
He's not leaving Madrid. This is all to force Madrid to increase his salery to make up for the increased tax rate due to the repeal of the Beckham rule. He's also asking for 70% of his name rights. The Rags aren't going to poney up 80 mil in transfer fee plus 300k a week in salery plus a reduced amount they would recieve in his shirt sales. They have never spent more than 30 mil on any 1 player I don't see them more than doubling that transfer fee. The whole thing is just silly. Tommy Smith is lauding the Rgas are going to throw in Nani, Rooney and Valencia to cover the transfer fee and I nearly shit myself laughing soo hard. Why the hell would Madrid want Nani or Valencia? They can't give Nani away. Aperantly they best offer they have had was 4 mil. Can't see Vaslencia getting much more. Neither player could make the reserve sqaud. It's just rubbish.
 
If he doesn't sign his new contract next summer his fee will be in a bracket quite a few clubs could afford even the scum but no chance now..
 
One thing is clear, he is open to transfer. Why don't we make a bid for him? We can definitely offer more fee and money and wages.
 
Marvin said:
halfcenturyup said:
Marvin said:
How would it end FFP?

It might dawn on the rest of football's fans etc what we've been talking about, but the division between the spending of Man Utd and the rest of football has been a matter of fact for 30 years.


Because every time a team would want a player in the future, they would just renegotiate with their main sponsors for the extra money needed on the basis of extra "awareness". The needs of the club would drive sponsorship revenues, the sponsorship revenues wouldn't be determining who you could buy. It's the exact opposite of living within your means.

I am not saying it's wrong, or has no commercial merit as a principle. I am saying it blasts a hole in what is supposed to be FFP's main principle.
It was never fair in the first place. UEFA or the Premier League could argue that if the sponsors or a third party finance a deal, it protects a football club.

It doesn't shoot down FFP, it just provides another example of how commercial interests are driving football and how difficult it is for the smaller clubs to compete


so a current sponsor Nike giving utd 80 million to buy a player is good But a club owner giving the club 80 million to buy a player is bad. Am I missing something.

Nike buying a player is akin to 3rd party ownership.<br /><br />-- Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:50 am --<br /><br />
Marvin said:
halfcenturyup said:
Marvin said:
How would it end FFP?

It might dawn on the rest of football's fans etc what we've been talking about, but the division between the spending of Man Utd and the rest of football has been a matter of fact for 30 years.


Because every time a team would want a player in the future, they would just renegotiate with their main sponsors for the extra money needed on the basis of extra "awareness". The needs of the club would drive sponsorship revenues, the sponsorship revenues wouldn't be determining who you could buy. It's the exact opposite of living within your means.

I am not saying it's wrong, or has no commercial merit as a principle. I am saying it blasts a hole in what is supposed to be FFP's main principle.
It was never fair in the first place. UEFA or the Premier League could argue that if the sponsors or a third party finance a deal, it protects a football club.

It doesn't shoot down FFP, it just provides another example of how commercial interests are driving football and how difficult it is for the smaller clubs to compete


so a current sponsor Nike giving utd 80 million to buy a player is good But a club owner giving the club 80 million to buy a player is bad. Am I missing something.

Nike buying a player is akin to 3rd party ownership.
 
Loved the SSN story this morning. Fergie gonna have a word and convince him to come back, then they say he'll want wages over £300k per week - nothing about ruining football and no understanding that the scum simply wouldn't contemplate those wages. I'm hoping Peter Spencer entertains us all summer on TalkShite saying Ronaldo to United is imminent!
 
United are living in a fantasy world if they think Nike will stump up the cash for Ronaldo. He is after more money and as much as Bale is a very good player he isn't in the same bracket as Ronaldo. Real Madrid cannot afford to lose him so will after much wrangling will bow down to the demands.
 
nmc said:
Loved the SSN story this morning. Fergie gonna have a word and convince him to come back, then they say he'll want wages over £300k per week - nothing about ruining football and no understanding that the scum simply wouldn't contemplate those wages. I'm hoping Peter Spencer entertains us all summer on TalkShite saying Ronaldo to United is imminent!
They upped Rooney's wage to £250k pw and RVP is on something similar
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.