It's just a fact though. It would have reflected on us badly if we had signed him.
Yep, thankfully we've got grown ups in charge of the club.Still spectacularly ill-advised from a PR perspective to bring it up at the moment in an attempt to win points.
The press would be falling over themselves to accuse us of a morally questionable lapse into the very worst of hypocrisy and myopia, all in a hopelessly misguided attempt to win points over United.
And I’d have to agree with them if we did - which is why I’m sure we’ll go nowhere near it!
Or "we plan on touring the USA, and he wouldn't be allowed to go" followed by a nudge nudge, wink wink.The double standards of the media concerning the Der Spiegel articles is stark but sadly not surprising. There is a document there in which Ronaldo admits being a rapist, the authenticity of which has not been refuted, but none of the mainstream media have dared mention it in any of their reporting. I am 100% sure that if we'd have signed him the likes of Delooney would have been shouting from the rooftops about it.
I would love Pep to mention it obliquely in his press conference when he is asked why we didn't sign him. Maybe he could just say we felt it would have been bad for the club's image if we had signed him.
If we'd have signed it there wouldn't have been a double a standard. #RapeyRon would still be trending.The double standards of the media concerning the Der Spiegel articles is stark but sadly not surprising. There is a document there in which Ronaldo admits being a rapist, the authenticity of which has not been refuted, but none of the mainstream media have dared mention it in any of their reporting. I am 100% sure that if we'd have signed him the likes of Delooney would have been shouting from the rooftops about it.
I would love Pep to mention it obliquely in his press conference when he is asked why we didn't sign him. Maybe he could just say we felt it would have been bad for the club's image if we had signed him.
"Not in my lifetime."We could sign mother Teresa, Gandy and Princess Diana and we'd still be called an evil empire.
It is what it is sadly, in time it may change.
This, this & this. Been saying it for yearsCue all the rags saying that the cost of Ronaldo's fee and wages will be more than covered by shirt sales which is a myth they trot out whenever they shell out too much for a player. (Think Pogba).
Firstly, the rags sell around 3 million shirts a year and that figure doesn't vary much up or down. Although they may get some additional sales the bulk of the shirts would go to rags who would have bought one anyway. It's just that they'll have the name Ronaldo on the back instead of Lingard, Lindelof or McTominay.
Secondly, most clubs get only 10%-15% of royalties from kit manufacturers on shirts they sell. However, the rags' kit deal with Adidas is so front loaded with basic sponsorship cash they get only 5%-6% royalties. Say shirt costs £70. Sales of 3 million would gross £210 million. 5% of that is £10.5 million which wouldn't cover his transfer fee and would only cover about 4 months wages.
I don’t think that midfield would be able to do it on a wet winter’s night in Stoke…We could sign mother Teresa, Gandy and Princess Diana and we'd still be called an evil empire.
It is what it is sadly, in time it may change.
I don’t think that midfield would be able to do it on a wet winter’s night in Stoke…
…thanks for spelling out the bloody obviousMostly because they're dead I suppose.
I dunno.I don’t think that midfield would be able to do it on a wet winter’s night in Stoke…