Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fair market value is the only term that should come into play.

If MBS wants his name on the Newcastle shirts, so what? It's his club and he should do as he pleases.

As said, as long as they receive fair value, there should be no issue.
Did anybody moan (bar Newcastle fans) when they turned St James Park into the Sports Direct Arena or whatever it was called?

Also what is this vote nonsense about? It is like giving the vote to have Xmas to Turkeys, of course, the Scouse, Rags, three London cunts would never vote in favour of something that will drop them down the league, potentially anyway.
 
Last edited:
How can the PL believe that this move is anything other than anti-competitive and against the law?

Just wondering what the Saudi’s will be thinking about this move to disrupt their plans. Maybe withdraw their sponsorship from other clubs whilst influencing other areas of the market to do the same.

If I occupied an influential position in relation to a government that awarded huge contracts, I'd make it known, unofficially, that any business contracts would be looked on more favourably if the company tendering were a sponsor of my football club.
 
If I occupied an influential position in relation to a government that awarded huge contracts, I'd make it known, unofficially, that any business contracts would be looked on more favourably if the company tendering were a sponsor of my football club.
It’s a very simple and the oldest way of doing business. To get that lucrative contract, business would be shown a new way to get their product in the public eye. No way better than the glare of billions on the PL.
 
It’s a very simple and the oldest way of doing business. To get that lucrative contract, business would be shown a new way to get their product in the public eye. No way better than the glare of billions on the PL.

Agreed - it's almost as though that Guardian piece is utterly confused.

My understanding is that something which is "related party" automatically must be fair value when being assessed for FFP.
However, a non-related party seeking favour in the country does not have to be fair value - that would seem to be of more concern.
 
So more misinformation by a supposed journalist who believes the Etihad deal is a related party agreement. How difficult is it to get facts correct when it’s your job to report facts?

He knows it’s inaccurate - but he‘s using it to imply foul play - people reading that will think the Etihad sponsorship is inflated and not fair value. It’s all part of a longe term racially motivated campaign in the guardian…. Remember the row of grinning beards comment….
 
Last edited:
He knows it’s inaccurate - but he using it to imply foul play - people reading that will think the Etihad sponsorship is inflated and not fair value. It’s all part of a longe term racially motivated campaign in the guardian…. Remember the row of grinning beards comment….
Its why its time our PR team did something and the club should employ its legal team on all such claims and lies. We are far too soft as a club
 
Agreed - it's almost as though that Guardian piece is utterly confused.

My understanding is that something which is "related party" automatically must be fair value when being assessed for FFP.
However, a non-related party seeking favour in the country does not have to be fair value - that would seem to be of more concern.
Why don’t we just sponsor each other! Etihad for the barcodes & Saudi Aramco on our majestic blue….now that would boil some piss :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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.