Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
But there isn't the call for that kind of story.

Pfft.
This story did not get much coverage in August but United have been under investigation for tax avoidance/evasion for at least six years.' So the Glazers have been taking money out, just last month they cashed in £137m worth of shares, without paying money they owe the UK government. But most of the media aren't bothered about it. When you think of the fuss they made about Amazon and their taxes...even though Amazon invests billions in the UK economy and creates thousands of jobs.

 
This story did not get much coverage in August but United have been under investigation for tax avoidance/evasion for at least six years.' So the Glazers have been taking money out, just last month they cashed in £137m worth of shares, without paying money they owe the UK government. But most of the media aren't bothered about it. When you think of the fuss they made about Amazon and their taxes...even though Amazon invests billions in the UK economy and creates thousands of jobs.

I understand and fully agree, it has been happening for years, right back to them kicking widows out of club houses after Munich, Daddy Edwards passing unfit meat into the school kitchens and son Edwards liking a bit of upskirt.

Spending millions and millions on players and being lauded for it blah blah fucking blah.

Fuck them all.
 
I haven't seen the Telegraph, but on the face of it, this looks like nonsense.
1. The money towards the cost of the stadium was a lottery grant from the funds then administered by the Sports Council. The grant was made to the City of Manchester. If any conditions were made, they were between those two parties.
2. After the Commonwealth games, the City of Manchester granted a 999 year lease to the club in return for an agreed rent of about £5m pa.
(There were some complex arrangements, but essentially it was just a lease.)
3. The club paid for the conversion to a football stadium.
4. When Thaksin sold the club, he sold the lease but the council retained the freehold. It would be most unusual for a transfer
of the lease to give rise to a debt to the freeholder.
5. The city of Manchester retains the freehold and the right to receive rent.
Just another lie to bash us with, it seems.
 
I haven't seen the Telegraph, but on the face of it, this looks like nonsense.
1. The money towards the cost of the stadium was a lottery grant from the funds then administered by the Sports Council. The grant was made to the City of Manchester. If any conditions were made, they were between those two parties.
2. After the Commonwealth games, the City of Manchester granted a 999 year lease to the club in return for an agreed rent of about £5m pa.
(There were some complex arrangements, but essentially it was just a lease.)
3. The club paid for the conversion to a football stadium.
4. When Thaksin sold the club, he sold the lease but the council retained the freehold. It would be most unusual for a transfer
of the lease to give rise to a debt to the freeholder.
5. The city of Manchester retains the freehold and the right to receive rent.
Just another lie to bash us with, it seems.

It wasn't really aimed at that, to my reading.

The premise of the article was that the WHU owners had made money on the basis of having a rented stadium, and the rent returned didn't reflect the increase in value of the club.
There was then a "we've seen this before with the Commonwealth Stadium".
 

Don't worry, it was like this with the last game. We will definitely feature next as they will want to see us crash and burn against PSG.
 

The moment you share the content of the media you complain about - they have won.

They don't care if what they write is correct, fair or omits anything or anyone. They just want people clicking on their articles and sharing it.
 
I haven't seen the Telegraph, but on the face of it, this looks like nonsense.
1. The money towards the cost of the stadium was a lottery grant from the funds then administered by the Sports Council. The grant was made to the City of Manchester. If any conditions were made, they were between those two parties.
2. After the Commonwealth games, the City of Manchester granted a 999 year lease to the club in return for an agreed rent of about £5m pa.
(There were some complex arrangements, but essentially it was just a lease.)
3. The club paid for the conversion to a football stadium.
4. When Thaksin sold the club, he sold the lease but the council retained the freehold. It would be most unusual for a transfer
of the lease to give rise to a debt to the freeholder.
5. The city of Manchester retains the freehold and the right to receive rent.
Just another lie to bash us with, it seems.
That was my point. The tool of a reporter admitted West Hams owners were legally allowed to sell the stadium after 10 years, but that meant the tax payer would get nothing back. He thought that was wrong. Whether it is poor business or not, why link City into and slag of Thaksin. Yet another tosser who wants to please the red shirts.
 
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.