Media Thread - 2021/22

[The Future’s Blue!]

Watched this and said to the missus, not shopping at Aldi anymore. She told me to grow up.

My Mrs wanted a couple of candles (not a Dipper, just the smell) from Aldi but no way was i frequenting that establishment.

Sad by me, but just.

 

[hammocity]

Watched this and said to the missus, not shopping at Aldi anymore. She told me to grow up.

That’s me done with them.

 

[Maly]

My Mrs wanted a couple of candles (not a Dipper, just the smell) from Aldi but no way was i frequenting that establishment.

Sad by me, but just.

Waitrose for me from now on

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Well there's always Netto!

 

[Newman Noggs]

Shithouses

Premier League plan to curb Newcastle and Man City spending

The new regulations will form part of tightened restrictions on related-party sponsorship deals in a direct response to the £305million Saudi Arabian-led takeover of Newcastle.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Chris in London]

The Mail discussing the PL's temporary ban on Newcastle getting sponsorship from Saudi companies.

"The Premier League have set up a working party to bring in new rules to ensure that any related-party sponsorships, such as Manchester City's naming-rights and shirt deals with Etihad Airways, must be set at a fair market value"

Apart from the obvious, covered on here many, many times, it's worded to be a bit ambiguous but it's all part of the drip, drip.

Nothing ambiguous about it. The Etihad deal is simply not a related party contract, as the accounts have shown for the last 10 years. It’s just untrue.

Whether this is a deliberate falsehood, or whether the journalist in question just doesn’t understand what a related party transaction is, or is not, is a different question.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Nothing ambiguous about it. The Etihad deal is simply not a related party contract, as the accounts have shown for the last 10 years. It’s just untrue.

Whether this is a deliberate falsehood, or whether the journalist in question just doesn’t understand what a related party transaction is, or is not, is a different question.

100% right as has been covered many times in these pages. I think it is ambiguous in the sense that, whilst we know exactly what they are really saying, they could argue (tenuously) that the "must be set at fair market value" relates back to "such as Manchester City's.... deal with Etihad". Since it isn't a related party transaction anyway it's bollocks but, being a charitable sort, I thought I'd give them some benefit of the doubt.

 

[EL APACHE TEVEZ]

The yanks are absolutely shitting themselves

 

[KS55]

Shithouses

Premier League plan to curb Newcastle and Man City spending

The new regulations will form part of tightened restrictions on related-party sponsorship deals in a direct response to the £305million Saudi Arabian-led takeover of Newcastle.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Where City use CFG or others to pay coaches, for example, I believe we reimburse those costs and so it makes no diff to our ffp position. Am I wrong?

 

[Newman Noggs]

Where City use CFG or others to pay coaches, for example, I believe we reimburse those costs and so it makes no diff to our ffp position. Am I wrong?

If they are bringing it in, it will disrupt our business plan somehow but doubtless we will outwit them.

As far as the article is concerned, It was the Mancini part I was particularly disgusted by.