Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by razman, 7 Mar 2019.
I'm a sick bastard but I am kind of interested to see what 1 season focusing fully on domestic football would look like for us. Guessing we end up with 115 points.
Yep, he's an Arsenal loving **** who is going to find his mobile number posted on here before much longer.
Allegedly, of course.
He's a simpleton. Conveniently, for a supposed expert on the subject matter, he elected not to mention that the hacked documents relate to the period already sanctioned for.
He's in big trouble, as he accused us of failing twice and still manipulating the books.
Dan Roan spouting off outside the Etihad now.
What timing exactly is suspect here regarding PSG new sponsor deal ?
PSG was a long time partner of Emirates. Due to the turmoil between Qatar and UAE, it was unlikely that partnership will keep going, especially when PSG was asking for a big raise due to their bigger profile worldwide.
PSG prospected for a long time (chinese companies, Air France,etc.) before they got that exceptional offer by Accor Hotels that had decided to launch their new fidelity program ALL by announcing their partnership with PSG. I think it is fair to say they got a big publicity (prolly few of us would have heard about them so fast, if not for that PSG deal).
As often in business, connections are essential and Sarkozy is in the board of Accor. Sebastien Bazin, the CEO, is the former (despised) PSG president when he had been sent by the Colony Capital crooks. Qatar has only 10 % in Accor and is not even the major stakeholder (they are chinese).
If you have a problem with that sponsor, what about Bayern and Adidas, Allianz, Audi that are at the same time in the ownership and in the sponsorship ?
The other sponsorships have already been dealt with FFP (they have all been devaluated several times to meet the fair value), so it should not be a problem either.
That BBC tosser is on the national news now giving us shit from across the road.
Is the correct answer.
I wonder how many fucks would be given if a bit of beer was chucked at him.
So if that's true, surely the precedent has been set with UEFA's punishment of PSG when they devalued their 'related party' sponsorship (if Etihad is deemed to be a related party - the case for which seems neither here nor there) and fined them? Why would we be banned if PSG weren't?
But the specific wording City used in quotations is not in the article??