Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by razman, 7 Mar 2019.
That's a lot of 'ifs', and would certainly damage our 'SOO' campaign if they come in ;-)
Thanks. There's more substance to it than I remembered, but it's still highly selective quoting that can't be taken to be remotely conclusive in the absence of other related correspondence and thus could be completely misleading.
I vaguely recall that selective quoting also being book ended by somebody saying : "We can do what we like"?
The first point is correct; they’ve bought a massive advertising platform to project their State and it’s airline, via the global exposure of the Premier League. There’s not a chance they will dilute that by bringing in external primary sponsors.
For that reason, people need to stop taking this FFP situation personally; it’s a direct conflict between UEFA and Abu Dhabi - if it was Stoke City or Coventry City that they bought instead, they’d still be going after them.
FFP has actually been brilliant for the game; the ‘cartel clubs’ people alledge it was spawned to protect have been nowhere near winning the league or Champions League (the Milan clubs, United, Arsenal etc) since it’s implementation. Self-sufficient clubs like Atletico, Dortmund, Liverpool and Spurs have all gotten to European finals, while Monaco and Ajax have also made a big impact on the competition. Real couldn’t spend any proper money for circa 5 years, Leicester and Monaco have won league titles....it’s been a fantastic time for clubs with smaller budgets - but shrewd sporting strategy - to make an impact.
I think that was Pearce.
It's all about context though, as we all know. If the next line was "don't be silly, we can't do that as it's against the rules", it's not quite as good a story!
Or if the line before was "Can we go to the pub after the meeting?"
Sorry but FFP has had nothing to do with those teams getting to European finals. FFP although not invented by, it definitely was hijacked by the cartel clubs to protect their status from "new money". If it wasn't, why is it nothing to do with debt when it obviously should be, as it was pitched to everyone from the beginning?
It has maybe made some club owners more responsible(or has it just given some an extra excuse to penny pinch like they already wanted to do?) but I thought I read recently that it's made no difference across the board on the amount of clubs building up debt and even those going into administration.
Would it surprise anyone if they deliberately aren't quoting the emails word for word? Such as leaving out 59.5 "arranged" by ADUG "via it's contacts". Or something to that effect.
From what I did read at the time I remember there was a lot between the quotes without any evidence to fill in the gaps to their story. Such as "67.5 million annually" when that's news to everyone in itself, casually throwing things in hoping nobody will notice or ask for proof. City certainly did notice that pattern.
That was a bent deal anyway. It was signed off without the knowledge of the General Motors board by a marketing executive (Joel Ewanick) who was immediately fired without compensation for exceeding his authority. GM's official comment was brief. "Ewanick failed to meet the expectations that the company has for its employees." $70 million in the first season (2014-15) rising 2.1% each subsequent season (to 2020-21) plus $37.2 million in "fees" during the two seasons BEFORE the actual sponsorship started. All signed off in 2012 just 3 years after GM went bankrupt and had a $50 billion bailout from the US taxpayer, $11.2 billion of which was never recovered and had to be paid by US taxpayers.
So where we up to with this bollocks then? Died a death has it?