United thread 2013/14 (continued)

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Re: United thread 2013/14

@SwissRamble: United's PR machine is spinning like a top in the papers this morning. "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the public's intelligence."

In one paper it said Kia Joorabchian was the 3rd party as Chelsea wouldn't speak to the rags if they'd known they were interested. In another it said it was Ferguson & Gill who did the negotiations. And now the Guardian tells us it was Woodward but he only did it in writing to avoid any mention of Rooney. So which one is right?

I'm also baffled as to why the media are not questioning two obvious issues with Woodward only wanting to communicate in writing.

1) Why was Woodward ‘scared’ to talk face-to-face with Chelsea? Would he have crumbled and handed over Rooney for half a Curly Wurly and a can of Tizer?

And more glaring obvious

2) If Chelsea wanted to ask about Rooney I’m pretty sure they are capable of putting it in writing too.

Or is asking the right questions too simple a construct for the British media to comprehend?

Bigger issues than that though...........such as

What pressure did the FA number 2 Gill exert on Chelski to do the deal / why was he even involved bearing in mind he is supposed to be impartial ?/ was there any conflict of interest / if he is impartial I assume he would step in and help any other club involved in player transfer negotiations /



i.e What the f^ck was the vice president of the FA even doing there...let alone being actively involved in the player transfer negotiations

 

[gmckennasell]

Re: United thread 2013/14

In one paper it said Kia Joorabchian was the 3rd party as Chelsea wouldn't speak to the rags if they'd known they were interested. In another it said it was Ferguson & Gill who did the negotiations. And now the Guardian tells us it was Woodward but he only did it in writing to avoid any mention of Rooney. So which one is right?

I'm also baffled as to why the media are not questioning two obvious issues with Woodward only wanting to communicate in writing.

1) Why was Woodward ‘scared’ to talk face-to-face with Chelsea? Would he have crumbled and handed over Rooney for half a Curly Wurly and a can of Tizer?

And more glaring obvious

more importantly , how much was in the brown envelope ?

2) If Chelsea wanted to ask about Rooney I’m pretty sure they are capable of putting it in writing too.

Or is asking the right questions too simple a construct for the British media to comprehend?

Bigger issues than that though...........such as

What pressure did the FA number 2 Gill exert on Chelski to do the deal / why was he even involved bearing in mind he is supposed to be impartial ?/ was there any conflict of interest / if he is impartial I assume he would step in and help any other club involved in player transfer negotiations /



i.e What the f^ck was the vice president of the FA even doing there...let alone being actively involved in the player transfer negotiations

 

[waspish]

In one paper it said Kia Joorabchian was the 3rd party as Chelsea wouldn't speak to the rags if they'd known they were interested. In another it said it was Ferguson & Gill who did the negotiations. And now the Guardian tells us it was Woodward but he only did it in writing to avoid any mention of Rooney. So which one is right?

I'm also baffled as to why the media are not questioning two obvious issues with Woodward only wanting to communicate in writing.

1) Why was Woodward ‘scared’ to talk face-to-face with Chelsea? Would he have crumbled and handed over Rooney for half a Curly Wurly and a can of Tizer?

And more glaring obvious

2) If Chelsea wanted to ask about Rooney I’m pretty sure they are capable of putting it in writing too.

Or is asking the right questions too simple a construct for the British media to comprehend?

Bigger issues than that though...........such as

What pressure did the FA number 2 Gill exert on Chelski to do the deal / why was he even involved bearing in mind he is supposed to be impartial ?/ was there any conflict of interest / if he is impartial I assume he would step in and help any other club involved in player transfer negotiations /



i.e What the f^ck was the vice president of the FA even doing there...let alone being actively involved in the player transfer negotiations

Gill is still on the board of the rags I believe..

He was even at the u21 tonight..

 

[Daz_Blue]

Cabaye off to PSG that is 1 player off the list of 20 they are signing in the Summer

 

[scotty123]

Newcastle and PSG agree to transfer of Johan Cabaye, another one not going to Moyes

 

[Daz_Blue]

Due to an irregular betting pattern, Ladbrokes have suspended betting on this week's football

It seems someone bet £10 on the rags to win

 

[justsomeone]

hahahaha
that Januzaj story is hilarious

 

[ali benarbia's studs]

I'm also baffled as to why the media are not questioning two obvious issues with Woodward only wanting to communicate in writing.

1) Why was Woodward ‘scared’ to talk face-to-face with Chelsea? Would he have crumbled and handed over Rooney for half a Curly Wurly and a can of Tizer?

And more glaring obvious

2) If Chelsea wanted to ask about Rooney I’m pretty sure they are capable of putting it in writing too.

Or is asking the right questions too simple a construct for the British media to comprehend?

Bigger issues than that though...........such as

What pressure did the FA number 2 Gill exert on Chelski to do the deal / why was he even involved bearing in mind he is supposed to be impartial ?/ was there any conflict of interest / if he is impartial I assume he would step in and help any other club involved in player transfer negotiations /



i.e What the f^ck was the vice president of the FA even doing there...let alone being actively involved in the player transfer negotiations

Gill is still on the board of the rags I believe..

He was even at the u21 tonight..

is he still with UEFA too?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Nobody is subhuman.

She comes across as a shallow and materialist cow, but then woman attracted to footballers usually are, particularly as she is 25 and he is still in nappies. Not surprising that he took her to Nandos is it?

I thought you were a liberal GDM, the "product" reigns supreme.

'Sub-human scum' is a term of art, not to be taken literally. I don't imagine Alexander Kolarov actually has....errrrr......rocket feet, for example. The same principle applies here.

Equally I think you have failed to grasp one of the totemic hallmarks of classic liberalism, namely freedom to act as you choose as long as it doesn't directly impact on others in a negative way. Selling a story to a newspaper does not meet that criterion, as much as child abuse doesn't, for reasons which should be apparent even to the most unsophisticated of minds. Freedom can never be completely unfettered if society is to function effectively.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Nobody is subhuman.

She comes across as a shallow and materialist cow, but then woman attracted to footballers usually are, particularly as she is 25 and he is still in nappies. Not surprising that he took her to Nandos is it?

I thought you were a liberal GDM, the "product" reigns supreme.

'Sub-human scum' is a term of art, not to be taken literally. I don't imagine Alexander Kolarov actually has....errrrr......rocket feet, for example. The same principle applies here.

Equally I think you have failed to grasp one of the totemic hallmarks of classic liberalism, namely freedom to act as you choose as long as it doesn't directly impact on others in a negative way. Selling a story to a newspaper does not meet that criterion, as much as child abuse doesn't, for reasons which should be apparent even to the most unsophisticated of minds. Freedom can never be completely unfettered if society is to function effectively.

That is too broad to be taken to its whole meaning. The child abuse example is excessive doesn't help your cause. When the courts decide on breach of confidence/ misuse of private information, cases in terms of kiss and tell stories they do a balancing act of her right of freedom of expression, and his right to a private family life. If I was to do a balancing act then her right to tell the Sun about her bad date at Nandos, trumps his right not to be talked about in newspapers, in this incident, it was hardly the most private of information. Although I suspect you were speaking in general terms. This legal consideration pays homage to some ideas of liberalism. Newspapers printing stories about celebrities private lives is in the public interest, because without it there would be less newspapers, and democracy requires newspapers, to function properly.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Nobody is subhuman.

She comes across as a shallow and materialist cow, but then woman attracted to footballers usually are, particularly as she is 25 and he is still in nappies. Not surprising that he took her to Nandos is it?

I thought you were a liberal GDM, the "product" reigns supreme.

'Sub-human scum' is a term of art, not to be taken literally. I don't imagine Alexander Kolarov actually has....errrrr......rocket feet, for example. The same principle applies here.

Equally I think you have failed to grasp one of the totemic hallmarks of classic liberalism, namely freedom to act as you choose as long as it doesn't directly impact on others in a negative way. Selling a story to a newspaper does not meet that criterion, as much as child abuse doesn't, for reasons which should be apparent even to the most unsophisticated of minds. Freedom can never be completely unfettered if society is to function effectively.

That is too broad to be taken to its whole meaning. The child abuse example is excessive doesn't help your cause. When the courts decide on breach of confidence/ misuse of private information, cases in terms of kiss and tell stories they do a balancing act of her right of freedom of expression, and his right to a private family life. If I was to do a balancing act then her right to tell the Sun about her bad date at Nandos, trumps his right not to be talked about in newspapers, in this incident, it was hardly the most private of information. Although I suspect you were speaking in general terms. This legal consideration pays homage to some ideas of liberalism. Newspapers printing stories about celebrities private lives is in the public interest, because without it there would be less newspapers, and democracy requires newspapers, to function properly.

Newspapers don't give a second's thought to the public interest and whilst I agree a democracy requires newspapers to function properly, that cannot be a state of affairs that currently subsists in any meaningful way. Our written press, far from the bastion of freedom that it likes to project itself as, is in fact, dysfunctional and should actually be a source of national shame. Your apparent defence of its right to broadly carry on with its current MO, suggests that this is a view you sadly do not share.

That doesn't mean I think we should impose legislation on the press , but perhaps if more liberal people were prepared to openly condemn such things as kiss and tell stores, then perhaps we would have a written press that more accurately reflects a modern, thriving democracy, rather than what we are currently pretty much forced to endure, which isn't fit for purpose imo.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

'Sub-human scum' is a term of art, not to be taken literally. I don't imagine Alexander Kolarov actually has....errrrr......rocket feet, for example. The same principle applies here.

Equally I think you have failed to grasp one of the totemic hallmarks of classic liberalism, namely freedom to act as you choose as long as it doesn't directly impact on others in a negative way. Selling a story to a newspaper does not meet that criterion, as much as child abuse doesn't, for reasons which should be apparent even to the most unsophisticated of minds. Freedom can never be completely unfettered if society is to function effectively.

That is too broad to be taken to its whole meaning. The child abuse example is excessive doesn't help your cause. When the courts decide on breach of confidence/ misuse of private information, cases in terms of kiss and tell stories they do a balancing act of her right of freedom of expression, and his right to a private family life. If I was to do a balancing act then her right to tell the Sun about her bad date at Nandos, trumps his right not to be talked about in newspapers, in this incident, it was hardly the most private of information. Although I suspect you were speaking in general terms. This legal consideration pays homage to some ideas of liberalism. Newspapers printing stories about celebrities private lives is in the public interest, because without it there would be less newspapers, and democracy requires newspapers, to function properly.

Newspapers don't give a second's thought to the public interest and whilst I agree a democracy requires newspapers to function properly, that cannot be a state of affairs that currently subsists in any meaningful way. Our written press, far from the bastion of freedom that it likes to project itself as, is in fact, dysfunctional and should actually be a source of national shame. Your apparent defence of its right to broadly carry on with its current MO, suggests that this is a view you sadly do not share.

That doesn't mean I think we should impose legislation on the press , but perhaps if more liberal people were prepared to openly condemn such things as kiss and tell stores, then perhaps we would have a written press that more accurately reflects a modern, thriving democracy, rather than what we are currently pretty much forced to endure, which isn't fit for purpose imo.

The bold bit was directly paraphrased from a judge's argument, I thought it silly when I first read it, I just thought you might appreciate it ;)

The honest answer is I don't care, newspapers could do better things than report kiss and tell stories but it is the glitzy-glam, and celeb exposes that sells. People don't want to read well written but beige coloured investigative journalism it seems. Newspapers are just an exaggeration of TV channels, people would rather watch "I had sex with my transgendered pet dolphin" than an informative documentary. If people stop buying newspapers or visiting their websites they will have to change MO, but as long as they can sustain themselves on their current methods they will not change.Otherwise you need a culture of responsibility, but then that does a fuck load of good in the case of politicians.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

The insane hype is only going to lead to a hilarious downfall, let them say they're going to win the league, it makes it even funnier when they struggle to make the top 8.

 

[manchester blue]

And they say romance is dead;

He's a real smoothie, that one.

Footballer or not, he's 18 ffs! What did she expect?!

As an aside, fully agree with GDM's sentiments on the previous page, sub human.

Good on him. He has to flush out the wanna be wags, freeloaders and gold diggers. Job complete here!!

 

[Dubai Blue]

And they say romance is dead;

He's a real smoothie, that one.

Footballer or not, he's 18 ffs! What did she expect?!

As an aside, fully agree with GDM's sentiments on the previous page, sub human.

Good on him. He has to flush out the wanna be wags, freeloaders and gold diggers. Job complete here!!

Yep, he's had a lucky escape there. She sounds like a right twat. I've never understood this perception that rich footballers have a duty to needlessly chuck obscene amounts of cash around while doing the simplest of things. A prime example is when people are amazed when they see celebrities flying on EasyJet/Ryanair.

 

[mad4city]

Footballer or not, he's 18 ffs! What did she expect?!

As an aside, fully agree with GDM's sentiments on the previous page, sub human.

Good on him. He has to flush out the wanna be wags, freeloaders and gold diggers. Job complete here!!

Yep, he's had a lucky escape there. She sounds like a right twat. I've never understood this perception that rich footballers have a duty to needlessly chuck obscene amounts of cash around while doing the simplest of things. A prime example is when people are amazed when they see celebrities flying on EasyJet/Ryanair.

To be fair if they're flying both at the same time that is pretty f**king amazing.
As an aside, Britain must be q great country if the only disappointments the papers have to report are those of a wannabe gold-digger.

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

Fook me it´s philosophers corner on here - we´ve got a right pair of Kants talking about stuff far too deep and meaningful for this Salford shithead ;)

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

I'm also baffled as to why the media are not questioning two obvious issues with Woodward only wanting to communicate in writing.

1) Why was Woodward ‘scared’ to talk face-to-face with Chelsea? Would he have crumbled and handed over Rooney for half a Curly Wurly and a can of Tizer?

And more glaring obvious

2) If Chelsea wanted to ask about Rooney I’m pretty sure they are capable of putting it in writing too.

Or is asking the right questions too simple a construct for the British media to comprehend?

Bigger issues than that though...........such as

What pressure did the FA number 2 Gill exert on Chelski to do the deal / why was he even involved bearing in mind he is supposed to be impartial ?/ was there any conflict of interest / if he is impartial I assume he would step in and help any other club involved in player transfer negotiations /



i.e What the f^ck was the vice president of the FA even doing there...let alone being actively involved in the player transfer negotiations

Gill is still on the board of the rags I believe..

He was even at the u21 tonight..

From Wiki

Manchester United

Gill joined Manchester United PLC in 1997 as finance director. In August 2000, he was promoted to deputy chief executive whilst retaining his responsibilities as finance director. In July 2001, Nick Humby was appointed finance director of Manchester United PLC, so Gill was promoted again this time to the title of Group Chief executive officer, allowing him to concentrate on managing the day-to-day operations of the business (including sponsorship & marketing, business development, financial services, conference & catering, ticketing & membership and group property).
In September 2003, after the departure of previous chief executive Peter Kenyon to Chelsea F.C., Gill was promoted to chief executive of Manchester United PLC. In 2005, he was appointed chief executive of the private limited company, Manchester United Ltd, that succeeded Manchester United PLC after the takeover by Malcolm Glazer.
Gill was also vice-chairman of the management committee of the now defunct G-14, an organisation of leading European football clubs. However, in September 2009, he was elected to a two-year place on the board of the European Club Association, the organisation created to replace the G-14.
On 20 February 2013. Manchester United announced that Gill would leave his post in the summer of 2013. He was replaced by the executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward.

The Football Association

On 2 June 2006, Gill was elected onto the board of The Football Association, replacing Arsenal F.C. vice-chairman David Dein. Gill said he was delighted to be working with the other board members of the Football Association. One of the first issues he had to deal with was the "club-vs.-country" row over Wayne Rooney's foot at the 2006 FIFA World Cup.
Questions were raised by Liverpool manager Rafael Benítez about a potential conflict of interest between Gill's roles with Manchester United and the FA. However, Gill dismissed the Spaniard's concerns, saying that he had been elected by the other Premier League chief executives.In October 2012, David was appointed vice-chairman of the Football Association, replacing Sir Dave Richards.


However, you are right my friend, he is still on the board of MUSCUM and is now after a place on the UEFA board. (Yet more conflict of interest)

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

I will say it again. For the rags to get top 4 even with the amount of games to go then it is going to take huge effort and for an implosion of nuclear proportions by a few in the top 4 or 5.

Now lets look at it in reality.
They simply are not going to catch us Chelsea or Arsenal. It doesn't matter who they sign because for me they are to far adrift of the top 3.
So that leaves one place to fight for along with Liverpool,Spurs and Everton in all reality.
Liverpool will be determined not to let them get it. That I can guarantee you.
Spurs are playing well and again are in a position to challenge for 4th spot.
Everton - They are in a predicament with the injury to Barclay however if they can keep Lukaku scoring and the majority of their players fit then again they are in a position to challenge.
United-I expect them to thump Cardiff tonight as Solskjaer will do the usual old mates job and just turn up and have their bellies tickled however looking at the table it is down to Spurs,Liverpool and Everton to stop them attaining top 4 this season.
Now if this happens then I can seriously see the shit hitting the fan at the swamp. Then we cann all hopefully sit back,enjoy our summer after getting a few trophies and watch as the likes of RVP,Shrek,Mata attempt to spin the media by saying they are happy to stay when in reality it could potentially be 2 further seasons before they get CL football again.
I for one am loving this. I hate how Maureen yet again sucks up to them by selling them Mata however one player is simply not going to make a jot of difference!

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

And they say romance is dead;

He's a real smoothie, that one.

Good on him, just a shame she didn't choke on it the fucking slut