United Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
WNRH said:
It’s a ridiculous graphic from the Sunday Times.

Nothing yet from the Spectator. I wonder if Rashford’s PR firm have issued legal warnings on whatever they wanted to publish.
Click to expand...
It’s not just a graphic tbf, it’s an annual list that the Sunday Times have been doing since 2005. The criteria are the same every year as far as I know.

Strange that The Spectator haven’t published anything yet, given the amount of hype generated last night. Doubt they would be cowed by Rashford’s PR team if they were sitting on something genuinely damning. Maybe the Barclay brothers don’t want their own tax avoidance to come under scrutiny?
 
kun said:
If that was the case surely he would have given away around 55%.

I believe it counts fundraising. My guess is he raised £20M, compared to his £16M net worth.

I would be surprised if Rashford was ever worth £36M. That's around what Pep is worth.
Click to expand...
Ah yeah, that would probably make more sense.
 
Ric said:
It’s not just a graphic tbf, it’s an annual list that the Sunday Times have been doing since 2005. The criteria are the same every year as far as I know.

Strange that The Spectator haven’t published anything yet, given the amount of hype generated last night. Doubt they would be cowed by Rashford’s PR team if they were sitting on something genuinely damning. Maybe the Barclay brothers don’t want their own tax avoidance to come under scrutiny?
Click to expand...

I meant ridiculous in the fact that there’s no context to it which is leading those who support him to just share it as validation of how great he is and those who are cynical to deride it as more PR manipulation.

No one knows what 125% means. Does it mean he’s given 125% or his wealth away which is impossible or like you said 125% of what his wealth is now after he has donated. Even then surely if like you said he’s given £20m away and has £16m left, that’s surely 55%?

A plausible explanation on the delay if they have pulled it from under Neil’s rug.
 
WNRH said:
I meant ridiculous in the fact that there’s no context to it which is leading those who support him to just share it as validation of how great he is and those who are cynical to deride it as more PR manipulation.

No one knows what 125% means. Does it mean he’s given 125% or his wealth away which is impossible or like you said 125% of what his wealth is now after he has donated. Even then surely if like you said he’s given £20m away and has £16m left, that’s surely 55%?

A plausible explanation on the delay if they have pulled it from under Neil’s rug.
Click to expand...

So you're blaming the Times because some people on twitter have taken a screenshot that takes away all the context of the list?

People who didn't bother to read the list when it came out 3 months ago don't know what it means.

People who did read it when it hit the papers in April know the money includes money raised through causes.
 
domalino said:
So you're blaming the Times because some people on twitter have taken a screenshot that takes away all the context of the list?

People who didn't bother to read the list when it came out 3 months ago don't know what it means.

People who did read it when it hit the papers in April know the money includes money raised through causes.
Click to expand...
Do we know why it was compared to people's earnings or wealth Domalino?

Not really sure the correlation myself..............
 
Ric said:
I did wonder that at first too. I presume though it means he has donated £20m to charity, and his current wealth is £16m?
Click to expand...
It’s a load of bollox and not personal gifts. It shows what the government have given to families over the period, just like a little further down where they show Henderson giving the money that all the footballers raised for the NHS.
 
domalino said:
So you're blaming the Times because some people on twitter have taken a screenshot that takes away all the context of the list?

People who didn't bother to read the list when it came out 3 months ago don't know what it means.

People who did read it when it hit the papers in April know the money includes money raised through causes.
Click to expand...

Yes i am, if they want to put a graphic out there then they need to put context on it regardless of whether or not it is accompanying an article. The graphic states at the bottom "Order determined by percentage of personal wealth donated by each person." which isn't true is it? Rashford has not donated £20m of his personal wealth. He has raised it. He has a personal wealth of £16m and has raised £20m in donations which is 125%. So the graphic is ridiculous.

The table in this link shows what should have been on the graphic as it is self explanatory - https://fundraising.co.uk/2021/05/2...-person-to-lead-the-sunday-times-giving-list/
 
WNRH said:
I meant ridiculous in the fact that there’s no context to it which is leading those who support him to just share it as validation of how great he is and those who are cynical to deride it as more PR manipulation.

No one knows what 125% means. Does it mean he’s given 125% or his wealth away which is impossible or like you said 125% of what his wealth is now after he has donated. Even then surely if like you said he’s given £20m away and has £16m left, that’s surely 55%?

A plausible explanation on the delay if they have pulled it from under Neil’s rug.
Click to expand...
I suggest the PL and uefa need to look into these figures and make a stand against this blatant financial manipulation, they’ve got a few years before it becomes time-barred so they can build a strong case, and Saint can always appeal at the end to CAS…
 
JASR said:
I suggest the PL and uefa need to look into these figures and make a stand against this blatant financial manipulation, they’ve got a few years before it becomes time-barred so they can build a strong case, and Saint can always appeal at the end to CAS…
Click to expand...

While a premier league investigation rumbles on in the background, conducted by a mysterious, and hastily founded judiciary panel.
Who will eventually come to a guilty decision lauded by the football family
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It was very skilful PR because it is impossible to even find the Spectator allegations online. All the mainstream media have gone with Rashford's response without actually checking what the allegations are. They did the same with the "racist graffiti" story which GMP have still not confirmed was "racist" unless someone on here knows better.
I am usually someone who defends Rashford because I think he has done a lot for Manchester and I believe that his motives are genuine. But it would be nice to hear both sides of the story.
Click to expand...
It wasn't racist graffiti but the. Media had everyone believe differently
 
domalino said:
So you're blaming the Times because some people on twitter have taken a screenshot that takes away all the context of the list?

People who didn't bother to read the list when it came out 3 months ago don't know what it means.

People who did read it when it hit the papers in April know the money includes money raised through causes.
Click to expand...
Nobody is blaming anyone. They’re just trying to get that context, as far as I can see, so it can be understood.

Where’s Captain Tom in all this? Britain’s greatest fundraiser.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
It’s a load of bollox and not personal gifts. It shows what the government have given to families over the period, just like a little further down where they show Henderson giving the money that all the footballers raised for the NHS.
Click to expand...
So if/when the government reinstates overseas aid to pre-covid levels, as I was vociferous in arguing against cutting it, presumably I can claim that I 'donated' a gazillion percent of my wealth?
 
JASR said:
I suggest the PL and uefa need to look into these figures and make a stand against this blatant financial manipulation, they’ve got a few years before it becomes time-barred so they can build a strong case, and Saint can always appeal at the end to CAS…
Click to expand...
If correct, I would be worried about them donating personal wealth on such a scale - it will only fuel the already out of control demand for higher salaries and channel more money out of the game.
 
manimanc said:
View attachment 21724

Erm...isn't this also known as being a mercenary?
Gone for the Benjamin's and not the glory obviously.
Click to expand...
EYyqVwFXYAcSNwl.jpg
 
domalino said:
So you're blaming the Times because some people on twitter have taken a screenshot that takes away all the context of the list?

People who didn't bother to read the list when it came out 3 months ago don't know what it means.

People who did read it when it hit the papers in April know the money includes money raised through causes.
Click to expand...
Excuse us for not taking The Times.
 
Paladin said:
Well, yes according to the Sunday Times.

If he's given away 125% of his wealth, he must have borrowed 25% of his own wealth in order to give that away, on top of everything he owns. That's pretty generous, but it does involve other people's money.
bae7093c551859bf2adc68e0b849200c.jpg
Click to expand...
Yeah, we ascertained that it included fund-raising a few pages back mate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top