|
Tsaedje posted:http://www.mcfc.co.uk/Video/Features/New-Academy-overview If that bit of Manchester is a run down shithole why is an international airline having to pay £20m a year (the difference between a 'normal' deal and cities) to sponsor it?
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
Raightning posted:they'll probably hire paolo di canio to enforce 'stability' But will Di Canio have to auction off his fascist military regalia to pay for himself then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:they're getting paid about 40% of their actual wage. increasingly they've had to fight, and threaten to strike, to get this. Bacon of the Sea posted:The entire thing sounds loving horrible. Imagine a guy asking you to drop your claim for the money owed to you by your employer on Saturday lunchtime, then come Monday morning he's now your boss and beloved by both the current and prospective owners for business reasons. Tsaedje posted:http://www.mcfc.co.uk/Video/Features/New-Academy-overview You missed the "record scratch" noise before your post Tsaedje.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
Honestly I wasn't really following the thread but thought it would be the appropriate place to post the post I posted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:If that bit of Manchester is a run down shithole why is an international airline having to pay £20m a year (the difference between a 'normal' deal and cities) to sponsor it? Because it's owned by the same chap, let's not beat around the bush. However the investments are going to make it sufficiently hard for UEFA to distinguish between throwing money at City (which they oppose) and regeneration projects (which they love) to stop us falling foul of financial fair play. The Ridsdale stuff is of course, too disgusting for words.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/sep/19/everton-broadcast-income-mortgage This is an interesting move by Everton. I don't know how closely they'll be skirting relegation either this season or the next, but it's always a risk to bet on getting broadcast income that far ahead of time. Didn't Leeds United do this under Risdale?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
TyChan posted:http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/sep/19/everton-broadcast-income-mortgage Leeds did it with Champions League money, iirc. Everton are currently a side that should be comfortably in the top half of the table at the end of this season, next season too unless they lose Cahill/Coleman/Baines/Jagielka in some kind of "oh poo poo we're broke" fire sale.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
Wait...So they're basically borrowing and then paying the loan back with the tv money they get next season? What happens next season when they have no money then? Will they just continue to borrow further and further into the future?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Wait...So they're basically borrowing and then paying the loan back with the tv money they get next season? What happens next season when they have no money then? Will they just continue to borrow further and further into the future? Yep. It's the dumbest loving idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Wait...So they're basically borrowing and then paying the loan back with the tv money they get next season? What happens next season when they have no money then? Will they just continue to borrow further and further into the future? it works as long as you consistently improve and then keep doing well. It worked for Leeds for a while - but then they missed out, incredibly narrowly, on the CL having gambled everything, and the difference between the CL and UEFA Cup money coming in was enough to put them in that giant tailspin that nearly killed them. They were still paying players like Fowler and Danny Mills 4 years or so after they left
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
I think Newcastle were paying off Owen's transfer fee for something like 2 years after he left the club on a free. It was something ridiculous and proof people in charge at clubs don't know poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
Jose posted:I think Newcastle were paying off Owen's transfer fee for something like 2 years after he left the club on a free. It was something ridiculous and proof people in charge at clubs don't know poo poo is there anything necessarily wrong with paying in yearly installments rather than all at once?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:is there anything necessarily wrong with paying in yearly installments rather than all at once? no it's when they're paying salaries of players to play for other teams that it becomes a problem. I think Newcastle were doing this for some following their relegation? But Leeds did it for half their squad, at a point where they were genuinely struggling to stay in existence
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:is there anything necessarily wrong with paying in yearly installments rather than all at once? There is when its specifically because the club doesn't actually have any money and hopes it'll still be in the PL and maybe in Europe to fund those yearly transfers including his £100k+ salary. Most transfers are like this. Its about keeping it within the budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:no As far as I know, everyone we actually managed to shift after relegation weren't being paid by us to fund part of their contract. They were just given a contract twice as long as the one we had so it balanced out. I mean Duff is how old now? He's still loving fast and going so it's worked out for Fulham but still.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
This is the closest we have to a "legality in football" thread so can we have a Carlos Tevez discussion in here? Specifically over what legal routes the club have available for disciplining him, whether his contract can be out-and-out terminated without compensation, and what rights he has as a player in this situation. Personally I hope the dirty rat bastard is made totally unemployed and forced to crawl to boca juniors and play for 20k/wk but that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 12:43
|
|
|
I know what you mean, but I love the idea that £20k a week is humiliating for someone. I wonder if refusing to play in one game is grounds for terminating a contract. Anyway, he's denying it, which further complicates things. I would imagine any attempt to terminate his contract would lead to a lengthy court battle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 12:48
|
|
|
He's denying it now, last night he was all "Deal with it".
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 12:50
|
|
|
Popehoist posted:This is the closest we have to a "legality in football" thread so can we have a Carlos Tevez discussion in here? Specifically over what legal routes the club have available for disciplining him, whether his contract can be out-and-out terminated without compensation, and what rights he has as a player in this situation. Personally I hope the dirty rat bastard is made totally unemployed and forced to crawl to boca juniors and play for 20k/wk but that's just me. i dunno i guess if they can prove he refused to play they can sack him for gross misconduct and i hope they do because they don't need him anymore and if anyone is going to fire a shot across the bows of players misbehaving it's city since united caved in to rooney
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 12:53
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:He's denying it now, last night he was all "Deal with it". Ohh yeah, I imagine his denial was after advice from Joorabchian or whoever. He's basically claiming it was lost in translation, isn't he?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 12:54
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:i dunno i guess if they can prove he refused to play they can sack him for gross misconduct and i hope they do because they don't need him anymore and if anyone is going to fire a shot across the bows of players misbehaving it's city since united caved in to rooney Yeah look how horribly that turned out for us
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 12:55
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Ohh yeah, I imagine his denial was after advice from Joorabchian or whoever. He's basically claiming it was lost in translation, isn't he? i'm not sure how good a defense that is when there will have been multiple people who can speak spanish and english fluently around him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 12:57
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:Yeah look how horribly that turned out for us He's great, no doubt, but there's a myth that Ferguson somehow "showed him who's boss" over that whole situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 12:57
|
|
|
"That bit where I sat at the side of the pitch and refused to go on? It was a big misunderstanding. When I refused to go on what I meant was that I was going to go on but that I wasn't going to enter the pitch or warm up. But I would have. I just didn't. I had every intention to not remain motionless in a chair. But I did. Not to say that I wouldn't go on. But they didn't even ask me. In fact he said I couldn't see my family and he wished my rat children died in a fire, that's what it sounded like anyway. I think in the circumstances me being willing to play for Manchester City after they insulted my mother and treated me like a galley slave is testament to my professionalism and commitment to this team and the great city of Manchester."
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 13:04
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:He's great, no doubt, but there's a myth that Ferguson somehow "showed him who's boss" over that whole situation. Well he got him to publicly apologise and say he was wrong and sign the contract instead of leave.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 13:14
|
|
|
Lot 49 posted:Well he got him to publicly apologise and say he was wrong and sign the contract instead of leave. Don't those two things sort of contradict each other?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 13:15
|
|
|
Galley slaves on hundreds of thousands of pounds a week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 13:17
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Don't those two things sort of contradict each other? I don't think so but maybe I'm being thick  Please explain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 13:19
|
|
|
Lot 49 posted:I don't think so but maybe I'm being thick Maybe they don't, but my recollection of what happened was Rooney wanted out, claiming it was lack of ambition, but was convinced to stay by getting a huge pay increase which was spun into Ferguson "showing him who's boss". I'm not saying United were wrong to do it, he's a great player and they were right to try everything to hang on to him, but they bowed to player pressure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 13:26
|
|
|
Lot 49 posted:I don't think so but maybe I'm being thick Usually saying sorry and admitting you were wrong doesn't result in you getting the thing you are supposedly sorry about and are now saying is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 13:28
|
|
|
People forgetting that Rooney's contract was up for renewal and if it was not renewed Rooney would have left for either a drastically reduced fee or even free later on, itt.greazeball posted:Usually saying sorry and admitting you were wrong doesn't result in you getting the thing you are supposedly sorry about and are now saying is wrong. How did United "give" Rooney a wish to leave or a belief there was a lack of ambition at the club, as those were the things he was wrong about idgi
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 13:30
|
|
|
Do you really believe he reckoned United lacked ambition though? It was about money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 13:33
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Do you really believe he reckoned United lacked ambition though? It was about money. Do you really believe everything else you're saying happened? Newsflash, agents feed bullshit to the press all the time. Rooney apologised and he's performing for the club so I don't give a poo poo. That said, the "ambition" statement isn't necessarily all that outlandish I believe the last major signing United made prior to the contract bollocks was Berbatov?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 13:36
|
|
|
No value in the market, you see... Isn't it pretty much accepted that the rest of it happened though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 13:40
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Maybe they don't, but my recollection of what happened was Rooney wanted out, claiming it was lack of ambition, but was convinced to stay by getting a huge pay increase which was spun into Ferguson "showing him who's boss". Rooney was getting a huge pay increase anyway as his contract was running down and how important a player he is to United. You are right that he said he didn't sign it initially because he was worried about United lacking ambition but afaik he did his U-turn because the club were able to persuade him they did and not because they came back with a higher offer. greazeball posted:Usually saying sorry and admitting you were wrong doesn't result in you getting the thing you are supposedly sorry about and are now saying is wrong. Like Ninpo I can't understand what you are trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 14:02
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Do you really believe he reckoned United lacked ambition though? It was about money. Why wouldn't he think that given the lack of investment United had been making in the playing squad over the previous seasons?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 14:09
|
|
|
BBC have this for those curious on the legalities of the Tevez situation:bbc posted:FrontRow Legal specialist sports lawyer Richard Cramer speaking to BBC Sport: "Mancini has come out and said he will never pay for this club again. That in itself could be regarded as breach of contract on the part of Manchester City.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 14:39
|
|
|
What I'm saying is that it's hardly being shown who's boss or giving a sincere apology if you get the thing that you threw the tantrum over. We're not disputing that Rooney threw a bit of a tanty (for whatever reason), are we?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
Lot 49 posted:Why wouldn't he think that given the lack of investment United had been making in the playing squad over the previous seasons? I guess because that's what players always say when they're angling for a move with increased wages. United hadn't bought big, but they had won 3 out of the last 4 titles at that point. greazeball posted:What I'm saying is that it's hardly being shown who's boss or giving a sincere apology if you get the thing that you threw the tantrum over. Exactly. My issue isn't what happened, it's the idea that Ferguson came out of it as "someone who doesn't cave to player pressure" that's my problem. Again, I'm not saying the club did anything wrong, it's more the way the media looked at it that was the issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
The issue wasn't that Rooney wanted more money, it's that he said he wasn't going to sign the new contract. If that was a tactic used to get a bigger increase then it worked, but he was offered a raise and said he wanted to leave because of a lack of investment which makes sense given that we'd just sold Ronaldo, let Tevez go and basically bought a decent winger in Valencia and an unproven Mexican striker in Hernandez during the 3 windows since, neither of which had addressed the pretty obvious problems in the centre of the pitch. What exactly his intentions are nobody knows but he said he wasn't going to sign a contract and he ended up signing a contract, apologising and returning to be an incredible player. I fail to see how selling him or letting his contract run out were preferable alternatives here. You can argue that we shouldn't have allowed the team to get into such a state that Rooney had such power but that's an entirely different discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 15:09
|
|
