That's it in a nutshell. It's a re-branding effort on an enormous scale.
It would be interesting to see. I think it would be reported on. The more they'd try to censor it, the likelier it would be to get hyped.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Gone now
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I read an article the other day about the premier league opening an investigation. Apparently their own ffp forbids losses of 105 million over 3 seasons, which city look well in breach of, especially when taking out the sponsor subsidies paid by the sheiks holding company.
Thats ones been known for years hasn't it, i think they paid somewhere between £46-50m+ for Tevez. He was never signing for United once City were bought, not with them willing to pay double the £25m United had agreed to pay.
And at that time they paid base salary of 230k per week. It was never on.
Yeah compared to something like £120k pw we were offering. And some still believe it was the Clubs fault he didn't sign permanently.
If we wanted him so badly we should have sealed the deal during or at the end of his first loan season, during which we said we would. Make no mistake about it, his agent is a greedy snake, but United could have acted differently.
I thought the PL and our useless FA had rules about ‘Third party ownership’? I have mentioned before about the Panorama programme that exposed The Sheik and his dodgy dealing with Barclays. They interviewed City fans outside the Emptyhad and they either didn’t know or thought it was a lie but they ALL DIDN’T GIVE A MONKEYS.
I hope they get punished properly, it would be good for the game, and if not, another reason to have a sour taste in your mouth when watching the sport.
Of all the things to lose your head about.....
Ooh, so which club paid 51.25 m Euro to a ‘ Dubious company in a tax haven’ then? Where does it clearly mention Citeh bought him out of his third party agreement? Who else has paid their manager two salaries allegedly, one as a Manager at the club and one at a club he never visited?
Nobody can be that stupid. I'm not rising to the bait
Do you wear a City shirt when you go abroad?
Do you have a link for that mate? I could be wrong but as i remember the deal was always a two year loan with an option to buy at £25m and we would decide whether or not to activate that option to sign him at the end of the two years.
What is wrong with you people? The post clearly states we are as illegal as City are, just that we are too poor to keep up and go as far as City. If we could, we will be illegally enjoying title wins just like them as well.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
They "might" and then again they might not.
More so actually. Am surprised this hasn't been picked up by more people.
That's what I don't get when people say UEFA may not be able to go back on a case they already decided on. If they were bogus sponsorships in 2014, they're bogus sponsorships now and have been everytime they've assesed FFP for 2015, 16, 17, 18 etc.
They've half the commercial sponsors United have and don't have a huge kit deal like United do or even like Liverpool or Chelsea.
In fairness to City, they've managed to build a good worldwide brand now, their commercial revenue is probably around ours and Pools. Of course the numbers above are massively inflated though.
Mate, I was at the game on Sunday. Pre-match they had an advert playing on the big screen of Aguero, KDB, and Otamendi selling some Taiwanese knock-off mobile phones... If you think they're a big deal commercially, even now with Saint Pep and his 11 disciples, you'd be sorely mistaken.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What exactly are you suggesting, that the FA and/or the Premier League somehow didn't know Tevez was owned by a 3rd party when United signed him?
They are a big deal commercially, obviously not in United's league but they are still a well known global brand, which is only getting bigger.
Try to count the City shirts when you are visiting Africa, South America or Asia. There hardly are any. Try the same with Utd, Arsenal or Liverpool... even Chelsea have more. Their fame hasn't caught up with their recent successes imo.
I got told on another site that nothing would change when Blatter left.
There are some extraneous factors to that. When Chelsea struck gold with Abramovich, social media and marketing wasn't as developed as it is now. By the time we arrived in the digital age, so to speak, Chelsea were viewed as an established big club and thus gained a global fanbase.
With or without the made up sponsorship numbers?
