Grobarisation soon to arrive ?

[carl_feedthegoat]

I think the Etihad deal isn't necessarily even a connected party by their definition Ted but agree they made it impossible to argue with. Was what I meant by my "broad as possible" comment. Is actually part of the evidence of how seriously we are taking ffp! They can look at comparible deals when looking at just shirt or stadium sponsorship though.

Do we even have a seperate figure for either of those ?

I understand what you are saying but my answer to this has always been that clubs like us & PSG will find sponsors who allow us to get round it. Their dodgy panel may think the amounts are excessive & that the owners are connected, but 'thinking' that is one thing wheras taking action to stop it will be pretty much impossible unless the amounts involved are truly outrageously beyond belief imo.

PSG are going for it anyway, so they will have to have this argument with Platini's son.

And that is where they will fall flat on their arrogant faces imo,not even they can fuck us over sponsorships without getting themselves into a complicated court case...will make the Bosman ruling look like chicken feed compared to this.

[Rag_hater]

Arse play in the Emirates stadium and have an airlines name all over their shirts.No fuckers talkin about banning them from Europe.The fuckers have set a preceedent.

[Ted Hughes]

I think the Etihad deal isn't necessarily even a connected party by their definition Ted but agree they made it impossible to argue with. Was what I meant by my "broad as possible" comment. Is actually part of the evidence of how seriously we are taking ffp! They can look at comparible deals when looking at just shirt or stadium sponsorship though.

Do we even have a seperate figure for either of those ?

I understand what you are saying but my answer to this has always been that clubs like us & PSG will find sponsors who allow us to get round it. Their dodgy panel may think the amounts are excessive & that the owners are connected, but 'thinking' that is one thing wheras taking action to stop it will be pretty much impossible unless the amounts involved are truly outrageously beyond belief imo.

PSG are going for it anyway, so they will have to have this argument with Platini's son.

And that is where they will fall flat on their arrogant faces imo,not even they can fuck us over sponsorships without getting themselves into a complicated court case...will make the Bosman ruling look like chicken feed compared to this.

Carl, Iv'e been preaching this for literally years now, & I'm no expert on this shit, in fact I am only working from asking questions & pure common sense but I can see the questions this asks, even from a layman's perspective, & if someone can give me a response which offers reasonable evidence I'm off beam, then I'll read up on it, do a bit of research, then ask around, & if I'm fucking clueless, I'll hold my hands up.

I've had nothing from any angle so far, over several years, to make me even consider it. In fact it just gets more & more likely that it falls in with what I thought.

If somebody can show me I'm totally wrong , I'm not some cunt who will plod on saying I'm right in the face of evidence.

I just don't see that evidence, at all, after several years of build up in the media etc.

[carl_feedthegoat]

I think the Etihad deal isn't necessarily even a connected party by their definition Ted but agree they made it impossible to argue with. Was what I meant by my "broad as possible" comment. Is actually part of the evidence of how seriously we are taking ffp! They can look at comparible deals when looking at just shirt or stadium sponsorship though.

Do we even have a seperate figure for either of those ?

I understand what you are saying but my answer to this has always been that clubs like us & PSG will find sponsors who allow us to get round it. Their dodgy panel may think the amounts are excessive & that the owners are connected, but 'thinking' that is one thing wheras taking action to stop it will be pretty much impossible unless the amounts involved are truly outrageously beyond belief imo.

PSG are going for it anyway, so they will have to have this argument with Platini's son.

And that is where they will fall flat on their arrogant faces imo,not even they can fuck us over sponsorships without getting themselves into a complicated court case...will make the Bosman ruling look like chicken feed compared to this.

Carl, Iv'e been preaching this for literally years now, & I'm no expert on this shit, in fact I am only working from asking questions & pure common sense but I can see the questions this asks, even from a layman's perspective, & if someone can give me a response which offers reasonable evidence I'm off beam, then I'll read up on it, do a bit of research, then ask around, & if I'm fucking clueless, I'll hold my hands up.

I've had nothing from any angle so far, over several years, to make me even consider it. In fact it just gets more & more likely that it falls in with what I thought.

If somebody can show me I'm totally wrong , I'm not some cunt who will plod on saying I'm right in the face of evidence.

I just don't see that evidence, at all, after several years of build up in the media etc.

No cunt can answer it Ted mate as they just do NOT know. The only time any cunt WILL know is if/when the situation arises whereby a club gets fucked over for getting a deal deemed excessive by the powers that be,thats when the shit will hit the fan.

[Ted Hughes]

I think the Etihad deal isn't necessarily even a connected party by their definition Ted but agree they made it impossible to argue with. Was what I meant by my "broad as possible" comment. Is actually part of the evidence of how seriously we are taking ffp! They can look at comparible deals when looking at just shirt or stadium sponsorship though.

Do we even have a seperate figure for either of those ?

I understand what you are saying but my answer to this has always been that clubs like us & PSG will find sponsors who allow us to get round it. Their dodgy panel may think the amounts are excessive & that the owners are connected, but 'thinking' that is one thing wheras taking action to stop it will be pretty much impossible unless the amounts involved are truly outrageously beyond belief imo.

PSG are going for it anyway, so they will have to have this argument with Platini's son.

And that is where they will fall flat on their arrogant faces imo,not even they can fuck us over sponsorships without getting themselves into a complicated court case...will make the Bosman ruling look like chicken feed compared to this.

Carl, Iv'e been preaching this for literally years now, & I'm no expert on this shit, in fact I am only working from asking questions & pure common sense but I can see the questions this asks, even from a layman's perspective, & if someone can give me a response which offers reasonable evidence I'm off beam, then I'll read up on it, do a bit of research, then ask around, & if I'm fucking clueless, I'll hold my hands up.

I've had nothing from any angle so far, over several years, to make me even consider it. In fact it just gets more & more likely that it falls in with what I thought.

If somebody can show me I'm totally wrong , I'm not some cunt who will plod on saying I'm right in the face of evidence.

I just don't see that evidence, at all, after several years of build up in the media etc.

No cunt can answer it Ted mate as they just do NOT know. The only time any cunt WILL know is if/when the situation arises whereby a club gets fucked over for getting a deal deemed excessive by the powers that be,thats when the shit will hit the fan.

This is exactly what I think.

It's not a case of ' we oppose ffp' it's a case of 'we are doing everything we can to join in' in & then; 'oh by the way, here's another sponsorship deal' (if needed on top of the mysterious Etihad one) & then it's not really us who are challenging ffp, it's them who are challenging our right to be sponsored for x amount by whoever.

We would not be the ones challenging, we would be the ones defending our rights against a challenge.