johnny crossan wrote:
"It boggles the mind that a club run so well in some spheres could -- if the allegations are true -- have been run in a way that was so craven, cynical, sneaky and downright stupid in others."
Marcotti shows his true colours after initially writing a supportive article in The Times - part of the Der Spiegel coven paying the leaker -
"Football needs transparency. The first set of Football Leaks documents reminded us of this. This new batch does nothing of the sort. It simply chronicles past events of which most we were already aware. It might be amusing, but it’s distinctly lightweight."
What changed I wonder?
JamieMCFC wrote:johnny crossan wrote:
"It boggles the mind that a club run so well in some spheres could -- if the allegations are true -- have been run in a way that was so craven, cynical, sneaky and downright stupid in others."
Marcotti shows his true colours after initially writing a supportive article in The Times - part of the Der Spiegel coven paying the leaker -
"Football needs transparency. The first set of Football Leaks documents reminded us of this. This new batch does nothing of the sort. It simply chronicles past events of which most we were already aware. It might be amusing, but it’s distinctly lightweight."
What changed I wonder?
Mase wrote:Fuck that fat piece of shit Marcotti, he blocked me on Twitter for me calling him out on his bullshit a couple of years ago.
johnny crossan wrote:Mase wrote:Fuck that fat piece of shit Marcotti, he blocked me on Twitter for me calling him out on his bullshit a couple of years ago.
He looks like the male version of Miss Piggy.
Nigels Tackle wrote:johnny crossan wrote:Mase wrote:Fuck that fat piece of shit Marcotti, he blocked me on Twitter for me calling him out on his bullshit a couple of years ago.
He looks like the male version of Miss Piggy.
He still talking to me, unlike the odious Pitt Brook
who's the bloke on your twitter profile jc? looks like someone who is on day release from broadmoor
twopiecemedia wrote:http://www.solentjournalism.co.uk/man-city-in-fresh-financial-fair-play-allegations/
https://soundcloud.com/twopiecemedia/fi ... ester-city
twopiecemedia wrote:http://www.solentjournalism.co.uk/man-city-in-fresh-financial-fair-play-allegations/
https://soundcloud.com/twopiecemedia/fi ... ester-city
Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Another must read from Mr Samuel
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... money.html
You get a mention in here JC *doffs cap*
Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Another must read from Mr Samuel
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... money.html
You get a mention in here JC *doffs cap*
ven as the League's executives were going round the country with their unity plan, the Big Five were holding a secret meeting with Greg Dyke, then of ITV, to see if he would give them a TV deal if they broke away from the League.
From its very beginning the Football League, the world's first such competition, was based on clubs sharing money. Home clubs gave 20 per cent of gate money to the away club. For meaningful competition, money had to be shared.
That principle underpinned the League's years of phenomenal growth, when the game created legends, and generations of supporters grew up to swear lifelong devotion to clubs. When TV arrived, the BBC paying just £5,000 for Match of the Day in 1965, the money was shared equally throughout the 92 clubs - about £50 each.
The system meant that while the big clubs did generally dominate, there was rough equality. Great clubs, like Manchester United, could slip up badly enough to be relegated. Smaller clubs, such as Derby and Nottingham Forest, could be gripped by a one-off, inspired manager such as Brian Clough, and win the League and the European Cup. Nobody believes that can happen today, because any semblance of equality has been ripped away.
Under pressure from the big clubs, who wanted to keep more of the takings from their home crowds, gate-sharing was first to go, in 1983. Now, the club with the biggest stadium, Manchester United, has a huge advantage over all the others.
The big clubs gobbled the TV cake throughout the 1980s; in 1985 they threatened to break away, forcing the smaller clubs to agree a new split: 50 per cent to the First Division, 25 to the Second, 25 to the Third and Fourth. Still they wanted more, and in 1990, flush with Dyke's promise of TV riches, they deputed David Dein of Arsenal, and Noel White, a Liverpool director, to approach the FA and see if they would support their breakaway.
Everything in the FA's role and history screamed: 'No!' The FA is the governing body for everybody who plays football, watches it, loves it, at all levels. The founders, in 1863, who gave the game to the world, believed it offered tremendous enjoyment, but also moral values: fair play, teamwork, sportsmanship. They imposed rules to maintain the sporting spirit of clubs and prevent shareholders exploiting them to make fortunes. A breakaway by the few big clubs, so they would not have to share a bonanza with the rest of football, represented everything the FA had always opposed.
mr_nool wrote:Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Another must read from Mr Samuel
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... money.html
You get a mention in here JC *doffs cap*
Martin Samuel is very clued up, very eloquent, and very funny. And he doesn't suffer fools.
Great read, that!
iwasthere2012 wrote:mr_nool wrote:Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Another must read from Mr Samuel
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... money.html
You get a mention in here JC *doffs cap*
Martin Samuel is very clued up, very eloquent, and very funny. And he doesn't suffer fools.
Great read, that!
I really enjoyed that read, but I’m still as much dismayed by the same detractors that refuse to hear the argument because it doesn’t suit the their own view of their own club.
I’m particularly dismayed by the Chelsea viewpoint presented.
The other too you’d expect.
There is a fantastic description of the scenario on BM, don’t remember by whom.
It goes;
Trying to debate FFP with Rags or Dippers
is like trying to play chess with a pigeon.
It flaps around knocking over all the pieces shits on the board and then struts off proclaiming it has won.
iwasthere2012 wrote:mr_nool wrote:Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Another must read from Mr Samuel
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... money.html
You get a mention in here JC *doffs cap*
Martin Samuel is very clued up, very eloquent, and very funny. And he doesn't suffer fools.
Great read, that!
I really enjoyed that read, but I’m still as much dismayed by the same detractors that refuse to hear the argument because it doesn’t suit the their own view of their own club.
I’m particularly dismayed by the Chelsea viewpoint presented.
The other too you’d expect.
There is a fantastic description of the scenario on BM, don’t remember by whom.
It goes;
Trying to debate FFP with Rags or Dippers
is like trying to play chess with a pigeon.
It flaps around knocking over all the pieces shits on the board and then struts off proclaiming it has won.
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: Blue Jam, blues2win, Indianablue, john@staustell, Mase, Nigels Tackle, salford city and 159 guests