Guest justin_3d Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Free market doesnt mean you should allow this kind of stupid deal under a regulation.If there is a fair play rule, then you cant allow this kind of deal, or the rule wont make any sense.Thats why this is stupid and immoral. Not because of the money, but because its to avoid getting the axe under a rule.Im not discussing if the rule is necessarily. For me football is business and you should allow clubs to spend as much as they want, as long as it doesnt mean destroying the sport. Buying Torres for 50m wont destroy football.But now there is a rule, so UEFA must take some actions, if not City would be allowed to spend big every year and other clubs wont, not because city is doing a good job, but because the stupid sheiks are making this kind of artificial dee to "fool" the rule.If there was not any rule, so city could make 1 billion deal and I would not care, but this deal is only to cheat the rule and cheat other clubs that are trying to get into the regulations.But I keep saying Arsanal did the same and nobody said anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrique 9,133 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 But I keep saying Arsanal did the same and nobody said anything.No. Many clubs sell the right names.Its not wrong. What is wrong is the artificial deals to cheat a rule. This is what Im saying. Arsanal deal with Emirates has nothing to do with the City cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin_3d Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 No. Many clubs sell the right names.Its not wrong. What is wrong is the artificial deals to cheat a rule. This is what Im saying. Arsanal deal with Emirates has nothing to do with the City cheating.Yeah but the idea came from there, and Chelsea been wanting to do it.So because City does it it's cheating???More jealousy there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrique 9,133 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Yeah but the idea came from there, and Chelsea been wanting to do it.So because City does it it's cheating???More jealousy there.Jesus, you wont give up. lolYou dont know what you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin_3d Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Jesus, you wont give up. lolYou dont know what you are talking about.No because it just seems jealousy from people that City got an uber deal and they did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino- 116 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 As I rose and fell in my eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDN Blue 7,903 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Ian Ayre questions Manchester City naming rights dealQuoted by the Independent on the club's pre-season tour of Asia, he said: "Is Etihad, Manchester City and Sheikh Mansour a related party? If they are, then it's up to UEFA to rule on them."When I spoke at Soccerex earlier this year, I was on a panel about financial fair play. The guys from UEFA who are managing it said there would be a robust and proper process about related-party transactions.''Of the stadium name change, he added: "It hasn't happened anywhere in Europe where a football club has renamed its existing stadium and it's had real value."It was called the City of Manchester Stadium or Eastlands for the last nine years and now it's going to be called something else - and someone has attached a huge amount of value to that."I find that odd because there is no benchmark in football that says you can rename your stadium and generate that amount of value. Mike Ashley tried it at Newcastle [sportsdirect.com@St James' Park]. But nobody calls it that and it doesn't have that kind of value.''http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/934961/liverpool%27s-ian-ayre-questions-man-city-stadium-naming-rights-deal?cc=5739 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin_3d Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 City reveal expansion planshttp://uk.eurosport....sion-plans.htmlReally good stuff from City.This is what UEFA likes. Smart from City. Ian Ayre questions Manchester City naming rights dealhttp://soccernet.esp...ts-deal?cc=5739Sour grapes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Blue 469 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Tradition has no money value,it is selling out your history i would be crushed if we ever changed our stadium name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin_3d Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Tradition has no money value,it is selling out your history i would be crushed if we ever changed our stadium name.And that is why if team cant do that because of tradition, then just hate on somebody that can.Sour grapes as i said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middleoftheshed 388 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Tradition has no money value,it is selling out your history i would be crushed if we ever changed our stadium name.I agree but its not really the case here. They have only played there since 2003 so theres not much history there anyway, would be a different story if it was Maine Road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Blue 469 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 And that is why if team cant do that because of tradition, then just hate on somebody that can.Sour grapes as i said.I don't hate them because of it,as a matter of fact i don't give a shit what the call it.They can call it the Mickey Mouse World is you ask me.But i am against changing our stadium name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin_3d Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I don't hate them because of it,as a matter of fact i don't give a shit what the call it.They can call it the Mickey Mouse World is you ask me.But i am against changing our stadium name.Yeah, but i was referring to the teams complaining about it.It's harder for them to get such deal, and because of that they are crying over it.I would sure like it if Chelsea got a deal like that, but Stamford Bridge has so many memories, that it's not good to change it.The only way I would see it, is if Chelsea builds a new stadium and then have somebody pay for that naming rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Blue 469 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Yeah, but i was referring to the teams complaining about it.It's harder for them to get such deal, and because of that they are crying over it.I would sure like it if Chelsea got a deal like that, but Stamford Bridge has so many memories, that it's not good to change it.The only way I would see it, is if Chelsea builds a new stadium and then have somebody pay for that naming rights.We can build a new stadium and still remain with the same name,somehow having the name Samsung or something similar just ruins the feeling.Arsenal's ''Emirates'' makes e sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin_3d Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 We can build a new stadium and still remain with the same name,somehow having the name Samsung or something similar just ruins the feeling.Arsenal's ''Emirates'' makes e sick.You don't build a new stadium and put the same name. No teams do that.Stamford Brdige stays there for our museam, like recently with the Yankees stadium.A new stadium requires a new name.So Samsung Arena would not be bad, if we are getting all that Mula! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Term-X 7,891 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 You don't build a new stadium and put the same name. No teams do that.Stamford Brdige stays there for our museam, like recently with the Yankees stadium.A new stadium requires a new name.So Samsung Arena would not be bad, if we are getting all that Mula! If Samsung wanted anything to do with our stadium name, they would have signed up for Gourlay’s grand plan back in 2009, which clearly failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kostas 1,468 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Stamford Brdige stays there for our museam,Let's not be silly. Stamford Bridge's ground is worth MILLIONS and Roman have to be absolutely retarded not to take advantage of such a hot property located in that area of London. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin_3d Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 If Samsung wanted anything to do with our stadium name, they would have signed up for Gourlay's grand plan back in 2009, which clearly failed.Just get a new partner if Chelsea ever builds a new stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin_3d Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Let's not be silly. Stamford Bridge's ground is worth MILLIONS and Roman have to be absolutely retarded not to take advantage of such a hot property located in that area of London.hmmm is true, but that will be hell with a lot of fans, if someday Chelsea builds a new stadium and do something with the old one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldo 868 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 You don't build a new stadium and put the same name. No teams do that.A new stadium requires a new name.Benfica?Can somebody forbid us to name it Stamford Bridge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.