HanoiVillan Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 6 hours ago, Rds1983 said: I agree that crypto-currency is dangerous and that a lot of people are completely unaware of the risks involved. There 100% are some dodgy characters involved in publishing tokens, but there are some completely genuine people involved too. There is a lot more to it than people perhaps think and I feel statements like those I queried perhaps come from fear, misunderstanding and misinformation. Which can be dangerous in itself. What stood out to me though was making such bold statements followed directly by stating a complete ignorance of how they work. People are of course free to dislike something, I just feel perhaps it would be better to build some level of knowledge of something before judging it. Not trying to sound preachy or that I'm judging anyone, so apologies if it reads that way. It's good to know things, and to learn about things, I completely agree. But I think there's sometimes a danger, among people who know a lot about things, to not be able to see the forest for the trees. It's useful to know about 'chiliz' in understanding how Socios works, but fundamentally the key point is that these are speculative assets being offered without warnings, age limits or seemingly any meaningful regulation, and that is the issue with the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 UEFA are repeating the draw for the knockout stage of the Champions League as they made a mess of the draw process. I think this might indicate they are more inept than incompetent after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted December 13, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 13, 2021 An organisation funded in the hundreds of millions that can't pick 16 balls out of a hat. The game's in good hands. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXD Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 Meh, it looks stupid, but errors happen. There's a lot worse about UEFA than them screwing up a draw for once (they usually do it correctly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 13, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted December 13, 2021 On 29/11/2021 at 21:29, May-Z said: Did he win a cup? Ah, guess he got the Copa at last thanks to Emi. I know this is an old post but this really is rewriting history. Messi dragged Argentina to that title Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: An organisation funded in the hundreds of millions that can't pick 16 balls out of a hat. The game's in good hands. If only they'd allow it to be as simple as picking 16 teams out of a hat, they wouldn't be in this mess. They need a third party algorithm to draw it Edited December 13, 2021 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted December 13, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 13, 2021 10 minutes ago, AXD said: There's a lot worse about UEFA than them screwing up a draw for once (they usually do it correctly) Oh God yes, this is the least of the worries about them - but it says something about their competency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted December 13, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 13, 2021 Brilliant. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 Real Madrid had Benfica after the first draw, which was apparently the only fixture that was selected correctly. Now they've got PSG. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXD Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 14 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: Oh God yes, this is the least of the worries about them - but it says something about their competency. I wouldn't want you at work . I know plenty of colleagues who have done something correctly 1000 times and made a mistake 1001. Doesn't make them incompetent. I can't recall this happening before, so they usually do this without any errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted December 13, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 13, 2021 3 minutes ago, AXD said: I wouldn't want you at work . I know plenty of colleagues who have done something correctly 1000 times and made a mistake 1001. Doesn't make them incompetent. I can't recall this happening before, so they usually do this without any errors. I hope you're not a pilot! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 They needed to have done this at Lancaster Gate with Graham Kelly leading the proceedings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 34 minutes ago, jacketspuds said: Real Madrid had Benfica after the first draw, which was apparently the only fixture that was selected correctly. Now they've got PSG. It could be worse for them 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-k Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 16 players on loan, from a team in the same division 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 (edited) https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/59648401?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=61b8a3624a8abc5c898910ce%26Premier League ban on owner-related sponsorship deals lifted%262021-12-14T14%3A19%3A20.238Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:e73530e2-9cc8-46f5-b19a-cba66f2996d4&pinned_post_asset_id=61b8a3624a8abc5c898910ce&pinned_post_type=share Premier League ban on owner-related sponsorship deals lifted GettyCopyright: Getty A temporary ban on owner-related sponsorship deals in the Premier League has been lifted. The block on those type of transactions was imposed in October and backed by 18 top-flight clubs following the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle. A working group of club executives, which included Magpies director Amanda Staveley, was set up to look at 'associated party transaction regulations' and those rules have been agreed at a shareholders' meeting on Tuesday. It means such deals will be permitted provided they are deemed to represent fair market value. Remuneration of players and staff via owner-related entities are also covered by the new regulations. Any such payments must be properly disclosed. According to the Daily Telegraph, it looks like only one current Premier League club were not in favour. What bollocks Edited December 14, 2021 by Rodders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 (edited) So 18 of them said no and now 1 of them said no?? Somethings happened there The other thing is Mike Ashley previously sponsored the stadium and he did it for around £1.1m a year, arsenal get circa £150m for 5 years for stadium and shirt They'll no doubt put this market value thing to the test but that stadiums not worth more than around £5m a year Edited December 14, 2021 by villa4europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 She is definitely right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 14, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted December 14, 2021 Newcastle are absolutely massive in Saudi Arabia, I think you'll find any business in Saudi would happily pay at least a billion pounds a year to put their name on the glorious Toon shirt. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 1 minute ago, Chindie said: Newcastle are absolutely massive in Saudi Arabia, I think you'll find any business in Saudi would happily pay at least a billion pounds a year to put their name on the glorious Toon shirt. But market value should mean that they don't have to, their shirt isn't worth more than Arsenal's or spurs or even Evertons which would mean circa £20m a year Unless they can generate a phony bidding war between 2 SA businesses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 1 hour ago, Rodders said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/59648401?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=61b8a3624a8abc5c898910ce%26Premier League ban on owner-related sponsorship deals lifted%262021-12-14T14%3A19%3A20.238Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:e73530e2-9cc8-46f5-b19a-cba66f2996d4&pinned_post_asset_id=61b8a3624a8abc5c898910ce&pinned_post_type=share Premier League ban on owner-related sponsorship deals lifted GettyCopyright: Getty A temporary ban on owner-related sponsorship deals in the Premier League has been lifted. The block on those type of transactions was imposed in October and backed by 18 top-flight clubs following the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle. A working group of club executives, which included Magpies director Amanda Staveley, was set up to look at 'associated party transaction regulations' and those rules have been agreed at a shareholders' meeting on Tuesday. It means such deals will be permitted provided they are deemed to represent fair market value. Remuneration of players and staff via owner-related entities are also covered by the new regulations. Any such payments must be properly disclosed. According to the Daily Telegraph, it looks like only one current Premier League club were not in favour. What bollocks Such corruption Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts