Jump to content

Chop chop! Lets all gawp at Newcastle (again)


Jimzk5

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

You think we could jump in and take advantage of that or are you saying it'll push them further away?

I don’t think we can because we don’t have anyone wanting to pump that sort of money in.

Previously City’s sponsorship deal would only be limited by what they could get away with, what was deemed to be the going rate.

If MU for example we’re getting £200m from Chevrolet then they could possibly argue Etihad offering £250m was the right market value for such a deal. 

With City, Newcastle PSG etc all state owned they can all agree £500m deal with their “sponsors” and point at each other to say it matches theirs so it’s not a piss take. It’s the going rate. 

Edited by Genie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I agree with all of this post except the 'it will balance out slowly' part. I see no reason to predict it will ever balance out at all. 

Oh yeah, I was trying to find a slither of hope. They should have let them have their stupid ESL. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, villa4europe said:

To be fair Milan did rival them for Botman, Milan should have signed Botman, he was right there for them and then Milan didn't push it over the line 

We'll probably never find out why Milan didn't sign him we'll just get a load of guff about world class Botman chose Newcastle over them, in reality they were his 2nd choice, he's only going there because Milan didn't sign on the dotted line

He wouldnt have started for Milan and they didn't want to splash 30/40 million on a backup defender

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tomav84 said:

they moved on to botman because we just bought their top target. i'm not too concerned personally.

They wanted Botman since the takeover was completed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

Oh yeah, I was trying to find a slither of hope. They should have let them have their stupid ESL. 

this. never understood the protests from the non-super league teams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zatman said:

I didn't say he would start for City 🙂

Yes, sorry, I know it wasn't you! I'm just saying that your stating that he wouldn't have started for Milan has made me pretty skeptical that he'd be walking into City's first XI. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

this. never understood the protests from the non-super league teams

I suppose the flipside is that if we got left with Newcastle they'd have so much more money than every other side that the Premier League would end up like the Bundesliga. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Yes, sorry, I know it wasn't you! I'm just saying that your stating that he wouldn't have started for Milan has made me pretty skeptical that he'd be walking into City's first XI. 

Tomori and Kalulu were brilliant this season I don't see Botman breaking through. They also have Kjaer to come back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, tomav84 said:

this. never understood the protests from the non-super league teams

It was the fact that they weren't going to leave their domestic leagues, they were just going to create a closed league for just them that pumps a load more money in. 

They'd have ended up in the same league spots they are now but with their backup players instead. 

If they were just going and leaving the league it might have been worth it for the other teams, except that the TV money would likely have been majorly slashed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

It was the fact that they weren't going to leave their domestic leagues, they were just going to create a closed league for just them that pumps a load more money in. 

They'd have ended up in the same league spots they are now but with their backup players instead. 

If they were just going and leaving the league it might have been worth it for the other teams, except that the TV money would likely have been majorly slashed. 

i thought that was the whole thing. that they would abandon their domestic leagues. maybe i'm misremembering it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

i thought that was the whole thing. that they would abandon their domestic leagues. maybe i'm misremembering it

Nah it was replacing the Champions League.

Once that league absorbed all the TV money, the PL (and all other domestic leagues) would become secondary competitions. 

They all should have been kicked out. It will happen sooner than people think. This time, they'll get some consultants in and have their own fans onside with it all. It'll be billed as anti-UEFA and pro-football. FIFA will probably lead it.

It'll suit the likes of Utd who are going to be shut out of the UCL for a fair old while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tomaszk said:

Nah it was replacing the Champions League.

Once that league absorbed all the TV money, the PL (and all other domestic leagues) would become secondary competitions. 

They all should have been kicked out. It will happen sooner than people think. This time, they'll get some consultants in and have their own fans onside with it all. It'll be billed as anti-UEFA and pro-football. FIFA will probably lead it.

It'll suit the likes of Utd who are going to be shut out of the UCL for a fair old while.

well the initial CL reform proposal was just a SL lite. it was basically saying that if chelsea finished 5th, and villa finished 4th, chelsea would get CL instead of us because of previous CL performance. i believe such a scenario has now been fixed and that if that situation were to arise, both us and chelsea would get CL. this has all been done by UEFA themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

well the initial CL reform proposal was just a SL lite. it was basically saying that if chelsea finished 5th, and villa finished 4th, chelsea would get CL instead of us because of previous CL performance. i believe such a scenario has now been fixed and that if that situation were to arise, both us and chelsea would get CL. this has all been done by UEFA themselves.

I think a version did get pushed through you know. But it's more continent wide. I think the co-efficient is included or something, so in that scenario Villa would be fine but the champions of Denmark would get pushed down into qualifying.

Or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

I think a version did get pushed through you know. But it's more continent wide. I think the co-efficient is included or something, so in that scenario Villa would be fine but the champions of Denmark would get pushed down into qualifying.

Or something.

yeah that's along the lines of what i thought it was

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/06/2022 at 09:08, tomav84 said:

they moved on to botman because we just bought their top target. i'm not too concerned personally.

I mean, that's just not true is it. Botman was always our first choice, and we haven't been in for Carlos since January. I don't know why people need to make stuff like this up - it just diminishes anything else you have to say.

Why not just be happy that you have Carlos - definitely a really good buy for you (as he would have been for Newcastle), rather than celebrating that you snatched him away from us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â