Football 2010-2011

[ralph250]

yeah they're both good players, but i think a huge part in it is for shirt sales etc.

man utd i'd say football comes first when it comes to players. but celtic, i think the directors are seriously treating it as a company now. it's all about expanding the 'product or brand' or whatever bollocks they get called these days. koreans, mexicans, japanese and whatever else they've signed (even i've lost touch). hardly think lennon was responsible for them.

[The Nal]

while I know the prossie thing was before last xmas, are you sure the injunction goes a way back too? How?

As far as I'm aware, any injunction would have been taken out no earlier than the end of last season, tho I'm of the belief that Rooney's injunction was actually a lot more recent than that (done at some point after England came back from SA).

Edited October 19, 2010 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

If indeed the "gerrard list" is accurate

I can't be 100% certain now, but I think it was the case that that list was for shirt sales around the world but excluding sales within the UK.

(just to clarify for you )

[ralph250]

I dont see that man utd fans are any more passionate or special than any other teams fans. If he is good enough then he can have thousands of another team fans calling his name. He has won everything at man utd, whats left to prove. I see nothing wrong with him wanting comparible wages to john terry when his brand is far bigger. Of course he is being greedy but most other big premiership players could still lead the life of luxury for 50k a week less so they are no different.

[ralph250]

I thought there was stories that he didn't even apply for an injunction, or at least that he wasn't part of the 3 England players that did.

[eFestivals]

Ah, I honestly don’t know. I thought he was one of people that had an injunction when everyone thought it was Gerrard. The was last Xmas wasn’t it?

Ralph??

There were three injunctions taken out by 3 different England players all long after the Terry thing was done and dusted - and that was around late March wasn't it?

One of those injunctions was Crouch. The other two are less clear, but it's likely one was Rooney.

One of the injunctions banned the use of reporting the story using a 'stolen' mobile phone as the source - and my guess is that was the Rooney story. For whichever paper had that 'stolen' phone, getting the story via other means so that it could be published would have been a breeze - and cos the Rooney story came out not long after the injunction of the 'stolen' phone, I reckon its the same thing.

PS: the Gerrard thing hit the 'net the same day LFC were playing Athletico away - and that was March or later. But it's all bullshit anyway, so I don't think that's one of the injunctions. I think the 3rd England player was Defoe, but I could be wrong.

Edited October 19, 2010 by eFestivals

[sifi]

We've offered him comparable wages. Terry's on 151k, We've offered Rooney around £150k, I'm sure we'd pay an extra 2k to put him £1k higher than Terry if thats what he wanted. He's supposedly asking for £200k.

[The Nal]

One of the injunctions banned the use of reporting the story using a 'stolen' mobile phone as the source - and my guess is that was the Rooney story. For whichever paper had that 'stolen' phone, getting the story via other means so that it could be published would have been a breeze - and cos the Rooney story came out not long after the injunction of the 'stolen' phone, I reckon its the same thing.

PS: the Gerrard thing hit the 'net the same day LFC were playing Athletico away - and that was March or later. But it's all bullshit anyway, so I don't think that's one of the injunctions. I think the 3rd England player was Defoe, but I could be wrong.

[ralph250]

yeah they need to still do it on the pitch. but they've not scratched their heads to think 'who's the best midfielder we can sign?' and come up with park or nakamura. they're good options who also come with the asian market. which sways the decision hugely in their favour.

[ralph250]

Details of Rooney’s alleged infidelities came to light on Sunday after the Manchester United forward decided not to pursue a super-injunction to suppress the allegations.

They included claims that he slept with the prostitute while his wife Coleen was pregnant.

In recent weeks three other England players have successfully obtained gagging orders to prevent the publication of claims about their private lives.

The Daily Telegraph understands that Rooney considered applying for a super-injunction on the grounds of privacy.

But the footballer was advised that such any such application would probably fail, because he has previously chosen to share intimate details of his life with the media.

[eFestivals]

Manchester United getting a taste of what they've been doing to others for years.

Yup. Man cannot live by myth alone.

Edited October 19, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Did Cashley not have his cock out in some photos on a mobile phone? He said he gave it to one of his mates or something?

Ahhh, could have been that I guess, tho that was all in the papers 3+ months before any mention of the injunction to do with a 'stolen' phone.

Given that Cashley had lost everything he could lose already (aside form being shown to have a small cock I guess ) then I've been thinking that none of the injunctions were his. But it could have been.

[pink_triangle]

We've offered him comparable wages. Terry's on 151k, We've offered Rooney around £150k, I'm sure we'd pay an extra 2k to put him £1k higher than Terry if thats what he wanted. He's supposedly asking for £200k.

[The Nal]

Given that Cashley had lost everything he could lose already (aside form being shown to have a small cock I guess )

[funkymp]

There were three injunctions taken out by 3 different England players all long after the Terry thing was done and dusted - and that was around late March wasn't it?

One of those injunctions was Crouch. The other two are less clear, but it's likely one was Rooney.

One of the injunctions banned the use of reporting the story using a 'stolen' mobile phone as the source - and my guess is that was the Rooney story. For whichever paper had that 'stolen' phone, getting the story via other means so that it could be published would have been a breeze - and cos the Rooney story came out not long after the injunction of the 'stolen' phone, I reckon its the same thing.

PS: the Gerrard thing hit the 'net the same day LFC were playing Athletico away - and that was March or later. But it's all bullshit anyway, so I don't think that's one of the injunctions. I think the 3rd England player was Defoe, but I could be wrong.

[ralph250]

The thing is if terry gets 151k and rooney 152k you are saying that the 2 brands are of pretty much equal value. I would say brand rooney is worth far more than brand terry.

Edited October 19, 2010 by ralph250

[eFestivals]

Isn't the whole Gerrard thing just a vicious net rumour? Been around for ages now hasn't it.

Yep. I reckon it's a baseless rumour and nothing more - for these reasons:-

1. it came out on the day Liverpool had a huge game (Athletico away) within the context of where they were at that time.

2. it was posted over a huge number of different footie forums, with each poster claiming to have been "personally told by the same guy who told me of the Terry story before it hit the papers" but it being blindingly obvious that the posts were made by different people. (It's possible that there was one original post I guess - but the fact that the following posts were clearly lies makes that unlikely IMO).

3. the things it stated as certainties to happen haven't happened, despite the claim that they'd all happen during the summer.

4. many of the posts across different sites originated from Manchester.

5. papers certainly looked into, and published references to it (not explicit references of the details [that I saw, anyway], but Gerrard's name and references to net rumours) ... and if there'd been a "super injunction" in place as claimed they would have been outside the law in making those references.

[The Nal]

Guardian reporting live from Fergies press conference

[eFestivals]

Guardian reporting live from Fergies press conference

the suggestion within that piece is that the 'leaving' info has come either direct from Rooney or from those so 'close' to him that it's indisputable.

Blimey, sounds like it really is far more than just paper talk.

[The Nal]

the suggestion within that piece is that the 'leaving' info has come either direct from Rooney or from those so 'close' to him that it's indisputable.

Blimey, sounds like it really is far more than just paper talk.

Edited October 19, 2010 by The Nal

[funkymp]

"However he will not play tomorrow night because, according to Ferguson, he "has an ankle injury"."

[The Nal]

Thats the press conference over. Ferguson confirming Rooney wants to leave!! "The player is adamant. He says he wants to leave. We have to deal the next part in terms of this request."

Edited October 19, 2010 by The Nal

[funkymp]

Wouldn't be surprised if we (chelsea) went in for him now.. were a few mentions in the paper about it today from Carlo

[sifi]

"the player is adamant he wants to leave"

[The Nal]

"His agent has intimated he won't sign a contract and he wants away. It's a shock."

"terribly disappointed by news because we can't understand it"

"There's an offer, if he's prepared to discuss. I know David Gill prepared to offer contract difficult to better elsewhere."

"I've never had an argument with Wayne at any time - he did have an injury and he confirmed it himself in interview with Sky"

"he said he wasn't injured and that was disappointing because we know fine well he was"

"I feel we have to keep door open, simply because he's such a good player, and we've done nothing but help him in private life"

"We've done nothing but help him at this club. Manchester United is that kind of club. We're as bemused as anyone can be"

"the player says he's adamant he wants to leave".

So long Wayne, hope you don't regret it when you retire.