• Manchester United Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • Steve Steve Jul 30, 2012 18:05 Flag

    Chevrolet and the FA/Rio

    £28m is a great price today, but 7 years is a long time to commit to, even more so when the deal doesn't start for another 2 year. Will £28m still be great value in 2021?

    If they pay the same way as AON did, half of it upfront, its a good chunk of money coming into the club immediately though.

    As for Rio, his comments on twitter were daft and, whether you agree with it or not, its not surprising the FA have charged him. I just hope he gets nothing more than a fine.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Stefan, the western world economy will not be better than now i 8/9 years time. So yes a good deal.
      Rio is many slices short of a full loaf, agreed. But I do not think that is the point. A football 'authority' cannot give itself the legality of patrolling a communication system. Whatever was said, and it sounds pretty silly, this cannot have anything to do with the FA. Otherwise this is fascism. This has to be thrown out for the good of society in general.

      • 4 Replies to jim w
      • Well, from £25m, to most saying £28m, we now have Reuters claiming a source has told them the deal is actually a staggering $600m, somewhere near £385m!


        If that happens to be accurate, what a ridiculously good deal that would be! (Taking all reported fees with a pinch of salt so far).

        Also, it seems GM Motors may not have been happy with the size of the sponsorship agreed, as their global marketing chief has been fired because of the deal apparantly!

      • Steady there, Jim. Civilisation as we know it is not about to fall apart just because Rio got a charge from the FA.

        You're right - the FA doesn't have general jurisdiction over freedom of speech in this country. It is not a court. It's a private club which sets rules for its members. If those members are in breach of its rules then it has the right to set sanctions within its own sphere of operations. It cannot imprison someone. I doubt whether it could legally insist on the fines it imposes. But when it decides, under some form of due process, that a footballer has broken a rule it can sanction him with match bans or whatever.

        This is not picking on a United player, despite your apparently paranoid outlook. Other players have been charged by the FA for what it regard as abusive tweets. And, as you know, the FA has been keen to charge players from other clubs over what is sees as racist abuse.

        I don't know whether the charge will stick. I think it's perfectly valid to think he has done nothing wrong. (I'm not saying I agree.) But I think he was foolish to make those tweets both in the context of his relationship with his brother and Ashley Cole in the JT saga, and given the general sensitivity to comments of this nature at the moment - something he has himself encouraged. "Petard" and "hoist" spring to mind.


      • I think that's an overreaction. For one thing, it's a good thing the issue is being dealt with even-handedly, as we know the idiots and racists love to pull out the "It's only racist if a white guy does it" card.

        Secondly, the "bringing the game into disrepute" charge is different to the racial abuse charge Terry was up for, and I think he and Ferdinand are both more likely to get done for this; Terry because, whether or not he was repeating what he thought Ferdinand said (and who really believes that?), saying those words in the middle of an internationally-televised match was a stupid thing to do, and one which did bring unwanted attention to the English game; Ferdinand because approving of a racially-charged term like "choc ice" was similarly stupid, and had the same effect.

        The FA are allowed to police the game they have stewardship of.

      • Interesting take on it Jim - I wonder if you thought the same when they charged Babel back along?