Toonpack

Says the "gentleman" who defends/champions drunken, foul mouthed behaviour to the detriment of other paying spectator's enjoyment. If I really evaluated about how companies made their cash I'd never buy anything ever again and would be wearing a hand woven grass suit, which would do as food in an emergency.

Who creates the pressure where the target market needs the cash and thus accepts, via necessity, the service Wonga provide ?? Football as a whole was "working class" it is no longer, be it NUFC or anyone else.

OK so they are immoral, when you buy clothing, trainers etc do you check where the stuff is made, what the pay rates are like, what the health and safety/working conditions records are like before you buy ??? As for Wonga in particular, I wonder why these folks who use their service need to, pressure from respectable companies maybe, got ot pay the gas/elec/bank/mortgage etc. crap company (yes) crap logo (yes) money the colour of everyone else's (yes) end of. Show me a money making organisation that isn't immoral, you know what, if football thought about it and paid players reasonable sums, there'd be no need to have adverts on shirts.

I see it and I really really don't care, moralising about a sponsor is ridiculous. If Wonga are so bad, how come they are a perfectly legal and allowed to trade as they do ? The UAE (the folks behind The Emirates) regime kill dissenting people. How about we got sponsored by BAE Systems, blue riband British company, everyone would think that was brilliant, BAE also are second largest arms manufacturer on the planet.

Serious question, how is the fact that Wonga are prepared to offer more cash (it would appear) than anyone else, a "regime" thing. They've sponsored "lower" level clubs, makes sense they'd look to move up. What is the big deal ?? It's more a "football" thing than a "regime" thing IMO.

You're right, we do, still first name on the teamsheet for me.

Flashman's fag ?

It's called "being clever" or "winning the foul" all part of the wonderfull thing that is modern football.

Totally disagree, apart from two bad "going to sleep" corners in the first 15 mins we've been as good as, if not better than, them. Don't blame Harper for the 3rd, overhit cross looping right into top corner, he had no chance.

Doubt it, he'll be looking for whoever will pay most. In fairness SD sells/makes some tat, but also sells/makes an awfull lot of acceptable "good stuff". The tat label is deeply rooted in the fact that it's Ashley. Football sold its soul donkeys years ago.

Well said Chez, was expecting a bookies and just thinking what you said there this very minute !!

Love the morality bullshit Football pays notorious pieces of shit players £200K a week, the league is sponsored by the bank that screwed with the libor (how many people did the trickle down from that fuck over?) and no one bats an eyelid

As it always should be.

What's happened to our club is one company is prepared to pay more than the last, if someone else came in with a bigger wad they'd get the gig, end of.

Not just the younger one's Now I wouldn't say he's alright, he's a weapons grade twat, but I'd rather have a shark running the club than a minnow as I have accepted what "the game is", hate LOTS of it (am firmly in the Gemmill camp when it comes to "the game"), but it is what it is. Also a few goals have always papered over the cracks in football, always will.

Ah well, SD not quite to tacky any more For those getting precious about how the sponsors make their money, have you seen the civil rights record of those behind Ehitad/Emirates etc. Even Nike (which everyone would have thought was fine) get their shit made in third world sweat shops. If you berate the club for not maximising commercial revenue you can't bleat when someone "you don't like" is willing to pay more than the last sponsors. IF this is true, surely those who "foresaw" the SD sponsorship consipracy i.e. less money to the club than Virgin, must be extremely happy. Whoever pays most, gets the gig, isn't that what we all wanted ?? There's probably not any football sponsor who somewhere along the line doesn't have a connection to, track record or history of practices that inflame our sensibilities (Northern Rock - which was fine by all as a sponsor - for example, could take peoples houses off them when those people are at their lowest ebb). If someone's pile of cash is bigger than someone else's, so be it. That's the modern game folks.

It is excellent IMO, phone/iPad to new Bose gizmo (as referred to in Materialism thread) sorted !!

Soundlink II Battery lasts maybe 7/8 hours until it shows red (they say 8), really good volume and depth of sound, am well impressed. Connection range probably about 30-40ft ft (through walls) over that it'll break up. (it will charge up and play at the same time). Got it in the States same price in dollars as in pounds here = bargain. Adapter/transformer for the yankee plug £4.95 off Amazon, jobs a good un. Wish I could get a TV over there and bring it in, comparatively they are washers compared to here for a monster one.

One of these (highly recommended, cracking little piece of kit):

I think the best for us would be that he'd still be an NUFC player this season............... Oh wait a minute ............

DOH !! I never once said it was a mutual decision, it was a mutual clause and NUFC chose to excercise it as Virgin could have. The presence of the clause means both sides were happy that one or other could bail out after 12 months with no recriminations. It is no big deal.

That is hilarious, I mean what's clouded in mystery It's not highly unusual, it's bog standard, and Virgin are our sponsors for £10 Mill this year, next season someone else will be the sponsor the only mystery is who that will be. We don't need to know anything tbh. Why should the club tell us who the next sponsors are until they (and the sponsors) judge the time is right. I stand by the reasoning I put up before btw. But when MA is involved it pays to be paranoid

Of course I did (I posted it) “…. hoped that this would be a relationship that would flourish for years to come” Bog standard business speak nothing more nothing less . Oh aye, they’d hope it would continue for years and years, IF and only IF the outlay was achieving/beating the targets they set for it (that’s what the use of the word flourish means i.e. growth). End of. Do you think for a second if the first years £10 Mill had gained them nothing , they wouldn’t have exercised the mutual bail out clause, who’s to say they wouldn’t have anyway, they may not have done their sums yet ? It really is a simple absolutely run of the mill business decision.

If it was SD but they pay more than Virgin are is it a problem, serious question ??

I would suggest that an assumption that the next sponsor will be paying less than the mutualy terminated agreement is a much wilder (paranoid even) assumption than to assume they will be paying more or the same for longer. Surely ?? Give Ashley's track record with the finances of NUFC I have no concerns over how the clubs assets are being managed.