ChezGiven

Craig's point has fallen apart though, Chelsea and Arsenal were acting exactly how we are acting now. I'm therefore not going to bother looking any further into the specifics of the man u or Liverpool deals. If I did I'm sure it would be easy to unpick the commercial specifics. Doesn't matter though, the club's behaviours is consistent with other major marketing deals amongst the biggest clubs. Which was the point.

Did you get the phone connected to the TV? Out of interest, how do you stream Android phones to TVs?

So lets rule out Arsenal Chelsea as examples then, since Emirtates Airlines sign a 100m deal with Arsenal in 2004 that secures the final funding for the stadium. Of course this is announced ahead of them becoming a shirt sponsor in 05/06 its a massive deal. Funnily enough Chelsea's sponsors in 2004 were ..... Emirates. Chelsea announce the end of the deal with Emirates in September 2004 (as they are now investing in Arsenal) and announce the new deal with Samsung in April 2005. I cant be arsed to look at the others but i doubt they stand up to scrutiny either. So if we announce the new deal in April next year, we act in the same way as Chelsea did when they switched from emirates to samsung.

I still think the best solution was 1 month bans. If he came on and did the same thing within 2 or 3 posts, ban him for another month. If he then comes back and does the same thing within 20 posts, ban him for another month. I'm sure with HF's algorithm and Ant's programming skills we could have used an automated process. Anyway, its too late now Stevie, we had a problem and we tried to do everything we could, you know what i mean, he's gone and we couldnt do nuthin about it, thats it, he's gone.

I dont believe that Craig, the incumbent sponsors were happy for the new sponsor to be part of the core communications (via branding etc) of the clubs whilst still paying for the rights to be the main sponsor? You'll have to go into specifics with actual links demonstrating timelines for me to begin thinking that might be credible. There may be a circumstance like with Emirates sponsoring the stadium and paying money for that before taking over the shirt sponsorship, as an example. Not saying thats the case. What TP is saying makes 100% sense for anyone who has spent any amount of time in a marketing team. Virgin will have made it a condition that the announcement has to be delayed, they are contracted to pay money to us to be on the shirt until the end of the season but then the new company gets all the press? Nope and i doubt any of your examples hold up either.

Come again?

What a crock of shit, I stopped reading Dave's posts before we were relegated.

Presumptive Dave.

http://www.greenroomretail.co.uk/#/projects/nike-academy-shirebrook

Mid-ranking officer, father of 2, tee-total, non-smoker and the mental age of about 11, is what we have ascertained so far.

It doesnt have to mean that, i could have used 'should' instead of 'must' as lots of things Ashley does dont make sense from the outside as his objectives are quite opaque. My thinking was: If the virgin deal was worth doing then it was because it made sense from a business perspective. I dont buy into convoluted theories that this is stage managed PR where he took a deal with virgin to pace out the changes to the branding/sponsorship. On one level, a PR expert would say not to do this, its best to get things done and dusted and then move on. Constantly making changes which antagonise customers is not in anyones PR playbook. Secondly, business doesnt work like that, the best deal is always sought and as early as possible. If Virgin were offering money and the board of SD refused to sanction giving the club e.g. 10m, then the club goes with Virgin. Ashley is not the CEO of SD and its his decision to say if SD gives NUFC money. If Ashley was seen to be overly influencing the CEO for his own personal interests this would lead to huge problems with the institutional investors. Thirdly, revenue from advertising in stadiums has been massively squeezed over recent seasons. There are some big deals from the main sponsors but secondary sponsorship has been under pressure due to the recession. One article i read on finance in football said that every time you see an advert for the club shops, upcoming games etc, this is dead advertising space. Which makes total sense, the ROI on space advertising the thing that people are actually attending is quite low, the ROI for complimentary businesses is clearly much higher. There is no SD monopoly on advertising at SJP, there is a monopoly on branding. The advertising spaces in the ground are those that can be changed for new customers, so every permanent fixture of the ground is not open space for advertisers, only the hoardings and various smaller opportunities around the ground are open spaces. These are sold to a multitude of advertisers. To remove permanent SD branding makes no difference is no one wants to pay for a permanent replacement. Advertisers dont take out permanent spaces, sponsors do. Completely different financial and ROI ball game. For the announcement, the deal with Virgin lasts until January, so they i'm sure the deal precludes us announcing the new name whilst the deal with Virgin is still in place. This is straightforward. Why announce it all then? Perhaps because its a good deal and they want to say at least that publicly, perhaps the new sponsor wanted them to announce the end of Virgin to ensure that people anticipated the new brand so as to maximise the impact and to ensure there was no confusion in the minds of supporters who the sponsor is come January. Thats exactly how brand teams talk by the way. There is a strong possibility that its SD and a much weaker one that this is an extension of the 'free advertising to SD model'. All is possible given what we know, all my comments are just opinion on what makes sense to me.

If the blu-ray has dlna then it should work through that too. Search for dlna iPhone servers.

If your TV supports DLNA then yes. I use Apple TV but you can also use other hardware if you have it.

Going to be a tough game this, not sure we will get even a draw. Gillot, their manager, has said they are putting all their efforts into Europe and expect to drop points in the league! They play 5-3-2 and have some great results so far on the road, one of 3 unbeaten sides in ligule 1. If we play too under strength, we may come unstuck.

You sound like you waste a lot of food, we definitely dont. However, I guess you are right when you think about the fact that the majority of people don't care and all the restaurants and supermarkets in the developed world throwing food out every day. In contrast to starving kids in the developing world, it's a ridiculous waste. In the global sense, we are 'inefficient' as some starve whilst some waste food but the idea of efficiency in this sense would be based on a system that doesn't exist. Not sure you can waste money in the global sense. As an individual of course you can but if you stupidly buy something you dont need, the person you pay may use it much more efficiently. The transfer of money from stupid to intelligent is an efficient transfer mechanism Recycling is a modern trend and it is now pretty much global, this is increasingly efficient waste management, so people are trying to reverse the trend.

Just read the bbc license thread, that's why you don't want to answer as you already have. Then my point to you is simple, eat something before you go food shopping. If you go food shopping when you are hungry, you end up with stuff you throw away. I have 3 butchers, 3 grocers and 5 bakeries on my market so I have it very easy for popping out to get what we need fresh. As for the rest of the waste in our lives, as a society we are getting much more efficient not less. Imo anyway.

If you were able to take your eyeball out of its socket, still properly connected to the brain and turn it round to look at your other eye, what would you see? And was I wrong about you saying you were on the dole?

Why won't you answer MY question?

I thought you said you were on the dole? You dont work then but dont claim the dole? I see, no wonder you have a wasteful attitude to money.

Sounds like Wolfy needs to learn how to shop. I have it good with a market on my doorstep but still going to a supermarket and stocking up with things that will go off before you have time to eat them is just being a bad shopper (refrains from being rude). Spending 150 notes on shopping then getting a Chinese in which you cant finish as there's too much sounds odd for someone on the dole. Or we need to reduce the dole.

Sorry to hear that, best of luck with your search. What are you looking for?

In that article i posted, that wasnt a theoretical 'no' to Ashley's remuneration btw, it was a 'no' in practice. Ashley did not make the decision on his own share scheme.

I think there's a strong chance it will be SD but if it is, it must mean that there is direct funding involved which is bigger than Virgin's.

I didnt mean them specifically, just wanted to highlight the role of brand in this discussion as its got a strong emotional dimension.

It could still be SD and it could still be just as good for the business, 25% sales growth, company now trading above 300. Things are going well for them as a business. If it means more income then great. Obviously if a brand with a better image are in for the deal then everyone is going to prefer the more pleasing brand. Hopefully a brand that makes flashy trinkets that compensate for our modern disassociation with traditional values, or whatever it was you were blethering on about