Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2011, at 12:48, [email protected] wrote: > > >>I don't think Norwich or Swansea let 3 members of their first XI go without > >>replacing them.He's managing risk brilliantly! Ha ha - what a joke.<< > Norwich & Swansea wheeled and dealed, and built low-cost squads that were > able to gain promotion. They got the formula right. We fell short by a few > points. > > We've already replaced one of the players who has left with a more > experienced player. Do you really think there won't be any more players in? > Bates has said four players will come in. Like many people here have said to > you - why don't you just wait and see who comes in before you start whingeing. Those players will have had no preseason. Look, we're missing out on the decent signings and being left with scraps. > > > >> News Corp doesn't control sky anyway.<< > > > Murdoch family effectively controls Sky. No they don't, news Corp owns 30 odd %. > Negative impact on other Murdoch businesses could lead to negative effect on > Sky. The best outcome for football, in pure money terms, would have been a > 100% Sky takeover by News Corp. Why? > That won't happen now - what will happen when the next Premier League TV > contract comes up? What if Sky offers less, or is forced to give up much of > its rights? Sky won't be forced to give up anything. The settlement in place will last. There is absolutely nothing to suggest anything else will happen to affect that, apart from your assumptions. > Don't you think it's right for businesses to be prudent in a time of > uncertainty? Or should we return to Ridsdalenomics? > It's as if you think there are two options, spend like a maniac or don't > spend at all. > > _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
