Jump to content

Rooney Change Number

mossjram

By mossjram
in Derby County Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply
richinspain

richinspain

Posted
Posted

Will be interesting to see what number he takes next year. Obviously the 9 wasn't available this year, but if Waghorn doesn't have a problem with it would Rooney prefer to go back to his historical number? Still, if part of the agreement is that he must wear the number 32 they've got a ready made excuse for not changing ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaltRam

MaltRam

Posted
Posted

More baalocks been spouted about this than any topic I can recall in recent years. 

We're off to Stoke on Saturday to play a team financed by betting revenue, owned by bet365 group, in the bet365 stadium, who will be wearing bet365 sponsored shirts against a sea of bet365 sponsorship in a Skybet Championship fixture with our 32Red shirts on.

Every rentagob spanner with a palm outstretched for a column or tv appearance fee has magically decided that now is the time to start moaning about gambling in football. 

Is it a bit cheeky to give Wazza the 32 shirt? Yeah, maybe. Against the rules? No. Immoral or somehow damaging to society? Don't talk like a Bamford. It's all about the media doing what the media does, whipping up a non-story around a 'celeb' to sell copy. That's immoral. That's damaging to society.

They can all take a long walk off a short pier. It'll all blow over by January anyway, as they're tearing the arse out of some other poor bar steward for financial gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
europia

europia

Posted
Posted
On 14/08/2019 at 07:54, whiteroseram said:

Maybe the football league should embrace this idea and have a new rule in FFP where each team is allowed 1 (but only 1) player who's wages are paid by a sponsor. So you could have a crap team but JustEat have gifted you Bale or Standard Charter present Sanchez for Rotherham 

Wouldn't it just be better for football clubs to live within their means? A lot of championship clubs have decent revenues, DCFC included. If clubs opt to 'spaff it up the wall' on players ridiculous wages and agents fees, there will obviously be financial issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaltRam

MaltRam

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, europia said:

wouldn't imagine Rooney falls into the 'poor' category

Financially, no, but he and thousands like him in the public eye who've received a dogs abuse in order for red-tops to flog more ******** to the pig-ignorant? I think they deserve the title in the other sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mucker1884

Mucker1884

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, europia said:

Wouldn't it just be better for football clubs to live within their means? A lot of championship clubs have decent revenues, DCFC included. If clubs opt to 'spaff it up the wall' on players ridiculous wages and agents fees, there will obviously be financial issues. 

The insinuation from the club is that we are living within our means.  32Red throw us a bunce, we pay Rooney said bunce.  It comes in, it goes out.

Without Rooney, said bunce wouldn't be forthcoming, so we couldn't invest it elsewhere, say on 3 or 4 "average players", or save it for a rainy day.  Without said bunce, Rooney wouldn't be coming here.

There is no spaffing here, whether that be up the wall, down the post, or shooting it over the crossbar into the fans behind the goal!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
therealhantsram

therealhantsram

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Needlesh said:

More baalocks been spouted about this than any topic I can recall in recent years. 

We're off to Stoke on Saturday to play a team financed by betting revenue, owned by bet365 group, in the bet365 stadium, who will be wearing bet365 sponsored shirts against a sea of bet365 sponsorship in a Skybet Championship fixture with our 32Red shirts on.

Every rentagob spanner with a palm outstretched for a column or tv appearance fee has magically decided that now is the time to start moaning about gambling in football. 

Is it a bit cheeky to give Wazza the 32 shirt? Yeah, maybe. Against the rules? No. Immoral or somehow damaging to society? Don't talk like a Bamford. It's all about the media doing what the media does, whipping up a non-story around a 'celeb' to sell copy. That's immoral. That's damaging to society.

They can all take a long walk off a short pier. It'll all blow over by January anyway, as they're tearing the arse out of some other poor bar steward for financial gain.

Its why I don't buy any of them anymore. No news in newspapers. Just 'opinion leader' columnists whose job it is to be deliberately devisive - regardless of topic - and its doing us as a society no end of damage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
europia

europia

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

The insinuation from the club is that we are living within our means.  32Red throw us a bunce, we pay Rooney said bunce.  It comes in, it goes out.

Without Rooney, said bunce wouldn't be forthcoming, so we couldn't invest it elsewhere, say on 3 or 4 "average players", or save it for a rainy day.  Without said bunce, Rooney wouldn't be coming here.

There is no spaffing here, whether that be up the wall, down the post, or shooting it over the crossbar into the fans behind the goal!  

I didn't say specifically that DCFC were 'spaffing it ip the wall'. However, we have been told for a while that the club wanted to offload big earners to reduce the overall wage bill. Also the club has sold the Stadium to a separate company owned by the chairman, for financial reasons. So DCFC no longer owns it's greatest asset. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...