They didn't just charge they made a profit, while Andy and the Daisy Appeal lost £30k. On his own testimonial. Not only that, but Andy was completely unaware until after the game that he was being charged so much retrospectively. Every other player makes money from his testimonial. It's such a typical 'City under the Allam regime' thing to do. We're a ****ing shambles off the pitch when it comes to stuff like this.
meanwhile, here's someone critically uninformed and a bit stupid: ripnelson | January 20 2014, 1:15AM As a subscriber to this charity too Well done Doctor Allam ,,Lets see how much City till I die put in could have been £3000 or more if they hadn't had to waste money and time capaigning against some irrational decision, eh, rip? do you think they've got millions? do you not know they're called ctwd? do you not know they're not trying to get rid of the owner? don't know much, do you, rip? try using your eyes and your brain instead of your knee.
I hate to admit it, but Castro is right and there's needless pages of wet knickers and bloated tampax for nowt. If he was calling Allam a kiddy fiddler there may be a point but he wasn't and the point he was making was totally innocent despite the choice of reference. If I was making that point, I too would have used Jimmy Saville, for the simple fact that I wouldn't have thought of anyone else who could serve the point. I didn't even know Lance Armstrong did a thing for charity until reading this thread, and besides, for the purposes of serving the point being made what has he ever done wrong except be American? I feel dirty now.
Upon further reading of this thread, just clarifying the remark about knicker wetting and bloated tampax was in no way a sexist remark directed at your good self Charlie1. Just a general sweeping statement.
I too would welcome clarification on this. I posted a few days ago (my first as it happens) though the post never appeared. The post was in no way abusive, nor was it particularly controversial. It was however critical of a view expressed by DMD. The thread on which it was posted also seems to have vanished. Why is this?
When you're a new poster, you go into moderation and your first few posts are checked before they go up(particularly if they have a link in them). The fact that your details say the above post is your first, suggests that something went wrong, if your post had been deleted, it would still have registered as a post and it should say you've made at least two posts.
OK. Perhaps I just didn't click something I was supposed to or something. Still don't know what happened to the thread though. Are these sometimes removed?
If it was one of the name change threads, it will have been merged into the name change sticky thread at the top of the page. We've had so many of them, that they now get tidied into the main thread every so often, it should still be in there if you can be arsed to trawl through it.
I did not think there was anything sexist in your comments. I knew what you meant. But thanks anyway.
Allam has been involved with the Daisy Building for a long time and of course it is good of him to donate. If he had not had so much bad publicity over the name change then it probably wouldn't have got much of a mention on here. Mr Allam is a man who likes to be liked and wants to be seen in a good light therefore he will have been stung by the opposition to the name so I think the fact that he has chose to donate now (or make it public now) is no coincidence. That doesn't make me an Allam hater or ungrateful or any other name thrown at similar minded people on here. It is just being realistic and the person who started the thread must have know he would attract these kind of comments as I am sure it was meant as a thread to prove to the anti name change lot that we were all wrong about him. The two things are separate, you can applaud him for what he does for charity whilst still not particularly liking the man.
We all give to charity but only a few of us mention it constantly or have it pointed out in the media, if i had his money I would give the same amounts also I wouldn't treat fans of the team I owned with contempt.
I would never knock anyone who gives to charity. But I would be wary of anyone who made an excessive song and dance about it, and double wary if I thought it was a distraction ploy.
I've said all along I'm not going to moderate to stop someone making a tit of themselves whichever side they're on. Happy's problem is he seems to think that despite us regularly allowing him to make a tit of himself with ridiculous statements we should moderate Stuey doing the same by going overboard here or we're being biased. If it were going to be moderated with bias we'd have got rid of Happy long ago, as it is his presence and constant whinging about it actually serve to show we're not (so cheers Happy ) as surely we'd cover our tracks as well. At this point I can only answer it in relation to this thread (because I'm not going looking for threads in the past and trying to work out where posts have disappeared): In this case Mark's post was one of several that were a direct response to posts that were specifically name change related, if we remove what you're responding to then it makes leaving your post pointless. It was borderline whether I took Mark's with it or not, but I felt as I'd removed a significant amount of the theme of the postings that had been made it was better to take it than to leave it looking like the view had been made of a different scenario entirely. Just to clarify, the posts deleted were specifically getting into should the name be changed or not, and then the follow up. That is one debate and it's one that has no place on this thread. The posts left on the thread were about whether AA made the donation in an effort to improve his image. That is entirely separate as anti-name changers can see it either way just the same as pro name changers could. As an example, Osbourne making comments about increasing the minimum wage is a cynical way of stopping Milliband gaining support having said something similar. You can hold that view whether you agree with what the government is doing or not. When I came on the other day (Saturday I think) there were 10 or so posts waiting for approval and a load of threads that had been merged (I went through everything that had been on in the week or so before). That approval happens to you as a new poster if you include quotes, images, videos, text formatting (or anything else that requires you to use those square brackets), or certain key words. I don't know what those words are, but they're changed by the site owner based on what the spam bots are trying to post on the site at any time. All the posts were approved at that stage, so if yours was caught up in that it is now somewhere on the board. If it was on one of the merged threads then it's on whichever thread it got merged into. There was one thread that I split into two because it was a non-name change thread that deviated. Once it was split into two the name change element was deleted because as a standalone thread it was outside the rules I put for name change threads on the sticky and it was tit-for-tat so I didn't bother merging it into the sticky. He's from a culture that promotes things like this so he's obviously going to do it. We're also in a country where the charities like the increased profile from making large donations public as it increases awareness of their specific charity and they get followup donations. I don't see a problem with saying that the timing is cynical though. He could make the donation at any time, so why not do it after threatening everybody but before the FA hear the opposing view. It's not even a criticism from me, I'd be acting just as cynically timing wise if I was trying to do something. I mean why wouldn't you try to get the most benefit for yourself out of doing it as well? It doesn't make any difference to the charity whether you gain from the donation or not.
You're far too patient with these whinging losers, mate. Not sure how you can say it's an Egyptian cultural thing about giving to charity/ getting kudos in return. It applies the world over, and there are people in every culture who hanker after public recognition and being seen as a generous benefactor.
No worries Ricardo, thanks for taking the time to answer the question directly. Don't agree with everything you've said but as usual you put your point across clearly, succinctly and with a minimum of fuss. Much appreciated.
