Its not even a compramise Its exactly what we would of done anyway if all they said was nothing on the shirt, full stop not budging and then that was the end of conversation. FIFA have ended up getting a little bit of credit for something that would of happened regardless
Yeah, but if they need some extra money, and someone comes in, what would you do. Football now is just business, so you can't expect them to care really, just like any other business.
Its not even extra cash for Newcastle, because its essentially just Mike Ashleys money, he has got the exact same amount of his own money he could put into Newcastle as he could of before the Stadium deal Its having it set up on the balance sheet for if they get into Europe so it counts towards the financial fair play, just like City they dont need to sell the name to make it the ethiad stadium, but they will fucking need the cash on the + of the club income to counter the amount they spend
Lampard will be captain tomorrow also looks like Phil Jones will start in midfield http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15693231.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...elly-The-poppy-relegated-level-Nike-logo.html This tbh. The article is too big to be quoted fully(This is a part of it), but completely agree with it. And it is not often i agree with much in the Mail or even can understand FIFA's decisions/objections.
I don't see why anybody would have a problem if Argentina did the same thing for Malvinas Day on a date close to it. It not a celebration for the regime or government in power, it's a tribute to people that have died/fought in war.
What about the other situations though? Would Cameron be equally vocal if the Iraq team for example playing England did the same as a tribute to those who lost their lives to Western Forces including his? And what about Palestine or other countries doing it for people killed by Israel, or North Korea playing South Korea and doing it for their people killed in conflict?(Even if the public might not, many regimes certainly would have a problem) Also many other points made in that article on why the issue was made bigger than it was. In any case good to see a compromise has been reached, though will be interesting what precedent it sets in future especially if there is a live conflict.
What do you mean? Whether i agree with it or not, a Iraq government trying to please it's public in the future can certainly want to do it to tap into the Anti - West sentiment when and if there are less restricted elections there.
Wut? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_national_football_team They have a FIFA recognised team though.
I cba with your ignorance. Its only a completely different level to anything you understand or feel about. You're not from this country so you could never possibly understand. The Poppy has become over-used with all the no name celebs on tv wearing it for the sake of wearing it. That aside, Remembrance day is still about remebering those who gave their lives for our freedom today. Whether it be from Nazi oppresion or taking down tyrannical dictators in the middle east.
First of all you are not the only one living in a country with a army/population that have lost life in conflicts trying to protect people/obeying state orders(whether right or wrong), let alone in constantly ongoing conflicts with Neighbors or even internally with Maoists and Terrorists. Also i never said that i was against the sentiment of it or personally opposed to any country wanting to honor/remember it's own people.It's a good way to honor them and generate funds too, with remembrance day being also spread to the whole of the commonwealth to different extent including here. What i was saying though was that as the article explained more eloquently the reasoning for the poppy to be worn in a football match all of a sudden were vague and suspect, and also can understand FIFA's objection about it. FIFA is supposed to be a football body, not a political body for all of the world, so have to treat all football bodies equally. They can't make subjective judgement's on issues and allow England to wear a symbol to mark the sacrifice of their soldiers and not allow Iraq to then wear a symbol to mark a loss of their civilians killed in collateral damage by western forces or army killed in past proxy wars with Iran.Or neither, they can refuse Israel or Palestine from doing so against each other for their own people when there is precedent or treat dictator run regimes like North Korea/Syria any differently. Setting aside Jingoistic passions, that is the reality of the issue without even going into the morality or Politcs debate.