Erm, I'm asking about Ronaldo here...
ALL Ronaldo's future/comments/speculation
- Thread starter Tabasco Sauce
- Start date
- Status
agh well it's something we will never know. For example, even if he did see what blatter said. How do we know if he saw it all or just a sliced clip? We don't know. Everyone is guessing but I dont even think it matters. feck it.
We don't know. He might have heard it from someone or read it in a newspaper. There is no way you can know. The fact Ronaldo didn't even expand on the point shows that it's not something he truly believes. It looked stage managed and it probably was
I thought I was making myself clear, but to be specific:
I son't care what Blatter said/implied,
I'm asking if Ronaldo agreed with a question from a reporter asking whether or not he knew of quotes by Blatter comparing him personally to a modern day slave. Understood?
DR says this is so, would like a link though if anyone knows of a video or transcript...
I son't care what Blatter said/implied,
I'm asking if Ronaldo agreed with a question from a reporter asking whether or not he knew of quotes by Blatter comparing him personally to a modern day slave. Understood?
DR says this is so, would like a link though if anyone knows of a video or transcript...
It doesn't clear it up. No sod was in the room when ronaldo was told or heard or read the comments, if he even did. Ronaldo may have been party to trying to cause this rift but there is no proof that he knew everything blatter said. There's not even proof he knew what blatter said.
If someone says in my ear, reply yes to everything and it was in my interests. Would I give a feck about what it was all about? Not really, I'd just keep saying what they want to get what I want...
I just don't think there is enough clarity. Ronaldo said he was a slave? But the interview didn't even expand on that point? Why? Why did Ronaldo not go into details?
I just don't see how someone with an opinion, can be so blaise in his response if it's something he's that arsed about
You just answered my question pretty conclusively... So claims that Ronaldo has compared himself to a modern day slave by agreeing with Blatters 'quotes' regarding Ronaldo being a modern day slave are based on nothing but interpretation and assumption?
As is 95% of this saga.
maybe
I mean my feelings on it are this. Ronaldo is split. I don't think he's desperate either way and additionally doing what he's doing will appease his family and other people that pressure him to move - because he can turn around and say i'm doing my best
But what it sounded to me, in my opinion, it sounded like he was told what to say. That in agreeing with blatter, it'd cause so many problems United would have to sell
Because Ronaldos attitude seemed like, there i've said it now let's see what happens. It just seemed like he only said it to cause a chain reaction that led to him being sold
the fact is though obviously it didn't work. Incidently the slave comments were due to the length of contract - someone can correct me, rather then the treatment of the player
So it really doesn't make sense. I don't see how Ronaldo can understand it any better then the average guy in the street. The media altered the interview to make it Ronaldo specific but blatter said he feels sorry for Ronaldo, that the two clubs should meet and strike a deal.
He said footballers are like moden slaves because of the contract and players basically having to honor them.
So what was Ronaldo agreeing with? Because the video interpretation/presentation was different to the written slant on the story
The media really didn't focus on it being about the length of contract, but rather the fact he's obviously unhappy on 120k a week
There are too many inconsistancies, but maybe Ronaldo was being honest about things being misquoted. Maybe rather then trying to say he's a slave, he was actually saying he agrees the length of contracts are too long.
Finally, even if Ronaldo tried to make this move happen he could have done alot more. He still could but I just don't think he will. Thankfully next week we'll see the as story for what it is (bullshit).
Thank God I trust in Sir Alex to sort it
ps: I should have also said - Ronaldo cannot have been agreeing with length of contract and therefore could not have seen the video. The thing is that when they asked him if anyone else at United was treated this way, he said no BUT most of our squad are on long contracts; therefore if it was about the length of contract...how comes he said no?...just a side thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCYrtJAuUSs (after 26 secs)
All well and good but he agreed to sign that contract a year earlier, and if you believe that he said that just to make his position untenable then I don't know how any united fan could defend him... at all.
I don't know what that was all about, but I tend to believe that the media picture of events should be taking with a pinch, no a skip full of salt.
I don't know what that was all about, but I tend to believe that the media picture of events should be taking with a pinch, no a skip full of salt.
Well (if) he wants to go we can give him what he wants, we can give the media/blatter/calderon/madrid what they want or we can give us what we want and call me selfish but I like fergie believe we shouldn't cut our nose off to spite our face.
The fact Sir Alex wants to keep him, should be end of story. Ronaldo will go one day and better to accept it now but he's going nowhere and who knows.
He is easily led but around the right people, it'll refocus him anyway
I agree with you, it's got to be a learning experience for the lad at the least. If/when he leaves at the end of next season you'd like to think that he would handle it a hell of a lot better with the touch of class that has sadly been lacking through this whole affair (from everyone bar United).
You could say that experiences like this can be the making of a man but I doubt it in Ronnies case... time will tell, maybe he'll surprise me.
Regardless of whether or not Bladder referred to Ronaldo as a slave, is he denying that he said that the player should be allowed to leave, which was in direct contradiction to what he said a few months ago about another player. The difference here, of course, being that a player wanted to move to the club at which Bladder is a member.
Of course, as with Ronaldo, I don't see why someone in the public eye would let the world think they're an ignorant racist for a week, let alone a month, without having his people send a simple press release clarifying.
Of course, as with Ronaldo, I don't see why someone in the public eye would let the world think they're an ignorant racist for a week, let alone a month, without having his people send a simple press release clarifying.
Post from Lonelyred in the newbies, it's staggering that he hasn't been promoted yet when you consider some of the utter muppets that have slipped through the cracks lately... sort it mods.
lonelyred said:Not exactly. When asked about the Ron situation, he gave a long answer that generally there was a lot of slavery in contemporary football, then moved on to Ron and said he should not be held at Utd if he was unhappy.
I saw two short interviews in Portuguese and read translated transcripts of both. He spoke mainly about the injury (it was 2 days after after the op), and was obviously annoyed with questions about the transfer, including those on Blatter. Both took place in the street, in front of the building he had just left. I don't want/need to defend him, and: yes, it could have been coordinated with Blatter and deliberately timed - but - my impression at the time was (and still is) that he didn't know what Blatter had exactly said, never listened carefully to the journalist, just said 'I agree with the president'. (Looked more like agreeing on his general view on the player v club issue.)
Supposed comments on other players (not) being enslaved at United came in the transcript of the third interview. I was looking for it for days, but couldn't find it!
Re Blatter - blinded by his disgraceful 'slavery' comment, everyone seems to have overlooked another shameful fact: that Fifa president actually took part (and sides!) in the ongoing transfer war between two clubs.
Sad newbie from far far away...
I pointed him out weeks ago but he hadn't posted anything in the newbies. I think he's Fergie.
I can't remember the exact quote but the way it was shown (cut) at the time had Bladder saying that footballers were "modern slaves". And asked if he thought that Ronaldo was a slave, he paused and then said "I think so, yes". Or words to that effect.
As far as Ronaldo goes, he was asked if he had heard Bladder's comments and if he agreed with them, he also paused and then sheepishly said "Yes" and when the interviewer asked him if he meant the slave comment he agreed.
That's how I remember seeing the incidents, I may be wrong in some details and it may have been heavily cut but the only inferences I got was that Septic had said Ronaldo was a slave and he then agreed with the comment.
As far as Ronaldo goes, he was asked if he had heard Bladder's comments and if he agreed with them, he also paused and then sheepishly said "Yes" and when the interviewer asked him if he meant the slave comment he agreed.
That's how I remember seeing the incidents, I may be wrong in some details and it may have been heavily cut but the only inferences I got was that Septic had said Ronaldo was a slave and he then agreed with the comment.
He must have about 10+ post by proxy in this thread alone, I've seen people promoted on less.
I would second that. Poor lad PM'd me months ago with some opinions on this saga. Beggars belief that he's still stuck in the newbs, when you look at some of the other nuggets who recently got the nod.
The exact translation is in this thread somewhere, but I'm pretty sure about it.
The word slave wasn't mentioned, but he said he agreed with blatter's comments. Then the interviewer asked if any player was treated like that before Ronaldo and he sad he's not aware of.
From the Express article said:
How the feck is that legally binding?
Where's Real's mandate?
This is gobbledygook.
Rubbish. Every player can start to write their own deal as and when he pleases.
Marca just get worse and worse
Why they still going on about him? Wasn't he meanted to have signed by the 7th July
Great journalism 
The ultimate crap newspaper award goes to:
'Kinell! I'm surprised this lot and their puppet masters at the Bernebeu havn't been put in straitjackets! a bigger pile of blubbering twats I've yet to see in the world of football. It's a bigger surprise that Calderon hasn't done himself in, yet.
Embarrassing, Cringeworthy... hilarious.
really outlandish claims but of course there's no evidence of Ronaldo being tapped up . They're demented.
. They're demented.Real has signed Van der Vaart, £7m.
that AS bollocks has been picked up by the Sun now
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/article1498661.ece
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/article1498661.ece
AS is laughable. They are a disgrace to the media. Never, ever trust what they write without confirmation from more reputable sources."Blatter now hopes that the ongoing transfer saga surrounding Ronaldo will reach a conclusion which satisfies both United and Real."
And how can Real be satisfied unless he moves?
So even as he denies the slave comments he supports Real's ambitions.
The man is a complete front bottom.
I can't understand why United haven't issued a statement calling for his resignation due ot lack of impartiality.
And how can Real be satisfied unless he moves?
So even as he denies the slave comments he supports Real's ambitions.
The man is a complete front bottom.
I can't understand why United haven't issued a statement calling for his resignation due ot lack of impartiality.
The issue with Beckham was he wasn't deemed unfit for Spanish football but his good performances were few and far between like Veron with United. He survived for four seasons at Madrid for the reason that he had the technical abilty, he was inconsistent but thats a different argument altogether. Remember they got rid of Owen with in a season once they figured out he wasn't good as hyped by the media.
As for Ronaldo I reckon he was in a great goal scoring spree for Portugal before he turned it at OT. Probably his superior club form has overshadowed his international form which used to the other way around before the World Cup.
In the later stages of the CL and also against Arsenal at home we switched off our flair and opted for a tight catennacio Ronaldo as a forward exactly did what was thrown before him, and inevitably its the defence and the central midfield that won the match for us. Normally United along with Arsenal, Barcelona or Milan, play the passing game with the onus more on ball retention and probing for openings more on the tactical side and if Ronaldo can deliver here I reckon he won't face big problems fitting in to a Spainish or an Italian side.
Also Boring, when LA Galaxy were touring down under Beckham picked up a knock and yet they played him for around 50 minutes. Their spokesman said if he plays for 50 minutes they can recoup the money. Nobody knows what kinda of operational research they were banking on or the dealings with sponsors and broadcasters, but these days the marketing brunt of a player isn’t impossible to predict. Real Madrid’s financial declarations might appear exaggerated but Beckham was beyond doubt their biggest cash machine.
Beckham at a club like LA in a rubbish league like MLS is totally different than Beckham at United or Real Madrid, money- and revenue wise.
Real's "financial declarations" are just daft.
...
Thank God I trust in Sir Alex to sort it
ps: I should have also said - Ronaldo cannot have been agreeing with length of contract and therefore could not have seen the video. The thing is that when they asked him if anyone else at United was treated this way, he said no BUT most of our squad are on long contracts; therefore if it was about the length of contract...how comes he said no?...just a side thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCYrtJAuUSs (after 26 secs)
I'll use this post to make a couple of points if I may:
1 Blatter - we hear clearly what he is saying - we do not know the questions that preceded the remarks (it also seems that there may have been an extra question prompting the second half of the first response.) Thus, for example, we don't actually know which footballers are being referred to as 'slaves'.
2 Ronaldo - Iirc Ronaldo was actually asked if he knew of any other previous examples of players being treated in a certain way - not whether Utd had done so. The problem though, is that the 'questions' were in fact translated voice-overs - as were the replies (as an English speaker). How accurately did they reflect the actual exchange as opposed to 'the meaning' that the reporters have decided underlay the remarks (with dubious validity)?
for a long time that season he had the best goal per minutes played ratio in the whole team. They got rid cause they couldnt play him, raul and ronaldo at the same time. and raul and ronaldo selled way more shirts so you knew who was going to leave. And Micheal didnt want the bench if he was fit to play.
Well, he started only 15 games for them and scored 18 times. Mind you he came as a substitution on 26 occassions.
This thread is insane, seriously.
Yes it is
Just a few notes on the, "Ronaldo has to pay Madrid 20m if he doesn't sign", story. I've been following this in the spanish press since it appeared as:
http://www.elconfidencial.com/cache...ano_ronaldo_pagara_millones_ficha_madrid.html
a couple of days ago.
As I don't know who El Confidencial are or what their track record's like, I ignored it as too garbled to be worth repeating. Had they taken a Madrid exec's comment about "it'll cost him big money if he doesn't come this summer" and run with it or did they actually have some evidence that Ron had not only signed a pre-contract, he'd signed a pre-contract with penalty clauses? I really couldn't tell.
Plus the article as a whole has something of a smell to it.
It includes the paragraph:
This is a document very similar to one that was signed by Luis Figo with Florentino Perez. The former Barcelona player, advised by his agent, Jorge Mendes, ensuring a significant amount of money as compensation to the risk of forcing his departure. That same approach is used by Ramon Calderon, who is also taking advantage of Ronaldo's representative Jorge Mendes, and who had handled the 'case Figo' in the manner most interesting to Madrid.
Now, I may be wrong about this, but I think:
Mendes is Figo's agent now, but he wasn't back then.
Madrid sprung a release fee clause in Figo's Barca contract so it effectively was a negotiation between Figo and Madrid.
The comments section makes interesting reading - basically their readers think it's bollocks because if Madrid attempted to enforce such a clause they'd be trying to enforce an illegal contract and even FIFA couldn't ignore it.
Some of the Spanish press have just ignored it. Others, like Marca, have taken it and tried to tidy it up, but don't identify any sources (indeed all El Confidencial itself gives as evidence is the fact that Calderon is still smiling).
I guess we'll find out one day, when Mendes publishes his biography maybe.
http://www.elconfidencial.com/cache...ano_ronaldo_pagara_millones_ficha_madrid.html
a couple of days ago.
As I don't know who El Confidencial are or what their track record's like, I ignored it as too garbled to be worth repeating. Had they taken a Madrid exec's comment about "it'll cost him big money if he doesn't come this summer" and run with it or did they actually have some evidence that Ron had not only signed a pre-contract, he'd signed a pre-contract with penalty clauses? I really couldn't tell.
Plus the article as a whole has something of a smell to it.
It includes the paragraph:
This is a document very similar to one that was signed by Luis Figo with Florentino Perez. The former Barcelona player, advised by his agent, Jorge Mendes, ensuring a significant amount of money as compensation to the risk of forcing his departure. That same approach is used by Ramon Calderon, who is also taking advantage of Ronaldo's representative Jorge Mendes, and who had handled the 'case Figo' in the manner most interesting to Madrid.
Now, I may be wrong about this, but I think:
Mendes is Figo's agent now, but he wasn't back then.
Madrid sprung a release fee clause in Figo's Barca contract so it effectively was a negotiation between Figo and Madrid.
The comments section makes interesting reading - basically their readers think it's bollocks because if Madrid attempted to enforce such a clause they'd be trying to enforce an illegal contract and even FIFA couldn't ignore it.
Some of the Spanish press have just ignored it. Others, like Marca, have taken it and tried to tidy it up, but don't identify any sources (indeed all El Confidencial itself gives as evidence is the fact that Calderon is still smiling).
I guess we'll find out one day, when Mendes publishes his biography maybe.
- Status