BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted February 7, 2009 More importantly it will cover the long-term commitments to players who are the primary recipients of the TV money, preventing the nightmare scenario of wages for the very best-paid players outstripping revenue. Even modest players will benefit from the deal however. The average wage in the top division is £1.1million and yesterday''s deal will ensure it remains above seven figures.(From the Telegraph on the new domestic TV rights arrangements) We''ll need smart heads, steady hands, deep pockets, cast iron stomachs - and proper benchmarking along with visionary leadership, I would imagine.Let''s not get caught out next time.OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted February 7, 2009 [quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]More importantly it will cover the long-term commitments to players who are the primary recipients of the TV money, preventing the nightmare scenario of wages for the very best-paid players outstripping revenue. Even modest players will benefit from the deal however. The average wage in the top division is £1.1million and yesterday''s deal will ensure it remains above seven figures.(From the Telegraph on the new domestic TV rights arrangements) We''ll need smart heads, steady hands, deep pockets, cast iron stomachs - and proper benchmarking along with visionary leadership, I would imagine.Let''s not get caught out next time.OTBC [/quote] You could have added it here;http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1573438/ShowPost.aspxas it''s quite relevant to that discussion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted February 7, 2009 [quote user="Delia S. Tickers"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"] More importantly it will cover the long-term commitments to players who are the primary recipients of the TV money, preventing the nightmare scenario of wages for the very best-paid players outstripping revenue. Even modest players will benefit from the deal however. The average wage in the top division is £1.1million and yesterday''s deal will ensure it remains above seven figures.(From the Telegraph on the new domestic TV rights arrangements) We''ll need smart heads, steady hands, deep pockets, cast iron stomachs - and proper benchmarking along with visionary leadership, I would imagine.Let''s not get caught out next time.OTBC[/quote]You could have added it here;http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1573438/ShowPost.aspxas it''s quite relevant to that discussion.[/quote]Could''ve, would''ve, should''ve...........My judgement, right or wrong.If you want to add it to that thread then be my guest Delia. But I know where my money is.OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted February 7, 2009 [quote user="Delia S. Tickers"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"] More importantly it will cover the long-term commitments to players who are the primary recipients of the TV money, preventing the nightmare scenario of wages for the very best-paid players outstripping revenue. Even modest players will benefit from the deal however. The average wage in the top division is £1.1million and yesterday''s deal will ensure it remains above seven figures.(From the Telegraph on the new domestic TV rights arrangements) We''ll need smart heads, steady hands, deep pockets, cast iron stomachs - and proper benchmarking along with visionary leadership, I would imagine.Let''s not get caught out next time.OTBC[/quote]You could have added it here;http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1573438/ShowPost.aspxas it''s quite relevant to that discussion.[/quote]Could''ve, would''ve, should''ve...........My judgement, right or wrong.If you want to add it to that thread then be my guest Delia. But I know where my money is.OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lappinitup 629 Posted February 7, 2009 [quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]Could''ve, would''ve, should''ve...........[/quote]I think that should be "could of, would of, should of" as you''re on the pink un Bly!Oh, and BTW, Please stop repeating yourself, there''s a good man! [;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Willmeister 35 Posted February 7, 2009 Actually he is correct. Should, Would and Could should always be followed by have and not of. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Evil Monkey 52 Posted February 7, 2009 [quote user="Willmeister"]Actually he is correct. Should, Would and Could should always be followed by have and not of.[/quote]In the English-speaking world, yes. Not in Norfolk, though.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted February 7, 2009 Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Poor old Lapp............Seems that he/she has the same malady as Smudger.[:-*]We''re really doomed now I tell ye, doomed, DOOMED!!!City couldn''t handle Brizzle, and he/she (who must be obeyed?) can''t handle grammar.It''s called the past conditional tense as I remember.But still, one love.OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harleston Canary 0 Posted February 7, 2009 [quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]Could''ve, would''ve, should''ve...........[/quote]I think that should be "could of, would of, should of" as you''re on the pink un Bly! Oh, and BTW, Please stop repeating yourself, there''s a good man! [;)][/quote]Er, sarcasm? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted February 7, 2009 [quote user="suffolk canary"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]Could''ve, would''ve, should''ve...........[/quote]I think that should be "could of, would of, should of" as you''re on the pink un Bly! Oh, and BTW, Please stop repeating yourself, there''s a good man! [;)][/quote]Er, sarcasm?[/quote][H]Er,......touche? Anyone, anyone, anyone..............?OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites