Champions League 2nd April 2013

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Barca are no angels, probably drug cheats..but that's another thing entirely. I'm just sick to death of all these £#%&!ing arab sponsored new money clubs throwing words like "project" around turning football into an even bigger farce than it currently is.

The Glazers are hardly seeing us go short in terms of transfer fees and wages, so i don't think we're in such a position to frown so harshly upon tbh.

PSG have only been a club since 1970 :shakehead:

Originally Posted by Part 36 Offer

what you on about you skidmark?

:boogahy:

Originally Posted by Jovetic

The Glazers are hardly seeing us go short in terms of transfer fees and wages, so i don't think we're in such a position to frown so harshly upon tbh.

Oh they're letting us spend the club's own money?! How kind of them to let us spend some of our record breaking profits on players!

We make our money, we spend it.

PSG, City, Chelsea - all run at massive losses and are subsided by sugar daddies.

You're talking out of your arse. Not even comparable.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Oh they're letting us spend the club's own money?! How kind of them to let us spend some of our record breaking profits on players!

We make our money, we spend it.

PSG, City, Chelsea - all run at massive losses and are subsided by sugar daddies.

You're talking out of your arse. Not even comparable.

i still sit here and laugh at this. we were in the £#%&!ing black. pissing it. making our money, investing it, winning and re-investing.

we got our arses pimped out and plunged in to debt....

city were in debt, bought, remained in debt but bank-rolled to the championship within a few years.

£#%&!ing bonkers.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Oh they're letting us spend the club's own money?! How kind of them to let us spend some of our record breaking profits on players!

We make our money, we spend it.

PSG, City, Chelsea - all run at massive losses and are subsided by sugar daddies.

You're talking out of your arse. Not even comparable.

I think you'll find it's "They make their money, they spend it".

Utd isn't a "we" anymore if you hadn't noticed, it's theirs.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

:boogahy:

£#%&!oh

Originally Posted by Jovetic

I think you'll find it's "They make their money, they spend it".

Utd isn't a "we" anymore if you hadn't noticed, it's theirs.

who £#%&!ing gives them "their" money?

you're having a nightmare, here.

Originally Posted by elhombre

who £#%&!ing gives them "their" money?

you're having a nightmare, here.

So everybody is in favour of the Glazers on here?

Originally Posted by elhombre

i still sit here and laugh at this. we were in the £#%&!ing black. pissing it. making our money, investing it, winning and re-investing.

we got our arses pimped out and plunged in to debt....

city were in debt, bought, remained in debt but bank-rolled to the championship within a few years.

£#%&!ing bonkers.

in 2012 City posted losses of £97.9m that's with them winning the league.

Chelsea racked up losses of more than £630m in the previous EIGHT years before finally posting a profit after winning the champions league of about £20m.

Originally Posted by Jovetic

So everybody is in favour of the Glazers on here?

throw yourself in the ship canal.

Originally Posted by Jovetic

So everybody is in favour of the Glazers on here?

Lad on here called 'throb' it's actually one of the sons....

Originally Posted by elhombre

throw yourself in the ship canal.

Good reply.

Originally Posted by Jovetic

Good reply.

cheers.

Originally Posted by elhombre

who £#%&!ing gives them "their" money?

you're having a nightmare, here.

Well the banks gave them most of their money which they then used as leverage to buy the club.

Every penny they've ever authorised to be spent on players or anything has come directly from money the business (the club) has generated through ticket sales, sponsors and prize money.

Had United not been saddled with such ridiculous debts then we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more being invested back into the team rather than being channeled into share schemes and all manner of ridiculous debt managing exercises.

So no, we shouldn't be "grateful" for anything the glazers decide to do as regards to player tranfers and we certainly should not be comparing the situation to what is happening at City, Chelsea or £#%&!ing PSG.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Well the banks gave them most of their money which they then used as leverage to buy the club.

Every penny they've ever authorised to be spent on players or anything has come directly from money the business (the club) has generated through ticket sales, sponsors and prize money.

Had United not been saddled with such ridiculous debts then we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more being invested back into the team rather than being channeled into share schemes and all manner of ridiculous debt managing exercises.

So no, we shouldn't be "grateful" for anything the glazers decide to do as regards to player tranfers and we certainly should not be comparing the situation to what is happening at City, Chelsea or £#%&!ing PSG.

Firstly, as the owners of the club the Glazers would be well within their rights to keep all the cash to themselves and i for 1 am very grateful they choose not do so.

And...

Club Owned by Foreign Party - tick

Club has heavy investment in transfers and wages - tick

Club is owned by a party who expects long term growth and income - tick

Seem to adhere to their policies pretty much for me, not exactly the same no but the criteria are there and are met.

Will you still be rolling out the same excuse in 10 years if City/Chelsea/PSG are bankrolling their latest champions league winning teams with actual income?

Originally Posted by Jovetic

Firstly, as the owners of the club the Glazers would be well withing their rights to keep all the cash to themselves and i for 1 am very grateful they choose not do so.

And...

Club Owned by Foreign Party - tick

Club has heavy investment in transfers and wages - tick

Club is owned by a party who expects long term growth and income - tick

Seem to adhere to their policies pretty much for me, not exactly the same no but the criteria are there and are met.

Will you still be rolling out the same excuse in 10 years if City/Chelsea/PSG are bankrolling their latest champions league winning teams with actual income?

Firstly if they decided to "keep all the cash for themselves" as you so bluntly put it - the club would £#%&!ing wither and die. No investment = no trophies, no champions league football, no sponsorship, less money coming in to cover the debt repayments... So they'd be killing their own cash cow. They HAVE to invest in the team in order to keep the top dollar rolling in. As it is they invest MINIMALLY to how much could be being invested. They are frugal. Our turnover over the last 5 years have been astronomical and in terms of transfers the outlay is a drop in the ocean.

You seem to list a few general similarities without touching on the most important part of all:

United had to become successful to get rich
the others had to get rich to become successful.

big difference.

Anyway, i'm far too tired to continue this debate so i'll wait for the more intelligent forumistas to wake up and dismantle your ludicrous argument better than I.

Jovetic, you have the stench of a pre-derby bertie troll written all over you - and not just because you've named yourself after a fiorentina striker who was heavily linked with City in the tabloids about 2 days ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...fan-Savic.html

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Firstly if they decided to "keep all the cash for themselves" as you so bluntly put it - the club would £#%&!ing wither and die. No investment = no trophies, no champions league football, no sponsorship, less money coming in to cover the debt repayments... So they'd be killing their own cash cow. They HAVE to invest in the team in order to keep the top dollar rolling in. As it is they invest MINIMALLY to how much could be being invested. They are frugal. Our turnover over the last 5 years have been astronomical and in terms of transfers the outlay is a drop in the ocean.

You seem to list a few general similarities without touching on the most important part of all:

United had to become successful to get rich
the others had to get rich to become successful.

big difference.

In reply to the first part of your post, Utd are now one of the most marketable brands in world sport. Not wholly, but quite a lot of this due to the Glazers IMO.

Also, the sale of Ronaldo for such a ridiculous fee pardons a lot of the spending under their ownership so it's actually seen as frugal rather than fairly hefty.

I don't get the last point you're making tbh. Yes, there is a big difference when the ownership of the clubs changed and the financial position they were in. Will that be the case in 10/20 years though as i stated?

Originally Posted by Jovetic

In reply to the first part of your post, Utd are now one of the most marketable brands in world sport. Not wholly, but quite a lot of this due to the Glazers IMO.

Also, the sale of Ronaldo for such a ridiculous fee pardons a lot of the spending under their ownership so it's actually seen as frugal rather than fairly hefty.

I don't get the last point you're making tbh. Yes, there is a big difference when the ownership of the clubs changed and the financial position they were in. Will that be the case in 10/20 years though as i stated?

£#%&! off you bertie @#%&!. Rumbled.