Ronaldo money is going to pay off the debt according to United bankers

Originally Posted by Pudge_Bear

But the only evidence we have to support that statement is that we haven't spent any (apparently). Fergie say's there is money for players if he needs it, Gill says there is money for players, we spend £35 million on players (Obertan, Valencia, Diouf, Smalling)...and yet apparently that £80 million isn't available for players.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-Glazer as anybody, but a protest will lose some credibility if facts are ignored. This notion that we haven't got any money to spend on players and this £80 million went exclusively on interest payments is incorrect.

You sure about that?

Either way, that's money that SHOULD have been available regardless of the ronaldo transfer considering the 2 champions league finals, world club cup, carling cup, 2 premier league titles in the last 2 years..etc.

diouf and obertan were bought for peanuts practically, I'd be surprised if their combined transfers were over £5m.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

You sure about that?

Either way, that's money that SHOULD have been available regardless of the ronaldo transfer considering the 2 champions league finals, world club cup, carling cup, 2 premier league titles in the last 2 years..etc.

diouf and obertan were bought for peanuts practically, I'd be surprised if their combined transfers were over £5m.

Valencia £17 million
Smalling £10 million
Diouf £3 million
Obertan £3 million.

£33 million worth of transfer fees there I would have thought.

Originally Posted by Pudge_Bear

But there was no value in paying £60 million for Ribery, £50 million for Aguero etc. City and Real distorted the market and we were right not to go anywhere near it in my opinion.

We bought 4 players for £35 million.

It's all relative...players are worth what you are WILLING to pay for them, simple as. Nothing has changed.

Why should we not throw our weight around financially in the transfer market? If we can't now at this most successful of eras, when can we?

What exactly are people paying their extortionate season ticket prices for? For Obertan to fall over his own feet? For diouf to head the ball like stephen hawking on bungee rope? For Gill to sit there with his shit-eating grin, creaming off the top and telling all us proles bareface lies?

I'd rather we spent £40m on ONE Villa than 10 dioufs and obertans.

Originally Posted by Pudge_Bear

But the only evidence we have to support that statement is that we haven't spent any (apparently). Fergie say's there is money for players if he needs it, Gill says there is money for players, we spend £35 million on players (Obertan, Valencia, Diouf, Smalling)...and yet apparently that £80 million isn't available for players.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-Glazer as anybody, but a protest will lose some credibility if facts are ignored. This notion that we haven't got any money to spend on players and this £80 million went exclusively on interest payments is incorrect.

I think you'll find that every time Ferguson talkes about the Glazers & transfers he says that when he's asked for money they have always provided it (which I think is a load of crap) but that infers that the Glazers have the final say in what is spent & on who.
That is in complete conflict what Gill said about £100m being available for Ferguson to spend on players.

Ferguson can't sign anyone without the Glazers aproval, he doesn't have the fabled transfer kitty never mind £100m.

there are difference's. all our signings we have made under glazers are paid in installments and more importantly structured on player performances.

unique thing about ronaldo deal, was that money was paid completely upfront.

smalling signing was made in january. for me it looks more like a signing which we were pushed into because arsenal were close to sign him.

we should have got 33m anyways with our league win, champions league exploits, continous ticket rises.

And anyway why you can't see such a basic point :

Gill : "We have Ronaldo selling money for spending on new players"

Document in the OP : "Ronaldo selling money will be used to pay debts"

if you want to argue at all, it should be about the validity of second document, not about the actual statement. any tom dick and harry should see the huge disparity and lie in gill's statement.

Originally Posted by LaPaz

I think you'll find that every time Ferguson talkes about the Glazers & transfers he says that when he's asked for money they have always provided it (which I think is a load of crap) but that infers that the Glazers have the final say in what is spent & on who.
That is in complete conflict what Gill said about £100m being available for Ferguson to spend on players.

Ferguson can't sign anyone without the Glazers aproval, he doesn't have the fabled transfer kitty never mind £100m.

Originally Posted by rafabio

there are difference's. all our signings we have made under glazers are paid in installments and more importantly structured on player performances.

unique thing about ronaldo deal, was that money was paid completely upfront.

smalling signing was made in january. for me it looks more like a signing which we were pushed into because arsenal were close to sign him.

we should have got 33m anyways with our league win, champions league exploits, continous ticket rises.

And anyway why you can't see such a basic point :

Gill : "We have Ronaldo selling money for spending on new players"

Document in the OP : "Ronaldo selling money will be used to pay debts"

if you want to argue at all, it should be about the validity of second document, not about the actual statement. any tom dick and harry should see the huge disparity and lie in gill's statement.

Good posts.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

It's all relative...players are worth what you are WILLING to pay for them, simple as. Nothing has changed.

Why should we not throw our weight around financially in the transfer market? If we can't now at this most successful of eras, when can we?

What exactly are people paying their extortionate season ticket prices for? For Obertan to fall over his own feet? For diouf to head the ball like stephen hawking on bungee rope? For Gill to sit there with his shit-eating grin, creaming off the top and telling all us proles bareface lies?

I'd rather we spent £40m on ONE Villa than 10 dioufs and obertans.

that's not a value signing mate. just look at michael owen

Originally Posted by LaPaz

I think you'll find that every time Ferguson talkes about the Glazers & transfers he says that when he's asked for money they have always provided it (which I think is a load of crap) but that infers that the Glazers have the final say in what is spent & on who.
That is in complete conflict what Gill said about £100m being available for Ferguson to spend on players.

Ferguson can't sign anyone without the Glazers aproval, he doesn't have the fabled transfer kitty never mind £100m.

I don't neccessarily think it is tbh. In fairness, I don't think anyone would expect £100 million to be spent on players. It has never happened and nor did we need it to. It's just the standard 'we didn't sign anyone because we are skint' nonsense that the majority of the forum come out with, on the basis we didn't go and spend £50 million on a player. We DID buy players, one a direct replacement for the one we sold. To just dismiss everything you are told on this topic as a lie (when there is evidence that suggests they are not in fact lying being completely ignored)...I just don't understand it. Forgetting the numbers, I don't see any real shift in our transfer policy since the Glazer's arrived...certainly not in terms of the fees paid for players and the type of players we bring in. Its been fairly consistent for the past decade really. When/if we get to the stage when the team needs major investment and it doesn't come...then this would be a valid stick to beat the Glazers with. As it currently stands I don't think it is.

we are skint! How the £#%&! can you argue that basic fact? Or may be the terminology is little confusing for you.

You take a 500000 pound loan for your house. You are not able to pay off the loan and barely able to service the interest.

Now every year you spend another 100000 pound on expensive items for your house by taking further loans!

You may happen to think, you are living an extravagant life. I just happen to think you are £#%&!ing skint and will soon sink into abyss.

Originally Posted by Pudge_Bear

I don't neccessarily think it is tbh. In fairness, I don't think anyone would expect £100 million to be spent on players. It has never happened and nor did we need it to. It's just the standard 'we didn't sign anyone because we are skint' nonsense that the majority of the forum come out with, on the basis we didn't go and spend £50 million on a player. We DID buy players, one a direct replacement for the one we sold. To just dismiss everything you are told on this topic as a lie (when there is evidence that suggests they are not in fact lying being completely ignored)...I just don't understand it. Forgetting the numbers, I don't see any real shift in our transfer policy since the Glazer's arrived...certainly not in terms of the fees paid for players and the type of players we bring in. Its been fairly consistent for the past decade really. When/if we get to the stage when the team needs major investment and it doesn't come...then this would be a valid stick to beat the Glazers with. As it currently stands I don't think it is.

£#%&!ing hell.

Originally Posted by Sullingtons

£#%&!ing hell.

What? You just realised we spent £17 million on a new right winger and you'd forgotten?

The fee paid for Ronaldo was a world record so of course we haven't been in a position before to spend 50M on a single player.

The point being made at the beginning of this thread is not whether we should spend the money but the fact that we cannot because it has been used to alleviate the financial situation brought about by someone buying the club without having the money to do it. If you still believe that the Ronaldo money is available for transfers/wages/reducing ticket prices you are, frankly, a moron.

Originally Posted by Pudge_Bear

What? You just realised we spent £17 million on a new right winger and you'd forgotten?

No. You'll find a balance from previous transfers (pre-Glazer) meant there were funds available.

You just seem to have completely ignored the recent events and the feeling that 99% of people have (not just on forums, in the financial community too) that the club is being leeched.

It wasn't even about the transfers until you and throb waded in. It was about the Ronaldo fee being used to service debt. That's all.

If all you care about is 'transfers' and 'value', couldn't you just play on champ manager for a bit?

Originally Posted by Pudge_Bear

I don't neccessarily think it is tbh. In fairness, I don't think anyone would expect £100 million to be spent on players. It has never happened and nor did we need it to. It's just the standard 'we didn't sign anyone because we are skint' nonsense that the majority of the forum come out with, on the basis we didn't go and spend £50 million on a player. We DID buy players, one a direct replacement for the one we sold. To just dismiss everything you are told on this topic as a lie (when there is evidence that suggests they are not in fact lying being completely ignored)...I just don't understand it. Forgetting the numbers, I don't see any real shift in our transfer policy since the Glazer's arrived...certainly not in terms of the fees paid for players and the type of players we bring in. Its been fairly consistent for the past decade really. When/if we get to the stage when the team needs major investment and it doesn't come...then this would be a valid stick to beat the Glazers with. As it currently stands I don't think it is.

so what's your job title at united then :shakhead:

Originally Posted by bigMikeA

so what's your job title at united then :shakhead:

looking at his insistence on giving excuses, always trying to bring transfers and value into equation, I wouldn't be surprised if the job title is 'CEO'

Originally Posted by bigMikeA

so what's your job title at united then :shakhead:

All I'm trying to say is:

1. We have signed some players since we sold Ronaldo, some people seem to ignore this.

2. We have never gone out and purchased recognised world class players established as such (perhaps Veron the exception). Nobody should have expected that to happen last summer, regardless of the fee we got for Ronaldo.

Finally

3. I absolutely despise the Glazers and everything they are doing to our football club.

Originally Posted by Sullingtons

No. You'll find a balance from previous transfers (pre-Glazer) meant there were funds available.

You just seem to have completely ignored the recent events and the feeling that 99% of people have (not just on forums, in the financial community too) that the club is being leeched.

It wasn't even about the transfers until you and throb waded in. It was about the Ronaldo fee being used to service debt. That's all.

If all you care about is 'transfers' and 'value', couldn't you just play on champ manager for a bit?

Completely incorrect.