Fergie's Mail Interview

Originally Posted by reem

But what economic reality are our finances grounded in?

Our financial situation is proportional to the likes of City in the category marked '£#%&!ed up smokey'.

Difference being that theirs allows them to cherry pick the best players and we have to concentrate on young, under the radar talent like Bebe.

And when these players mature, when we see their 'value', what's stopping them from doing a Rooney and demanding wages commensurate to equivalent talent over the road at Eastlands?

Pogba didn't even wait to mature!

Things keep going the way they are, it's conceivable that United become a 'shop window' club for agents to parade their stock.

uncle malc likes this

I think deep down everyone knows that what Ferguson has said in this article, as far as I've read it anyway, is the way it is. He is responsible for the club's transfer targets and he plays the biggest part in deciding - in financial terms - how important they are to him. There is a wage structure too, although this is currently a bit hazy. I don't think many of the United squad are short of a few quid though.

Ferguson may have had his eye on a few players who he could've got for a few more million in wages here and there. But whatever you think of the quality of the current squad, you cannot deny that every player in it, other than Bebe I suppose, is a player that Ferguson wanted to sign. And he hasn't exactly scrimped on them either, they have nearly all been subject to what we used to call United tax - it's just that United tax these days has pretty much become intertwined with Sky tax/oil money tax/dodgy rouble trading tax.

People get confused - deliberately confused in some cases I'm sure they'd privately admit (I know some of them do!!) - about the link between the debt situation and wedge available for transfers, versus the players that Ferguson wants to work with and who fit into his system. In my opinion.

The crux of this debate is not the debt for me, it's that Ferguson could spend less money than he has on certain players and get better players for that cash. However, at 70 years old and with a thousand trophies won, he is pretty set in his ways in terms of the type of player he needs for his system and the type of mentality he wants to work with.

Originally Posted by borsuk

the revenue is so much higher because of the glazers and their rampant commercialism (which is another negative of their ownership imo, not a positive as it's usually presented). if you're going back to pre-glazer debt levels you go back to pre-glazer revenue, otherwise you're trying to have your cake and eat it.

the debt affects us badly, no question. but don't fool yourself that we could compete financially with abu dhabi without it, we couldn't. nor can bayern, real, barca or anybody else. what we could do is strengthen our squad more effectively and compete with the other clubs above, whose finances are grounded in some sort of economic reality.

there is absolutely nothing the glazers have done that couldn't have been done without the debt and without the glazers. nothing. and if the club were still available at a decent price, we'd probably be owned by the qataris now anyway.

fergie has always been a self-interested kiss-ass to the glazers. he could probably have stopped the takeover with a single sentence.

north field > north stand. :0)

Originally Posted by jem

there is absolutely nothing the glazers have done that couldn't have been done without the debt and without the glazers. nothing. and if the club were still available at a decent price, we'd probably be owned by the qataris now anyway.

fergie has always been a self-interested kiss-ass to the glazers. he could probably have stopped the takeover with a single sentence.

north field > north stand. :0)

Yeah but what about Veron

[IMG]http://www.**********.biz/fred_t/comical_ferie.jpg[/IMG]

Originally Posted by redhegemony

Yeah but what about Veron

top player.

Originally Posted by Pop

[IMG]http://www.**********.biz/fred_t/comical_ferie.jpg[/IMG]

Originally Posted by Pop

[IMG]http://www.**********.biz/fred_t/comical_ferie.jpg[/IMG]

al saf. very nice.

All the talk of debt, transfers, competing with city and so on doesn't really address why sir mother£#%&!er sees fit to make snide comments about 'real fans'. I just don't see the need. If he said 'it's a difficult situation, I'd rather we didn't have the debt and I sympathise but this is how things are', I'd have more respect. Instead he's repeatedly made his absolute disdain for people like us pretty clear.

Originally Posted by jem

al saf. very nice.

Al Ser Ferie Mother£#%&!er.

Originally Posted by Zorg

All the talk of debt, transfers, competing with city and so on doesn't really address why sir mother£#%&!er sees fit to make snide comments about 'real fans'. I just don't see the need. If he said 'it's a difficult situation, I'd rather we didn't have the debt and I sympathise but this is how things are', I'd have more respect. Instead he's repeatedly made his absolute disdain for people like us pretty clear.

yeah, but the fans don't pay his wages.

er..... hang on.

Originally Posted by borsuk

that's some £#%&!ing chip on your shoulder you've got there :£#%&!er:

yes, other owners could have increased revenue. so £#%&!ing what? they didn't, and neither have the owners of the dippers, chelsea, arsenal etc to anything like the degree the glazers have. you're inventing an entirely fictitious situation for the sake of your argument, "let's say the debt is gone, and the glazers were never here, except this bit of what they've done because i like that bit, now look at where we'd be". utterly pointless, and you say I'm arguing for the sake of it ffs.

the glazers are @#%&!s and their debt is a millstone round the club's neck. the increase in revenue you seem to approve of is the result of rampant commercialism including endless £#%&!ing tours, the shameless whoring of the name of united, and relentless price hikes. it's nothing good, just further transformation of the football club into a brand that can generate ever-greater profits for the parasites sitting on top of it, all the while taking the club further and further from its roots and its traditional supporters.

Where to £#%&!ing start.

yes, other owners could have increased revenue. so £#%&!ing what?

So £#%&!ing what?

Your whole point was we couldn't have had increased revenue without the Glazers, we couldn't have our cake and eat it.

Why compare us to what other clubs do to justify the Glazers results? It's of no relevence. Arsenal have doubled turnover form 2005, United about 125%.

That extra 25%? The Glazers or Ferguson getting us to 3 European Cup finals that are worth £40 million a year? I can give of tangible increases in revenue that have no relevence on who the owners are. Probably the three biggest. TV revenue, ticket prices and Ferguson.

Enlighten me. Please tell me what the Glazers did for our revenue that nobody else could have done?

you're inventing an entirely fictitious situation for the sake of your argument, "let's say the debt is gone, and the glazers were never here, except this bit of what they've done because i like that bit, now look at where we'd be". utterly pointless, and you say I'm arguing for the sake of it ffs

Seriously? Honestly, seriously?

Of course I am inventing an entirely fictitious situation, that's what any other situation would be wouldn't it? We've only got one actual situation, anything else is just a case of what might be or what could it be?

Are you telling me by considering the alternative I am arguing for the sake of it?

This started by you saying that we couldn't compete with City or Chelsea, I'm saying we could, that is all. I'm equating the amount spent on debt with the amount spent by City. Maybe I am just doing that for the sake of it though.

the increase in revenue you seem to approve of is

Not entirely

including endless £#%&!ing tours

Fine with those

the shameless whoring of the name of united

Always happened. Expected the Glazers to be worse tbh. Renaming Old Trafford etc. May still come yet though

and relentless price hikes

Yes, I agree with those. That's why I do the only thing possible to show I don't.

Are you just arguing for the sake of it here?

it's nothing good, just further transformation of the football club into a brand that can generate ever-greater profits for the parasites sitting on top of it, all the while taking the club further and further from its roots and its traditional supporters

I wonder if there could ever be an alternative? Or would that just be creating an entirely fictitious situation just for the sake of it?

The worm of bullshit.

Funny, I seem to remember his response to a direct question about the debt the other week was 'I'm not getting into that'.

And I love the fact that he cites Abramovich as an example of an owner that stays in the background, not interfering.

Originally Posted by Withers

Your whole point was we couldn't have had increased revenue without the Glazers, we couldn't have our cake and eat it.

no it wasn't ffs

my point is not that others couldn't have increased revenue, it's that cherry-picking bits of how the club has been run and not other bits to try and say where we could have been is a waste of £#%&!ing time. if you start going into 'imagine if this had happened but not that, and part of this but not the other bit' then what's the point? imagine if i'd inherited £2bn from an investment I didn't know I had and bought the club so I could hand it over to the fans, great innit.

there's no £#%&!ing praise for the glazers in my post. in fact, the thing the likes of andersred praises them for, the thing they're seen as having success in, is something I've criticised them for from the beginning. seems on here at times that transfers are the be all and end all, but it seems to me there's far more pernicious parts of the glazers' ownership than that which get a pass, or even get praised.

Withers has absolutely done Borsers there tbf. Brutal.

Look at what they are spending on the training ground.

Originally Posted by borsuk

imagine if i'd inherited £2bn from an investment I didn't know I had and bought the club so I could hand it over to the fans, great innit.

you selfish, selfish bastard.

so what did you do with the money, then?

and on competing with the likes of city, they have a bottomless pit of money to spend, we don't. you say you compare what we've spent on debt to what they've spent on transfers as if we'd ever spend that. you think the pre-glazers Plc would sanction that kind of spending? or are you imagining a private owner that we don't have as well? it's just pie in the sky stuff.

Originally Posted by Zorg

Funny, I seem to remember his response to a direct question about the debt the other week was 'I'm not getting into that'.

And I love the fact that he cites Abramovich as an example of an owner that stays in the background, not interfering.

It's like he's on one huge wum, expect him to state in his book Alex ferguson wasn't even his real name, it was a username...