Glazers refinance the debt - again

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

I didn't do a list that proves you wrong, but you're doing it yourself anyway

Scholes and Giggs saw off most pretenders to their throne and eventually this meant that United had no instant replacement for either of them. Iniesta hasn't actually finished yet and has seen off Fabregas. Last season Barcelona had no genuine replacement for the badly waning Xavi last season, and although they won domestically (just as we did in 2013) they were utterly humiliated in the CL. This season they appear to have got back on track with Rakitic doing pretty well, but generally their recovery is built around the introduction of Suarez to their forward line. Do feel free to bring up United signing Obertan and Owen 6 years ago though

beaten by the best team in europe that season while missing (or injured) messi as opposed to being bitch slapped by the likes of basel, benfica, althetic bilbao, ajax etc

It doesn't even come close.

United were deteriorating because of the lack of trying by fergie who was just happy to plod on with as much less as possible only to be awakened by the humiliation to city.

'There are no midfielders out there who can improve us apart from the ones at barcelona' quotes being peddled out while the likes of Vidal, Toure were moving.

the reason the finance was structured so that there were layers of risk, with the piks being high-risk and high-price? you can't be this stupid.

it was a general observation. I certainly don't need any lessons in stupidity from people who defend the arrogance of the finance industry that bankrolled them tbh.

Originally Posted by angrydimaria

beaten by the best team in europe that season while missing (or injured) messi as opposed to being b***h slapped by the likes of basel, benfica, althetic bilbao, ajax etc

It doesn't even come close.

United were deteriorating because of the lack of trying by fergie who was just happy to plod on with as much less as possible only to be awakened by the humiliation to city.

'There are no midfielders out there who can improve us apart from the ones at barcelona' quotes being peddled out while the likes of Vidal, Toure were moving.

good contrast to some posters. at least you're thinking for yourself and acknowledging it wasn't all down to the ownership model.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

it was a general observation. I certainly don't need any lessons in stupidity from people who defend the arrogance of the finance industry that bankrolled them tbh.



good contrast to some posters. at least you're thinking for yourself and acknowledging it wasn't all down to the ownership model.

As opposed to pretending you know or guessing, or both.

Rafabio hasn't got the thinking facility btw.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

it was a general observation.

no, it was a stupid question.

What it comes down to is that many of us hated the fact that United had become a money-making machine seemingly above all else during the 90s, only to discover from 2005 onwards that the club had been scratching the surface up until that point.

Slagging off the club week in week out up to that point seems ridiculous now, given that we could all easily see what might happen. I'm not surprised thousands walked away in 05 - the only surprises were that it wasn't more, and that it hadn't happened earlier.

The idea of being delighted that United are now throwing whatever money it takes at anything that moves, especially against a backdrop of working people being marginalised ever more by ideological austerity in the real world, shows how far away from its traditional core support the club has moved.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

lovely work there from that Throb fella - can't understand anyone being bitter about United signing a tramp tbh

Was great bantz nqat.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

Slagging off the club week in week out up to that point seems ridiculous now, given that we could all easily see what might happen. I'm not surprised thousands walked away in 05 - the only surprises were that it wasn't more, and that it hadn't happened earlier.

so the choice is accept it or walk away?

Originally Posted by jem

so the choice is accept it or walk away?

What about the fight from within .

Originally Posted by jem

so the choice is accept it or walk away?

if you want to put it like that, then such is life.

a bloke got arrested in london for 'standing near the queen's speech parade holding some cardboard with an anti-austerity message on it'

he wasn't even holding it up for people to see.

apparently it was a breach of the peace.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

What it comes down to is that many of us hated the fact that United had become a money-making machine seemingly above all else during the 90s, only to discover from 2005 onwards that the club had been scratching the surface up until that point.

Slagging off the club week in week out up to that point seems ridiculous now, given that we could all easily see what might happen. I'm not surprised thousands walked away in 05 - the only surprises were that it wasn't more, and that it hadn't happened earlier.

The idea of being delighted that United are now throwing whatever money it takes at anything that moves, especially against a backdrop of working people being marginalised ever more by ideological austerity in the real world, shows how far away from its traditional core support the club has moved.

Are you a Communist ?

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

if you want to put it like that, then such is life.

a bloke got arrested in london for 'standing near the queen's speech parade holding some cardboard with an anti-austerity message on it'

he wasn't even holding it up for people to see.

apparently it was a breach of the peace.

no scope to renegotiate before an in/out referendum?

Originally Posted by utd99

I suppose it's an unpopular view, but Ferguson was right when he said the time to protest with any hope of success was when the club first went public....

A popular tactic of rich @#%&!s who want to deflect attention from the behaviour of those making the decisions and benefitting from the outcome by blaming it on the behaviour of those who suffer the results.

Big business, government and their propaganda machine do it relentlessly. I suppose it's fitting fergie is in such company.

How much have united spent on interest repayments in the last 10 years? £500m How can anyone justify that lispy?

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

i doubt that's quite how he saw it, and still believe he was probably keeping his powder dry because he couldn't get the player(s) he wanted.

He was keeping his powder dry because the glazers wanted the money in the bank for the bond issue or whatever it was coming up at the time. Why else do you think they demanded all the Ronaldo fee be paid up front, which was unusual for transfers. It obviously wasn't so fergie could spend it.

people forget that ferguson's transfer dealings were always pretty consistent. even the signing of ronaldo was for 50% less than the player he was replacing, for example. the notion that signing obertan, owen and whoever else it was was due to constraints is fanciful if you consider his previous record, like signing silvestre off the back of the treble

That was down to the plc, which tried to spend as little as possible after success. Fergie's always operated under constraints, as every manager has. Usually those constraints were related to club income rather than debt servicing. The difference is ferguson used to fight Edwards and the plc tooth and nail to spend more to benefit the team, whether it be transfer fees or wage structure, so he could compete for the top European stars like Ronaldo or batistuta. But united couldn't compete for such players at the time because other European clubs were richer.

When the club were finally able to generate the income to compete financially with any club in Europe for the first time in its history, around the time Kenyon/gill took over, ferguson took advantage to spend big every successive summer - Rooney, Ferdinand, van nistlerooy, veron. When the glazers took over, his view changed. He stopped fighting for more and started talking about no value, because he knew there was nothing to fight for because it had to go to debt at the expense of transfer and wage budgets. And if you believe rumours from the time, he was also on a bonus related to meeting transfer net spending targets.

i have no truck at all with anyone who wants to argue that we should be competing on the transfer stage with the oil money. the fact we threw £60m at Di Maria last summer is a crying shame for traditionalists, and talk now of throwing confetti money at the likes of Bale and Pogba is deeply concerning. the jump to £37m for mata was ok, but to then jump from there to £60m? wow, wtf? still, just cus I want united to find success on a relative shoestring and somehow reverse the current trend in football doesn't mean it'll ever happen. especially now the club has given up and thinks it's all about money - ironically perhaps now sharing the same obsession as some of its biggest critics over the last 10 years

It's always been about money. As a proportion of profit, 60 million on di Maria is almost the equivalent of 3 million on Keane back in 93. Or indeed Ferdinand, Rooney etc in 2003/2004. As a proportion of club profit/income it's about the level united spent on their big signings. The 60 million seems huge because it's been so long since the club spent at that level in proportion to its income, illustrating the change in transfer policy after the glazers took over.

Doing it on a shoestring would be fine, if they decided to reflect that in the prices they charge. As it is, the united way should be home grown players mixed with the most expensive signings the club can afford in relation to its income, as it's always been.

Originally Posted by Child of Darkness

The nature of the glaziers

Think

Possibly :shakehead:

Originally Posted by Jammy Dodger

He was keeping his powder dry because the glazers wanted the money in the bank for the bond issue or whatever it was coming up at the time. Why else do you think they demanded all the Ronaldo fee be paid up front, which was unusual for transfers. It obviously wasn't so fergie could spend it.



That was down to the plc, which tried to spend as little as possible after success. Fergie's always operated under constraints, as every manager has. Usually those constraints were related to club income. The difference is ferguson used to fight Edwards and the plc tooth and nail to spend more to benefit the team. And when Kenyon/gill took over and loosened the purse strings, ferguson took advantage to spend big every successive summer - Rooney, Ferdinand, van nistlerooy, veron. When the glazers took over, his view changed. He stopped fighting for more and started talking about no value.




It's always been about money. As a proportion of profit, 60 million on di Maria is almost the equivalent of 3 million on Keane back in 93.

Doing it on a shoestring would be fine, if they decided to reflect that in the prices they charge. As it is, the united way should be home grown players mixed with the most expensive signings the club can afford in relation to its income, as it's always been.

There's a reason Fergie squeezed every last drop out of the 'class of 92'. It's because we haven't produced a player of anywhere near that quality since and once they retired we'd have to spend big to get similar quality in.

The fact remains that if we'd have bought 1-2 top class players each summer over the last 6 years then we wouldn't have this crazy turnover of players that's currently going on right now and we wouldn't have to spend such vast quantities of cash.

I have no sympathy for the club in that respect. The club did it on the £#%&!ing cheap for far too long. They knew the teams they were trying to compete with over the long term and they thought they could invest the minimum and continue to reap maximum rewards. To think Fargson sat infront of a camera with a £#%&!ing straight face and talked about 'closing the gap' on Barcelona, a team who will probably win their 4th European Cup in 9 years next Saturday. Meanwhile we're scraping into 4th position in the league; it isn't so much a gap as it is a £#%&!ing grand canyon sized chasm.

Too much spent on shit players and not enough spent on genuine quality and that's what it gets you. 2 trophies in the last 5 years. Compare that to City's 4 trophies and Chelsea's 5 trophies. I won't even tell you about barca.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

say that again in 2017 when the piks bring United down, pal


tbf I get why people still insist it was a risk that could have backfired, but I don't get why they insist that it was a spin of a roulette wheel - the odds were always hugely stacked in favour of a positive outcome (in financial terms) because of tv and tv exposure

The only thing that lowered the gamble to odds low enough to get their funding over the line was the managership of a manager in his 60s.

If something would have happened to fergie in the first year of their ownership, how would the odds of servicing the debt and being successful on the pitch have looked then?

Given their knowledge and expertise, they've still been extremely fortunate for things to have worked out as they have. Certainly one of their very best outcomes from the sample of all possibilities in calculating the risk and probability of success at the time of the takeover. Difficult to imagine how numerous random things outside of their control could have gone any better during their ownership.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

I can and I have.

Scholes saw off many of his would-be successors

Because the would be replacements were shit, rather than the standard of a young or peak scholes. Other than pogba, obviously, but the club wouldn't even meet the market wage demands for a player his age and quality. 20k a week to one outstanding young player, or 5k a week to 3 average ones.

Unless you think that was ferguson's judgement call, rather than a financial one from the business side. I'm beginning to doubt ferguson's footballing judgement. Couldn't spot we had a shit midfield, couldn't spot pogba was worth 20k a week, and thought park, rafael or a 38 year old scholes offered the club better value in midfield; couldn't spot any player in the world capable of improving on those options. No value.

Originally Posted by The Watcher

Was great bantz nqat.

Your retrieval of damning archived posts is becoming more honed every day. Well done.


Just don't do it to me.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

say that again in 2017 when the piks bring United down, pal .

Didn't they buy the PIKs in the 2009 crisis for a fraction of their original value (something like £100M on £200M), then paid that off when they floated?

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

What it comes down to is that many of us hated the fact that United had become a money-making machine seemingly above all else during the 90s, only to discover from 2005 onwards that the club had been scratching the surface up until that point.

Slagging off the club week in week out up to that point seems ridiculous now, given that we could all easily see what might happen. I'm not surprised thousands walked away in 05 - the only surprises were that it wasn't more, and that it hadn't happened earlier.

The idea of being delighted that United are now throwing whatever money it takes at anything that moves, especially against a backdrop of working people being marginalised ever more by ideological austerity in the real world, shows how far away from its traditional core support the club has moved.

Yeah cos in 1989 that wasn't happening was it? We spent nearly 10m in the 89/90 summer. That was a huge outlay and comparable to what was spent last summer.

Things haven't changed on the throwing cash around front. Football has changed generally, not just at United. The demographic is completely different due to a number of factors.