Accounts out at 11am

Originally Posted by Liu Jian

That's exactly what they are.

The bad thing is next year the club could turn a small profit, due to the one-off payments and exceptional items in this years accounts, plus the extra £10m from overseas rights, and whatever new commercial deal are signed.

We're not in as bad a position as Liverpool are, so the Glazers will stick around for a few years yet most likely - whilst blowing at least £45m a year on interest payments, plus more on 'consultancy fees' and keeping us scabbing around in the transfer market.

tbf we were scabbing around in the market before glazers came. do you remember when we scabbed the market for some homeless @#%&! for 30m from lazio when we had a central midfield option of scholes, keane, butt, neville etc or the 30m to leeds for rio or the 20m to PSV for ruud? We are in the same boat now. We wouldn't want to buy a new central midfielder since he will not start ahead of giggs and scholes anyway.

Originally Posted by Sandman

I saw this posted on RI earlier, it's a podcast with Andersred and one of the things he mentioned was that someone who attended a meeting this week about the PIK debt told him the only reason the Glazers haven't taken the money out to pay them is because they're worried about the reaction from supporters if they do.

http://www.beyondthepitch.net/podcas...08/andy-green/

Its not as if the glazers are very popular though. If they wanted to take it out, they would have taken it out. They don't give a shit what supporters think.

Originally Posted by The Watcher

Serb style riots, get the match abandoned. @#%&! a few of those @#%&!s from CES too.

This is the only answer. Kill some of the disabled section for good measure.

Originally Posted by forzagarza

This is the only answer. Kill some of the disabled section for good measure.

No, the only answer is to not give money to the people you claim to want out of the club.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

No, the only answer is to not give money to the people you claim to want out of the club.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

No, the only answer is to not give money to the people you claim to want out of the club.

did you know that there are 'loads' of people on here pal that have not been going for years and it has all been in preparation for this boycott. Some people saw it coming; that's how top red they are.

Sniff sniff.

Originally Posted by Part 36 Offer

did you know that there are 'loads' of people on here pal that have not been going for years and it has all been in preparation for this boycott. Some people saw it coming; that's how top red they are.

Sniff sniff.

Yup. Point stands.

Originally Posted by rafabio

absolutely. It is £#%&!ing priceless. I don't think I have seen a mod who is more thicker than you. You are always in denial ffs.

Phil Daniels perchance??

Originally Posted by forzagarza

This is the only answer. Kill some of the disabled section for good measure.

Yeah bastards, all that extra room they take up. think how many more seats we could fit in that section. Debt would be cleared in no time.

Originally Posted by Sandman

I saw this posted on RI earlier, it's a podcast with Andersred and one of the things he mentioned was that someone who attended a meeting this week about the PIK debt told him the only reason the Glazers haven't taken the money out to pay them is because they're worried about the reaction from supporters if they do.

http://www.beyondthepitch.net/podcas...08/andy-green/

There's a point brought up there, they aren't even paying off the debt, they are just refinancing it over and over again and paying interest.

net transfer spending in the year was just over £30m according to andersred. that includes £25m on new players and the balance presumably on installments from previous transfers, performance-clause payments and possibly pre-contracts or down-payments (defour?).

but isn't that a side effect of paying in instalments, to obfuscate?

you're stating that part of the 30 mill figure isn't anything to do with tangible acquisitions over the last transfer period. so it's erroneous to point at it and say 'oh we've spent 30 mill'. No, we've paid out 30 million, after a relatively unsuccessful season in terms of winning things.

and as has been pointed out already, we're getting players that want relative peanuts compared to the quality of player we should be able to sign, given our successful turnover figures.

we got lucky in 2006 when we made a transfer profit and should've signed Senna as a stopgap - Ferguson wasn't sure who would play in midfield after we 'only' bought Carrick. It worked out spectacularly. But that was no given.

So the Glazers will look at that and say: £#%&! it then. Ferguson is a miracle worker. Aren't we clever?

They'll wait until we finish outside the top 4 before dipping into any war-chest we might have accrued, and garner a ton of praise for backing the manager. They don't care about winning per se and that is a disaster for fans.

Originally Posted by reem

but isn't that a side effect of paying in instalments, to obfuscate?

i don't think anything has changed there - united have always paid in installments, add-on clauses etc, same as everybody else.

you're stating that part of the 30 mill figure isn't anything to do with tangible acquisitions over the last transfer period. so it's erroneous to point at it and say 'oh we've spent 30 mill'. No, we've paid out 30 million, after a relatively unsuccessful season in terms of winning things.

you misunderstand. i was pointing to the £30m as an example of why 'net spend' is a misleading figure. the way that payments are staggered, the fact that wages are not included and so on is an example of that.

and as has been pointed out already, we're getting players that want relative peanuts compared to the quality of player we should be able to sign, given our successful turnover figures.

that's arguable, given that wages rose 7% last year iirc. unless that rise is for the club as a whole and not just the playing staff - maybe gill got a whopping pay rise to go with his whopping lies.

we got lucky in 2006 when we made a transfer profit and should've signed Senna as a stopgap - Ferguson wasn't sure who would play in midfield after we 'only' bought Carrick. It worked out spectacularly. But that was no given.

not sure what the point is here. are you suggesting buying senna would have been preferable to buying carrick? or that senna (never played in england, 30 years old) would have been less of a risk than carrick (in his prime, proven premier league player)?

So the Glazers will look at that and say: £#%&! it then. Ferguson is a miracle worker. Aren't we clever?

They'll wait until we finish outside the top 4 before dipping into any war-chest we might have accrued, and garner a ton of praise for backing the manager. They don't care about winning per se and that is a disaster for fans.

they'll only garner praise for spending if somebody is thick enough to think that money spent on players comes from the glazers. i think what you're saying is correct here btw. what i've said all along is that our transfer spending over the last five years (not net - the spending on players coming in and the types of players we've been buying) has been pretty much what it would have been, pretty much in line with our spending in the past. i think that's pretty self-evident tbh. i've also said that the team will need serious investment when the group of players headed by scholes, giggs, vds and neville reach the end, followed by the 30-ish crowd (rio, vidic, carrick, berbatov) a couple of years later, and that i don't believe the club will be capable of that kind of investment.


mainly i get fed up with people (not you) whose interest in the financial situation seems to begin and end with whether or not united can afford some winger from la liga, and who appear to have no interest in or comprehension of the way the club has been transformed into a soulless and fairly reprehensible corporate-style cash machine, with clients and customers superceding fans and revenue-generation superceding titles. the incessant whinging about 'we can't afford so and so because of the glazers' is like complaining of an itch when you've got gangrene. and i know it started with the plc but the change since the glazers came in - a change lauded in that swissrambler blog and, to a lesser degree, in the andersred blog - turns my stomach. i find it harder and harder to identify with what has essentially become a football-related brand whose roots are less an irrelevance than a hindrance before its global commercial ambitions.

not sure what the point is here. are you suggesting buying senna would have been preferable to buying carrick? or that senna (never played in england, 30 years old) would have been less of a risk than carrick (in his prime, proven premier league player)?

Seemed straightforward...

We should have signed both...

We got 'lucky' in the sense that Carrick and Scholes were able to play pretty much the full season. This was especially a risk, considering Scholes had been out for months at the end of the previous season with his eye problem. Ferguson rectified this when he signed Anderson and Hargreaves the following season.

what i've said all along is that our transfer spending over the last five years (not net - the spending on players coming in and the types of players we've been buying) has been pretty much what it would have been, pretty much in line with our spending in the past.

Surely net spending is the more important figure here.

Originally Posted by borsuk

mainly i get fed up with people (not you) whose interest in the financial situation seems to begin and end with whether or not united can afford some winger from la liga, and who appear to have no interest in or comprehension of the way the club has been transformed into a soulless and fairly reprehensible corporate-style cash machine, with clients and customers superceding fans and revenue-generation superceding titles. the incessant whinging about 'we can't afford so and so because of the glazers' is like complaining of an itch when you've got gangrene. and i know it started with the plc but the change since the glazers came in - a change lauded in that swissrambler blog and, to a lesser degree, in the andersred blog - turns my stomach. i find it harder and harder to identify with what has essentially become a football-related brand whose roots are less an irrelevance than a hindrance before its global commercial ambitions.

I find that there's been more of a continuation than a change, tbh. All of the things you mention above existed before the Glazers came in. Who can forget that for well over a decade, every single issue of UWS and RI was full of complaints about the crap atmosphere, day trippers, the mega@#%&!, over-zealous stewards, price rises, etc. The announcement telling people to sit down in K-stand came in 1994; the words 'football club' were taken off the badge in 1998.

Granted, the gimps may well have accelerated things to some degree, but it was already a business, and the fans mere customers, long before 2005.

some very good points on here - borsk and zorg .

seems to me that the only way to get rid of the gimps is make the business side of things unprofitable to them

Originally Posted by King Julian

some very good points on here - borsk and zorg .

seems to me that the only way to get rid of the gimps is make the business side of things unprofitable to them

5 years on...

Shame everyone doesn't grasp this tbh. They might get it by 2025.

Originally Posted by Zorg

The announcement telling people to sit down in K-stand came in 1994.

"Stand up for the Champions!"

I hate this season so far. It's been £#%&!ing rubbish aside from beating liverpool.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

I hate this season so far. It's been £#%&!ing rubbish aside from beating liverpool.

great day that

have enjoyed watch da berb too

just following on from the Zorg Borsuk convo on commercialisation and the seemless transition from football club to business, i've got a film off the BBC focusing on exactly that, with none other than McGregor and Merret talking of it being a 7 days a week business and of how 10,000 £#%&!wits go through the souvenir shop on matchday. they talk about the global brand. and they mention annual food turnover alone in the OT restaurants and 95 boxes of £1m. the film is from spring 1990.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

just following on from the Zorg Borsuk convo on commercialisation and the move from seemless transition from football club to business, i've got a film off the BBC focusing on exactly that, with none other than McGregor and Merret talking of it being a 7 days a week business and of how 10,000 £#%&!wits go through the souvenir shop on matchday. they talk about the global brand. and they mention annual turnover in the OT restaurants alone of £1m. the film is from spring 1990.

I think the big difference then was that arguably all that hadn't yet really started to impact on the matchday if you just wanted to ignore it.