People still don't realise how Manchester United acquired their debt? Really?
It has nothing to do with spending outside of the clubs means. We make more money every year than any other sports team on the planet. We always spend within what we make, and always turn a profit. These are facts.
We aquired our debt when we were purchased by the Glazers in 2005, when they used borrowed money to buy us.
Glazers borrow £X to buy club.
Glazers owe £X.
Clubs owners are now in £X debt.
Club are now in £X debt.
That's what it boils down to, and although I have sImplified the issue hugely, this is basically how the debt came about.
Now, on to how we currently operate. We STILL make the most money, always turning massive profits every year. So we are unconcerned with the FFP, because we do not rely on owners money and such to balance the books. Rather, part of the profit we make every year goes to ridding the Glazers of the debt they acquired when they bought Manchester United. They bought us as a business venture, where by after so many years, they would make more money off us than what they originally spent, while the club would still make more than enough to run and compete in the transfer market.
So although Manchester United are paying off our owners debt, and being used as a cash cow, many would say we are in a stronger financial position than clubs who rely on cash to come from elsewhere to balance our books.
FFP will, if implemented they way it is intended, cripple our rivals like City, Chelsea and to a far lesser extent Spurs, while not affecting us in the slightest. It would be very naive to assume clubs who will be severely affected by FFP rules will not try to find loopholes and ways to exploit the system, as any football club is already trying to maximise profits anyway.
All in all, FFP is just as unfair as the way in which we operate now, but unfair in a different way.
Basic explanation of our debt and the FFP
posted on 26/12/11
If we could sign Modric on a free, that's fine with me but anything over 18m is too much in my opinion.
His goal tally and assists for Spurs can be compared to Gibson's contributions for Utd but people want him gone. Amazing
posted on 26/12/11
I think he is better than what we have but would cost too much..i think it's a good we all have different opinions
posted on 26/12/11
good thing #
posted on 26/12/11
comment by SouthLondonManc (U12028)
posted 17 minutes ago
ManUtdDare
------
I could ask you. And I'm a Carrick fan and think he should go to the Euro's.
But statistically, what has Carrick done to get in our team?
My point is football is about more than goals, assists etc.
Modric in my eyes would improve our possession stats by 5-10%
=================================
Yes it is, I believe that as well. We complain about goals from midfield and people suggest Modric can help out with that, I've shown that he doesn't so what else can he do for us that our current midfield can't?
Carrick protects our back 4 very well, Modric can't do that, Carrick intercepts, tackles and retains possession well too.
The possession argument is useless because Arsenal for instance used to dominate possession but did nothing with it. Goals win football games.
Modric isn't a bad footballer, but he's not better than what we've got and surplus to requirements. He couldn't even dominate our supposedly poor midfield.
posted on 26/12/11
I think £40m for Modric is too much.
But he destroyed Liverpool this season.
He also destroyed Arsenal.
And last season at WHL he was by far the best midfielder on show.
It would be great to see Spurs possession stats with and without Modric.
Also how many indirect assists does he get? E.G. Modric to Bale to Adebayor.
Cos we also play with high wingers.
posted on 26/12/11
2 years ago I said Bale would be a dream at OT..people laughed at me..not many laugh now...Spurs are a nightmare to deal with tho and would want way over the odds for any player..Harry wouldnt sell Paker for less than 25 million now
posted on 26/12/11
2 years ago I said Bale would be a dream at OT..people laughed at me..not many laugh now...Spurs are a nightmare to deal with tho and would want way over the odds for any player..Harry wouldnt sell Paker for less than 25 million now
___________________________
True. In fact, Spurs are a good example of why FFP is not all bad. A few years ago they were a mid-table club but with a few very astute signings they've propelled themselves right up with the big boys - without the need for a sugar daddy.
posted on 26/12/11
Don't get me started on Bale
posted on 26/12/11
Daredevil,
All I can say is you obviously haven't watched that much of Modric then. OK, his goals and assists are low, but that's not the main part of his game. Modric is our playmaker, he initiates our forward play, he might not be the one getting on the final ball or even producing the final ball, but he is almost always instrumental in starting the move.
He spreads play brilliantly, is always there as an outlet and brings urgency to the game when it's needed.
To say he gets dominated by teams like Stoke isn't true...he produced a superb display against them a couple of seasons ago which buried that myth. The defensive side of his game is underestimated, he tracks back, puts his tackles in and retains possession when needed.
As for his performance against your 'poor' midfield this season...you seem to have missed the fact we had Huddlestone and Sandro injured and hadn't bought Scott Parker when we played you, so our defensive cover in midfield was pretty much non-existant.
Having said all that, it doesn't make any difference as all this is just mischief making someone at the Daily Fail. £30million for someone we turned £40million down for in the summer?....it's just poor quality, lazy journalism.
posted on 26/12/11
Oh, and apart from that...he wasn't playing against you!