given the uproar your own club caused with a kit last week i'd have left that bit it out if i were you.
Yes because it was quite the uproar about bringing out a new kit in line with the charter wasn't it?
Ole sometimes you go off on a tangent because you don't like what you see about your club.. awaiting for the stock Norwegian/Scandinavian post from you...
So a question... Why did man utd not adhere to the charter they signed?
you know full well why there was uproar. why does it bother you how often we release a new kit anyway, do you buy them? the majority of clubs change theirs annually.
won't man utd have to spend that figure to pull themselves out of debt?
..........................
What relevance has paying off a debt, got to do with spending 500 million on players?
................
Also on the implementation of FFP, Man city will comply without leaching off the fans..
................
I guess adding up and taking away is not one of your strong points.
Either that you you do not understand the gist of the FFP rules.
Really? Well seeing as you're so conversant with clubs changing strips you'll be able to say who in the premiership besides Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea release a new home kit annually... Seeing as its the majority, you shouldn't have much trouble..
How much more to pay until man utd are debt free?
the city of liverpool's club, everton, have changed their home strip every season for well over a decade now.
How much more to pay until man utd are debt free?
.................
Why, it doesn't make any difference to FFP.
Go look up the phrase "managable debt".... Then go to school for several more years, learn about football, finance and the FFP rules.
We will be here and ready for a sensible discussion.
Until that day arrives, stick to the wax crayon pictures of Stevie Gee
I don't have anything to be bitter about, you only managed to beat us with last kick of season. All this after your owners have pumped in a total of 983 million quid.
Next season Utd will address our weakness and we will also have Vidic back who missed the whole season.
Would City be champions if Kompany was out for the season ??
You answer that but i know what i thinl.
"don't have anything to be bitter about, you only managed to beat us with last kick of season. All this after your owners have pumped in a total of 983 million quid."
Firstly, the OP is a Liverpool fan. Secondly, they haven't.
vcd
The OP is a dipper.
---
Oh ok, well still my point stands
Just out of interest Melton, how much is it estimated that they've spent so far including taking on any debt etc.?
Oh, nearly forgot, The OP's a dipper.
you're all wrong. the original poster is in fact an idiot.
Also on the implementation of FFP, Man city will comply without leaching off the fans..
You're telling me City's ticket prices will remain the same forever as they become more successful and dominant? Pull the other one lad, Arsenal aren't even competitive and their season tickets are about 1 grand.
All this after your owners have pumped in a total of 983 million quid."
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
Quoted figures of half a billion pounds has been bandied about being spent.... won't man utd have to spend that figure to pull themselves out of debt?
.............................................................................
People are so clueless its crazy. Glazers bought man utd without there own money so the debt is the glazers and I believe the glazers have sent £400-£500m on interest payments. Man city cost something like £300m.
Anyway man city losses are what ffp takes into account.
I think complying with ffp depends on massively increased revenues, which will undoubtedly include Malaysian megastores and shirt sales in Singapore. Which will be ironic to say the least.
I look forward to the justification as to why that was a bad thing if it was United, but is now a good thing. Same as large transfer fees used to mean you were buying the league, but now they apparently mean you're just staying competitive.
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
...............................
The ownres bought us doesn't mean they pumped that mney to benefit man utd. Man city owners have spent something like £1bn on players and wages since buying the club.
All this after your owners have pumped in a total of 983 million quid."
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
----
Rather embarrassing that you can only beat us on goal difference given the details you gave above is it not ???
I'm sure if we'd spend that much and your owners had done what the Glazers had done, you'd be in league one and we'd be 30 points ahead of nearest rivals.
Debt should make a difference to the FFP. Any club in debt is not living within its means. In United's case, the situation is of course reversed - The owners are not living within their own means, and the club has been burdened as a result. In City's case however, the club is currently living within the means of its owner, and the owner is thus being burdened as a result.
Nevertheless, one can see how fundamentally flawed the FFP is to the future of the sport just by considering one very pertinent fact. It will reward owners who are prepared to take money out of the game, while castigating owners who are prepared to put money into it.
Debt should make a difference to the FFP. Any club in debt is not living within its means. In United's case, the situation is of course reversed - The owners are not living within their own means, and the club has been burdened as a result. In City's case however, the club is currently living within the means of its owner, and the owner is thus being burdened as a result.
Nevertheless, one can see how fundamentally flawed the FFP is to the future of the sport just by considering one very pertinent fact. It will reward owners who are prepared to take money out of the game, while castigating owners who are prepared to put money into it.
-----
Wise up please, Utd pay the interest on the 391 million debt with ease and have money to spend.
Utd are comfortable with FFP it suits us, it doesn't suit City at all. You run at 200% loss !
It needs to be there Ripleys, otherwise you get a circus where a mega rich owner can create some sort of joke Harlem Globetrotters type club by cherry picking the best talent around and offering massively over the odds in transfer fees and wages.
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
......................
Gets my vote for 'Most ill informed comment' of the year.
Sign in if you want to comment
FFP, silly money etc...bitter
Page 1 of 14
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 15/5/12
given the uproar your own club caused with a kit last week i'd have left that bit it out if i were you.
posted on 15/5/12
Yes because it was quite the uproar about bringing out a new kit in line with the charter wasn't it?
Ole sometimes you go off on a tangent because you don't like what you see about your club.. awaiting for the stock Norwegian/Scandinavian post from you...
So a question... Why did man utd not adhere to the charter they signed?
posted on 15/5/12
you know full well why there was uproar. why does it bother you how often we release a new kit anyway, do you buy them? the majority of clubs change theirs annually.
posted on 15/5/12
won't man utd have to spend that figure to pull themselves out of debt?
..........................
What relevance has paying off a debt, got to do with spending 500 million on players?
................
Also on the implementation of FFP, Man city will comply without leaching off the fans..
................
I guess adding up and taking away is not one of your strong points.
Either that you you do not understand the gist of the FFP rules.
posted on 15/5/12
Really? Well seeing as you're so conversant with clubs changing strips you'll be able to say who in the premiership besides Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea release a new home kit annually... Seeing as its the majority, you shouldn't have much trouble..
How much more to pay until man utd are debt free?
posted on 15/5/12
the city of liverpool's club, everton, have changed their home strip every season for well over a decade now.
posted on 15/5/12
How much more to pay until man utd are debt free?
.................
Why, it doesn't make any difference to FFP.
posted on 15/5/12
Go look up the phrase "managable debt".... Then go to school for several more years, learn about football, finance and the FFP rules.
We will be here and ready for a sensible discussion.
Until that day arrives, stick to the wax crayon pictures of Stevie Gee
posted on 15/5/12
this is actually tragic.
posted on 15/5/12
I don't have anything to be bitter about, you only managed to beat us with last kick of season. All this after your owners have pumped in a total of 983 million quid.
Next season Utd will address our weakness and we will also have Vidic back who missed the whole season.
Would City be champions if Kompany was out for the season ??
You answer that but i know what i thinl.
posted on 15/5/12
vcd
The OP is a dipper.
posted on 15/5/12
"don't have anything to be bitter about, you only managed to beat us with last kick of season. All this after your owners have pumped in a total of 983 million quid."
Firstly, the OP is a Liverpool fan. Secondly, they haven't.
posted on 15/5/12
vcd
The OP is a dipper.
---
Oh ok, well still my point stands
posted on 15/5/12
Just out of interest Melton, how much is it estimated that they've spent so far including taking on any debt etc.?
Oh, nearly forgot, The OP's a dipper.
posted on 15/5/12
you're all wrong. the original poster is in fact an idiot.
posted on 15/5/12
Also on the implementation of FFP, Man city will comply without leaching off the fans..
You're telling me City's ticket prices will remain the same forever as they become more successful and dominant? Pull the other one lad, Arsenal aren't even competitive and their season tickets are about 1 grand.
posted on 15/5/12
All this after your owners have pumped in a total of 983 million quid."
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
posted on 15/5/12
Quoted figures of half a billion pounds has been bandied about being spent.... won't man utd have to spend that figure to pull themselves out of debt?
.............................................................................
People are so clueless its crazy. Glazers bought man utd without there own money so the debt is the glazers and I believe the glazers have sent £400-£500m on interest payments. Man city cost something like £300m.
Anyway man city losses are what ffp takes into account.
posted on 15/5/12
I think complying with ffp depends on massively increased revenues, which will undoubtedly include Malaysian megastores and shirt sales in Singapore. Which will be ironic to say the least.
I look forward to the justification as to why that was a bad thing if it was United, but is now a good thing. Same as large transfer fees used to mean you were buying the league, but now they apparently mean you're just staying competitive.
posted on 15/5/12
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
...............................
The ownres bought us doesn't mean they pumped that mney to benefit man utd. Man city owners have spent something like £1bn on players and wages since buying the club.
posted on 15/5/12
All this after your owners have pumped in a total of 983 million quid."
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
----
Rather embarrassing that you can only beat us on goal difference given the details you gave above is it not ???
I'm sure if we'd spend that much and your owners had done what the Glazers had done, you'd be in league one and we'd be 30 points ahead of nearest rivals.
posted on 15/5/12
Debt should make a difference to the FFP. Any club in debt is not living within its means. In United's case, the situation is of course reversed - The owners are not living within their own means, and the club has been burdened as a result. In City's case however, the club is currently living within the means of its owner, and the owner is thus being burdened as a result.
Nevertheless, one can see how fundamentally flawed the FFP is to the future of the sport just by considering one very pertinent fact. It will reward owners who are prepared to take money out of the game, while castigating owners who are prepared to put money into it.
posted on 15/5/12
Debt should make a difference to the FFP. Any club in debt is not living within its means. In United's case, the situation is of course reversed - The owners are not living within their own means, and the club has been burdened as a result. In City's case however, the club is currently living within the means of its owner, and the owner is thus being burdened as a result.
Nevertheless, one can see how fundamentally flawed the FFP is to the future of the sport just by considering one very pertinent fact. It will reward owners who are prepared to take money out of the game, while castigating owners who are prepared to put money into it.
-----
Wise up please, Utd pay the interest on the 391 million debt with ease and have money to spend.
Utd are comfortable with FFP it suits us, it doesn't suit City at all. You run at 200% loss !
posted on 15/5/12
It needs to be there Ripleys, otherwise you get a circus where a mega rich owner can create some sort of joke Harlem Globetrotters type club by cherry picking the best talent around and offering massively over the odds in transfer fees and wages.
posted on 15/5/12
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
......................
Gets my vote for 'Most ill informed comment' of the year.
Page 1 of 14
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10