for a moment there i thought you were trying to compare city's lottery win to anything that united have done. then i realised not even you could be so idiotic.

I wouldve thought stock market flotation would count as a speculative move for a short term cash advance in the operations of a football club...

Aren't man utd thinking of doing this again?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

How about the bonds issue? Enticing money in to pay a few dividends on later...

Sure relying on one mans generosity is worse than whoring out to east Asian investment markets.

ole_1999 - but surely it's just a matter of scale, surely a ho is a ho whether she costs £100 or £1m? x

for a moment there i thought you were trying to compare city's lottery win to anything that united have done. then i realised not even you could be so idiotic.

------------------

In Ole's world, a sugar daddy means a person who has only ever invested into his company the exact same amount (even in relative terms) that City's current owners have invested into City.

In Ole's world, this actually means something. In the real world, it is of course pure hogwash.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

sanctimonious, factually incorrect rubbish, with no sources listed. it reads as if it were wrote by phil thompson.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

you on the other hand have everyone on this forum hanging off your every post as if you're reciting the ten commandments.

ou on the other hand have everyone on this forum hanging off your every post as if you're reciting the ten commandments.

--------------

Well you certainly don't. So why you would even attempt to ridicule anyone else for that is rather ridiculous.

I entered into a discussion with you last night. That discussion culimated in you inadvertently reducing United's attendance at the 1999 parade by 700,000. From post to post your figures differed.

The point I hope is clear. Whatever you say should never be trusted, not so much because others disagree with you, rather that you ultimately end up contradicting yourself.

actually we both found links which each had a different estimate. please, don't lie.

Yes we did, never once discounted that.

But you (you, not a link) reduced United's attendance at the 1999 parade by 700,000. The sad fact is that you don't even realise it.

You said that City's attendance last night was around 50,000 on the streets. You then said that that was but a sixth of United's attendance in 1999. What does that amount to? 50,000 is a sixth of 300,000. Earlier you were claiming a million. Hence a reduction (by your own admission) of 700,000 over your earlier claim.

Keep up Ole. Once again, YOU said that.

i said don't lie. i posted a link to this article, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/8515333/Manchester-City-and-Manchester-United-will-both-make-open-top-bus-parades-after-their-Cup-and-league-successes.html, from the telegraph, which states "almost one million fans took to the streets of manchester when united last paraded through the city following the club’s treble success in 1999." there are many differing estimates, but the very vast mjaority are all around that figure, apart from one which you dug up. you then, predictably dimissed that number, and did the same when i showed you a similar estimate from liverpool's homecoming in 2005, which at least shows you weren't just being anti united.

so i met you half way and said something along the lines of "even if (two key words, by the way) the estimate from 99 was wildly exaggerated then then city still only managed, at most, a sixth of the turnout last night".

Again the point flies right over your head.

No matter what link you provide, your own words betray you. YOU (again, that's YOU) stated that City's parade was "barely a sixth of United's" in 1999. Your words Ole. Not mine. Not any link that you produce.

And all along my point was simple - any figure provided was nothing but an estimate, not an actual figure. I said quite clearly that not all the estimates listed could be correct, thus we have to question the validity of all of them.

And in meeting me half-way, that's also where it went wrong for you. Even if City's parade last night was a sixth of your half-way figure, then that means that (according to your figures that you cited in regards to City's parade attendance), then United's parade attendance was 300,000. You understand yet? No matter what link you (or I for that matter) produce, if you say that City's was "barely a sixth" of United's figure in 1999, then either the 1 million figure for 1999 is incorrect, or the 50,000 figure for last night is incorrect. Hence, why your are defeating your own argument.

You need to understand what's being said. The bottom line is really rather simple.

As for Liverpool's parade, the figures quoted for that are equally as ridiculous. 300k around St George's Hall? Do me a favour. Just compare the pictures of St George's Hall with the link I provided for Live Aid 1985. You tell me, did it look like 4 times the amount of people were in attendance at St George's Hall than were in attendance at Live Aid?

Because one is an official figure, the other is not. I'll leave you to work out which is which.

Ole you've tried to put forward the point that generating income through club operations is the only way for clubs to be run.

Consider,

If a club draws a loan to spend say 100k on asset purchasing activity to draw more fans and then relying on the extra fans to contribute in paying the loan back

Is this more acceptable than an owner spending 100k of his own money to buy an asset which in turn draws more fans?

Note that the number of available fans, like real life is finite.

Still arguing about parade figures? The city has a big local support for both clubs, just leave it at that.

The city has a big local support for both clubs, just leave it at that.
***

but ours is bigger

Of course it is

significantly bigger.

comment by ole_1999 (U13262)
posted 38 minutes ago
seventy one million on interest and bond buybacks? we could have bought van persie and still had plenty to spare for that.

-----
Silly money? That's what man utd are spending on those financial items... at least players will still have a resale value.

stop following me, this isn't twitter.

No one made you comment on this article...