The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
......................
Gets my vote for 'Most ill informed comment' of the year.
Warum? People are quick to say City's owners have spent £1billion but fail to say that includes actually buying the club off Thaksin and the all the other money spent on infrastructure projects. United fans like to kid themselvesthat the Glazers were give United by a mystery benefactor and have bled it dry ever since.
They also ignore the fact they spent over £70m last Sujmmer to finish a place lower in the league.
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 4 minutes ago
Cleverly... Relying on stock flotation plans which may or may not go ahead doesn't sound like a solid idea
-------------------------------------
Well it is a good job that we are still managing to substantially reduce the debt by using the club's turnover then isnt it?
I don't know what the sheiks' reasons for adopting city were
---------------------
As we know football is now a global commodity. The exposure that it brings throughout the world is a huge incentive for the world's richest people to want to get involved. The benefit of owning a successful club has untold benefit on their other vested business interests.
Man city posted losses of 200m once.. Are you saying that will happen again?
---
Unless you can suddenly increase your clubs revenue to cover the massive salaries and huges transfer fees then yes you WILL post massive losses.
The arabs money is NOT club revenue.
Please try to understand.
Read part of my post as above... Why does fergie mention (bitterly I might add) city's spending when the man utd operation isn't entirely ethical?
-------------------------------------
Selling football shirts is unethical? Even though many other PL teams do the same?
--------
No no no Elvis... Selling football shirts is not the issue
It's reneging on a charter to limit new kits to once every two years in order to harvest more revenue to pay off debt which is unethical.
Hope this is cleared up for you.
Exactly Ripley.
Post, regarding this -
"there's an element of ffp that's there to stabilise the game. I don't know what the sheiks' reasons for adopting city were, why they felt the need to own a football club and what their long term plans are (or Malaga, Chelsea, PSG or the Russian club I can't spell). I don't know if the next generation will be as committed to city as the current one, or if they'll move out of football. No one does."
Ultimately, the objective of the owners were two things. One was to gain increased exposure of themselves, the other was to make money. If done correctly, I don't think people realise how much money can be made in Football and why it attracts the owners that it does (including the Glazers, albeit a different business model).
I think a lot of it is down to not looking at the bigger picture. I cannot think of a club in the PL that has not had outside investment into them at some point in their history, some were much bigger than the investment that has been made into us in relative terms. History has a way of forgetting about these things though, and some of these clubs are held up as a way to run a football club (Arsenal are a prime example). They have not always been that way, though. In fact, they have put a statue up of the person that broke every record going in terms of transfers and wages.
VCD,
Do you have to keep referring to it as the Arabs money? I don't understand why its relevant, would it make a difference if they were from Plymouth?
Unless you can suddenly increase your clubs revenue to cover the massive salaries and huges transfer fees then yes you WILL post massive losses.
Do you think we will have earnt less by winning the league, competing in the CL and signing a huge sponsorship deal with Etihad and Umbro?
It's reneging on a charter to limit new kits to once every two years in order to harvest more revenue to pay off debt which is unethical.
***
how does United bringing out a new shirt every year harvest more revenue than we already have?
VCD,
Do you have to keep referring to it as the Arabs money? I don't understand why its relevant, would it make a difference if they were from Plymouth?
---
Not it's not a racist comment, i simply do not know your owners name. He is an Arab and to me calling him an Arab is fine, that is what he is.
It's not a comment that means any abuse towards him
He is an Arab, and i don't know his name.
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
Man city posted losses of 200m once.. Are you saying that will happen again?
---------------------------------
Even without buying a single player, the clubs wage bill is 22m then the overall turnover. It is suggested that the club's wage bill should be no more than 50% of the turnover.
Is this starting to sink in?
Why do so many people have problems with what is essentially very basic stuff?
Should we refer to United's finances as "The Jews Money"?
financial doping is the correct term in any case.
comment by RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)
posted 57 seconds ago
It's reneging on a charter to limit new kits to once every two years in order to harvest more revenue to pay off debt which is unethical.
***
how does United bringing out a new shirt every year harvest more revenue than we already have?
----
Are you serious?
FFP is aimed at those, who make huge losses. Debt is a problem only if you cannot manage it like Rangers albeit their debt is a lot smaller than a Man Utd. Clubs will go into debt when they purchase new grounds over the years. FFP is not aimed at them.
There is a difference between those who invest to make money and those, who pay wages from their own large pockets.
Should we refer to United's finances as "The Jews Money"?
----
No because "The Jews" do not put any money into the club AT ALL, they take it out if anything.
And we still have money to spend.
Hardly any of of your signings and wages are covered by your clubs revenue.
"The Jews" do not give us any of their own money.
Should we refer to United's finances as "The Jews Money"?
Why would you refer to someone's religion regarding ownership of a football club, Boris?
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
Man city posted losses of 200m once.. Are you saying that will happen again?
---------------------------------
Even without buying a single player, the clubs wage bill is 22m then the overall turnover. It is suggested that the club's wage bill should be no more than 50% of the turnover.
Is this starting to sink in?
Why do so many people have problems with what is essentially very basic stuff?
-----
Elvis... Are you seriously saying that man city's wages : turnover ratio will stay the same?
comment by RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)
posted 1 minute ago
It's reneging on a charter to limit new kits to once every two years in order to harvest more revenue to pay off debt which is unethical.
***
how does United bringing out a new shirt every year harvest more revenue than we already have?
...............
RB&W
The knucklehead doesn't understand how the shirt deal works.
This lad is quite possibly the thickest Liverpool poster I have ever come across.
I take it no one has ever heared the phrase speculate to accumulate?
Unless you can suddenly increase your clubs revenue to cover the massive salaries and huges transfer fees then yes you WILL post massive losses.
-------------------------------
Firstly, the club is massively increasing revenue.
Secondly, the club will not spend the amounts it has done over the last 3-4 years.
Thirdly, in regards to wages, every single contract signed before June 2010 will not count to the FFP for the first year of its induction. City have several high earners who fall into this bracket - Tevez, Adebayor, Santa Cruz, Wayne Bridge, Nigel De Jong, Joleon Lescott, Gareth Barry, to name some prominent examples. Some of those players will be either sold or their contract will expire in the next 12 to 24 months.
So, the £200m losses will not be repeated.
Why do the rags always refer to our owners as The Arabs?
The knucklehead doesn't understand how the shirt deal works.
***
it's becoming plainly obvious.
please tell me someone has not just confused religion with nationality?!
Sign in if you want to comment
FFP, silly money etc...bitter
Page 4 of 14
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
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.
Warum? People are quick to say City's owners have spent £1billion but fail to say that includes actually buying the club off Thaksin and the all the other money spent on infrastructure projects. United fans like to kid themselvesthat the Glazers were give United by a mystery benefactor and have bled it dry ever since.
They also ignore the fact they spent over £70m last Sujmmer to finish a place lower in the league.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 4 minutes ago
Cleverly... Relying on stock flotation plans which may or may not go ahead doesn't sound like a solid idea
-------------------------------------
Well it is a good job that we are still managing to substantially reduce the debt by using the club's turnover then isnt it?
posted on 15/5/12
I don't know what the sheiks' reasons for adopting city were
---------------------
As we know football is now a global commodity. The exposure that it brings throughout the world is a huge incentive for the world's richest people to want to get involved. The benefit of owning a successful club has untold benefit on their other vested business interests.
posted on 15/5/12
Man city posted losses of 200m once.. Are you saying that will happen again?
---
Unless you can suddenly increase your clubs revenue to cover the massive salaries and huges transfer fees then yes you WILL post massive losses.
The arabs money is NOT club revenue.
Please try to understand.
posted on 15/5/12
Read part of my post as above... Why does fergie mention (bitterly I might add) city's spending when the man utd operation isn't entirely ethical?
-------------------------------------
Selling football shirts is unethical? Even though many other PL teams do the same?
--------
No no no Elvis... Selling football shirts is not the issue
It's reneging on a charter to limit new kits to once every two years in order to harvest more revenue to pay off debt which is unethical.
Hope this is cleared up for you.
posted on 15/5/12
Exactly Ripley.
Post, regarding this -
"there's an element of ffp that's there to stabilise the game. I don't know what the sheiks' reasons for adopting city were, why they felt the need to own a football club and what their long term plans are (or Malaga, Chelsea, PSG or the Russian club I can't spell). I don't know if the next generation will be as committed to city as the current one, or if they'll move out of football. No one does."
Ultimately, the objective of the owners were two things. One was to gain increased exposure of themselves, the other was to make money. If done correctly, I don't think people realise how much money can be made in Football and why it attracts the owners that it does (including the Glazers, albeit a different business model).
I think a lot of it is down to not looking at the bigger picture. I cannot think of a club in the PL that has not had outside investment into them at some point in their history, some were much bigger than the investment that has been made into us in relative terms. History has a way of forgetting about these things though, and some of these clubs are held up as a way to run a football club (Arsenal are a prime example). They have not always been that way, though. In fact, they have put a statue up of the person that broke every record going in terms of transfers and wages.
posted on 15/5/12
VCD,
Do you have to keep referring to it as the Arabs money? I don't understand why its relevant, would it make a difference if they were from Plymouth?
posted on 15/5/12
Unless you can suddenly increase your clubs revenue to cover the massive salaries and huges transfer fees then yes you WILL post massive losses.
Do you think we will have earnt less by winning the league, competing in the CL and signing a huge sponsorship deal with Etihad and Umbro?
posted on 15/5/12
It's reneging on a charter to limit new kits to once every two years in order to harvest more revenue to pay off debt which is unethical.
***
how does United bringing out a new shirt every year harvest more revenue than we already have?
posted on 15/5/12
VCD,
Do you have to keep referring to it as the Arabs money? I don't understand why its relevant, would it make a difference if they were from Plymouth?
---
Not it's not a racist comment, i simply do not know your owners name. He is an Arab and to me calling him an Arab is fine, that is what he is.
It's not a comment that means any abuse towards him
He is an Arab, and i don't know his name.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
Man city posted losses of 200m once.. Are you saying that will happen again?
---------------------------------
Even without buying a single player, the clubs wage bill is 22m then the overall turnover. It is suggested that the club's wage bill should be no more than 50% of the turnover.
Is this starting to sink in?
Why do so many people have problems with what is essentially very basic stuff?
posted on 15/5/12
Should we refer to United's finances as "The Jews Money"?
posted on 15/5/12
financial doping is the correct term in any case.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)
posted 57 seconds ago
It's reneging on a charter to limit new kits to once every two years in order to harvest more revenue to pay off debt which is unethical.
***
how does United bringing out a new shirt every year harvest more revenue than we already have?
----
Are you serious?
posted on 15/5/12
yes.
posted on 15/5/12
FFP is aimed at those, who make huge losses. Debt is a problem only if you cannot manage it like Rangers albeit their debt is a lot smaller than a Man Utd. Clubs will go into debt when they purchase new grounds over the years. FFP is not aimed at them.
There is a difference between those who invest to make money and those, who pay wages from their own large pockets.
posted on 15/5/12
Should we refer to United's finances as "The Jews Money"?
----
No because "The Jews" do not put any money into the club AT ALL, they take it out if anything.
And we still have money to spend.
Hardly any of of your signings and wages are covered by your clubs revenue.
"The Jews" do not give us any of their own money.
posted on 15/5/12
Should we refer to United's finances as "The Jews Money"?
Why would you refer to someone's religion regarding ownership of a football club, Boris?
posted on 15/5/12
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
Man city posted losses of 200m once.. Are you saying that will happen again?
---------------------------------
Even without buying a single player, the clubs wage bill is 22m then the overall turnover. It is suggested that the club's wage bill should be no more than 50% of the turnover.
Is this starting to sink in?
Why do so many people have problems with what is essentially very basic stuff?
-----
Elvis... Are you seriously saying that man city's wages : turnover ratio will stay the same?
posted on 15/5/12
comment by RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)
posted 1 minute ago
It's reneging on a charter to limit new kits to once every two years in order to harvest more revenue to pay off debt which is unethical.
***
how does United bringing out a new shirt every year harvest more revenue than we already have?
...............
RB&W
The knucklehead doesn't understand how the shirt deal works.
This lad is quite possibly the thickest Liverpool poster I have ever come across.
posted on 15/5/12
I take it no one has ever heared the phrase speculate to accumulate?
posted on 15/5/12
Unless you can suddenly increase your clubs revenue to cover the massive salaries and huges transfer fees then yes you WILL post massive losses.
-------------------------------
Firstly, the club is massively increasing revenue.
Secondly, the club will not spend the amounts it has done over the last 3-4 years.
Thirdly, in regards to wages, every single contract signed before June 2010 will not count to the FFP for the first year of its induction. City have several high earners who fall into this bracket - Tevez, Adebayor, Santa Cruz, Wayne Bridge, Nigel De Jong, Joleon Lescott, Gareth Barry, to name some prominent examples. Some of those players will be either sold or their contract will expire in the next 12 to 24 months.
So, the £200m losses will not be repeated.
posted on 15/5/12
Why do the rags always refer to our owners as The Arabs?
posted on 15/5/12
The knucklehead doesn't understand how the shirt deal works.
***
it's becoming plainly obvious.
posted on 15/5/12
please tell me someone has not just confused religion with nationality?!
Page 4 of 14
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10