comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson - Champions of Manchester, Champions of England (U5901)
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.
---------------------------------------
1. The interest payments saddled on the club by the Glazers have seen huge amounts go out of the club. Where have you been?
2. United did not spend 70m last season on transfers, they spent 54m which was offset by the 15m we received from sales. Our net spend was about 38m. Which we still had in the bank from the Ronaldo sale.
why do the bitters always refer to United as Rags and Fergie as a senile alcoholic?
Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th
Yet another Liverpool fan obsessed with Utd and SAF.
please tell me someone has not just confused religion with nationality?!
***
it was too dumb to flag up for me.
posted 29 seconds ago
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.
Add Comment | Complain about this Comment | Share | DELETE
-----
Again VC adopts the "can't explain, won't explain" stance.
point of a "kit deal" = to give the club revenue
If a kit deal is structured in a certain way it would have been financially beneficial for the club to have it that way.
Thus reneging on a charter for financial benefit = unethical.
Debt requirements must be served hey?
Why do the rags always refer to our owners as The Arabs?
---
Your owner is an Arab, it is not racist to call him that.
please tell me someone has not just confused religion with nationality?!
No Bitter Ole they haven't, I imagine Arabs and Jews refer to ethnic orrigin as our owners aren't from Saudi Arabia and yours aren't from Israel.
Judaism isn't just a religion it is a cultural and ethnic identity. And Boris is actually trying to highlight that we shouldn't use that instead of referring to them as the Glazers, just as you guy should stop reffering to it as the "Arabs money".
No not knowing their name isn't a valid excuse. You're on the internet - google it x
"I take it no one has ever heared the phrase speculate to accumulate?"
I'd love to hear the bleating if it was Bolton that Sheikh Mansour had invested in. We might have had the same net result, just with white ribbons on the trophy, and all the blues on here would be saying fair enough.
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
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.
-----------------------------------------------
But has been pointed out - many PL clubs do it. Not just United. And they arent breaking any laws. Besides, how much of it is in United's control? How much is it in Nike's control?
Why is man city spending 500m on playing staff worse than spending 500m (or more) on debt?
............................
Please try and understand this before one of us dies:
If any club can not match their operating costs (transfer fees, players wages etc) against their income (cash pumped in from a rich owner is not considered income) they are likely to fall foul of FFP.
Club debt is not considered as operating costs.
This is very simple to understand.
Judaism isn't just a religion it is a cultural and ethnic identity.
**
you could say that about any religion. (off topic)
The Post Nearly Man - I didn't complain when it was Blackburn or Chelsea, it didn't bother me x
But has been pointed out - many PL clubs do it. Not just United. And they arent breaking any laws. Besides, how much of it is in United's control? How much is it in Nike's control?
-----
How many clubs managers have come out with comments regarding man citys spending in the last two weeks?
...why have a go at someone when the club you manage is behaving unethically.
RedBlackandWhiteside - really you think Christianity is an ethnic identity?! Or Islam?! Idiot x
Wasn't the highlight of Liverpool's season their kit deal? I assume Warrior are actually going to want people to buy the shirts. Chances are they'll change it next season to encourage more people to dress up like clowns, making the OP look rather silly.
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
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?
------------------------------
You obviously dont understand how the kit deal works with Nike. They pay us a set amount to make our shirts over a period of time. We cannot make more from the deal than that set amount. Therefore United do not benefit from selling more shirts only Nike do. Please stop trying to discuss topics that you clearly have no knowledge of.
"The Post Nearly Man - I didn't complain when it was Blackburn or Chelsea, it didn't bother me x?"
Good for you, x, was there an element of the fact it didn't concern you though?
VC he just doesn't get it, give up
I've tried but he doesn't understand the difference between club revenue and sugar daddy money
Again VC adopts the "can't explain, won't explain" stance.
point of a "kit deal" = to give the club revenue
...................
Again, please try and understand this before one of us dies.
United's kit deal with Nike is that they give us a substancial sum of money over a set period of time.
Nike make all the money from any shirt sales thay make. United could change their kit ten times a season, we still would not receive a penny more from Nike.
Again, this is very simple to understand.
I've tried but he doesn't understand the difference between club revenue and sugar daddy money
Does it look different?
They pay us a set amount to make our shirts over a period of time. We cannot make more from the deal than that set amount.
----
That set amount would have been on the proviso that they can make a new kit every year... and sell more shirts
Thus unethical in the eyes of the charter.
Does it really matter how often a club releases their kits?!
You have the option of simply not buying them.
And for those of you who whine about your kids wanting the new kit; stop raising your kids as spoiled brats x
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson - Champions of Manchester, Champions of England (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
Why do the rags always refer to our owners as The Arabs?
----------------------------
Because they are from an Arab world?
Why do opposition fans always refer to the United owners as the Yanks?
Give your head a wobble lad.
Sign in if you want to comment
FFP, silly money etc...bitter
Page 5 of 14
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson - Champions of Manchester, Champions of England (U5901)
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.
---------------------------------------
1. The interest payments saddled on the club by the Glazers have seen huge amounts go out of the club. Where have you been?
2. United did not spend 70m last season on transfers, they spent 54m which was offset by the 15m we received from sales. Our net spend was about 38m. Which we still had in the bank from the Ronaldo sale.
posted on 15/5/12
why do the bitters always refer to United as Rags and Fergie as a senile alcoholic?
posted on 15/5/12
Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th
Yet another Liverpool fan obsessed with Utd and SAF.
posted on 15/5/12
please tell me someone has not just confused religion with nationality?!
***
it was too dumb to flag up for me.
posted on 15/5/12
posted 29 seconds ago
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.
Add Comment | Complain about this Comment | Share | DELETE
-----
Again VC adopts the "can't explain, won't explain" stance.
point of a "kit deal" = to give the club revenue
If a kit deal is structured in a certain way it would have been financially beneficial for the club to have it that way.
Thus reneging on a charter for financial benefit = unethical.
Debt requirements must be served hey?
posted on 15/5/12
Why do the rags always refer to our owners as The Arabs?
---
Your owner is an Arab, it is not racist to call him that.
posted on 15/5/12
please tell me someone has not just confused religion with nationality?!
No Bitter Ole they haven't, I imagine Arabs and Jews refer to ethnic orrigin as our owners aren't from Saudi Arabia and yours aren't from Israel.
posted on 15/5/12
Judaism isn't just a religion it is a cultural and ethnic identity. And Boris is actually trying to highlight that we shouldn't use that instead of referring to them as the Glazers, just as you guy should stop reffering to it as the "Arabs money".
No not knowing their name isn't a valid excuse. You're on the internet - google it x
posted on 15/5/12
"I take it no one has ever heared the phrase speculate to accumulate?"
I'd love to hear the bleating if it was Bolton that Sheikh Mansour had invested in. We might have had the same net result, just with white ribbons on the trophy, and all the blues on here would be saying fair enough.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
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.
-----------------------------------------------
But has been pointed out - many PL clubs do it. Not just United. And they arent breaking any laws. Besides, how much of it is in United's control? How much is it in Nike's control?
posted on 15/5/12
Why is man city spending 500m on playing staff worse than spending 500m (or more) on debt?
............................
Please try and understand this before one of us dies:
If any club can not match their operating costs (transfer fees, players wages etc) against their income (cash pumped in from a rich owner is not considered income) they are likely to fall foul of FFP.
Club debt is not considered as operating costs.
This is very simple to understand.
posted on 15/5/12
Judaism isn't just a religion it is a cultural and ethnic identity.
**
you could say that about any religion. (off topic)
posted on 15/5/12
The Post Nearly Man - I didn't complain when it was Blackburn or Chelsea, it didn't bother me x
posted on 15/5/12
But has been pointed out - many PL clubs do it. Not just United. And they arent breaking any laws. Besides, how much of it is in United's control? How much is it in Nike's control?
-----
How many clubs managers have come out with comments regarding man citys spending in the last two weeks?
...why have a go at someone when the club you manage is behaving unethically.
posted on 15/5/12
RedBlackandWhiteside - really you think Christianity is an ethnic identity?! Or Islam?! Idiot x
posted on 15/5/12
Wasn't the highlight of Liverpool's season their kit deal? I assume Warrior are actually going to want people to buy the shirts. Chances are they'll change it next season to encourage more people to dress up like clowns, making the OP look rather silly.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
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?
------------------------------
You obviously dont understand how the kit deal works with Nike. They pay us a set amount to make our shirts over a period of time. We cannot make more from the deal than that set amount. Therefore United do not benefit from selling more shirts only Nike do. Please stop trying to discuss topics that you clearly have no knowledge of.
posted on 15/5/12
"The Post Nearly Man - I didn't complain when it was Blackburn or Chelsea, it didn't bother me x?"
Good for you, x, was there an element of the fact it didn't concern you though?
posted on 15/5/12
VC he just doesn't get it, give up
I've tried but he doesn't understand the difference between club revenue and sugar daddy money
posted on 15/5/12
Again VC adopts the "can't explain, won't explain" stance.
point of a "kit deal" = to give the club revenue
...................
Again, please try and understand this before one of us dies.
United's kit deal with Nike is that they give us a substancial sum of money over a set period of time.
Nike make all the money from any shirt sales thay make. United could change their kit ten times a season, we still would not receive a penny more from Nike.
Again, this is very simple to understand.
posted on 15/5/12
I've tried but he doesn't understand the difference between club revenue and sugar daddy money
Does it look different?
posted on 15/5/12
They pay us a set amount to make our shirts over a period of time. We cannot make more from the deal than that set amount.
----
That set amount would have been on the proviso that they can make a new kit every year... and sell more shirts
Thus unethical in the eyes of the charter.
posted on 15/5/12
Does it really matter how often a club releases their kits?!
You have the option of simply not buying them.
And for those of you who whine about your kids wanting the new kit; stop raising your kids as spoiled brats x
posted on 15/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson - Champions of Manchester, Champions of England (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
Why do the rags always refer to our owners as The Arabs?
----------------------------
Because they are from an Arab world?
Why do opposition fans always refer to the United owners as the Yanks?
Give your head a wobble lad.
Page 5 of 14
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10