RedBlackandWhiteside - really you think Christianity is an ethnic identity?! Or Islam?! Idiot x
***

for many people yes.

I've tried but he doesn't understand the difference between club revenue and sugar daddy money

Does it look different?

----

To Uefa yes it does

comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson - Champions of Manchester, Champions of England (U5901)
posted 0 seconds ago

I've tried but he doesn't understand the difference between club revenue and sugar daddy money

Does it look different?

....................

It does to UEFA.

As I said before Binky, you can sit this one out and leave it to Melton.

United could change their kit ten times a season, we still would not receive a penny more from Nike.

-----
United do not change the kit, it's Nike. They pay man utd.
Man utd signed upto a charter yes? Why not sign a deal that enforces that charter?

Turning a blind eye and blaming Nike?

Like man utd do not benefit from the terms of the deal (!)

That set amount would have been on the proviso that they can make a new kit every year... and sell more shirts
***

which makes Nike even richer.

I am no economist, but I have seen debates on this topic where people think a debt and a loss are the same. If an owner pays wages from his own pocket then that is something FFP is out to prevent, if it can.

I'm actually thinking these guys are being serious now, I did think they were just wumming but now I actually believe they don't understand what club revenue is.

To the man city fans... When you do fall within the FFP rules it'll be "UEFA gave such and such club time to comply"

Good for you, x, was there an element of the fact it didn't concern you though?

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

And that's exactly the point isn't it? I don't recall Arsenal Wenger moaning about Dave Whelan's investment into Wigan, nor Ferguson for that matter. Because Wigan are not a threat to them.

It only matters when their own hegemony is threatened. That much is transparent.

comment by RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)
posted 1 minute ago
That set amount would have been on the proviso that they can make a new kit every year... and sell more shirts
***

which makes Nike even richer.

----
Yes but had man utd insisted that a new kit only be launched once every two years that would've meant less money for Nike which would have meant less money for man utd.

"And that's exactly the point isn't it? I don't recall Arsenal Wenger moaning about Dave Whelan's investment into Wigan, nor Ferguson for that matter. Because Wigan are not a threat to them."

Come on Ripley's, if Dave Whelan had invested the thick end of a billion into Wigan it'd be commented on.

The Post Nearly Man - Actually I'm just a great believer in free market enterprise (I'm not against regulation before anyone mentions sub-prime debt, before anyone starts).

If a guy thinks he can make a long term profit by outspending his competition for 10 years; that's his prerogative. Triumph motorcycles did it and everyone thought they were crazy; but it's worked out for them.

However if the investment fails, so what. Let the clubs hit the wall I say. You can say what about the fans and the community; well that's business and it's tough, but it's fair.

Plus they can always start a phoenix club and start again from the bottom. If Rangers was wound up tomorrow, there would be a new Rangers back in the Scottish Premier in 5 years time x

man Uniteds shirt contract is pretty unremarkable compared to most other top flight clubs in the world. It seems that its norm for a new kit every year now.

And so what if it is? If you dont want one dont buy one. But dont moan about it.

As I said before Binky, you can sit this one out and leave it to Melton.

I'm happy to sit it out and leave the club to the stewardship of our army of highly paid lawyers and accountants.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

And so what if it is? If you dont want one dont buy one. But dont moan about it.

do you support them?

Come on Ripley's, if Dave Whelan had invested the thick end of a billion into Wigan it'd be commented on.

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

So it's the amount invested, not investment itself that is the problem? I've heard that view before, and quite frankly I find it ridiculous because it is self-defeating and incredibly short-sighted.

So clubs would be better off spending their time putting together sht hot investment opportunity presentations and hawking themselves around the richest families in the world.

Mind you if the Qatari's or suchlike ever do buy United you're in bother (ffp not such a consideration for the big clubs), so I guess we'll all change our stance then. I'm pretty sure the Glazer's model includes a sale after the fattening up process.

Yes but had man utd insisted that a new kit only be launched once every two years that would've meant less money for Nike which would have meant less money for man utd.

.................

Fortunately our club and Nike are not as stupid as you appear to be.

i'd be genuinely devastated if anyone like the qatar's bought us.

Gill said on MUTV Players awards last night that United will be monitoring FFP very closely with regard to MCFC and making sure, to the best of their ability, that they operate with accordance to the rules which are clearly laid out.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

so I guess we'll all change our stance then. I'm pretty sure the Glazer's model includes a sale after the fattening up process.

There's nothing wrong with the Glazers model from a business perspective.

I'm pretty sure the Glazer's model includes a sale after the fattening up process.

....................

This is one of the things I do not necessarily agree with, but it it something a lot of our fans just assume.

There is more to it than just making money, with these people. A lot of it is to do with prestige and bragging rites among the wealthy.

The Glazer's for example have taken Tampa just about as far as it will go, with regards to making a profit from their original outlay. Their value is over four times the Glazer's original outlay.

Yet there is no sign what so ever that they intend to sell the Buccs.