Never said there was, Boris.
"Gill said on MUTV Players awards last night that United will be monitoring FFP very closely with regard to MCFC"
I bet they don't, that's just PR bollox to pacify the more angrier rags. United won't care what happens to City vis-a-vis FFP because City's placing will never affect them. United aren't about to start finishing 5th are they, or even 4th?!
In fact if Gill was serious, I'd be a very worried united fan x
Not the way I read it, x. Surely just a case of noting that if the club's going to work within guidelines, then our (current) nearest competitor should do so too. Common sense really.
Here is another thought for Redinthehead to consider.
Should City (and it looks like they may) and Chelsea fall within UEFA's FFP, and with Arsenal and Spurs being constant, how long is it going to take for Liverpool to break into the top four and get CL football?
"how long is it going to take for Liverpool to break into the top four and get CL football?"
That's one of those questions like 'what is the sound made by one hand clapping'.
With players like Downing, it shouldn't take long before they are back on top.
Genius of a player.
The Post Nearly Man - not a complete waste of money then, hiring an accountant and perhaps a contract lawyer to make sure City are sticking to the rules?! For a start, the Glazers don't seem like the kind of businessmen to waste money needlessly.
Look, I'm sure it was just posturing. united won't need to look at it closely; clubs like spurs and liverpool will already be trying to find backdoor routes to champions league football x
Yet there is no sign what so ever that they intend to sell the Buccs.
They have a genuine connection there, United are nothing more than a business oppurtunity to the Glazers.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Malcom Glazer's great grandad was Mancunian
They have a genuine connection there, United are nothing more than a business oppurtunity to the Glazers.
.............................
Actually the Glazer's connection would more likely be Buffalo, the Giants or the Jets.
Slightly off track but one of my favourite ever comments on BBC 606 was from a Gooner who said -
"We don't need Arab money at Arsenal, we'll hammer you at the Emirates".
"Look, I'm sure it was just posturing."
I'm sure it was as well. But be fair, he's just lost the league (which happens every now and again, but not often to city), so he's going to say something along those lines, isn't he.
arguments put forward that state Nike would pay the same amount whether man utd restricted the number of new kits the deal covers are of the naive variety.
Clubs like Arsenal and United need to look at their own history and how their own foundations were built before coming out and accusing City of this and that.
As indeed to fans.
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
arguments put forward that state Nike would pay the same amount whether man utd restricted the number of new kits the deal covers are of the naive variety.
.................
Are Nike the only manufacturer of football shirts?
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
arguments put forward that state Nike would pay the same amount whether man utd restricted the number of new kits the deal covers are of the naive variety.
.................
Are Nike the only manufacturer of football shirts?
-----
Globally, no.
For man utd, yes, until the deal ends.
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
arguments put forward that state Nike would pay the same amount whether man utd restricted the number of new kits the deal covers are of the naive variety.
.................
Are Nike the only manufacturer of football shirts?
-----
Globally, no.
For man utd, yes, until the deal ends.
........................
So, what do you think happens when the deal ends?
Let me know if you want any clues.
So, what do you think happens when the deal ends?
---
VC... Man utd sign upto a charter to limit number of kits... they then sign a deal with Nike which allows them free reign on number of kits.
Not ethical is it?
VC... Man utd sign upto a charter to limit number of kits... they then sign a deal with Nike which allows them free reign on number of kits.
Not ethical is it?
......................
Neither is racially abusing another player, but that seemed to be OK with Liverpool.
Maybe you should not really be talking about ethics, bit stupid really.
arguments put forward that state Nike would pay the same amount whether man utd restricted the number of new kits the deal covers are of the naive variety.
**
redinthehead... Id give this one up... you clearly thought that the cash for United shirts jumped straight out of the tills in the Trafford Centre directly into Uncle Malcs current account... which was the basis of your arguement
Liverpool have had 13 home kits and 26 away kits since the prem started.
Now my maths aint the best in the world, but....
ole, vidics, RBW
lets ask a really simplified version of Binky's question in a way even you 3 blinkered fans can understand.
Which of the 2 scenarios below do you think is better for Football
* All figures approx
A) Outside investment of £600m, (High end obv, but what most opposing fans believe City have spent on Player xfr/wages since ADUG took charge) That means that money from other businesses not related to football, is now in the bank accounts of (for example) Arsenal, (current Debt approx £100m,) Villa (Debt again approx £100m), Everton (Debt not sure to be TBH at a guess £35 - 50m??) 'Boro (unknown) thats just in the UK. Plus Athl Madrid,Hamburg, Wolfsburg & Milan.
or
B) A debt of £600m (remember these are approx figs, I'm sure Hafi can probably tell me if I'm wrong )not related to FOOTBALL loaded onto the most profitable club in our league by their New Owners. Meaning servicing of this "Debt" by the club (Sorry brand!) has seen the loss of CR7 & Tevez, without adequate replacements, (Which almost led to the loss of Wazza) The failure to land any of the marquee signings you were in for, for the last 2 seasons Ozil, Sneijder, Nasri, Ericksson etc....
The way I see it is City have improved year on year since the investment to the extent they were the BEST team in the EPL this season, narrowly pipping Utd to the title. On the other hand Utd with a massive debt that has nothing to do with how the club was previously run has just finished the season potless and are looking at the prospect of this or next year needing to spend big on replacements for their ageing stars such as Rio, Scholes and Giggs.
Though after seeing VC's last comment I'm not holding my breath for an intelligent or even honest answer.... Oh welll 5 mins of my life I'm never getting back
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 15 minutes ago
VC... Man utd sign upto a charter to limit number of kits... they then sign a deal with Nike which allows them free reign on number of kits.
Not ethical is it?
......................
Neither is racially abusing another player, but that seemed to be OK with Liverpool.
--------
Ah now the "can't answer, won't answer stance" (bit defeatist but if that's where we are so be it)
And for RBW, the amount in the man utd coffers from Nike is a direct result of the kit deal. If there were restrictions the amount coming in would be less.
Also the charter governed home shirts, post nearly man, because these are the most popular for any team
Neither is racially abusing another player, but that seemed to be OK with Liverpool.
--------
Ah now the "can't answer, won't answer stance" (bit defeatist but if that's where we are so be it)
..............
I did answer you.
What part of 'Neither is racially abusing another player, but that seemed to be OK with Liverpool'. did you not understand?
I used very simple English, and none of the words were really that big.
Sign in if you want to comment
FFP, silly money etc...bitter
Page 7 of 14
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
posted on 15/5/12
Never said there was, Boris.
posted on 15/5/12
"Gill said on MUTV Players awards last night that United will be monitoring FFP very closely with regard to MCFC"
I bet they don't, that's just PR bollox to pacify the more angrier rags. United won't care what happens to City vis-a-vis FFP because City's placing will never affect them. United aren't about to start finishing 5th are they, or even 4th?!
In fact if Gill was serious, I'd be a very worried united fan x
posted on 15/5/12
Not the way I read it, x. Surely just a case of noting that if the club's going to work within guidelines, then our (current) nearest competitor should do so too. Common sense really.
posted on 15/5/12
Here is another thought for Redinthehead to consider.
Should City (and it looks like they may) and Chelsea fall within UEFA's FFP, and with Arsenal and Spurs being constant, how long is it going to take for Liverpool to break into the top four and get CL football?
posted on 15/5/12
"how long is it going to take for Liverpool to break into the top four and get CL football?"
That's one of those questions like 'what is the sound made by one hand clapping'.
posted on 15/5/12
With players like Downing, it shouldn't take long before they are back on top.
Genius of a player.
posted on 15/5/12
The Post Nearly Man - not a complete waste of money then, hiring an accountant and perhaps a contract lawyer to make sure City are sticking to the rules?! For a start, the Glazers don't seem like the kind of businessmen to waste money needlessly.
Look, I'm sure it was just posturing. united won't need to look at it closely; clubs like spurs and liverpool will already be trying to find backdoor routes to champions league football x
posted on 15/5/12
Yet there is no sign what so ever that they intend to sell the Buccs.
They have a genuine connection there, United are nothing more than a business oppurtunity to the Glazers.
posted on 15/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/5/12
Malcom Glazer's great grandad was Mancunian
posted on 15/5/12
They have a genuine connection there, United are nothing more than a business oppurtunity to the Glazers.
.............................
Actually the Glazer's connection would more likely be Buffalo, the Giants or the Jets.
posted on 15/5/12
Slightly off track but one of my favourite ever comments on BBC 606 was from a Gooner who said -
"We don't need Arab money at Arsenal, we'll hammer you at the Emirates".
posted on 15/5/12
"Look, I'm sure it was just posturing."
I'm sure it was as well. But be fair, he's just lost the league (which happens every now and again, but not often to city), so he's going to say something along those lines, isn't he.
posted on 15/5/12
arguments put forward that state Nike would pay the same amount whether man utd restricted the number of new kits the deal covers are of the naive variety.
posted on 15/5/12
Clubs like Arsenal and United need to look at their own history and how their own foundations were built before coming out and accusing City of this and that.
As indeed to fans.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
arguments put forward that state Nike would pay the same amount whether man utd restricted the number of new kits the deal covers are of the naive variety.
.................
Are Nike the only manufacturer of football shirts?
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
arguments put forward that state Nike would pay the same amount whether man utd restricted the number of new kits the deal covers are of the naive variety.
.................
Are Nike the only manufacturer of football shirts?
-----
Globally, no.
For man utd, yes, until the deal ends.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
arguments put forward that state Nike would pay the same amount whether man utd restricted the number of new kits the deal covers are of the naive variety.
.................
Are Nike the only manufacturer of football shirts?
-----
Globally, no.
For man utd, yes, until the deal ends.
........................
So, what do you think happens when the deal ends?
Let me know if you want any clues.
posted on 15/5/12
So, what do you think happens when the deal ends?
---
VC... Man utd sign upto a charter to limit number of kits... they then sign a deal with Nike which allows them free reign on number of kits.
Not ethical is it?
posted on 15/5/12
VC... Man utd sign upto a charter to limit number of kits... they then sign a deal with Nike which allows them free reign on number of kits.
Not ethical is it?
......................
Neither is racially abusing another player, but that seemed to be OK with Liverpool.
Maybe you should not really be talking about ethics, bit stupid really.
posted on 15/5/12
arguments put forward that state Nike would pay the same amount whether man utd restricted the number of new kits the deal covers are of the naive variety.
**
redinthehead... Id give this one up... you clearly thought that the cash for United shirts jumped straight out of the tills in the Trafford Centre directly into Uncle Malcs current account... which was the basis of your arguement
posted on 15/5/12
Liverpool have had 13 home kits and 26 away kits since the prem started.
Now my maths aint the best in the world, but....
posted on 15/5/12
ole, vidics, RBW
lets ask a really simplified version of Binky's question in a way even you 3 blinkered fans can understand.
Which of the 2 scenarios below do you think is better for Football
* All figures approx
A) Outside investment of £600m, (High end obv, but what most opposing fans believe City have spent on Player xfr/wages since ADUG took charge) That means that money from other businesses not related to football, is now in the bank accounts of (for example) Arsenal, (current Debt approx £100m,) Villa (Debt again approx £100m), Everton (Debt not sure to be TBH at a guess £35 - 50m??) 'Boro (unknown) thats just in the UK. Plus Athl Madrid,Hamburg, Wolfsburg & Milan.
or
B) A debt of £600m (remember these are approx figs, I'm sure Hafi can probably tell me if I'm wrong )not related to FOOTBALL loaded onto the most profitable club in our league by their New Owners. Meaning servicing of this "Debt" by the club (Sorry brand!) has seen the loss of CR7 & Tevez, without adequate replacements, (Which almost led to the loss of Wazza) The failure to land any of the marquee signings you were in for, for the last 2 seasons Ozil, Sneijder, Nasri, Ericksson etc....
The way I see it is City have improved year on year since the investment to the extent they were the BEST team in the EPL this season, narrowly pipping Utd to the title. On the other hand Utd with a massive debt that has nothing to do with how the club was previously run has just finished the season potless and are looking at the prospect of this or next year needing to spend big on replacements for their ageing stars such as Rio, Scholes and Giggs.
Though after seeing VC's last comment I'm not holding my breath for an intelligent or even honest answer.... Oh welll 5 mins of my life I'm never getting back
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 15 minutes ago
VC... Man utd sign upto a charter to limit number of kits... they then sign a deal with Nike which allows them free reign on number of kits.
Not ethical is it?
......................
Neither is racially abusing another player, but that seemed to be OK with Liverpool.
--------
Ah now the "can't answer, won't answer stance" (bit defeatist but if that's where we are so be it)
And for RBW, the amount in the man utd coffers from Nike is a direct result of the kit deal. If there were restrictions the amount coming in would be less.
Also the charter governed home shirts, post nearly man, because these are the most popular for any team
posted on 15/5/12
Neither is racially abusing another player, but that seemed to be OK with Liverpool.
--------
Ah now the "can't answer, won't answer stance" (bit defeatist but if that's where we are so be it)
..............
I did answer you.
What part of 'Neither is racially abusing another player, but that seemed to be OK with Liverpool'. did you not understand?
I used very simple English, and none of the words were really that big.
Page 7 of 14
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12