Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Every team buys success regardless where the money has come from, I'm just happy we are finally spending real dosh since the Ronaldo sale
Money buys the players regardless of the of the source.
Not buying success would mean not spending any money.
I hardly think Chelsea fans can say United are buying their success, when they have spent something like £230 million in the past 3 seasons or so. They are now well into their second billion of spending since they won the lottery.
I think some context would help here please.
comment by MurderOnZidanesFloor (U7958)
posted 10 seconds ago
Calm down mate, nobody said you bought success
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is all over the dailymail comment section and articles during the Mata bidding. Whether it was said or not, think some numpties need to know this. Even Arsenal don't do things better than United.
You need to ignore rival fans to be honest OP, they'll pick and choose how to bash us.
Before the Glazers took over, we were accused of buying the league title even though everyone could see it was our own money. However, 'breaking' transfer records is what rival fans saw.
Since the Glazers took over, we've been consistently mocked for being broke, yet when we win the league we were told it's because we bought it. Absolutely no logic whatsoever there.
Chelsea/Manchester City came in, outspent us fans found that hilarious and used it as a means of bashing us, saying we're broke. We've just brought in a world-class player and our decline is not so entertaining anymore, so no we're buying our success again.
It will go around in circles like this.
comment by Darkphoenix (U11503)
posted 8 seconds ago
You need to ignore rival fans to be honest OP, they'll pick and choose how to bash us.
Before the Glazers took over, we were accused of buying the league title even though everyone could see it was our own money. However, 'breaking' transfer records is what rival fans saw.
Since the Glazers took over, we've been consistently mocked for being broke, yet when we win the league we were told it's because we bought it. Absolutely no logic whatsoever there.
Chelsea/Manchester City came in, outspent us fans found that hilarious and used it as a means of bashing us, saying we're broke. We've just brought in a world-class player and our decline is not so entertaining anymore, so no we're buying our success again.
It will go around in circles like this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what he said ^
So what, all the signings you made in the 90's/2000's were down to your success, and generated revenue?
You lot do make me laugh.
You were owned by 2 men who are now worth £1.5bn combined. They were the rich boys in the early days of the premier league.
You honestly think that your revenues paid for Veron, Van Nistlerooy, Ferdinand etc?
Get real. You United wa nkers do crack me up. The majority of you have convinced yourselves that you are purely self made. Have a little read up.....
J.P McManus and John Magnier. Look them up.
Why this drivel is on Chelsea board
Btw your club just spend £37.1m trying to buy 4th place
comment by Say My Name (U18558)
posted 1 minute ago
Money buys the players regardless of the of the source.
Not buying success would mean not spending any money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think using money generated by the clubs activities to booster the service provided is not called buying success. Using someone else's billions to improve a squad that would've never generated such sums to buy said players, to compete at the top is buying success.
Spurs have done a pretty good job of buying failure
You honestly think that your revenues paid for Veron, Van Nistlerooy, Ferdinand etc?
Get real. You United wa nkers do crack me up. The majority of you have convinced yourselves that you are purely self made. Have a little read up.....
J.P McManus and John Magnier. Look them up.
===========================================
yes of course our revenue paid for their signings, we always made a profit, never a loss
comment by M.O.J.O (U1937)
posted 1 minute ago
So what, all the signings you made in the 90's/2000's were down to your success, and generated revenue?
You lot do make me laugh.
You were owned by 2 men who are now worth £1.5bn combined. They were the rich boys in the early days of the premier league.
You honestly think that your revenues paid for Veron, Van Nistlerooy, Ferdinand etc?
Get real. You United wa nkers do crack me up. The majority of you have convinced yourselves that you are purely self made. Have a little read up.....
J.P McManus and John Magnier. Look them up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha, this fool thinks Manchester united the club/business could not raise £29 million to buy Ferdinand. You sir need your brains examined.
comment by ♥♥JustAnotherPoster♥♥ (U10557)
posted 3 minutes ago
Why this drivel is on Chelsea board
Btw your club just spend £37.1m trying to buy 4th place
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My club could've spent £500 million if it were not for the debt we were in. Going by how much we make, I hardly think 37 million is anything. Peanuts.
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Say My Name (U18558)
posted 1 minute ago
Money buys the players regardless of the of the source.
Not buying success would mean not spending any money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think using money generated by the clubs activities to booster the service provided is not called buying success. Using someone else's billions to improve a squad that would've never generated such sums to buy said players, to compete at the top is buying success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No this is having an issue as to where the money came from, that is a different argument. Buying is buying. Besides because you read it in the mail you feel the need to have a go at us for it? I don't read the mail list alone share my views with it.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
City are buying success
It's great
Daily mail comment section I blame Manchester United and asylum seekers!
Haha, this fool thinks Manchester united the club/business could not raise £29 million to buy Ferdinand. You sir need your brains examined.
----------------------
Oh sorry. I forgot you paid £30m for him, and then bosh, that was it. He didn't cost you any more money.
Put it this way any side that pays the majority of their players a high wage, cannot maintain the costs using just revenue. That's not even including transfer fees.
And it's just as relative now as it was then. The ratio of revenue to expenditure was comparable to now.
floating utd on the stock market is not really generating your own Money is it...abramovich is a single owner however he Places funds in the firm is up to him surely..never heard the saying you got to spend Money to make Money. Well thats what utd were doing in the 80s buying players at way over what everybody else could that got you the success you enjoyed up to last season, Liverpool with their littlewoods backing got their original success and as for Spurs...well WHO cares, just waiting for the corpse to wash up on the shore for them.
I'm fine with you lot thinking that you've always paid your own way. You're only kidding yourselves. And while you do that, the interest on your £500m bank loans are going on and on. I look forward to seeing you service it while your playing on Thursdays next season.
http://theshed.chelseafc.com/chat/uploads/2c6c43fa522d.jpg
Sign in if you want to comment
Nonsense about buying Success
Page 1 of 5
posted on 26/1/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/1/14
Who said that?
posted on 26/1/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/1/14
Every team buys success regardless where the money has come from, I'm just happy we are finally spending real dosh since the Ronaldo sale
posted on 26/1/14
Money buys the players regardless of the of the source.
Not buying success would mean not spending any money.
posted on 26/1/14
I hardly think Chelsea fans can say United are buying their success, when they have spent something like £230 million in the past 3 seasons or so. They are now well into their second billion of spending since they won the lottery.
posted on 26/1/14
I think some context would help here please.
posted on 26/1/14
comment by MurderOnZidanesFloor (U7958)
posted 10 seconds ago
Calm down mate, nobody said you bought success
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is all over the dailymail comment section and articles during the Mata bidding. Whether it was said or not, think some numpties need to know this. Even Arsenal don't do things better than United.
posted on 26/1/14
You need to ignore rival fans to be honest OP, they'll pick and choose how to bash us.
Before the Glazers took over, we were accused of buying the league title even though everyone could see it was our own money. However, 'breaking' transfer records is what rival fans saw.
Since the Glazers took over, we've been consistently mocked for being broke, yet when we win the league we were told it's because we bought it. Absolutely no logic whatsoever there.
Chelsea/Manchester City came in, outspent us fans found that hilarious and used it as a means of bashing us, saying we're broke. We've just brought in a world-class player and our decline is not so entertaining anymore, so no we're buying our success again.
It will go around in circles like this.
posted on 26/1/14
comment by Darkphoenix (U11503)
posted 8 seconds ago
You need to ignore rival fans to be honest OP, they'll pick and choose how to bash us.
Before the Glazers took over, we were accused of buying the league title even though everyone could see it was our own money. However, 'breaking' transfer records is what rival fans saw.
Since the Glazers took over, we've been consistently mocked for being broke, yet when we win the league we were told it's because we bought it. Absolutely no logic whatsoever there.
Chelsea/Manchester City came in, outspent us fans found that hilarious and used it as a means of bashing us, saying we're broke. We've just brought in a world-class player and our decline is not so entertaining anymore, so no we're buying our success again.
It will go around in circles like this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what he said ^
posted on 26/1/14
So what, all the signings you made in the 90's/2000's were down to your success, and generated revenue?
You lot do make me laugh.
You were owned by 2 men who are now worth £1.5bn combined. They were the rich boys in the early days of the premier league.
You honestly think that your revenues paid for Veron, Van Nistlerooy, Ferdinand etc?
Get real. You United wa nkers do crack me up. The majority of you have convinced yourselves that you are purely self made. Have a little read up.....
J.P McManus and John Magnier. Look them up.
posted on 26/1/14
Why this drivel is on Chelsea board
Btw your club just spend £37.1m trying to buy 4th place
posted on 26/1/14
comment by Say My Name (U18558)
posted 1 minute ago
Money buys the players regardless of the of the source.
Not buying success would mean not spending any money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think using money generated by the clubs activities to booster the service provided is not called buying success. Using someone else's billions to improve a squad that would've never generated such sums to buy said players, to compete at the top is buying success.
posted on 26/1/14
Spurs have done a pretty good job of buying failure
posted on 26/1/14
You honestly think that your revenues paid for Veron, Van Nistlerooy, Ferdinand etc?
Get real. You United wa nkers do crack me up. The majority of you have convinced yourselves that you are purely self made. Have a little read up.....
J.P McManus and John Magnier. Look them up.
===========================================
yes of course our revenue paid for their signings, we always made a profit, never a loss
posted on 26/1/14
comment by M.O.J.O (U1937)
posted 1 minute ago
So what, all the signings you made in the 90's/2000's were down to your success, and generated revenue?
You lot do make me laugh.
You were owned by 2 men who are now worth £1.5bn combined. They were the rich boys in the early days of the premier league.
You honestly think that your revenues paid for Veron, Van Nistlerooy, Ferdinand etc?
Get real. You United wa nkers do crack me up. The majority of you have convinced yourselves that you are purely self made. Have a little read up.....
J.P McManus and John Magnier. Look them up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha, this fool thinks Manchester united the club/business could not raise £29 million to buy Ferdinand. You sir need your brains examined.
posted on 26/1/14
comment by ♥♥JustAnotherPoster♥♥ (U10557)
posted 3 minutes ago
Why this drivel is on Chelsea board
Btw your club just spend £37.1m trying to buy 4th place
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My club could've spent £500 million if it were not for the debt we were in. Going by how much we make, I hardly think 37 million is anything. Peanuts.
posted on 26/1/14
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Say My Name (U18558)
posted 1 minute ago
Money buys the players regardless of the of the source.
Not buying success would mean not spending any money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think using money generated by the clubs activities to booster the service provided is not called buying success. Using someone else's billions to improve a squad that would've never generated such sums to buy said players, to compete at the top is buying success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No this is having an issue as to where the money came from, that is a different argument. Buying is buying. Besides because you read it in the mail you feel the need to have a go at us for it? I don't read the mail list alone share my views with it.
posted on 26/1/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/1/14
City are buying success
It's great
posted on 26/1/14
Daily mail comment section I blame Manchester United and asylum seekers!
posted on 26/1/14
Haha, this fool thinks Manchester united the club/business could not raise £29 million to buy Ferdinand. You sir need your brains examined.
----------------------
Oh sorry. I forgot you paid £30m for him, and then bosh, that was it. He didn't cost you any more money.
Put it this way any side that pays the majority of their players a high wage, cannot maintain the costs using just revenue. That's not even including transfer fees.
And it's just as relative now as it was then. The ratio of revenue to expenditure was comparable to now.
posted on 26/1/14
floating utd on the stock market is not really generating your own Money is it...abramovich is a single owner however he Places funds in the firm is up to him surely..never heard the saying you got to spend Money to make Money. Well thats what utd were doing in the 80s buying players at way over what everybody else could that got you the success you enjoyed up to last season, Liverpool with their littlewoods backing got their original success and as for Spurs...well WHO cares, just waiting for the corpse to wash up on the shore for them.
posted on 26/1/14
I'm fine with you lot thinking that you've always paid your own way. You're only kidding yourselves. And while you do that, the interest on your £500m bank loans are going on and on. I look forward to seeing you service it while your playing on Thursdays next season.
posted on 26/1/14
http://theshed.chelseafc.com/chat/uploads/2c6c43fa522d.jpg
Page 1 of 5