living within the means of the owners is acceptable? of please. it's deplorable.
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
......................
Gets my vote for 'Most ill informed comment' of the year.
-----
That's the standard reply for rivals that are clueless about our finances.
I am waiting for the standard "you are a billion quid in debt" comment.
Fact is our debt has fallen significantly and is being paid off in chunks by buying back the bonds. Last year alone i think they purchased back 50 million quids worth. (perhaps that was over 2 years i can't be sure) but the debt is now under 400 M.
Still a lot but on our revenue it's comfortable.
comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson - Champions of Manchester, Champions of England (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
All this after your owners have pumped in a total of 983 million quid."
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
------------------------------------
Is this the dumbest post ever on these boards?
You decide!
comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson - Champions of Manchester, Champions of England (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
All this after your owners have pumped in a total of 983 million quid."
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
------------------------------------
Is this the dumbest post ever on these boards?
You decide!
----
Yes
Rather embarrassing that you can only beat us on goal difference given the details you gave above is it not ???
--------------
Not at all. A win is a win is a win. Do you get embarrassed when you're unable to put more than 1 goal past an inferior team, or do you just celebrate the fact that that 1 goal was enough to win the game?
It all depends on how you look it at I suppose. Personally, I would prefer to give United credit for getting to 89 points. With the exception of two games (which we duly won), City had no bearing whatsoever on any other game involving United, so its no reflection on us that United did manage to equal our points tally (although thankfully from a City perspective, not our goals scored or conceded). Of course, You are probably coming out with your comment, which is at its heart intent to belittle City, because to do so provides you with some solace for your clubs failure to win the league this season.
Besides, the success that City have had as a result of investment made by the owners is just the start, not the culmination. People, seemingly, are very ignorant of this fact. It always makes me laugh when people come out with the, ahem, gem and say something along the lines of "£500m to win an FA Cup". Someone should point out to them that shortsightedness is not their friend.
boris logic is lets ay someone got a mortgage of £500k for the house boris would say the perspon pumped 500k into the house of its own money lol vs man city which is a person buying £25 £500k houses wuth there own money.
Post,
It depends really on what you class as investment into the club. I'm assuming the figure of 983 Million came from the Telegraph article. In which case, that figure was expenditure and didn't deduct income (which was a bit daft) and also included all of the investment into the area, not just the club. Currently, there is no debt, it all got written off as well as some other fees to stop it showing on this years report.
FFP is the reason we spent so aggressively. The plan all along was to build up slowly rather than mass initial investment, but the owners had to invest in the playing staff before the door was shut, so to speak. They have already said that there will not be anywhere near the same amount of spending this summer. Looking at actual revenue over the last couple of years, that is increasing quite considerably.
There is no denying they have spent a lot of money. I'm not particularly worried about FFP though, Uefa have been involved since the start and have said they are happy with our plan. Ultimately, it depends on success on the pitch as well as the continued investment in infrastructure (which isn't part of FFP).
One thing I didn't realise. There is only something like £750,000 difference in prize money from winning the PL compared to finishing 2nd, but there is quite a big difference in the TV rights allocated from the Champions League. I'll be interested to see Spurs report this year to see how much they have lost out, for example.
"because to do so provides you with some solace for your clubs failure to win the league this season."
To be honest, Ripleys, win or lose the league, the feeling wears off pretty quickly.
It needs to be there Ripleys, otherwise you get a circus where a mega rich owner can create some sort of joke Harlem Globetrotters type club
-----------------
The game has survived (and thrived) for over 100 years without the FFP regulations being in place. Clearly it doesn't need to be there.
Clubs have always benefitted from investment. Clubs have always gone under. Both have shaped the game we all know and love today.
Thanks Melton. I did read though that UEFA haven't even looked at the Etihad stadium deal, and will only review as and when they're testing whether clubs meet the qualifying criteria. Disallowing that will blow a largish hole in the plan I would think.
Wise up please, Utd pay the interest on the 391 million debt with ease and have money to spend.
----------------
Doesn't discount the actual point that I made, which I suspect has gone right over your head.
The financial fair play rules have nothing to do with financial fair play. In fact they are just the opposite. They are fulfilling the objectives of keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. The rules can only be admired by members of the Conservative Party.
living within the means of the owners is acceptable? of please. it's deplorable.
------------------------
Now now Ole, remember what I told you about your repressed psyche. It's in danger of coming to the fore again.
Investment is not deplorable. Never has been. Never will be.
Binky and Ripley's
Leave this one to Melton.
On Boris's logic, i pumped 202k into my house back in 2008 when i took our the mortgage.
to such an extent in sporting terms, it most certainly is.
To be honest, Ripleys, win or lose the league, the feeling wears off pretty quickly.
----------------
I'll remember that the next time anyone attempts to shove the "history" argument down my throat.
You are of course right though. I took little solace out of the fact that we won the FA Cup a year ago when we were knocked out of the competition at the first hurdle this season. (Actually, the joke "35 years to win a trophy, 90 minutes to lose it", I have to say, was pretty funny!!)
So Ole, you've named one more premiership club that brings out a new kit every season... where's this majority of clubs you talk about? So far we have man utd arsenal Chelsea and everton... Any more to back up your assertions?
Man Utd will in the end have to pay back half a billion quids worth of debt... Ie outgoing
Man city have spent half a billion quid... outgoing
.. at least Man City are spending it on football and not debt.
United fans might say its not sustainable but man city will not have such an acute bout of spending again..
Man Utd will in the end have to pay back half a billion quids worth of debt... Ie outgoing
Man city have spent half a billion quid... outgoing
.. at least Man City are spending it on football and not debt.
......................
Oh deary, deary me. This lad really is a dunce.
Vidicchin maybe just once you'll explain why you disagree with something
So Ole, you've named one more premiership club that brings out a new kit every season... where's this majority of clubs you talk about? So far we have man utd arsenal Chelsea and everton... Any more to back up your assertions?
Man Utd will in the end have to pay back half a billion quids worth of debt... Ie outgoing
Man city have spent half a billion quid... outgoing
.. at least Man City are spending it on football and not debt.
United fans might say its not sustainable but man city will not have such an acute bout of spending again..
----
Are you trying to be thick ?
Seriously ?
The difference is that ALL of the spending from City is from your Arab owner, thus it is NOT club revenue.
Utd pay their debt and have money for transfers from the clubs revenue.
Please try to understand.
do you really want to do this? off the top of my head, arsenal, aston villa, blackburn, bolton, chelsea, everton, fulham (who even changed the colour of their shorts this season), united, newcastle (who also changed sponsors mid season), wigan and wolves. and that's just from this seasons premier league, plenty more do it in the lower divisions.
Utd pay their debt and have money for transfers from the clubs revenue.
----
Currently yes...
Are saying city will never increase revenues through footballing success?
Sign in if you want to comment
FFP, silly money etc...bitter
Page 2 of 14
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 15/5/12
living within the means of the owners is acceptable? of please. it's deplorable.
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.
-----
That's the standard reply for rivals that are clueless about our finances.
I am waiting for the standard "you are a billion quid in debt" comment.
Fact is our debt has fallen significantly and is being paid off in chunks by buying back the bonds. Last year alone i think they purchased back 50 million quids worth. (perhaps that was over 2 years i can't be sure) but the debt is now under 400 M.
Still a lot but on our revenue it's comfortable.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson - Champions of Manchester, Champions of England (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
All this after your owners have pumped in a total of 983 million quid."
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
------------------------------------
Is this the dumbest post ever on these boards?
You decide!
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson - Champions of Manchester, Champions of England (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
All this after your owners have pumped in a total of 983 million quid."
The Glazers initially pumped £800m into United so what's your problem?
------------------------------------
Is this the dumbest post ever on these boards?
You decide!
----
Yes
posted on 15/5/12
Rather embarrassing that you can only beat us on goal difference given the details you gave above is it not ???
--------------
Not at all. A win is a win is a win. Do you get embarrassed when you're unable to put more than 1 goal past an inferior team, or do you just celebrate the fact that that 1 goal was enough to win the game?
It all depends on how you look it at I suppose. Personally, I would prefer to give United credit for getting to 89 points. With the exception of two games (which we duly won), City had no bearing whatsoever on any other game involving United, so its no reflection on us that United did manage to equal our points tally (although thankfully from a City perspective, not our goals scored or conceded). Of course, You are probably coming out with your comment, which is at its heart intent to belittle City, because to do so provides you with some solace for your clubs failure to win the league this season.
Besides, the success that City have had as a result of investment made by the owners is just the start, not the culmination. People, seemingly, are very ignorant of this fact. It always makes me laugh when people come out with the, ahem, gem and say something along the lines of "£500m to win an FA Cup". Someone should point out to them that shortsightedness is not their friend.
posted on 15/5/12
gets my vote
posted on 15/5/12
boris logic is lets ay someone got a mortgage of £500k for the house boris would say the perspon pumped 500k into the house of its own money lol vs man city which is a person buying £25 £500k houses wuth there own money.
posted on 15/5/12
Post,
It depends really on what you class as investment into the club. I'm assuming the figure of 983 Million came from the Telegraph article. In which case, that figure was expenditure and didn't deduct income (which was a bit daft) and also included all of the investment into the area, not just the club. Currently, there is no debt, it all got written off as well as some other fees to stop it showing on this years report.
FFP is the reason we spent so aggressively. The plan all along was to build up slowly rather than mass initial investment, but the owners had to invest in the playing staff before the door was shut, so to speak. They have already said that there will not be anywhere near the same amount of spending this summer. Looking at actual revenue over the last couple of years, that is increasing quite considerably.
There is no denying they have spent a lot of money. I'm not particularly worried about FFP though, Uefa have been involved since the start and have said they are happy with our plan. Ultimately, it depends on success on the pitch as well as the continued investment in infrastructure (which isn't part of FFP).
One thing I didn't realise. There is only something like £750,000 difference in prize money from winning the PL compared to finishing 2nd, but there is quite a big difference in the TV rights allocated from the Champions League. I'll be interested to see Spurs report this year to see how much they have lost out, for example.
posted on 15/5/12
"because to do so provides you with some solace for your clubs failure to win the league this season."
To be honest, Ripleys, win or lose the league, the feeling wears off pretty quickly.
posted on 15/5/12
It needs to be there Ripleys, otherwise you get a circus where a mega rich owner can create some sort of joke Harlem Globetrotters type club
-----------------
The game has survived (and thrived) for over 100 years without the FFP regulations being in place. Clearly it doesn't need to be there.
Clubs have always benefitted from investment. Clubs have always gone under. Both have shaped the game we all know and love today.
posted on 15/5/12
Thanks Melton. I did read though that UEFA haven't even looked at the Etihad stadium deal, and will only review as and when they're testing whether clubs meet the qualifying criteria. Disallowing that will blow a largish hole in the plan I would think.
posted on 15/5/12
Wise up please, Utd pay the interest on the 391 million debt with ease and have money to spend.
----------------
Doesn't discount the actual point that I made, which I suspect has gone right over your head.
posted on 15/5/12
The financial fair play rules have nothing to do with financial fair play. In fact they are just the opposite. They are fulfilling the objectives of keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. The rules can only be admired by members of the Conservative Party.
posted on 15/5/12
living within the means of the owners is acceptable? of please. it's deplorable.
------------------------
Now now Ole, remember what I told you about your repressed psyche. It's in danger of coming to the fore again.
Investment is not deplorable. Never has been. Never will be.
posted on 15/5/12
Binky and Ripley's
Leave this one to Melton.
posted on 15/5/12
On Boris's logic, i pumped 202k into my house back in 2008 when i took our the mortgage.
posted on 15/5/12
to such an extent in sporting terms, it most certainly is.
posted on 15/5/12
To be honest, Ripleys, win or lose the league, the feeling wears off pretty quickly.
----------------
I'll remember that the next time anyone attempts to shove the "history" argument down my throat.
You are of course right though. I took little solace out of the fact that we won the FA Cup a year ago when we were knocked out of the competition at the first hurdle this season. (Actually, the joke "35 years to win a trophy, 90 minutes to lose it", I have to say, was pretty funny!!)
posted on 15/5/12
ha ha ha ha.
posted on 15/5/12
So Ole, you've named one more premiership club that brings out a new kit every season... where's this majority of clubs you talk about? So far we have man utd arsenal Chelsea and everton... Any more to back up your assertions?
Man Utd will in the end have to pay back half a billion quids worth of debt... Ie outgoing
Man city have spent half a billion quid... outgoing
.. at least Man City are spending it on football and not debt.
United fans might say its not sustainable but man city will not have such an acute bout of spending again..
posted on 15/5/12
Man Utd will in the end have to pay back half a billion quids worth of debt... Ie outgoing
Man city have spent half a billion quid... outgoing
.. at least Man City are spending it on football and not debt.
......................
Oh deary, deary me. This lad really is a dunce.
posted on 15/5/12
Vidicchin maybe just once you'll explain why you disagree with something
posted on 15/5/12
So Ole, you've named one more premiership club that brings out a new kit every season... where's this majority of clubs you talk about? So far we have man utd arsenal Chelsea and everton... Any more to back up your assertions?
Man Utd will in the end have to pay back half a billion quids worth of debt... Ie outgoing
Man city have spent half a billion quid... outgoing
.. at least Man City are spending it on football and not debt.
United fans might say its not sustainable but man city will not have such an acute bout of spending again..
----
Are you trying to be thick ?
Seriously ?
The difference is that ALL of the spending from City is from your Arab owner, thus it is NOT club revenue.
Utd pay their debt and have money for transfers from the clubs revenue.
Please try to understand.
posted on 15/5/12
do you really want to do this? off the top of my head, arsenal, aston villa, blackburn, bolton, chelsea, everton, fulham (who even changed the colour of their shorts this season), united, newcastle (who also changed sponsors mid season), wigan and wolves. and that's just from this seasons premier league, plenty more do it in the lower divisions.
posted on 15/5/12
Utd pay their debt and have money for transfers from the clubs revenue.
----
Currently yes...
Are saying city will never increase revenues through footballing success?
Page 2 of 14
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10