Man Utd Thread:

[magpie seanie]

The most important day of the year today, the shareholder's conference call, 1PM Irish time

https://services.choruscall.com/links/manchester1905163IwPSAkZ.html

It will contain this line Net debt as of 31 March 2019 was £301.7 million, an increase of £0.4 million over the year. The gross USD debt principal remains unchanged.

Who gives a f**k about the debt. It not as if it's coming out of your pocket. What's 300 million nowadays anyway? Couple of tours of China and that be covered.

Not much point in some of the lads in here crying about City and their financial outlay when Utd have been in debt for a decade. Both just as bad if we are being honest - just one is seen as acceptable.

You don't really understand how this works do you? I'll give a small explainer.

United have consistently been one of if the ther most profitable soccer clubs in the world. When the Glazers took over the club in the mid 2000's United were highly profitbale and had zero debt. Once the deal was completed (club value at time of takeover £790M), they brought the loans they used to buy the club onto the clubs books (5 years after the takeover in 2010 this totalled over £700M). This meant that the club went from having zero debt to a dangerously high level of debt (for its size) in a short space of time. Most profits generated were needed to pay down debt (over £60M each year) and the "consultancy/management fees" to the Glazer family and weren't available to buy players. Ronaldo was sold for £70M and replaced by Valencia and Michael Owen for example. Luckily the greatest soccer manager of all time was still at the helm and somehow managed to continue winning titles despite not being able to compete for the top young players in the world. The club's revenues kept growing and the debt has been reduced significantly to the point where it's not an issue any more (it has reduced and the value of the club overall in now more than £3 Billion). From a position of the debt almost being equal to the vlaue of the club it's now about a tenth of the value. This has meant United have has cash in the last few years but as we've seen it has been largely wasted on short termism and quick fixes which haven't worked.

So clearly anyone can see the Glazer ownership has meant something in the region of a billion pounds sterling has left the club since 2005. Around the amount of money City have been given to spend in that time from their owners.

[Keyser soze]

You should stick to the Liverpool thread OTB!!

[GetOverTheBar]

The most important day of the year today, the shareholder's conference call, 1PM Irish time

https://services.choruscall.com/links/manchester1905163IwPSAkZ.html

It will contain this line Net debt as of 31 March 2019 was £301.7 million, an increase of £0.4 million over the year. The gross USD debt principal remains unchanged.

Who gives a f**k about the debt. It not as if it's coming out of your pocket. What's 300 million nowadays anyway? Couple of tours of China and that be covered.

Not much point in some of the lads in here crying about City and their financial outlay when Utd have been in debt for a decade. Both just as bad if we are being honest - just one is seen as acceptable.

You don't really understand how this works do you? I'll give a small explainer.

United have consistently been one of if the ther most profitable soccer clubs in the world. When the Glazers took over the club in the mid 2000's United were highly profitbale and had zero debt. Once the deal was completed (club value at time of takeover £790M), they brought the loans they used to buy the club onto the clubs books (5 years after the takeover in 2010 this totalled over £700M). This meant that the club went from having zero debt to a dangerously high level of debt (for its size) in a short space of time. Most profits generated were needed to pay down debt (over £60M each year) and the "consultancy/management fees" to the Glazer family and weren't available to buy players. Ronaldo was sold for £70M and replaced by Valencia and Michael Owen for example. Luckily the greatest soccer manager of all time was still at the helm and somehow managed to continue winning titles despite not being able to compete for the top young players in the world. The club's revenues kept growing and the debt has been reduced significantly to the point where it's not an issue any more (it has reduced and the value of the club overall in now more than £3 Billion). From a position of the debt almost being equal to the vlaue of the club it's now about a tenth of the value. This has meant United have has cash in the last few years but as we've seen it has been largely wasted on short termism and quick fixes which haven't worked.

So clearly anyone can see the Glazer ownership has meant something in the region of a billion pounds sterling has left the club since 2005. Around the amount of money City have been given to spend in that time from their owners.

Well aware of the above, the question is, why is one, for want of a better phrase morally acceptable and the other not? I'm not doubting your facts, I'm merely asking what is the problem with City pushing the cash in, if they have it when in contrast the United owners take the widely accepted much better generated revenue out. Sounds like the issue is more one of annoyance or jealousy as opposed to any moral principal to me.

[trailer]

The most important day of the year today, the shareholder's conference call, 1PM Irish time

https://services.choruscall.com/links/manchester1905163IwPSAkZ.html

It will contain this line Net debt as of 31 March 2019 was £301.7 million, an increase of £0.4 million over the year. The gross USD debt principal remains unchanged.

Who gives a f**k about the debt. It not as if it's coming out of your pocket. What's 300 million nowadays anyway? Couple of tours of China and that be covered.

Not much point in some of the lads in here crying about City and their financial outlay when Utd have been in debt for a decade. Both just as bad if we are being honest - just one is seen as acceptable.

You don't really understand how this works do you? I'll give a small explainer.

United have consistently been one of if the ther most profitable soccer clubs in the world. When the Glazers took over the club in the mid 2000's United were highly profitbale and had zero debt. Once the deal was completed (club value at time of takeover £790M), they brought the loans they used to buy the club onto the clubs books (5 years after the takeover in 2010 this totalled over £700M). This meant that the club went from having zero debt to a dangerously high level of debt (for its size) in a short space of time. Most profits generated were needed to pay down debt (over £60M each year) and the "consultancy/management fees" to the Glazer family and weren't available to buy players. Ronaldo was sold for £70M and replaced by Valencia and Michael Owen for example. Luckily the greatest soccer manager of all time was still at the helm and somehow managed to continue winning titles despite not being able to compete for the top young players in the world. The club's revenues kept growing and the debt has been reduced significantly to the point where it's not an issue any more (it has reduced and the value of the club overall in now more than £3 Billion). From a position of the debt almost being equal to the vlaue of the club it's now about a tenth of the value. This has meant United have has cash in the last few years but as we've seen it has been largely wasted on short termism and quick fixes which haven't worked.

So clearly anyone can see the Glazer ownership has meant something in the region of a billion pounds sterling has left the club since 2005. Around the amount of money City have been given to spend in that time from their owners.

Here Utd have spunked eye watering sums on players. Debt isn't a problem.

[Geoff Tipps]

The most important day of the year today, the shareholder's conference call, 1PM Irish time

https://services.choruscall.com/links/manchester1905163IwPSAkZ.html

It will contain this line Net debt as of 31 March 2019 was £301.7 million, an increase of £0.4 million over the year. The gross USD debt principal remains unchanged.

Who gives a f**k about the debt. It not as if it's coming out of your pocket. What's 300 million nowadays anyway? Couple of tours of China and that be covered.

Not much point in some of the lads in here crying about City and their financial outlay when Utd have been in debt for a decade. Both just as bad if we are being honest - just one is seen as acceptable.

You don't really understand how this works do you? I'll give a small explainer.

United have consistently been one of if the ther most profitable soccer clubs in the world. When the Glazers took over the club in the mid 2000's United were highly profitbale and had zero debt. Once the deal was completed (club value at time of takeover £790M), they brought the loans they used to buy the club onto the clubs books (5 years after the takeover in 2010 this totalled over £700M). This meant that the club went from having zero debt to a dangerously high level of debt (for its size) in a short space of time. Most profits generated were needed to pay down debt (over £60M each year) and the "consultancy/management fees" to the Glazer family and weren't available to buy players. Ronaldo was sold for £70M and replaced by Valencia and Michael Owen for example. Luckily the greatest soccer manager of all time was still at the helm and somehow managed to continue winning titles despite not being able to compete for the top young players in the world. The club's revenues kept growing and the debt has been reduced significantly to the point where it's not an issue any more (it has reduced and the value of the club overall in now more than £3 Billion). From a position of the debt almost being equal to the vlaue of the club it's now about a tenth of the value. This has meant United have has cash in the last few years but as we've seen it has been largely wasted on short termism and quick fixes which haven't worked.

So clearly anyone can see the Glazer ownership has meant something in the region of a billion pounds sterling has left the club since 2005. Around the amount of money City have been given to spend in that time from their owners.

Well aware of the above, the question is, why is one, for want of a better phrase morally acceptable and the other not? I'm not doubting your facts, I'm merely asking what is the problem with City pushing the cash in, if they have it when in contrast the United owners take the widely accepted much better generated revenue out. Sounds like the issue is more one of annoyance or jealousy as opposed to any moral principal to me.

For a start they are not meeting UEFA's FFP requirements. These rules whether you agree with them or not were put in place to stop clubs spending more than they are generating. United have for as long as we can remember, been generating huge profits. They have always complied with this. City have used a whole array of questionable methods to circumvent these rules. Does anyone seriously believe the sponsorship they get reflects market value. They're a small club compared to Liverpool, United, Real, Barca and Bayern yet able to attract sponsors willing to pay comparable amounts. Coincidentally all these sponsors are Abu Dhabi based 

[magpie seanie]

The most important day of the year today, the shareholder's conference call, 1PM Irish time

https://services.choruscall.com/links/manchester1905163IwPSAkZ.html

It will contain this line Net debt as of 31 March 2019 was £301.7 million, an increase of £0.4 million over the year. The gross USD debt principal remains unchanged.

Who gives a f**k about the debt. It not as if it's coming out of your pocket. What's 300 million nowadays anyway? Couple of tours of China and that be covered.

Not much point in some of the lads in here crying about City and their financial outlay when Utd have been in debt for a decade. Both just as bad if we are being honest - just one is seen as acceptable.

You don't really understand how this works do you? I'll give a small explainer.

United have consistently been one of if the ther most profitable soccer clubs in the world. When the Glazers took over the club in the mid 2000's United were highly profitbale and had zero debt. Once the deal was completed (club value at time of takeover £790M), they brought the loans they used to buy the club onto the clubs books (5 years after the takeover in 2010 this totalled over £700M). This meant that the club went from having zero debt to a dangerously high level of debt (for its size) in a short space of time. Most profits generated were needed to pay down debt (over £60M each year) and the "consultancy/management fees" to the Glazer family and weren't available to buy players. Ronaldo was sold for £70M and replaced by Valencia and Michael Owen for example. Luckily the greatest soccer manager of all time was still at the helm and somehow managed to continue winning titles despite not being able to compete for the top young players in the world. The club's revenues kept growing and the debt has been reduced significantly to the point where it's not an issue any more (it has reduced and the value of the club overall in now more than £3 Billion). From a position of the debt almost being equal to the vlaue of the club it's now about a tenth of the value. This has meant United have has cash in the last few years but as we've seen it has been largely wasted on short termism and quick fixes which haven't worked.

So clearly anyone can see the Glazer ownership has meant something in the region of a billion pounds sterling has left the club since 2005. Around the amount of money City have been given to spend in that time from their owners.

Well aware of the above, the question is, why is one, for want of a better phrase morally acceptable and the other not? I'm not doubting your facts, I'm merely asking what is the problem with City pushing the cash in, if they have it when in contrast the United owners take the widely accepted much better generated revenue out. Sounds like the issue is more one of annoyance or jealousy as opposed to any moral principal to me.

For a start they are not meeting UEFA's FFP requirements. These rules whether you agree with them or not were put in place to stop clubs spending more than they are generating. United have for as long as we can remember, been generating huge profits. They have always complied with this. City have used a whole array of questionable methods to circumvent these rules. Does anyone seriously believe the sponsorship they get reflects market value. They're a small club compared to Liverpool, United, Real, Barca and Bayern yet able to attract sponsors willing to pay comparable amounts. Coincidentally all these sponsors are Abu Dhabi based 

Nail on the head. Themselves and PSG need to be dealt with, they're ripping the p1ss in relation to FFP rules.

[Boycey]

What City are doing is financial doping, should it be any less reprehensible than actual doping? It comes up every so often and is usually explained away by saying the other big clubs don't like it, particularly so if United fans bring it up. To be honest we're a bit shit at the moment so it's not so much of a factor for us but you could argue that its cost Liverpool 2 championships.

Regarding United, as many stats as can be produced about money spent etc and I could counter them with different stats showing different as could any clued in United fan. The simple fact is that under the Glazer's United haven't been let perform to the best of their abilities. I wouldn't want or expect sympathy from fans of other teams because United have advantages that most others could never even dream of but surely it's unarguable that United are hamstrung by the way they are being run.

[GetOverTheBar]

The most important day of the year today, the shareholder's conference call, 1PM Irish time

https://services.choruscall.com/links/manchester1905163IwPSAkZ.html

It will contain this line Net debt as of 31 March 2019 was £301.7 million, an increase of £0.4 million over the year. The gross USD debt principal remains unchanged.

Who gives a f**k about the debt. It not as if it's coming out of your pocket. What's 300 million nowadays anyway? Couple of tours of China and that be covered.

Not much point in some of the lads in here crying about City and their financial outlay when Utd have been in debt for a decade. Both just as bad if we are being honest - just one is seen as acceptable.

You don't really understand how this works do you? I'll give a small explainer.

United have consistently been one of if the ther most profitable soccer clubs in the world. When the Glazers took over the club in the mid 2000's United were highly profitbale and had zero debt. Once the deal was completed (club value at time of takeover £790M), they brought the loans they used to buy the club onto the clubs books (5 years after the takeover in 2010 this totalled over £700M). This meant that the club went from having zero debt to a dangerously high level of debt (for its size) in a short space of time. Most profits generated were needed to pay down debt (over £60M each year) and the "consultancy/management fees" to the Glazer family and weren't available to buy players. Ronaldo was sold for £70M and replaced by Valencia and Michael Owen for example. Luckily the greatest soccer manager of all time was still at the helm and somehow managed to continue winning titles despite not being able to compete for the top young players in the world. The club's revenues kept growing and the debt has been reduced significantly to the point where it's not an issue any more (it has reduced and the value of the club overall in now more than £3 Billion). From a position of the debt almost being equal to the vlaue of the club it's now about a tenth of the value. This has meant United have has cash in the last few years but as we've seen it has been largely wasted on short termism and quick fixes which haven't worked.

So clearly anyone can see the Glazer ownership has meant something in the region of a billion pounds sterling has left the club since 2005. Around the amount of money City have been given to spend in that time from their owners.

Well aware of the above, the question is, why is one, for want of a better phrase morally acceptable and the other not? I'm not doubting your facts, I'm merely asking what is the problem with City pushing the cash in, if they have it when in contrast the United owners take the widely accepted much better generated revenue out. Sounds like the issue is more one of annoyance or jealousy as opposed to any moral principal to me.

For a start they are not meeting UEFA's FFP requirements. These rules whether you agree with them or not were put in place to stop clubs spending more than they are generating. United have for as long as we can remember, been generating huge profits. They have always complied with this. City have used a whole array of questionable methods to circumvent these rules. Does anyone seriously believe the sponsorship they get reflects market value. They're a small club compared to Liverpool, United, Real, Barca and Bayern yet able to attract sponsors willing to pay comparable amounts. Coincidentally all these sponsors are Abu Dhabi based 

Nail on the head. Themselves and PSG need to be dealt with, they're ripping the p1ss in relation to FFP rules.

What do you suggest? They were found guilty of these prior....the punishment? Fines....Not exactly off putting for me.

[Tyrone95]

A lot of talk surrounding De Ligt and MUFC hijacking of the Barca deal. Would be a fantastic statement for Ole to make in his first window as manager.  It would not completely solve the defensive problems but it would make it a lot better than it currently is... make him captain with immediate effect 

[BennyCake]

Sergio Ramos and Griezemann linked now.

[trailer]

Sergio Ramos and Griezemann linked now.

Well only to inflate their wages and worth. Utd probably getting stroked again. Amateurs!

[Jeepers Creepers]

Sergio Ramos and Griezemann linked now.

Don't buy into it, just like most other transfer rumours.

[gawa316]

Sergio Ramos and Griezemann linked now.

90+ points here you come

[Milltown Row2]

Sergio Ramos and Griezemann linked now.

90+ points here you come

No point getting 90+ points and coming second, what's was it Shankly said about coming second?

[BennyCake]

Sergio Ramos and Griezemann linked now.

90+ points here you come

No point getting 90+ points and coming second, what's was it Shankly said about coming second?

"Make sure you do, or you'll be making your own breakfast?"