|
dkj posted:Is it really just Veron type deals that are doing this and large wages, or is there something I'm missing? Yes, you are missing something. That little something is Malcom Glazer buying the club by essentially borrowing the money with the club he didn't at the time own being used as collateral. I'm surprised you haven't heard about this as it's been talked about a lot.
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 11:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
peanut- posted:How can Platini come out and say this stuff with a straight face without mentioning Real? Because he is a massive, shitfaced hypocrite who loving HATES English football. This isn't new, it's basically been his entire platform since the elections.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2010 11:42
|
|
|
duggimon posted:I doubt there's any man u fans who wouldn't gladly take a 10 point deduction to get rid of the owners, the problem would be what would need to be sold off as part of the administration They could sell the Glazers as lawn ornaments.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2010 22:20
|
|
|
TyChan posted:No. Hicks & Gillett have sold assets before and all that has just gone to the owners for profit on the investment. Maybe the long term benefit could be the possibility of them loving off and selling Liverpool to someone else as well?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:Didn't realise man utd were quite so hosed. Also that they'd rejected £1bn and £1.5bn bids from the middle east. Football is absolutely loving broken, I wish everywhere resembled the german leagues now. Seriously. UEFA or FIFA need to set regulations against this sort of poo poo and I'm not saying this just because it happened to United. I'm saying it because 100+ year old clubs that are pillars of their respectable societies shouldn't be turned to milking cows by corrupt assholes. Of course neither will do poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 15:37
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:what would you suggest? under the glazers utd's commercial deals have surpassed 200m and rising, matchday revenue has gone up so they probably have a pretty good case for saying they are doing fine. I agree with you but i'm just pointing out it would be pretty hard to stop it. Well, honestly? I don't know. I study computer science, not economic law. I just know that it ain't right for a 100+ year old club to get bought up by opportunistic shysters with the full intention of loading the club up with cash and stripping it of anything worth stripping. Someone who's better versed in economic law can probably come up with something to prevent that. EDIT: possibly something would be a strict, non-negotiable requirement for a good business plan detailing financing and intents with the club. If it includes poo poo like "yeah we'll basically use the club as an asset to loan money to its full value and then dump it all and our own debts back onto the club", the sale would get blocked. Shaman Tank Spec fucked around with this message at 22:01 on May 22, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:When man u are finishing 6th and the gold mine's gutted. If that's what it takes to get rid of that revolting garden gnome and his subhuman sons, I'll welcome it with open arms. gently caress, I'll take a decade of midtable obscurity if that gets the club better owners. Shaman Tank Spec fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jun 7, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
Bhyo posted:Hahaha apparently Barca still havent paid their players. You see it's all part of this master plan and they could totally pay their players any time it's just that nobody at the More Than a Club really cares about money and they're totally not being choked by their crippling debts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 06:36
|
|
|
TyChan posted:The Financial Times is really leading the charge in discrediting Huang. Yeah but the thing is, I don't think they're doing it because they hate Liverpool.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2010 06:18
|
|
|
Tiny Fistpump posted:It's either his bid was shite and Broughton saw through it, or Huang is playing a hardball game because I know H&G are actively trying to quash bids where they don't end up with something. I hate all of this so much. Honestly you lot are better off. Huang always seemed shady as gently caress. Even if he could've come through with the deal, who knows how well everything would've gone down the road.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 22:03
|
|
|
Totally saw that coming, but then almost everyone probably did. When you sell an 80 million pound player and barely break even, it doesn't bode well for future balances.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 16:18
|
|
|
peanut- posted:There isn't a long term idea. All that talk about United being Liverpool on a bigger scale might have died down, but it's still true. Eventually the Glazers will get in over their head (after having extracted millions) and the club will end up being sold to a billionaire willing to cover the debt. It could be argued that they already are, but are simply bleeding the club dry in a very controlled and calculated manner. They know they can use the club to pay off debts, all the while leeching money from it to their personal accounts. Then when that tap runs dry, they can just sell the club off still for a fortune and run like bandits.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Absolutely and as I said, my problem is with the perception that Rooney was somehow put in his place by the whole situation. Yes but who actually thinks or says this?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:It's how it was reported at the time in the media. I remember Sky going on about it. Well yeah, but the media says all kinds of shite and we normally ignore it here. It's not a view held outside dumb pundits and the densest of RedCafe posters so can't we just agree it's nice Rooney managed to shake down the Glazers for enough money to stay and score bucketloads of goals?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2011 16:13
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Anyway, there was people saying it on the previous page, so I don't think I'm too out of line to say it's an accepted opinion. Honestly I think Fergie managed to convince Rooney that United still had ambition, and then they negotiated a new contract which included a hefty wage bump, which it was always going to do.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2011 16:32
|
|
|
BunnyX posted:if Arab owners are so good how comes a bunch of Arabs don't own United? Largely because the American lawn ornaments who currently own the club haven't sold to them yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
PlantHead posted:I think it is the opposite. The Glazers will sell off worthless shares that have no voting rights and at the same time pay off the clubs debt, this means they will actually own more of the club. Pretty much. From what I remember there are two kinds of shares at United: ones which have 10x the voting power (all owned by the Glazers) and ones which don't (a portion of which will be sold). So they will effectively lose no power at all. The upside is that the Glazers have a legal(?) obligation to be truthful about where the money from possible sales would go, so if they say it'll go towards the debt they can't pocket the money like they have in the past. But jesus, these new financial figures make for some very depressing reading. I realize there's been a lot of restructuring and refinancing, but the actual net debt United have has gone down VERY little in the seven years those loving lawn ornaments have been in power. Could be some really rocky times ahead as United's squad needs more and more replacements and there's less and less money to go around.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
FFP could be so loving good but they've written in so many clauses that makes it absolutely useless. I don't know why they're even pretending it's going to ever do anything when there's so many loopholes and helping hands to reward clubs with super rich owners and help them grossly overspend.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2012 10:04
|
|
|
belgend posted:It's deffo going to get checked, just like the naming rights bollocking with City Haha yeah I bet they'll really come under the hammer!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
belgend posted:It's going to piss off the ECA no doubt so at least one major club is going to call for an investigation (or head for the CAS or ECJ). Here is a list of everything that will happen to PSG as a result of this obvious circumvention of FFP rules: - I'm willing to bet UEFA and FIFA won't even comment on it. If anyone actually sacks up and reports it to some regulatory body, it'll get thrown out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2012 10:19
|
|
|
Name one footballer, ONE, who doesn't like banks, paint or drinks? What could be more football related?!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
When was the last time an FA cup game involving Arsenal was not shown on live TV? Chelsea? Liverpool? This is kind of meaningless without a point of comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
Akileese posted:Pissflaps is right. Big clubs usually get their matches televised which is even more money in their pocket. Well yes, but that's fairly obvious like saying "popular TV shows are more likely to stay on the air than unpopular ones". I agree that it would be nice if the FA Cup of all things did more to show more rarely seen teams, but considering how ludicrously expensive TV rights are and the fact that broadcasters have to make that money back somehow, it's not very realistic. The only solution I can think of would be some kind of revenue sharing scheme, but there are so many clubs involved that it probably wouldn't amount to much.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:Both teams in the match get TV money, not just the big draw. Yeah I know, and I was going to add how that's part of the magic of the FA Cup, getting a nice payday from the big match, but the original complaint seemed to be that big clubs get on the telly more often than small ones. Which is of course obvious, naturally they do. And since that's not going to change any time soon, the only way to spread the TV money around more would be through revenue sharing. Which I don't also think is a very realistic option.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Bea Nanner posted:Looks like BSkyB agrees with me, but £9.99 per day is taking the piss. Maybe per week. Or if a reasonable season pass were offered. £9.99 would only be worth it on Boxing Day or the final day of the season. Hah, over here we pay 12 euros for a single match streamed at a bitrate that makes most dodgy pirate streams (and I'm not talking about those quality Sopcast streams here) look amazing. It's shocking what these companies think people will put up with ... and even more shocking how they probably in fact do 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Lot 49 posted:He also thinks that there should be rules that stop clubs demanding a big fee when City want to buy their best player. I thought you were exaggerating, but no: this is literally what he says.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:And he's absolutely right. Well yes except not about the part I was quoting and talking about. Of course clubs have every right to fleece Mancini and his oil barons for every last penny they can. FFP is still a sham and these rules are so laughable I wouldn't even call them rules.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
sticksy posted:For a logo that looks awful on that kit no less. No kidding. It doesn't really matter what kind of design the kit manufacturers come up with for United, it'll look poo poo anyway because of that massive, garish logo. I really wish they'd renegotiate to just display the world Chevrolet or something because christ.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 12:14
|
|