Originally posted by Plechazunga:
<strong>
ah...a quid a share...I see - turns out I might have been being a bit of a facetious twat...BTW, I know sod all about economics so excuse me if this is shite, but wouldn't splashing out on loads of new players as Julian suggests send the share price down, so leaving the club open to a buy-out by some oligarch or other?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The people who will complain if the share price goes down are the pension funds who hold United shares and others who are only in it for investment and profit. In any event Kenyon and co will only buy players if they can ultimately balance the books by letting go others as we have seen. Selling Becks and Veron means the share price goes up because we have cash in the bank, or the promise of cahs in the bank later, plus a saving in overheads ie wages. Fergie knows this hence his equivocation over Veron, a player he would have liked to have kept if the deal were not so good gor business. As I have said if these transfers come off and success continues to be forthcoming with Fergie realising his goals, then the current dispensation may continue. However, if it doesn't happen the way we want it to and should Chelsea carry all before them (hopefully not) and say Arsenal or Liverpool also get bought out with money to spend all over the place and no pension funds to worry about, then I don't think the current Plc dispensation will survive. Of course there are potential pitfalls and whoever has designs on United had better, unlike Knighton, have very serious money available like Abramovich appears to have. It's no good just buying out the current shareholders, substantial capital needs to be made available to the manager to buy the players he needs and not to be buggered around like Fergie was by PSG.
