Fergie long term deal...
Gill to stay on.
No word on tickets.
Gill to stay on.
No word on tickets.
£100 million for team building...
- Thread starter 26 may 1999
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
source?
Confirmed?
And is the debt now £400m?
And is the debt now £400m?
Dubai_Devil said:
feck off Glazer. I don't want a penny from you
The only thing I want is you to feck OFF FAR AWAY
The only thing I want is you to feck OFF FAR AWAY
Daily Mail.
balls 26 ya stirrer
Dubai_Devil said:
Wouldn't be that bad if we had 100M£ to spend on transfers.
100M£ to pay back is not that much with a slight increase on shirt's price.
Harry harris is licking glazers arse right now on the radio...
Interview with the glazers tomorrow.
Interview with the glazers tomorrow.
26 may 1999 said:
Probably spin to get the fans off his back...
We've seen in the past, he's made promises to gain control and went against them when in power.
Daily Mail, probably want us to spend the money on a right winger
Any internet link for an article ?
Mozza said:
Class.
Sunday mail...
I do apologise.
Harry is a big Arsenal man is he not?
I do apologise.
Harry is a big Arsenal man is he not?
26 may 1999 said:
He's a big cnut, that's what he fecking is.
It's on Sky now..
Harry said it would be great and we don't know what we're on about.
So the express have an interview with Glazer tomorrow? Or the Sunday Mail?
It's one of the lying bastards.
Harry harris is express and star or has he moved on from dirty desmonds papers?
Express still.
Throughout the entire saga Harry Harris and the express newpaper have been a disgrace with their reporting.
This is a very interesting thread.
I was chatting to an Economics professor last week who claims that the increase in Chelsea's value, even now, outweighs Abramovich's investment. He claims that Abramovich is involved as a business venture, plain and simple. The fact is though, that the value of the club itself, its megabucks sponsorships and diversifying business ventures are 100% dependent on sucess on the field.
What's the point? The greedier and more business orientated an owner is the more important it is that there is on-field sucess. If Glazer really is a money grabbing bastard he can add a couple of quid to ticket prices but that's only really small change. He can win a European cup and get United back up to the 1 Billion valuation that we had at the time Sky wanted to buy, that's 240 million profit, or 140 million if the reports of him investing 100 mil are accurate. In some ways we might be failing to see some angles in our outrage at this development. If he is interested in making money then the thing he's got to be most interested in is us winning things. If he doesn't invest and we finish third next year what happens? Maybe the club, his club, drops 50 million in value. Greed is not the alternative to on field sucess. Abramovich is investing for personal profit and he's making it already and stands to make even more with his long term strategdy.
As a socialist I'm sickened by Glazer and what's happening to our club, but I don't think those who's only concern is united winning titles should be as pissed off as I am.
I was chatting to an Economics professor last week who claims that the increase in Chelsea's value, even now, outweighs Abramovich's investment. He claims that Abramovich is involved as a business venture, plain and simple. The fact is though, that the value of the club itself, its megabucks sponsorships and diversifying business ventures are 100% dependent on sucess on the field.
What's the point? The greedier and more business orientated an owner is the more important it is that there is on-field sucess. If Glazer really is a money grabbing bastard he can add a couple of quid to ticket prices but that's only really small change. He can win a European cup and get United back up to the 1 Billion valuation that we had at the time Sky wanted to buy, that's 240 million profit, or 140 million if the reports of him investing 100 mil are accurate. In some ways we might be failing to see some angles in our outrage at this development. If he is interested in making money then the thing he's got to be most interested in is us winning things. If he doesn't invest and we finish third next year what happens? Maybe the club, his club, drops 50 million in value. Greed is not the alternative to on field sucess. Abramovich is investing for personal profit and he's making it already and stands to make even more with his long term strategdy.
As a socialist I'm sickened by Glazer and what's happening to our club, but I don't think those who's only concern is united winning titles should be as pissed off as I am.
It's clearly spin
If Fergie wanted a 5 year deal he wouldn't have signed a 1 year rolling contract
If Fergie wanted a 5 year deal he wouldn't have signed a 1 year rolling contract
Number7 said:It's clearly spin
If Fergie wanted a 5 year deal he wouldn't have signed a 1 year rolling contract
And if he wasn't offered one
Well i admit this whole 100M£ story must be BS but we'll see...When borrowing something like 270M£ why not borrow 30M£ more, just for transfer funds ?
As said by an economics student, if Glazer is here for money he'll need success on the pitch. And if he's there for titles and glory same thing it's obvious.
Good un...Mozza said:
its not about years, its about that he wants continue as long as he has a good health. that can be 1 year or 10 yearsNumber7 said:It's clearly spin
If Fergie wanted a 5 year deal he wouldn't have signed a 1 year rolling contract
The transfer forum lives on...
100m transfer budget and 100m increase in ticket and merchandise revenue over the next 5 years.
Or am I just being cynical?
Or am I just being cynical?
The worrying thing is people will swallow this.
HE'S PUTTING US IN £200+M WORTH OF DEBT!
For christ sakes, how do you get away from that fact?!
'kin criminal.
HE'S PUTTING US IN £200+M WORTH OF DEBT!
For christ sakes, how do you get away from that fact?!
'kin criminal.
Fergie had no choice. The Irish mafia prevailed on our weak-willed-lilly-livered board as a way of getting back at him for daring to pursue them legally for what they owed him (allegedly).Number7 said:It's clearly spin
If Fergie wanted a 5 year deal he wouldn't have signed a 1 year rolling contract
If nothing else good comes of this whole saga at least Glazer has got rid of the Irish mafia cnuts and Sir Roy Gardner and his cronies.
If Glazer has any sense he'll put Fergie on a five year contract as general manager football.
Sounds feasible to meGabe said:
fecking wonderfull.
£300+M WORTH OF DEBT including "this" transfer kitty then!VanNistelrater said:
Molly...Red_Molly said:
you're missing the point, surely, this bloke wants to saddel us with hundreds of pounds worth of debt and pay it back by fleecing diehard support and probably flogging half our heritage down the river, such as the OT Stadium rights.
Its horrendous, this is horrendous, I want my alarm clock to go off and me just wake up and go to work and college with this all being a dream, but its not going to happen unfortunately.
This £100 million lark, its just a bloody sweetner, dont be suckered into it. Its over 5 years anyway so its no more than Ferguson already has. As things stand, we stand to make absolutely no money whatsoever until Glazer pays back all the debt, which could be 5 years, it could be never.
I dont even know if the gimp wants to be doing this, more that he has to. He has no exit strategy, he cant flog his shares because the price would bomb and hed be fecked, but he's borrowing money for the shares he has already so he cant just sit there because the banks want their money back. He has to do this, I think if he was given a feesable exit strategy within the next few days or so hed take it, i.e from the Sheikh or something, but it wont come, and we're fecked basically. I cant believe some are already coming round to the idea...
dno said:
thats a very interesting spin on things but i think in order for the club to get the success that it would need to be making the kind of profits that glazer wants, we couldnt make that foundation through the change in ownership. we would therefore be taking one step forward and 2 steps back
You are in Montreal, he is either in Tampa or Manchester, so I guess you got your wish.bigjet66 said:
Partially agreed on above .. The different here is - Roman bring along his money & possibly hope to get even more money from there .. But Glazer bring along 300million of debt !! & he will take a thousand years to get that back .. which he can't wait (he's 78!dno said:
) .. so he could just put pressure is selling some good players for quick bucks .. that's my damn frustrating worry!! Do a sum here .. Ronaldo to Real for 30million - Rio to any rich club for 25million .. Ronnie to another rich club for 30miillion .. there he goes, 85million recoup .. and he can sell Heinze, RVN, Saha, Smith & everybody else ..