Oh feck no. I don't want to be censured.
Double Glazered
- Thread starter robertsoncrusoe
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
oh ffs!
There were plenty of rumours going round, not saying I believe them, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I'm also not dyeing we didn't have the money there, but one thing I am sure of, is we don't have 80m+ sat waiting to spend.
This has been an interesting, but confusing thread, to read. I think because both sides are, to an extent, trying to make transfer funds (or their absence) into a proxy for the club's overall financial health.
But what I don't understand is the underlying assumption made by many posters that it would be a bad thing if the £80m from Ronaldo had been used to pay off some of the interest on the debt. I mean, the debt is there, and it's growing. Reinvesting money into the squad won't make the debt go away. Wouldn't using the profit against the debt be a good sign, a sign that the club is looking after its long term interests?
Also, I think the argument that "Fergie wouldn't let the Glazers restrict his transfer budget" is poor. Isn't it likely that SAF wouldn't ask for money, if it was better used for the club to pay off the debt?
But what I don't understand is the underlying assumption made by many posters that it would be a bad thing if the £80m from Ronaldo had been used to pay off some of the interest on the debt. I mean, the debt is there, and it's growing. Reinvesting money into the squad won't make the debt go away. Wouldn't using the profit against the debt be a good sign, a sign that the club is looking after its long term interests?
Also, I think the argument that "Fergie wouldn't let the Glazers restrict his transfer budget" is poor. Isn't it likely that SAF wouldn't ask for money, if it was better used for the club to pay off the debt?
As much as I want to sign the best players around each summer, the 80m would be best invested in paying off the debt.
I want united to still be competing in 10 years time, and not playing league one football...
I bet this get some interesting responses.
I just typed '£80m' into google-images and got this...
Coincidence? Or next season's tactics with new signings included?
Coincidence? Or next season's tactics with new signings included?
Not exactly...
Wouldn't that make it seem like they sold the best player in the world in order to finance buying the club? ( a good bit of P R ) and something I seem to remember they promised wouldn't happen.
Pretty much though.
Be careful now sincher, redrichio is going to censure you on that assumption.
It is a pointless comment but at least he's made it clear it's an opinion.
How pray tell are you sure of it? Because you are lying, deluded or stupid?
All three. Except the first one.
I'm not sure anyone on this thread has suggested that paying off a portion of the debt wouldn't be a decent use of the money, have they?
It doesn't take a financial expert to work out:
Club 700m in debt, 80m inflow from sale of player, outflow of 20m on player (budgeted for already?), 60m doing nothing...
Hmmm
So I take it you know we have 80m sat around waiting for Messi to come available in Jan?
The £60m is probably still sat in the Bank of Madrid waiting until the next installment is due though.
Cider? Rood? What's the answer to this one, then?
Go away, you're weird.
Your thick. And brain washed.
OT made it very clear that the fee would be paid in cash, at once - you should have read the papers.
Did they? Oh. I thought all transfer fees were paid in installments now. I don't read the papers often.
Are you being serious? 'Your thick'?
It's 'You're thick', you fecking Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime.
Your/You're means feck all to me at half 12 at night..
I hazard a guess that it'll mean feck all to you tomorrow morning too, and by midday it'll still mean feck all, and by the evening... etc
Why does it matter how much we spend as long we do well on the pitch?
...
No one's come out and said so, but it seems to be the implicit perspective a number of posters have. The logic that says it would be a bad thing either (it seems to me) serves to help pretend that the club is not actually facing a financial risk or, alternatively, goes something like this ....I'm not sure anyone on this thread has suggested that paying off a portion of the debt wouldn't be a decent use of the money, have they?
I suppose it would seem like that. But ... so what? The damage was done 5 years ago. It seems to me the choice is either to try to repair it or risk something a lot worse than selling the best player in the world.
I would want it repaired, and as quickly as possible. I say this as the fan of a club whose debt has severely restricted transfer funds.
I don't pretend to be good with grammar, where as you do like to pretend you know what your talking about when it comes to the Glazer and the take over..
Now back on topic..
I don't pretend to be good with grammar.
Well don't call me thick then, you cock.
You are thick, cock.
I've never claimed to know all about the Glazer takeover either - it seems you have as much trouble reading as you do with the writing.
edit.
This thread's not even about the Glazer takeover.
well, there are mixed blessings re: going into the transfer market, particularly right now (up until the deadline anyway) and I must admit I would've loved Ribery here although he clearly has his sights on Franco FC. So that wouldn't've been straightforward anyway regardless of funds available. Ditto Benzema.
The point is that it is infuriating to see such a well run and healthy, wealthy club being brought to this position for somebody else's gain who hadn't the remotest interest in the club. I don't see a lot of point continuing to throw tantrums about it though. feckin Edwards sold us down the river and too many so called "supporters" sat on their hands when shares were up for grabs. I'm as annoyed as the next man but what's the point of continuing to whinge about it. It's now a fact of life.
The point is that it is infuriating to see such a well run and healthy, wealthy club being brought to this position for somebody else's gain who hadn't the remotest interest in the club. I don't see a lot of point continuing to throw tantrums about it though. feckin Edwards sold us down the river and too many so called "supporters" sat on their hands when shares were up for grabs. I'm as annoyed as the next man but what's the point of continuing to whinge about it. It's now a fact of life.
Well on the face of it, I wouldnt mind if excess cash was used to reduce our debt, especially the high interest part. But the issue is alot more complicated than that and I have no idea what the exact structure of the debt and the business is so I cant really answer in full.
Could be that there are penalties for early redemption and then there are tax considerations etc. There were stories a few months ago that our own debt was available for purchase at a discount in the debt markets - if the Glazers had any cash at the time then it is possible that they have already bought some of it back but we will never know as they are always very secretive.
I might just be extremely dense, but when ralphie claimed upthread "You don't think the increase in ticket prices is to do with the debt" and you answered "Correct" I interpreted this as you viewing the increase as not due to the Glazers.roodboy said:
I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted you.
I do agree we should have acted much sooner, and I do agree it's maybe fair to said we made many mistakes, but I still don't agree this fact somehow makes any criticism of the Glazer LBO null and void.
For anyone who cares about United, the LBO is a tragedy, and it's immaterial if we owned shares, did our best, arsed about or didn't even know about any of this since we were too young back then.
The fact is, here & now our club is suffering the consequences of the LBO, and anyone caring about United will feel the pain & has the right to complain.