Hmmm. Nope, i think you've got it all wrong.
Green and Gold till the club is Sold!
- Thread starter ralphie88
- Start date
- Status
Holy shit Fred I hope the CIA aint reading this
I'll be having the Redcafe equivalent on here some time soon demanding an immediate withdrawal of the joke and threatening all sorts of punishment that I should be subjected to..
I am about to be nipple twisted to death or given a chinese burn until I beg for forgiveness.
Oh dear Crerand. You're a lost cause. I respect your views. I'll never change them and so I won't even try.
They are football club owners. I don't expect whoever owns the club to be Father Christmas.
I'm just able to seperate them and the football. The fact that they themselves seperate themselves from the football actually makes this very easy to do.
Whatever the pros and cons of their ownership, they have not affected onfield performance one jot and that's the most important thing to me.
While you concentrate on the negatives, I concentrate on the positives. You should try it, if only for a day. Bluebirds will hang out your washing and bunny rabbits will make you a cup of tea whilst singing a merry song for you.
Anyway, it's time for my tablets now.
It'll be worse than that. Joga might respond.
Being fair he does have a point.
You should try living in his world for a day. Take a couple of LSD, three prozac, two Es and fourteen snorts of cocaine.
With that lot inside you, you should just about be able to reach his level of reality.
At least when he does it will be worth reading.
More convinced with every set of accounts I am . Remember when these people bought Manchester United I treated them with an open mind and was prepared to give them a fair hearing, they failed miserably and I am now sorry I didn't oppose them from the start. I just wish that they would realise that they are destroying something that is precious to millons and sell the club to someone who can afford it. They can take their scummy profit and go
SAF has kept them afloat both on and off the field, without him both the club and the Glazers would be in poor shape. You could also argue had they not forced the sale of Ronaldo and failed to buy Tevez for financial reasons we could have won major trophies last year, but then the bond issue and a good set of accounts came first didn't it?
Oh i see now! It's no wonder you oppose the Glazers so vehemently, you're fecking delusional!
No it is quite a rational question. They did sell Ronaldo only condition they got the money up front and the truth of the Tevez deal was never really explained was it? We missed them both to the detriment of our success
Oh i see now! It's no wonder you oppose the Glazers so vehemently, you're fecking delusional!
I'm sorry Crerand but I don't see it as a rational explanation at all.
It completely goes against all known facts of the matter. We'd end up well off topic (like we aren't already) if I went about explaining but if I thought you wouldn't just copy and paste the same post again tomorrow, I'd have a stab at it.
You do appear to be altering facts to suit your argument, in fairness.
I'm trying desperately to put this politely by the way.
Yeah but you just said they forced the sale of Ronaldo, which we all know was not the case, that situation was explained quite explicitly. Then you said that they failed to buy Tevez for financial reasons, but that the situation was never explained, so how the hell would you know?
Ronaldo was sold, the only condition was all the money was to be paid in a lump sum, that looked great in the pre bond issue accounts. Tevez fee and wages would not have looked so good in the old accounts so lets replace him with the considerably cheaper Owen. Valencia, a great player, at 16m on the never never was the Ronaldo alternative. These transfers were done IMHO purely to make the selling of the bonds easier and it was also quite easy to blame the players concerned, as most of us did, for wanting away.I'm sorry Crerand but I don't see it as a rational explanation at all.
It completely goes against all known facts of the matter. We'd end up well off topic (like we aren't already) if I went about explaining but if I thought you wouldn't just copy and paste the same post again tomorrow, I'd have a stab at it.
You do appear to be altering facts to suit your argument, in fairness.
I'm trying desperately to put this politely by the way.
How do you know? Ronaldo said nothing, we all knew he wanted to join Real but considering what SAF said that season about not selling Real a virus it is strange he was sold without a mute. Tevez has always maintained his innocence and feels he was made feel unwelcome. Truth is no one really knows but I would bet I aint far from truth and that the bond issue cost us at least the title last term
But we KNOW that Ronaldo wanted away, nobody forced him out at all! You're mental.
If the team was made weaker, why would that make selling the Bonds easier?
If the team was not made weaker, why not go for less expensive options?
If Ronaldo had always said that he loved being a Manchester United player and wanted to see out his playing days in the Red shirt, I think you'd have a point but that is a million miles away from the truth. He always spoke of his "dream" being to play for Real Madrid. For himself and for his mother.
By all accounts, we could have sold Ronnie twelve months earlier than we did but Fergie talked him 'round to staying for one more season. If his hand was being forced by the Glazers, do you think he would have been able to talk Ronnie 'round? No. The Glazers would have sold the player regardless and got the £60million (or whatever was on offer at the time).
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Glazers had anything to do with the transfer of Ronaldo but when it became clear that, on balance, it was the right thing to do, it was great business to get a world record £80million fee upfront.
Tevez is another story. He has no particular allegiance to any club in England. He came along with his pimp a few years ago and joined, of all places, West Ham. The idea was to put him in the shop window and get the most money out of him for himself and his pimp.
We took the option on him, gave him a couple of seasons and then, by all accounts, offered the fee that was agreed at the beginning.
In the meantime, Manchester City came sniffing with their mega riches and I believe Tevez is on something in the region of £150k/week there.
As I believe that we are trying to get the far superior Wayne Rooney to agree a £140k/week deal, there is no way on earth that we would insult Rooney by offering Tevez more. I doubt we would have offered Tevez more than £100k.
So, Tevez and his pimp are sat there thinking to themselves, "Shall we go to City for £150k a week or stay at United for £100k a week?" Hmm... it's a toughie.
If players want to play for Manchester United then they are rewarded for their loyalty to the club. This has always been the case and continues to be the case.
For your argument to hold any water at all, we should also have let Vidic leave this summer and gone with a cheaper option (Smalling, for example) but instead we gave him an improved deal which he signed yesterday.
This proves that investment in the team is a priority for the Glazers and, contrary to what you say, they are not selling off our best players in order to balance the books.
Yes he wanted away a fact the Glazers were mighty thankful for. Im hope some day he clears it up but Im sure we will find out there were absolutely no obstacles to him leaving as matter of fact he was probably encouragred, IMHO by the way
Manchester United dragged their feet big time when it came to Tevez and only made a half hearted move when under pressure from the fans, Tevez maintained he was eager to sign earlier in the season but we dragged our feet and in fact give him the opinon he was not wanted, perhaps he was telling the truth. I know I would believe him before anything the Glazers would spin.
The Ronaldo transfer I have already said had to happen for the owners pre bond issue simple as. The Glazers priority is not the team and certainly not the fans it is to satisfy their greed for money. The Glazers are aloof people who treat us with complete disdain, the very people you dont want to own your football club. We can only hope an offer comes in that satisfies their greed and they clear off back to losing money in shopping centres
I see what you are trying to do but what I am saying is the fact we all believed that Ronaldo wanted to join Real was the perfect disguise that the Glazers had to sell and boy they had to. The selling of Ronaldo and non buying of Tevez as opposed to the Owen/Valencia replacements made a difference of £95m to the Glazer accounts not counting wages which also were less. Now would a prospective bond buyer not be impressed by those accounts?
Ronaldo wanted to leave and we offered the agreed price for Tevez, just too late in the day.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore Crerand, watching you weave this web of intrigue as you attempt to justify your position is hilarious. Do continue!
My thoughts on this are a theory and I am not saying to take it as gospel, I was as sore on Tevez as the next, but lately I have had my doubts about what really did happen and believe I might not be that far away from the truth. None of us really know. We believed what the Glazers fed us, Ronaldo had nothing to say and Tevez still maintains his innocence
What, exactly, did the Glazers say?
When you say "the Glazers", do you mean Fergie?
Dont just disregard my theory so quickly, what I am saying may be wrong and I admit it but it is more likely IMHO that it is nearer the truth, the scenario fits like a glove. Some day perhaps we will find out
What do you mean, "What the Glazers fed us"? What did the Glazers tell you about the transfers?
Gill and SAF yes, sadly in SAFe case. Unfortunately as a loyal employee who is well looked after SAF saves their hide regularly. It is pity these Glazer women cant open their own mouths and quit hiding behind SAF, convenient for them to hide, cowards do that
The info they fed us through their spokesmen. You chaps are getting very heated about what I keep admitting is a theory, could it be that you see what I am saying and it is annoying you?
TBH, that is not your finest reply, not alot of substance.
Well, you're welcome to come up with random theories if you want, i'm not getting heated about it. What we know of the two transfers suggests that your theory is wrong, so i'll just discard it as bollocks if that's all the same with you?
I disagree and feel it is nearer the truth than the Glazer version. It would have made a good thread on its own for discussion actually as I feel it is an interesting talking point, however another thread on these subjects would not be popular
Heated? I'm wetting myself laughing here!
Crerand. Players have been coming and going through doors of Manchester United for over one hundred years.
You are now looking for a conspiracy behind what are a couple of player sales which have other, perfectly normal explanations to them.
But no, Fergie is lying, Ronaldo pretended he wanted to leave and Real Madrid kindly offered £80million for him to help the Glazers out with the sale of the Bond Issue.
Tevez also really, really wanted to stay but Fergie was told no way could he have £25million in order to buy him and so poor Tevez had to go and join City on a far bigger salary than he would have received at United. The poor lamb.
It only fits like a glove if you have pretty weird shaped hands.
Hit a nerve lads have I
My turn to stop you right there. Why are you only counting match day revenue?
Bayern's larger price range model would certainly be an idea that I hope would have legs within the Old Trafford boardroom. Surely those like yourself and GCHQ don't care about the price as long as you get your seat, eh?
Erm, when is the loan repayable?
@Crerand
Erm... no?
Erm... no?
I don't know, URR, when is the loan repayable? Do you actually know or are you asking too?
Because you said:-
A wage bill of £130million covered by the matchday revenues plus £20million from other revenues, would seem like we're trying to work within what you're saying there, wouldn't it?
Given that revenues were £278million last season then a £130million wage bill is something like 45% of revenues. I think that's a sensible figure, personally. A lot of clubs run at a higher percentage than that and that's why a lot of clubs end up in the shit.
Warning over Premier League wages
If we drop ticket prices considerably then the wage bill would either be a dangerously large percentage of revenue or we'd have to slash the wage bill to remain within sensible levels and that would mean selling players or asking them to take a pay cut.
I don't know why you feel the need to add the snide remark at the end there, I thought we'd been having a fairly reasonable conversation today but hey ho - whatever floats your boat.
Yes, let's hope it is something that could be considered at some point.
No idea. Apparently, it was a loan to one of the Glazer family (one of their sisters, I think). Knowing Malcolm Glazer, it attracts a 50% interest rate and that is how he intends to pay off the PIKs.
- Status