10 points for the man that doesn't have a clue.For oncecant help but feel a little envious of Liverpool and the takeover by NESV, ok Liverpool are never going to have the financial power of CITEH or CHESKI, but at least they are sorting their financial situation out and becoming debt free.
As for us I cant see the light at the end of the tunnel for us at the moment, it doesnt matter how Gill and the board put our situation across to the fans and the media, financially we are in a right mess and its only a matter before we find ourselves in the same position as Liverpool.
LUHG feck off and leave us alone....
Liverpool on brink of being sold (now actually sold) (what could possibly go wrong?)
- Thread starter Doogie
- Start date
The worst thing would be: decent owners who give them cash, and a decent manager who doesn't waste it. If Rafa comes back, he'll hopefully waste all the money and put them in the same situation they've been in recentyl. H+G backed him at first
what don't I have a clue about, please do explain!
About how Manchester United is run. I laugh at the fact you see debt's and immediately think we're up shit creek
. Liverpool were bleeding money. Their owners had absolutely no management plan and when shit hit the fan they were completely and utterly ruined. Ours is radically different and driven by a group of people that actually have a fecking clue, unlike the muppets at Must that continually sprout uneducated bullshit.10 points for the man that doesn't have a clue.About how Manchester United is run. I laugh at the fact you see debt's and immediately think we're up shit creek
LUHG
Says it all really.10 points for the man that doesn't have a clue.
LUHG
The previous Liverpool owners were no worse than the idiots that own us , the only difference being they also had Rafa while we had Sir Alex. The Glazers are treading a dangerous thin path and have been lucky so farAbout how Manchester United is run. I laugh at the fact you see debt's and immediately think we're up shit creek
There is a big difference between the way Glazers do business and Hicks and Gillette. There is also a big difference between the way United do business and Liverpool. Two very different clubs with two very different financial management plans one that is sustainable with good economic growth and then theres Liverpool. If you'd bothered to look, United's spending hasn't changed from pre Glazer. We're still averaging £30 million+ in purchases per year. I don't like the Glazers but people need to stop reading half the shit that the over biased MUST puts out. Why the hell would they say anything positive about the Glazers when that completely ruins their self satisfying agenda?
You want to talk dangerous, how about you go and look at City and Chelsea. Two clubs that are in far bigger debt then ourselves. The only difference is their sugar daddies fund them directly. If they ever chose to do so, then both clubs are well and truly fecked. Do you honestly think that the Arabs and Abram will not to recoup every sent they've invested???
Waaaa. Since the Glazers took over, United have averaged under 10m net spent each year as well. Hasn't stopped United from performing quite well.
As opposed to very well?
Piss off, the Ronaldo sale skewed things and you know it.
Open your eyes to it, we are in a mess at the moment and the situation is getting worse as the debt increases and the economical climate worsens. The Glazers are in it for one reason and one reason only they see £ signs and money to be made, they have no interest in our club, its history, the fans, they are astute business men that will take the club and fans for every last penny leaving us in a bigger mess than Liverpool recently experienced.
Worrying times ahead, whatever the business plan that is in place. The thing we have to ask ourselves at the moment is the business plan of the Glazer's working for Man United and the fans, no is it BOLLOCKS.
Which was nothing to do with the debt I guess.
So whats the reckoning? What can we expect during the winter transfer window?
So just because it was a one off fee we can't count it?
Oh good grief, not another one of these
Marchi-91 seems to think it's £30+ million a year.
Shall you tell him, or shall I ?
It leads to parity. Or you could end up with some nonsense like the SPL or La Liga. What's the point of the other 18 teams playing?
Oh, so selling a player can't be factored into net sales. Interesting.
Of course you can count it, but then if Barcelona sell Messi for 100m you can say "well, their net spend over that time period averages about 10m a season, so Atletico Madrid really have no excuses", but that hardly paints a fair picture.
Anyway it's the second season your net spend has been averaging 10m in the time period mentioned and your not looking too flash. No point pretending it doesn't hurt your on field performances.
Anyway it's the second season your net spend has been averaging 10m in the time period mentioned and your not looking too flash. No point pretending it doesn't hurt your on field performances.
You just jeep beating this drum and never learn. Even before Ronaldo's sale our net spend was less than yours. Please learn this and stop talking bollocks. If Ronaldo skews things then so does Alonso, and Mascherano, and any other big sales you've made. I see no reason to exclude him and not them.
And whilst we're not winning doubles and trebles for fun, we were an offside goal away from the title last season, and have every chance to be in contention this season (if we stamp out self-inflicted dropped points). Compare and contrast with Liverpool, and the mess Rafa's left you in.
Well let's not include Berbatov's purchase and all. It also skewed net spending.
Kinell.
Kinell.
Yup, and it's only fair on Liverpool that we don't include the £20m spent on Aquilani by Benitez.
Afterall, it skews their figures and he doesn't even play for them.
Basically let's only include players bought and sold for less than £5m.
Seems fair.
OK, but you're not allowed to include Kyrgiakos because he was one of Rick Parry's signings, not Rafa's.
It wasn't actually.
Transfer League Table 2003 - 2011 | League Tables
Liverpool net spend from 2003 to today is 98m. United's is 45. 45 + 80 = ...
I'm not saying "completely ignore it", I'm saying we should bare in mind that the Ronaldo sale was a freak occurance - a world record ffs, and therefore has a heavy effect on net spend, which as my previous example showed can lead to misleading interpretations.
Take Alonso or Masch out of the equation and things don't change much.
You dropped almost 10 points from the previous season.
Really because the purchases of Smalling, Hernandez and Bebe cost 10 million did theyding! ding! ten more points.
. Oh and just to let you know, we also sold players pre Glazers as well.You are an idiot aren't you? You are fully aware that a business such as United has to be successful to have money made from it. Do you honestly think that people like the Glazers wouldn't know this
. Struggling for a Champions league spot will not make them money come sale time. We have a shit load of money not being touched that keeps building year after year. Again if people bothered to look at our balance sheets instead of the shit from MUST you'd see it sitting there. Gaining interest every year.I said before the Ronaldo transfer. That means you ignore everything after, as your point is that we should omit Ronaldo. Well then we omit everything after Ronaldo. And Liverpool have still spent more. The Glazers didn't take over in 2003 either, so your starting point is wrong.
I'm not saying to ignore it either. I'm just saying it doesn't really skew things in our favour. It just makes the figures more embarassing for Liverpool. Before Ronaldo, you'd spent more since the Glazers. After Ronaldo, you'd spent considerably more since the Glazers. Even before the Glazers, dating back to 1992, you've spent more.
Oh, and Alonso and Mascherano account for £50m in transfers. Yes, because that's an irrelevant amount of money.
Seasons vary. In 08/09 we got a big points total but noone would argue our team was better than the lower point scoring sides of 06/07 or 07/08. That was just an easy year in the league, with no great teams - you should know, it's the only year Liverpool have looked like coming close to a title. 09/10 was a much more competitive year across the board, with the mid-level teams taking points off the big boys at will.
Does anyone know where NESV got the £300m from? Whether they used their own cash or borrowed against their assets? How many of NESV's 17? investors were involved in the purchase and how much did each chip in?
Yeah, it's great to get 3-1/2% on your non-existant balanceYou are an idiot aren't you? You are fully aware that a business such as United has to be successful to have money made from it. Do you honestly think that people like the Glazers wouldn't know this
( even though you're paying 16-1/4% on your very real debt!!)I did a search via Massachusetts equvalent of companies house, then Delaware's after finding out it was there but they don't give you as much information as easily as you can find it in Britain.
From what I understand, NESV have bought it directly rather than setting up a holding company in Britain owning Liverpool.
You are an idiot aren't you? You are fully aware that a business such as United has to be successful to have money made from it. Do you honestly think that people like the Glazers wouldn't know this
bigger interest than the loans you are servicing? tool.
I see. So the £190 million recorded on Manchester Uniteds balance sheet, just up and disappeared unbeknown to anybody over the last two weeks did it? You scousers really are a bunch of idiots when the information is there to see for everybody.Yeah, it's great to get 3-1/2% on your non-existant balance
You'll also find that most interest is paying off at 9-10% P.A.
But do you scousers even understand basic business practice? I would much rather be in Uniteds position, where we turn a profit large enough to satisfy interest repayments, while our huge monetary resources gain a good percentage of Interest each year, then be in Liverpools position where they have no debts, no saving, and continue to run at a loss even when taking the interest repayments off the bill. Liverpool as it is, is completely unsustainable and going on last years losses, you'll quickly find yourself buried in to debt unless you cull nearly every big name player you have or build a new stadium. Which by the way, will put you back into debt. Either way, the road for Liverpool is back into debt.
What? We run a very healthy profit every year when you don't factor in leveraged debt (which we are now rid of).
You really are clueless, aren't you?
£55 million pounds of losses last season says otherwise. You're still running at a 14 million pound a year loss without interest repayments. Then we take into account your lack of champions league football/cup football and your poor league position and those numbers are going anywhere but up.
Lap it up B9.