strick206
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 07
Location: Wigan Drives:Integra DC5
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by mwg
The difference between Arsenal, Liverpool and Man United is despite all making mistakes with buying players we still win trophies whereas Arsenal and Liverpool dont 
Thats because you throw that much money at players you can afford to make those big mistakes as have other big priced players too. Where as both of us cant do that.
We both also have less debt because of this.
Fucking rubbish, we were able to sign these big names for big money because we are a big club and had alot of profit enabling the money to be available, the debt is nothing to do with buying players, it's the owners buying us that the debt came from
Slightly bitter we were able to make a 30million signing every year out of profit and you had to sign 10 4 million players and hope one wasn't disabled?
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by strick206
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by mwg
The difference between Arsenal, Liverpool and Man United is despite all making mistakes with buying players we still win trophies whereas Arsenal and Liverpool dont
Thats because you throw that much money at players you can afford to make those big mistakes as have other big priced players too. Where as both of us cant do that.
We both also have less debt because of this.
Fucking rubbish, we were able to sign these big names for big money because we are a big club and had alot of profit enabling the money to be available, the debt is nothing to do with buying players, it's the owners buying us that the debt came from
Slightly bitter we were able to make a 30million signing every year out of profit and you had to sign 10 4 million players and hope one wasn't disabled?
Please show me said £30m profit figures as you dont have them and havent had them.
Fact is the debt is being rolled up including the purchase of these expensive players.
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
Next you'll be telling me portsmouth purchased their players using the big profits they were making.
|
strick206
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 07
Location: Wigan Drives:Integra DC5
User status: Offline
|
Was i not referring to when we was a PLC and before the takeover by the glazers?
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
You may of been, but I dont think you were making £30m profit back then either.
|
Whittie
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 06
Location: North Wales Drives: BMW, Corsa & Fiat
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by strick206
His prices of them are the best bit, fucking miles out with anderson. IIRC
We got back over half of veron, which was a better deal considering he clearly couldnt play in the prem, brilliant footballer, just not in the prem, hargreaves wasn't a bad signing, just unlucky with his injuries, anderson the same
The players we have signed he mentioned above (barring smalling, who i dont know much about) are all fantastic players, a couple who just dont suit united or the PL
Didn't realise it was a combined fee for Anderson & Nani... still a waste of money.
Hargreaves was a cripple when you signed him, so not sure how he was unlucky with his injuries. When Liverpool signed Cisse that was an "Unlcuky" injury. At least we didn't buy him injured. (Still, not saying he was a good player in the premiership...)
|
strick206
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 07
Location: Wigan Drives:Integra DC5
User status: Offline
|
Nani improved a hell of a lot late last season, will see how he is this season
I dunno how you can consider andersona waste of money when he completely played gerrard out of the game a couple years back, anderson's problem is his going out on the lash and niggling injuries, no-one could have anticipated that
|
strick206
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 07
Location: Wigan Drives:Integra DC5
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
You may of been, but I dont think you were making £30m profit back then either.
Pretty sure we was tbh
EDIT : Quick look, 32 million in 2002, but lower in previous years
[Edited on 25-05-2010 by strick206]
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by strick206
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
You may of been, but I dont think you were making £30m profit back then either.
Pretty sure we was tbh
EDIT : Quick look, 32 million in 2002, but lower in previous years
So thats covered the 5 (?) £30m+ players you've signed? Not to mention the £20m+ ones.
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by strick206
Nani improved a hell of a lot late last season, will see how he is this season
I dunno how you can consider andersona waste of money when he completely played gerrard out of the game a couple years back, anderson's problem is his going out on the lash and niggling injuries, no-one could have anticipated that
Ah yeah, that one game makes him worth his money
|
strick206
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 07
Location: Wigan Drives:Integra DC5
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by strick206
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
You may of been, but I dont think you were making £30m profit back then either.
Pretty sure we was tbh
EDIT : Quick look, 32 million in 2002, but lower in previous years
So thats covered the 5 (?) £30m+ players you've signed? Not to mention the £20m+ ones.
Yes but being a PLC, surely the years profit would include the signings?
So for instance, 2001 we made 20 million profit, but would the signing that summer not be included in those?
Nani had a few good games last year, certainly worth a chance this year after appearing to grow up
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
Normally they tend to split the cost in the accounts over the length of the contract, means they can take in to account depreciation and also the other associated costs.
|
mwg
Member
Registered: 19th Feb 04
Location: South Lakes
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by strick206
Nani had a few good games last year, certainly worth a chance this year after appearing to grow up
I wanted him gone in January but he has really started to come in to a bit of form since then to prove me wrong I hope its the start of him playing how he should.
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
Dont worry he'll be back to his normal self next season no doubt.
|
strick206
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 07
Location: Wigan Drives:Integra DC5
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
Normally they tend to split the cost in the accounts over the length of the contract, means they can take in to account depreciation and also the other associated costs.
But they are still in there thus we still showed a profit with the signings on?
We still make massive profits now, it's just we have to pay so much interest on the loans, there's no doubting that the takeover is the only reason united are in the debt they are in, and by continuing to sign players now they are rolling up the money, but they have to sign to compete
|
strick206
Member
Registered: 12th Apr 07
Location: Wigan Drives:Integra DC5
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
Dont worry he'll be back to his normal self next season no doubt.
Oh don't get me wrong, that is exactly what i'm expecting to happen
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by strick206
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
Normally they tend to split the cost in the accounts over the length of the contract, means they can take in to account depreciation and also the other associated costs.
But they are still in there thus we still showed a profit with the signings on?
We still make massive profits now, it's just we have to pay so much interest on the loans, there's no doubting that the takeover is the only reason united are in the debt they are in, and by continuing to sign players now they are rolling up the money, but they have to sign to compete
You are still over spending what you make - you are paying next to zero interest back each year and just rolling it up yet still making losses (other than with the sale of Ronaldo last year).
|
