Sadly utds interest payments are not crippling the Glazers or utd itself as proved by the amount of spending on new players and shareholders dividendsThe truth is, nobody except the Glazers and their inner circle is likely to know but I cannot imagine, given their type and locations, that their US malls are doing anything other than haemorrhaging serious amounts of cash. That could be crippling the group as much as united’s interest payments.
This is exactly the point. Debt itself is not a problem. What is a problem is the ability to service that debt out of the revenue you earn. United can easily service their debt. even though between 2015 and 2020, they've spent nearly £400m doing that. Imagine if they'd spent that money on transfers and wages?
If you want to borrow money to buy players, that's not in itself a problem as long as you can repay that money in the agreed timeframe. That's why FFP should look forward, not backwards. What you did or didn't do 3 years ago is pretty irrelevant. What is relevant is what you've got coming in and what you've got going out in the next 12-24 months.
As I've said before, what nearly took us into administration in 2008 was the £15m second instalment on Thaksin/Sven's transfers, that was due just after the 2008 year end and which we didn't have. Had FFP been in place back then, we could well have been in the bizarre situation of passing FFP yet being in administration when we passed it. Which shows how useless FFP really is in its current form.
Should do well today this thread so quiet I even looked at the Socceraid thread. Wish I hadn't. Talk about spin.Probably because there’s not much happening elsewhere.
Corrected for you ;)Again these so called journalists like to put their own spin on things to make it fit their own agenda against us. It is a classic case of not letting the truth get in the way of CLICK BAIT
When you spend approx 10% of your yearly revenue (not profit) on a shirt sponsorship of a football club, it’s probably not good.Sadly utds interest payments are not crippling the Glazers or utd itself as proved by the amount of spending on new players and shareholders dividends
What I do hope fucks them short term is team viewer not being in a position to fund its sponsorship agreement
Yes but this PL investigation has been going on for how long ? And the same clubs have be n looking at it for how long ? Yet in the last week maybe two it’s got a bump why ? Have I missed some news ?Because the accusations and the ongoing PL enquiry are held over the club as proof of wrongdoing as in the article cited.
And, on a wider level, the only certain outcome is that the PL, controlled by our direct rivals, is not going to come out and say "you know what, we've looked at this and Manchester City are entirely innocent of any misconduct". They cannot and will not admit that.
So the only question is what charges they will trump up and what damaging findings they will make. Then, of course, the Court proceedings start. All designed to damage the reputation of our club. I'd suggest that is reason enough to keep this thread current.
Yes but this PL investigation has been going on for how long ? And the same clubs have be n looking at it for how long ? Yet in the last week maybe two it’s got a bump why ? Have I missed some news ?
Someone needs to send him this from Stefan..Our old friemd Ed Thompson has resurfaced in the latest issue of When Saturday Comes. At the end of an otherwise decent article on FFP, he comes up with this:
View attachment 25820
I mean, how wrong can you be? A strongly worded letter has landed on WSC's desk. Let's see if they print it.
Our old friemd Ed Thompson has resurfaced in the latest issue of When Saturday Comes. At the end of an otherwise decent article on FFP, he comes up with this:
View attachment 25820
I mean, how wrong can you be? A strongly worded letter has landed on WSC's desk. Let's see if they print it.
Team viewer in the hands of scammers (I am John Smith calling about your Windows - in an Indian accent ffs) is dangerous to your bank account and finances. Do not engage unless YOU HAVE INITIATED THE CALL with a real problem on your computer.Sadly utds interest payments are not crippling the Glazers or utd itself as proved by the amount of spending on new players and shareholders dividends
What I do hope fucks them short term is team viewer not being in a position to fund its sponsorship agreement
They probably have along with a few other clubs but it’s Manchester City they are only interested in ..Surely Barca have broken FFP?
Why do you think the rules are being changed?Surely Barca have broken FFP?
My memory isn't what it was but am I right in thinking that City's "bad" first day at CAS was because virtually any documents UEFA wished to present were found to be admissible by the court, contrary to City's claims, but that, in fact, this served only to show that they had no evidence at all to support their charges and that they could not argue this was because they were not allowed to present their case?Our old friemd Ed Thompson has resurfaced in the latest issue of When Saturday Comes. At the end of an otherwise decent article on FFP, he comes up with this:
View attachment 25820
I mean, how wrong can you be? A strongly worded letter has landed on WSC's desk. Let's see if they print it.
We "lost" our two main arguments on the first day, which were the admissibility of the stolen emails and the time barring of these charges. Having lost those, there was nothing in the emails anyway, regardless of when anything happened.My memory isn't what it was but am I right in thinking that City's "bad" first day at CAS was because virtually any documents UEFA wished to present were found to be admissible by the court, contrary to City's claims, but that, in fact, this served only to show that they had no evidence at all to support their charges and that they could not argue this was because they were not allowed to present their case?
I thought CAS accepted the time barring of some of them?We "lost" our two main arguments on the first day, which were the admissibility of the stolen emails and the time barring of these charges. Having lost those, there was nothing in the emails anyway, regardless of when anything happened.
I'm not even sure why we bothered arguing these points in the first place. Our attitude could simply have been "Show us what you've got. Is that it? Haha."
It seems clear that the PL have even less evidence than UEFA had and they only launched their own investigation because of political pressure from our commercial rivals. I suspect their strategy is now to spin it out as long as possible in the hope that the negative media courage about City will enable them to say to LFC and MUFC : "We did our best for you but we were powerless against City's expensive lawyers." I think that when the Judge recently criticised the delay in the PL investigation his main message was to the PL itself and was essentially; "Put up or shut up."We "lost" our two main arguments on the first day, which were the admissibility of the stolen emails and the time barring of these charges. Having lost those, there was nothing in the emails anyway, regardless of when anything happened.
I'm not even sure why we bothered arguing these points in the first place. Our attitude could simply have been "Show us what you've got. Is that it? Haha."
I think we argued that the charges as a whole should not have been bought as they were just a rehash of the original ones in 2014. Having lost that argument, us and UEFA then argued different interpretations of the limitation. CAS then decided something different.I thought CAS accepted the time barring of some of them?
We probably also did it to make sure they'd think twice about doing anything again in future. They're not exactly renowned for understanding their own rules