United Thread - 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gray said:
It would have been 2 years more if they hadn’t gazumped us on Van Persie.
Click to expand...
Possibly. I think that signing would have hurt us in the medium term though. Would we have won the league in 2013/14 without Negredo in the early season and Dzeko's form in the run in? Etc etc. They got their one season out of van Persie and after that he was a very expensive shite that wouldn't flush and had to play.
 
Gray said:
It would have been 2 years more if they hadn’t gazumped us on Van Persie.
Click to expand...

And it would be likely Bobby would have stayed, won 4 more titles 1 CL 1 FA cup and 1 LC, until he was offered the Italian job in 2016 and Pep would have been ready.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Fair enough. I thought you may have been joking.

Three losses by a single goal to the top clubs doesn't concern me tbh. We have to lose somewhere, sometimes. I don't think you can lump that in with the other lot who have been beaten by 7 and multiple times by 3 and 4.

But as you say. All opinions.
Click to expand...
I basically agree with you but throw in the points dropped at home to Everton and away at Forest and we will only have ourselves to blame if we fail to win the PL.
 
hammocity said:
Also I didn’t state (or mean) writing off debt “inflated income”, giving soft loans was the point I was making, that was money not earned and it propped up a club that had insufficient income to pay all operating expenses including wages and transfers.
Click to expand...
Insufficient cash is not the same as insufficient profit. You can pass ffp, make a profit and still be cash flow negative. You’re still not making any sense - soft loans or equity - it makes no difference if you’re making a loss.
 
hammocity said:
They put in 45m per year to cover expenses, that’s money not earned which FFP was supposed to deal with. Dress it up anyway you like that loan was never going to be paid off and if it was with a bank there would have been significant interest charges which would also affect FFP. The debt should have had a benefit in kind implication to make the loan equitable with those paying interest.

FFP was there (supposedly) to stop clubs going out of business. What would have happened if Chelsea had been relegated, worth far less than the value of a Champion’s league club, Abramovich dead and his inheritance benefactor wanting their 1.4b back? The club would have been at serious risk. Not what FFP was there for and circumventing rules should not have been an option.
Click to expand...
Still no clue what point you’re making mate. Seem to have moved onto a general critique of ffp rather than the original subject which was writing off loans. To be clear writing off a loan makes no difference to ffp - please explain what you are actually upset about ?
 
The dippers were always nothing more than a fungal infection in my opinion, okay they sometimes come back - we'll deal with it when it rears it's ugly dipper head again.

The rag fucking twat bastards are the equivalent to a long and lingering degenerative disease. Incurable and a bastard to have to live with.

I want nothing good for them whatsoever - ever.

I hate them. I despise them. I loathe them with a passion bordering on murderous.

Remember the shite we had to endure - the banner, the jokes, the put downs, the piss can, David fucking Mays barbecues, the spawny results, the dodgy decisions, Alan Wilkie, ryan wilson, every boys dream, gobshites in pubs, media love in, the self titled theatre of dreams and any other shite they have thrown at us since they became TWGC in 1992.

Another season of Thursday nights would be all I would begrudgingly want them to have.

As the Pope says - Fuck Off!
 
They are shitting it that we might win the treble, Wembley will be a bloodbath both on and off the pitch should we win the league and get to CL final. Every single rag knows they are outclassed both on and off the pitch oh how times have changed.
 
hammocity said:
I get that but effectively can the new owners just pay back the loan (as Bohley did but to charity in his case) and start debt free and able to spend within the confines of FFP which previously would have included operating costs,
Click to expand...
hammocity said:
I get that but effectively can the new owners just pay back the loan (as Bohley did but to charity in his case) and start debt free and able to spend within the confines of FFP which previously would have included operating costs, wages and transfer fees as part of the original debt?
Click to expand...
This post makes no sense - debt has nothing to do with FFP - I get that you want to get upset at the rags but the points you are making are reaching for things that just ain’t there. If new owners want to pay off the debt what’s your problem? It’ll cost them and be deducted from the equity value they’ve agreed with the Glazers.
 
Blue Maverick said:
They are shitting it that we might win the treble, Wembley will be a bloodbath both on and off the pitch should we win the league and get to CL final. Every single rag knows they are outclassed both on and off the pitch oh how times have changed.
Click to expand...
I definitely think a strong referee is needed as they will try and kick fuck out of us. Sadly cannot think of one
 
I'd be surprised if they won at W Ham. They'll be 1-2 pts ahead of Liverpool after Sunday with a game in hand. Their arses will be twitching.

I'm not sure that I prefer to see Liverpool in the CL, though.
 
moomey said:
This post makes no sense - debt has nothing to do with FFP - I get that you want to get upset at the rags but the points you are making are reaching for things that just ain’t there. If new owners want to pay off the debt what’s your problem? It’ll cost them and be deducted from the equity value they’ve agreed with the Glazers.
Click to expand...
This is the FFP rules before being amended from next season.

City borrow a further billion pounds on a soft loan and don’t pay back a penny but it sits there on the balance sheet as a debt. That money is then spent over a period of years on wages and transfers A new owner comes along, pays off the debt and we start again, that’s not what FFP was supposed to be there for.

Why should accumulated debt be allowed to be written off, especially how Chelsea did it? They circumnavigated FFP by funding the spending, it wasn’t income, it’s turned out to be a gift.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top