You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Cristiano Ronaldo
- Thread starter alky313
- Start date
Plain Speaking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 5,096
I'm sure it will be carefully hidden if they try it.jonmcity said:crystal_mais said:Marvin said:Utd spent £80m on a combination of players last season.
And AON will pay Utd £160m to rename their training ground. Chevrolet will pay Utd £45mpa
Don't delude yourself that they are paupers
Was told last year that both Chevrolet & Nike were combining to help fund Tranny back at the swamp
If this happens and is allowed it would be the end of FFP happy days.
(There are ex-Utd officials moving into all the top football posts.)
Marvin said:How would it end FFP?jonmcity said:crystal_mais said:Was told last year that both Chevrolet & Nike were combining to help fund Tranny back at the swamp
If this happens and is allowed it would be the end of FFP happy days.
It might dawn on the rest of football's fans etc what we've been talking about, but the division between the spending of Man Utd and the rest of football has been a matter of fact for 30 years.
We could just get any sponsor to buy our players, hence circumventing the spending restriction problem.
True. Robben has been outstanding for 2 seasons in the big Champions League games.Plain Speaking said:Phuket Blue said:I am not the least bit worried Ronaldo may return to the rags. We beat them with him in the team before and Chelsea kicked their arse for the title more than once while he was there.
Frankly, given our resources and the squad we are building I have find it a bit embarassing that some fans fear Ronaldo going here and Cavani going there. One player doesn't make a team and we will be a much stronger team next season too.
Ronaldo is usually his most effective against the middle and lower ranking teams in the league. He will win some of these matches on his own and get a hatful of goals. he sometimes goes missing in the big games.
But still if you have a player who can score a goal a game, then you will win most games.
He'd improve any team
Good job the chances of him joining Man Utd are small. They can afford him, but I think he'll extend his contract at Real Madrid.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,438
Marvin said:How would it end FFP?jonmcity said:crystal_mais said:Was told last year that both Chevrolet & Nike were combining to help fund Tranny back at the swamp
If this happens and is allowed it would be the end of FFP happy days.
It might dawn on the rest of football's fans etc what we've been talking about, but the division between the spending of Man Utd and the rest of football has been a matter of fact for 30 years.
Because every time a team would want a player in the future, they would just renegotiate with their main sponsors for the extra money needed on the basis of extra "awareness". The needs of the club would drive sponsorship revenues, the sponsorship revenues wouldn't be determining who you could buy. It's the exact opposite of living within your means.
I am not saying it's wrong, or has no commercial merit as a principle. I am saying it blasts a hole in what is supposed to be FFP's main principle.
Most of you are taking this whole sponsorship-funded transfer out of context. It would be entailed as part of the new Nike deal. The money Nike put forward would come solely from the contract, meaning United will get less annual money from it. However, they would most likely still profit from the increased shirt sales.
There's nothing corrupt about it.
There's nothing corrupt about it.
It was never fair in the first place. UEFA or the Premier League could argue that if the sponsors or a third party finance a deal, it protects a football club.halfcenturyup said:Marvin said:How would it end FFP?jonmcity said:If this happens and is allowed it would be the end of FFP happy days.
It might dawn on the rest of football's fans etc what we've been talking about, but the division between the spending of Man Utd and the rest of football has been a matter of fact for 30 years.
Because every time a team would want a player in the future, they would just renegotiate with their main sponsors for the extra money needed on the basis of extra "awareness". The needs of the club would drive sponsorship revenues, the sponsorship revenues wouldn't be determining who you could buy. It's the exact opposite of living within your means.
I am not saying it's wrong, or has no commercial merit as a principle. I am saying it blasts a hole in what is supposed to be FFP's main principle.
It doesn't shoot down FFP, it just provides another example of how commercial interests are driving football and how difficult it is for the smaller clubs to compete
Marvin said:yes I do. Their debts now stand at £370m and they recently re-financed £200m of outstanding 8.75% bonds replacing them with a loan from the Bank of America at an estimated rate of 2.75% reducing their interest bill to £21m pawaspish said:Marvin said:Utd spent £80m on a combination of players last season.
And AON will pay Utd £160m to rename their training ground. Chevrolet will pay Utd £45mpa
Don't delude yourself that they are paupers
They spent 55m last season and yes they have money!! Do you really think the scum will spend 80m on 1 player with the glazers running them like a cash cow?! Not a chance in hell..
I once indulged myself with the theory that Utd were going under. They are not
£21m pa interest repayments for a club on the verge of two of the biggest sponsorship deals in football is very manageable. If Moyes struggles, and they finish outside the top 4, then their problems start to mount. But for the moment they can do what they want
I agree what your saying about there finances what I'm saying is the Glazers will not allow it no way..
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
That seems to be the whole point of replacing Gill/Ferguson with Woodward/Moyes.<br /><br />-- Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:55 am --<br /><br />waspish said:Marvin said:yes I do. Their debts now stand at £370m and they recently re-financed £200m of outstanding 8.75% bonds replacing them with a loan from the Bank of America at an estimated rate of 2.75% reducing their interest bill to £21m pawaspish said:They spent 55m last season and yes they have money!! Do you really think the scum will spend 80m on 1 player with the glazers running them like a cash cow?! Not a chance in hell..
I once indulged myself with the theory that Utd were going under. They are not
£21m pa interest repayments for a club on the verge of two of the biggest sponsorship deals in football is very manageable. If Moyes struggles, and they finish outside the top 4, then their problems start to mount. But for the moment they can do what they want
I agree what your saying about there finances what I'm saying is the Glazers will not allow it no way..
So you'll be quite OK if we do the same then presumably?Twigglett said:Most of you are taking this whole sponsorship-funded transfer out of context. It would be entailed as part of the new Nike deal. The money Nike put forward would come solely from the contract, meaning United will get less annual money from it. However, they would most likely still profit from the increased shirt sales.
There's nothing corrupt about it.
crystal_mais said:Marvin said:Utd spent £80m on a combination of players last season.
And AON will pay Utd £160m to rename their training ground. Chevrolet will pay Utd £45mpa
Don't delude yourself that they are paupers
Was told last year that both Chevrolet & Nike were combining to help fund Tranny back at the swamp
Can't see Nike subsidising any transfer. The fall out from all the other clubs they have deals with would be phenomenal