I keep hearing the Rag fans bleating on that it's not fair how much money we have spent and that Blatter should shaft us through FFP. It got me thinking that maybe our current squad (the probable 25 on 1st Sept) would only marginally be more expensive than what they have. I ain't the fastest on a computer so can anyone out there provide a quick comparison on what both squads cost, say this season, 5 seasons ago and 10 seasons ago so we can analyse how unfair it's been for years before the Good Sheikh took us over please ?
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.
Fair Play comparison versus Rags
- Thread starter The Ox
- Start date
MCC
Well-Known Member
Let`s start fair play since all the big boys got together and decided to monopolise the champions league money. Only reason they and the rest pulled away from everyone else is because of it. Short sighted wankers. All of them.
Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 10,553
Funny really so many ManUre fans were buzzing when they started splashing the cash at the beginning of the season and we weren't oh how things change in 2 months....
Zonalmarking
Well-Known Member
Here
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/PL-decade-spending.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp- ... ending.jpg</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/PL-decade-spending.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp- ... ending.jpg</a>
PistonBlue
Well-Known Member
MCC said:Let`s start fair play since all the big boys got together and decided to monopolise the champions league money. Only reason they and the rest pulled away from everyone else is because of it. Short sighted wankers. All of them.
Absolutely. Fuck em.
blueish swede
Well-Known Member
How much financial gain have the rags got over the years by calling themsleves "Manchester".
Same EU rules - protected geographical status - should apply to football clubs as well as Parma ham and Eccles cakes.
Same EU rules - protected geographical status - should apply to football clubs as well as Parma ham and Eccles cakes.
malg
Well-Known Member
WOW, even I didn't realise how much we'd actually spent. Fair play, that is a shit load of money. We have got to win the league after that outlay, nothing else will be good enough.
Skashion
Well-Known Member
That club wouldn't even exist without wealthy owners. It'd be dead before anyone had ever fucking heard of it. Extinct as Newton Heath, trophies: zero.
D
D
Deleted member 14625
Guest
Schmeichel
Irwin
Bruce
Pallister
Parker
Ince
Robson
Kanchelskis
Giggs
Cantona
Hughes
Leighton
Anderson
Beardsmore
McClaire
This team was the most expensive team in the history of football and the club hadn't won the league for over a quarter if a century. So what's the fucking difference between them then and us now? Does he think it's fair that James W Gibson saved United from folding in the 30's after being a joke of a club with no fans and winning nowt for 37 years? Does he think it's fair that John Henry Davies saved Newton Heath from folding after they were a joke of a club with no fans who'd never won a trophy yet he changed their name, built them a new stadium, bought them a new team for an unprecidented amount of money and won them trophies?
Irwin
Bruce
Pallister
Parker
Ince
Robson
Kanchelskis
Giggs
Cantona
Hughes
Leighton
Anderson
Beardsmore
McClaire
This team was the most expensive team in the history of football and the club hadn't won the league for over a quarter if a century. So what's the fucking difference between them then and us now? Does he think it's fair that James W Gibson saved United from folding in the 30's after being a joke of a club with no fans and winning nowt for 37 years? Does he think it's fair that John Henry Davies saved Newton Heath from folding after they were a joke of a club with no fans who'd never won a trophy yet he changed their name, built them a new stadium, bought them a new team for an unprecidented amount of money and won them trophies?
bluevengence
Well-Known Member
The rags obviously doing things the right way open and honest
no need for uefa to have a look at their books eh!
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.cnbc.com//id/44250417" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cnbc.com//id/44250417</a>
Distracted by the club’s 3-0 thrashing of Tottenham Hotspur, few of Manchester’s United’s 190 million registered supporters in Asia are likely to have noticed the announcement on Monday of a three-year deal with Beeline, the Vietnamese telecommunications group.
The club did not put a value on the agreement, which will put Manchester United content on the mobile phones of 16 million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. But the prospect of more deals like Beeline – another, with Malaysian snackfood maker Mamee Double Decker, is already lined up – is a key element in Manchester United’s plans to raise up to $1 billion through an initial public offering of 25-30 percent of the shares in Asia.
Trading on its record 19 championships in the English Premier League and its predecessor, Manchester United is already one of the biggest winners from global broadcasting of the league, by far the world’s richest football competition.
The team’s performance has allowed it to dominate television coverage, with particular success in Asia, where a fast growing middle-class audience that is largely starved of top class professional sport has adopted the far away premiership as if it were its own.
Listing in Asia, say people with knowledge of the proposals, will raise the club’s profile still further, allowing it to tap fresh commercial opportunities from Indonesia to China.
But it may not be that simple. The club may be close to all-conquering on the field, but it has been dogged by financial uncertainties since it was acquired by the US-based Glazer family for £790 million in 2005.
The privately owned club pays £45m a year in interest on its gross debts of £515 million, slightly more than the net bill for new players in this year’s so-called “transfer window”. Red Football Joint Venture, the club’s parent company, announced in March a pre-tax loss of £109 million for the year ending June 2010.
There is also mystery over the repayment of high-interest payment-in-kind notes issued when the family bought Manchester United. The PIK notes were paid off in November, but the Glazers have not said how, nor where the money came from.
The club’s opaque finances are seen by skeptics as a key reason why Manchester United decided to locate its IPO in Asia rather than in London, where there is skepticism about the business models of football clubs whose revenues largely disappear in ever-inflating player salaries and transfer fees.
The air of mystery has been compounded by the club’s surprise choice of Singapore for its IPO, rather than Hong Kong, as had been widely expected – a decision described as “hard to explain” by one banker involved in early discussions on the listing
People with knowledge of the proposals say the driving force was a desire to avoid over-identification with China, and to tap the very large fan base among the 600 million people of relatively well-developed South-East Asia, for whom Singapore is a natural financial hub.
However, the financial sector in Hong Kong is awash with rumors that the switch is somehow designed to allow the secretive Glazers to avoid close scrutiny of Manchester’s United’s finances, including the relationship between the club’s debts and their own.
The rumors include claims that Hong Kong turned the listing down, for which there is no evidence, and that the club found it could not list in the Chinese territory because its stock exchange requires a history of profits while Singapore’s does not. In fact, both exchanges have a range of listing requirements, including regulations that allow lossmaking businesses to float.
Bankers say it is difficult to envisage a serious financial issue that would not be caught by Singapore’s listing requirements, but it is possible that the Glazers might find the exchange’s continuous disclosure regime more amenable than Hong Kong’s more rigid rules-based approach.
People with knowledge of the proposals say that all these issues will be clarified in the IPO prospectus. But there are indications that the uncertainty may already be weighing on the IPO’s prospects.
Peter Lim, the Singaporean billionaire who tried to buy Liverpool Football Club last year, has told associates that whether he will invest in Manchester United “depends on the valuation”. Others involved with Mr Lim have said the target price, which values the club at upwards of $3.3 billion, looks “rich”.
Manchester United would be well advised to clarify both the club’s financial position and its reasons for choosing Singapore before the rumors become entrenched. Asians may be football crazy, but they’re not mad.
no need for uefa to have a look at their books eh!
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.cnbc.com//id/44250417" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cnbc.com//id/44250417</a>
Distracted by the club’s 3-0 thrashing of Tottenham Hotspur, few of Manchester’s United’s 190 million registered supporters in Asia are likely to have noticed the announcement on Monday of a three-year deal with Beeline, the Vietnamese telecommunications group.
The club did not put a value on the agreement, which will put Manchester United content on the mobile phones of 16 million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. But the prospect of more deals like Beeline – another, with Malaysian snackfood maker Mamee Double Decker, is already lined up – is a key element in Manchester United’s plans to raise up to $1 billion through an initial public offering of 25-30 percent of the shares in Asia.
Trading on its record 19 championships in the English Premier League and its predecessor, Manchester United is already one of the biggest winners from global broadcasting of the league, by far the world’s richest football competition.
The team’s performance has allowed it to dominate television coverage, with particular success in Asia, where a fast growing middle-class audience that is largely starved of top class professional sport has adopted the far away premiership as if it were its own.
Listing in Asia, say people with knowledge of the proposals, will raise the club’s profile still further, allowing it to tap fresh commercial opportunities from Indonesia to China.
But it may not be that simple. The club may be close to all-conquering on the field, but it has been dogged by financial uncertainties since it was acquired by the US-based Glazer family for £790 million in 2005.
The privately owned club pays £45m a year in interest on its gross debts of £515 million, slightly more than the net bill for new players in this year’s so-called “transfer window”. Red Football Joint Venture, the club’s parent company, announced in March a pre-tax loss of £109 million for the year ending June 2010.
There is also mystery over the repayment of high-interest payment-in-kind notes issued when the family bought Manchester United. The PIK notes were paid off in November, but the Glazers have not said how, nor where the money came from.
The club’s opaque finances are seen by skeptics as a key reason why Manchester United decided to locate its IPO in Asia rather than in London, where there is skepticism about the business models of football clubs whose revenues largely disappear in ever-inflating player salaries and transfer fees.
The air of mystery has been compounded by the club’s surprise choice of Singapore for its IPO, rather than Hong Kong, as had been widely expected – a decision described as “hard to explain” by one banker involved in early discussions on the listing
People with knowledge of the proposals say the driving force was a desire to avoid over-identification with China, and to tap the very large fan base among the 600 million people of relatively well-developed South-East Asia, for whom Singapore is a natural financial hub.
However, the financial sector in Hong Kong is awash with rumors that the switch is somehow designed to allow the secretive Glazers to avoid close scrutiny of Manchester’s United’s finances, including the relationship between the club’s debts and their own.
The rumors include claims that Hong Kong turned the listing down, for which there is no evidence, and that the club found it could not list in the Chinese territory because its stock exchange requires a history of profits while Singapore’s does not. In fact, both exchanges have a range of listing requirements, including regulations that allow lossmaking businesses to float.
Bankers say it is difficult to envisage a serious financial issue that would not be caught by Singapore’s listing requirements, but it is possible that the Glazers might find the exchange’s continuous disclosure regime more amenable than Hong Kong’s more rigid rules-based approach.
People with knowledge of the proposals say that all these issues will be clarified in the IPO prospectus. But there are indications that the uncertainty may already be weighing on the IPO’s prospects.
Peter Lim, the Singaporean billionaire who tried to buy Liverpool Football Club last year, has told associates that whether he will invest in Manchester United “depends on the valuation”. Others involved with Mr Lim have said the target price, which values the club at upwards of $3.3 billion, looks “rich”.
Manchester United would be well advised to clarify both the club’s financial position and its reasons for choosing Singapore before the rumors become entrenched. Asians may be football crazy, but they’re not mad.