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.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
danburge82 said: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?
As always, you and I are singing from exactly the same hymn sheet regarding this topic. Throw all the above at your average Rag and they will always struggle to give an answer.
I'll also add in that United were huge beneficiaries when City were severely punished for the illegal payments episode - most of our players were suspended from playing but astonishingly were also banned from ever playing for City again even when their suspensions were up, yet were free to play for other clubs (This was overturned many years later when Meredith returned to play for us in the twilight of his career, but by then the damage had long since been done). This lead to United signing 4 of City's best players, Meredith being one of course, all on the same day and this in turn formed the nucleus of their first great side. While we were rightfully punished for these indiscretions, the penalties were harsh in the extreme and could easily have lead to the club folding. Yet some 15 years later, Arsenal were widely thought to have bribed the very same FA into obtaining a place in the top flight. It's nothing short of a fucking disgrace.
Then of course there's City giving United yet another neighbourly hand when joining forces to get Manchester Central expelled from the league - at the time United were flagging, and it was City that carried more influence out of the 2 clubs because we were recognised as being a bigger club. Without our help, United could well have been unsuccessful in their bid to see off Manchester Central and that in turn could've lead to United being Manchester's third club.
D
D
Deleted member 14625
Guest
Indeed!M18CTID said:danburge82 said: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?
As always, you and I are singing from exactly the same hymn sheet regarding this topic. Throw all the above at your average Rag and they will always struggle to give an answer.
I'll also add in that United were huge beneficiaries when City were severely punished for the illegal payments episode - most of our players were suspended from playing but astonishingly were also banned from ever playing for City again even when their suspensions were up, yet were free to play for other clubs (This was overturned many years later when Meredith returned to play for us in the twilight of his career, but by then the damage had long since been done). This lead to United signing 4 of City's best players, Meredith being one of course, all on the same day and this in turn formed the nucleus of their first great side. While we were rightfully punished for these indiscretions, the penalties were harsh in the extreme and could easily have lead to the club folding. Yet some 15 years later, Arsenal were widely thought to have bribed the very same FA into obtaining a place in the top flight. It's nothing short of a fucking disgrace.
Then of course there's City giving United yet another neighbourly hand when joining forces to get Manchester Central expelled from the league - at the time United were flagging, and it was City that carried the bigger influence because we were recognised as being a bigger club at the time. Without our help, United could well have been unsuccessful if they'd tried to see off Manchester Central themselves.
This is history. All part of ours and theirs. We were the bigger club for the first 75 years, we were on a par as clubs for the next 30 years and United have been the bigger club for the last 30 years. But for some reason probabaly 100 of them years are not knowledge to our Rag neighbours. History for them is selective. They literally think they've always been this huge club, yet then tell us we have no history. They're a laughable bunch of fools. Like you say they wouldn't be the club they are now without City.
MancashCity
Active Member
Who gives a fuck!!! we got the cash why not buy the best at whatever cost! They are all just jealous and when people try to have ago at us cos of our spending power i just rub it in even more and tell em to look out cos we might go out and buy their gun players - whoever they support!!