Hayley Croppers chopper
Well-Known Member
wouldnt it be great if we had a banner like their 34 years , highlighting the debt, obviously it would need to be electronic as no one could keep up with it spiralling
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.
maths with the glaziers
- Thread starter Chris in London
- Start date
Holcombe bloo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 1,615
Bluemoonbaldboy said:Simple they honestly thought they could get out of the joint agreement for TV rights. Once they had all rag home games would then be shown Pay Per View here and internationally. If that happened they would have made millions a season and paid off the debt without committing a penny of their own money thus getting a cash cow for free. Same as Hicks and Gillett at the Dippers, problem is the Premier League believe in the joint agreement as it means smaller teams get a fair share of the pie if however it was each club owned their own rights can you seriously see Burnley v Stoke getting many PPV buys?allan harper said:so why did the yanks buy the shit hole?
they must be making profit on there investment or why else would they have bought the shit hole
Just a thought. You seem to be able to watch almost anything streamed on the net these days and for free. I'm not anexpert on this technology but it seems hard for tv companies to control. If so they're never going to mange this revenue are they?!
Bluemoonbaldboy
Well-Known Member
People are soft enough to pay but as I said as long as the joint agreement stays in place there isn't the issue anyway.Holcombe bloo said:Bluemoonbaldboy said:Simple they honestly thought they could get out of the joint agreement for TV rights. Once they had all rag home games would then be shown Pay Per View here and internationally. If that happened they would have made millions a season and paid off the debt without committing a penny of their own money thus getting a cash cow for free. Same as Hicks and Gillett at the Dippers, problem is the Premier League believe in the joint agreement as it means smaller teams get a fair share of the pie if however it was each club owned their own rights can you seriously see Burnley v Stoke getting many PPV buys?
Just a thought. You seem to be able to watch almost anything streamed on the net these days and for free. I'm not anexpert on this technology but it seems hard for tv companies to control. If so they're never going to mange this revenue are they?!
The issue will come if United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea say to the rest that they'l leave the league to join " x euro league " unless they agree to tear up the tv agreement.
Other clubs would still get money, probably atleast equal to what they get now but it's the top four with United and Liverpool way ahead of the other two, that would gain 2 or 3 times the money they get now.
Each team has thier own TV channel that shows all live games, away games are shown too but the away team has to buy the rights for that game to show on their tv station.
It will happen and even sooner now that all the clubs are being bought by overseas owners who want to make more money.
Free online games will not last, just like torrents are being hunted.
Other clubs would still get money, probably atleast equal to what they get now but it's the top four with United and Liverpool way ahead of the other two, that would gain 2 or 3 times the money they get now.
Each team has thier own TV channel that shows all live games, away games are shown too but the away team has to buy the rights for that game to show on their tv station.
It will happen and even sooner now that all the clubs are being bought by overseas owners who want to make more money.
Free online games will not last, just like torrents are being hunted.
The Pink Panther
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 May 2005
- Messages
- 16,213
Bluemoonbaldboy said:People are soft enough to pay but as I said as long as the joint agreement stays in place there isn't the issue anyway.Holcombe bloo said:Just a thought. You seem to be able to watch almost anything streamed on the net these days and for free. I'm not anexpert on this technology but it seems hard for tv companies to control. If so they're never going to mange this revenue are they?!
Sky is going mental at the moment because of the free streams on tinternet.
They're trying to negotiate a smaller payment for the TV rights or telling the Premier league that they cannot sell any live TV rights to other countries.
ono
Well-Known Member
You and the missus arrange your sexual encounters via email?Pigeonho said:Just has an email off the missus saying she wants 'Katie time' tonight. if that Katie time lasts what, 10 minutes?, it means that by the time i've finished with her united will be £760 more in debt. Tonights 'Katie time' is going to be the most pleasurable yet!
Pigeonho
Well-Known Member
ono said:You and the missus arrange your sexual encounters via email?Pigeonho said:Just has an email off the missus saying she wants 'Katie time' tonight. if that Katie time lasts what, 10 minutes?, it means that by the time i've finished with her united will be £760 more in debt. Tonights 'Katie time' is going to be the most pleasurable yet!
Sometimes, as it would be difficult for her in her office environment to phone me up and say exactly what it is she will require that night! It is 2009, is it not?!
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
Katie time? Are you Peter Andre?Pigeonho said:Sometimes, as it would be difficult for her in her office environment to phone me up and say exactly what it is she will require that night! It is 2009, is it not?!ono said:You and the missus arrange your sexual encounters via email?
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,331
Pigeonho said:ono said:You and the missus arrange your sexual encounters via email?
Sometimes, as it would be difficult for her in her office environment to phone me up and say exactly what it is she will require that night! It is 2009, is it not?!
I think I had two and a half grand in the Katie Time sweepstakes
Did I win?
SI's Bald Head
Well-Known Member
From The Times.....
Glazer debt gives United a problem
Contrary to popular belief, Sir Alex Ferguson does have money to spend on players, although if the Glazer family, the Manchester United owners, go on without being able to get their spiralling debt under control, the amount of cash in question may gradually recede.
The Glazers have been struggling to refinance part of the club’s £699 million debt, namely the £175.5 million in Payment In Kind (PIK) notes they are personally responsible for. Rolling up at an annual interest rate of 14.25 per cent, that debt will stand at a staggering £509 million by the time it is due to be repaid in 2017. Ferguson won’t be around by then but pity the manager who is if the Glazers, through whatever means available, haven’t been able to take decisive action to address it before then.
Glazer debt gives United a problem
Contrary to popular belief, Sir Alex Ferguson does have money to spend on players, although if the Glazer family, the Manchester United owners, go on without being able to get their spiralling debt under control, the amount of cash in question may gradually recede.
The Glazers have been struggling to refinance part of the club’s £699 million debt, namely the £175.5 million in Payment In Kind (PIK) notes they are personally responsible for. Rolling up at an annual interest rate of 14.25 per cent, that debt will stand at a staggering £509 million by the time it is due to be repaid in 2017. Ferguson won’t be around by then but pity the manager who is if the Glazers, through whatever means available, haven’t been able to take decisive action to address it before then.