Spurs-The bitterness is reaching dipperlike proportions

[Castiel]

I'd just like to add on the issue of Man United's debts. What's tipping the scales in your favour at the moment is your sustained success. That is a result of the world class manager (lets admit it) you have at the helm. There are only a hand full of such managers in the world at any given time. The other most obvious being Jose Mourinho, who isn't known for sticking with projects. When Ferguson retires, your success could really wane. Falling out of the Champions League for a season wont hurt Chelsea or City. But look what happened to Liverpool. They may never get back in. The same is true of Man United. If you fell out of the top 4, that would be the killing blow in my opinion.

 

[southern muppet]

Re: Wish spurs fans would get a sense of perspective

I still consider myself better-looking than Brad Pitt, his actual face doesn't count for me.

-- Sat May 21, 2011 12:17 pm --

Where are you getting this info from? Chelsea aren't even well supported in England, nevermind Europe or globally. They are on a par with West Ham and Millwall.

It's a façade, all paid for by Roman. Arsenal and Spurs are proper clubs with history and real fans.

Sport+Markt are one of the most respected Sports Consultancy firms in existence, it isn't conjecture. Google them and 'best supported clubs in Europe' or something similar if you want to find the original research and countless references to it on the web.

Again, you say Arsenal have real fans, but they've been subject to gentrification of fanbase even more than Chelsea - so what are you getting at there?

Not even in the top 25

20 Best Supported Clubs in Europe (2009-2010 season)
1.Manchester United, England: 75,304 average
2.Borussia Dortmund, Germany: 74,748
3.Barcelona, Spain: 71,045
4.Real Madrid, Spain: 70,816
5.Bayern Munich, Germany: 69,000
6.Schalke, Germany: 61,442
7.Arsenal, England: 60,040
8.AC Milan, Italy: 59,757
9.Celtic, Scotland: 57,366
10.Hamburg, Germany: 54,811
11.Hertha Berlin, Germany: 52,165
12.Marseille, France: 52,162
13.Inter Milan, Italy: 52,520
14.Stuttgart, Germany: 51,700
15.Cologne, Germany: 50,222
16.Rangers, Scotland: 49,534
17.Ajax, Holland: 49,014
18.Newcastle United, England: 48,750
19.Borussia Moenchengladbach, Germany: 47,240
20.Eintracht Franckfurt, Germany: 47,000

Those are attendances. We're talking about overall European fanbase. If it was just attendances it wouldn't have needed a sports consultancy firm to investigate it would it, jesus.

 

[Sugarloaf]

So Chelsea didn't break even? And they have an ageing squad that needs replacing.

I don't know where the 1.1bn figure came from. The Glazers gross debt is £477.7m. If the club was to carry on making profits of 100 million every season, they could have it paid off in 6 years, give or take signings. This is the fundamental reason why they are in no hurry to pay it off or sell. It makes money and doubles in price from their original investment.

On the debts, which you should know about if you're a United fan:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10237268" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10237268</a>

One of many comprehensive articles about the house of cards you're standing on. If you're really interested in it you should look through the Glazers history in the US. Last I checked they've liquidated 4 different multi million dollar businesses for personal gain. Man United is the next in line. Its good business, but terrible for football and catastrophic for you. Why do you think your real fans, the real Manchester fans that were there before your glory days are out parading this green and gold red Knights campaign?

The ageing squad argument is a media induced myth. For a start, the reason the club didn't break even this financial year was because of the replacement of older squad players like Ballack. Man United's average squad age is higher than Chelsea's. You have a 40 year old goal keeper, a 38 year old winger and a 36 year old midfielder. Our oldest is 33 this year.

I've yet to hear a single substantiated claim from you. Just subjective observation and media induced fallacies. There is no argument that United is a sound business, because its a house of cards. There is no argument that Spurs is a "bigger" club, because its ridiculous. There is no argument that what City are doing, and what Chelsea have done is destroying football; because what we've done in 5 years has helped football more than a century of what Man United and Liverpool have done.

That's a silly argument. The Glazers business failures in the US have nothing to do with the club. Of the money they borrowed to buy the shares, they owe £477.7m. Just the same way that all the money in Roman Abramovich's pocket isn't the property of Chelsea football club. The club currently have 113 million to spend on re-building the squad. This is money that the club generated itself. If the Glazers wanted, they could take the lot, but they won't, because this is the nest egg that they will eventually sell to pay off all of their other debts. It has to be successful for them to achieve this.

I haven't said anything about destroying football. In my opinion, Spurs are bigger than Chelsea. If in 2003, Roman Abramovich had've bought Leicester City and they were currently in the top four with a few league titles and fa cups, I would still say that Spurs, Villa, City, Liverpool, Everton are bigger clubs than Leicester, because its true.

 

[Irwell]

Of the money they borrowed to buy the shares, they owe £477.7m.

So where do you think the Glazers got the money to pay off the PIKs? Red Football LLC has borrowed an additional £250m to pay those off, they didn't magic up a vast sum of money from thin air. That's the reason Red Football LLC is incorporated in Delaware, they don't need to release details of their debts.

 

[southern muppet]

So Chelsea didn't break even? And they have an ageing squad that needs replacing.

I don't know where the 1.1bn figure came from. The Glazers gross debt is £477.7m. If the club was to carry on making profits of 100 million every season, they could have it paid off in 6 years, give or take signings. This is the fundamental reason why they are in no hurry to pay it off or sell. It makes money and doubles in price from their original investment.

On the debts, which you should know about if you're a United fan:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10237268" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10237268</a>

One of many comprehensive articles about the house of cards you're standing on. If you're really interested in it you should look through the Glazers history in the US. Last I checked they've liquidated 4 different multi million dollar businesses for personal gain. Man United is the next in line. Its good business, but terrible for football and catastrophic for you. Why do you think your real fans, the real Manchester fans that were there before your glory days are out parading this green and gold red Knights campaign?

The ageing squad argument is a media induced myth. For a start, the reason the club didn't break even this financial year was because of the replacement of older squad players like Ballack. Man United's average squad age is higher than Chelsea's. You have a 40 year old goal keeper, a 38 year old winger and a 36 year old midfielder. Our oldest is 33 this year.

I've yet to hear a single substantiated claim from you. Just subjective observation and media induced fallacies. There is no argument that United is a sound business, because its a house of cards. There is no argument that Spurs is a "bigger" club, because its ridiculous. There is no argument that what City are doing, and what Chelsea have done is destroying football; because what we've done in 5 years has helped football more than a century of what Man United and Liverpool have done.

That's a silly argument. The Glazers business failures in the US have nothing to do with the club. Of the money they borrowed to buy the shares, they owe £477.7m. Just the same way that all the money in Roman Abramovich's pocket isn't the property of Chelsea football club. The club currently have 113 million to spend on re-building the squad. This is money that the club generated itself. If the Glazers wanted, they could take the lot, but they won't, because this is the nest egg that they will eventually sell to pay off all of their other debts. It has to be successful for them to achieve this.

I haven't said anything about destroying football. In my opinion, Spurs are bigger than Chelsea. If in 2003, Roman Abramovich had've bought Leicester City and they were currently in the top four with a few league titles and fa cups, I would still say that Spurs, Villa, City, Liverpool, Everton are bigger clubs than Leicester, because its true.

Unless Leicester City overtook them all (except Liverpool) in terms of global fanbase.

So what you effectively have is a situation where you are maintaining that the club with less support, less trophies, less attractive to players (even if wages were forced to be equivelant) are somehow the bigger club - because of some tenuous crap about the other club's financial model being too dependent on their owner. Do me favour.

 

[Castiel]

That's a silly argument. The Glazers business failures in the US have nothing to do with the club. Of the money they borrowed to buy the shares, they owe £477.7m. Just the same way that all the money in Roman Abramovich's pocket isn't the property of Chelsea football club. The club currently have 113 million to spend on re-building the squad. This is money that the club generated itself. If the Glazers wanted, they could take the lot, but they won't, because this is the nest egg that they will eventually sell to pay off all of their other debts. It has to be successful for them to achieve this.

I haven't said anything about destroying football. In my opinion, Spurs are bigger than Chelsea. If in 2003, Roman Abramovich had've bought Leicester City and they were currently in the top four with a few league titles and fa cups, I would still say that Spurs, Villa, City, Liverpool, Everton are bigger clubs than Leicester, because its true.

Well how you look at the division of the Glazers assets in terms of what affects United and what doesn't is just something you can't lock down objectively. If Abramovich wanted to he could gut Chelsea's assets to save some other business he has going on. The same applies to the Glazers. Their problems are your problems, and Abramovich's problems are mine.

My comment about destroying football wasn't aimed specifically at you, its more a common tune the Spurs fans have been whistling about City and Chelsea.

Back to your original point of Spurs being bigger than Chelsea and City. I just don't see how you can believe that. Spurs have won 1 more major honour than Chelsea, so by that ranking they marginally are. However, Chelsea compete for all the major honour every year, Spurs don't. Chelsea have a larger fan base, more resources, larger European and world recognition, higher profile players and a higher net worth. If we won the league cup next year we'd be above Spurs on the only thing they beat us at.

Spurs were once bigger (marginally) in terms of trophies won, they're not any more. They were once bigger than City, they're not any more. Look at the present not the past. Thats the reality of the situation. Had Spurs not been bankrolled by their benefactors they wouldn't even be in the Premier League. Thats the reality.

 

[Sugarloaf]

Of the money they borrowed to buy the shares, they owe £477.7m.

So where do you think the Glazers got the money to pay off the PIKs? Red Football LLC has borrowed an additional £250m to pay those off, they didn't magic up a vast sum of money from thin air. That's the reason Red Football LLC is incorporated in Delaware, they don't need to release details of their debts.

I've read some of the blogs and campaigns, but its mostly scaremongering. It's very hard for them to drum up support for their cause when the club is more successful with old Malcolm, than it has ever been before. Fact

 

[Metal Biker]

Of the money they borrowed to buy the shares, they owe £477.7m.

So where do you think the Glazers got the money to pay off the PIKs? Red Football LLC has borrowed an additional £250m to pay those off, they didn't magic up a vast sum of money from thin air. That's the reason Red Football LLC is incorporated in Delaware, they don't need to release details of their debts.

I've read some of the blogs and campaigns, but its mostly scaremongering. It's very hard for them to drum up support for their cause when the club is more successful with old Malcolm, than it has ever been before. Fact

In other words, you don't know. But you're prepared to pooh-pooh anyone who shows even a modicum of logical sense.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The 2010 losses were a direct result of the Torres (being the largest chunk) investment and several Brazilian youths. Also including Ramires and Luiz surmounts to a rather large investment by Roman, for the first time since his take over.

Point of information.

Torres & Luiz were bought in January 2011 so will be part of the 2010/11 accounts.<br /><br />-- Sat May 21, 2011 6:18 pm --<br /><br />

Of the money they borrowed to buy the shares, they owe £477.7m.

So where do you think the Glazers got the money to pay off the PIKs? Red Football LLC has borrowed an additional £250m to pay those off, they didn't magic up a vast sum of money from thin air. That's the reason Red Football LLC is incorporated in Delaware, they don't need to release details of their debts.

I've read some of the blogs and campaigns, but its mostly scaremongering. It's very hard for them to drum up support for their cause when the club is more successful with old Malcolm, than it has ever been before. Fact

But successful in spite of old Malcolm not becasue of him. We'll see how much success old Malcolm brings when Baconface finally retires.

And the truth is that no one but them knows how they found the money to pay off the PIK notes but one fact in the public domain is that the only asset in the group that is visible is Old Trafford, worth about £200m. They don't have that amount lying around and their assets in the US are all heavily mortgaged, with some in liquidation.

 

[Sugarloaf]

So where do you think the Glazers got the money to pay off the PIKs? Red Football LLC has borrowed an additional £250m to pay those off, they didn't magic up a vast sum of money from thin air. That's the reason Red Football LLC is incorporated in Delaware, they don't need to release details of their debts.

I've read some of the blogs and campaigns, but its mostly scaremongering. It's very hard for them to drum up support for their cause when the club is more successful with old Malcolm, than it has ever been before. Fact

In other words, you don't know. But you're prepared to pooh-pooh anyone who shows even a modicum of logical sense.

Logic and facts are two different things. It's logical that they could've sold off some assets as well, but this is all hearsay. They will sell one day for a healthy profit, and everyone will say, "WTF was all that about?"