United Thread - 2022/23

[halfcenturyup]

You omitted the SIX they conceded to their local rivals in early October.

:) It's so normal, I forgot about it.

 

[aguero93:20]

It would have been 2 years more if they hadn’t gazumped us on Van Persie.

Possibly. I think that signing would have hurt us in the medium term though. Would we have won the league in 2013/14 without Negredo in the early season and Dzeko's form in the run in? Etc etc. They got their one season out of van Persie and after that he was a very expensive shite that wouldn't flush and had to play.

 

[deegee33]

To all lurking rags;
Today is the first time in 10 years that St Beneathus Day has fallen on Cinco de Maio, have a margarita to wash down your humble pie. SCUM

 

[northendenton]

View attachment 77729

What's a Cumberland sausage got to do with this thread

 

[VOOMER]

It would have been 2 years more if they hadn’t gazumped us on Van Persie.

And it would be likely Bobby would have stayed, won 4 more titles 1 CL 1 FA cup and 1 LC, until he was offered the Italian job in 2016 and Pep would have been ready.

 

[Gray]

Fair enough. I thought you may have been joking.

Three losses by a single goal to the top clubs doesn't concern me tbh. We have to lose somewhere, sometimes. I don't think you can lump that in with the other lot who have been beaten by 7 and multiple times by 3 and 4.

But as you say. All opinions.

I basically agree with you but throw in the points dropped at home to Everton and away at Forest and we will only have ourselves to blame if we fail to win the PL.

 

[Bluemoonadam]

I love it even more if Brighton get it

I didn't even realise how close Brighton were to 4th, I don't think they will get it but yea thatd be even better!

 

[yeah whatever !!]

Say we win the title at Chelsea. Brighton are still in with a chance of top 4. Would you root for them to beat us when we go down there?

If that were the case id expect Pep to take the team out for a very very dodgy Ruby at a very dodgy establishment.

 

[moomey]

Also I didn’t state (or mean) writing off debt “inflated income”, giving soft loans was the point I was making, that was money not earned and it propped up a club that had insufficient income to pay all operating expenses including wages and transfers.

Insufficient cash is not the same as insufficient profit. You can pass ffp, make a profit and still be cash flow negative. You’re still not making any sense - soft loans or equity - it makes no difference if you’re making a loss.

 

[moomey]

They put in 45m per year to cover expenses, that’s money not earned which FFP was supposed to deal with. Dress it up anyway you like that loan was never going to be paid off and if it was with a bank there would have been significant interest charges which would also affect FFP. The debt should have had a benefit in kind implication to make the loan equitable with those paying interest.

FFP was there (supposedly) to stop clubs going out of business. What would have happened if Chelsea had been relegated, worth far less than the value of a Champion’s league club, Abramovich dead and his inheritance benefactor wanting their 1.4b back? The club would have been at serious risk. Not what FFP was there for and circumventing rules should not have been an option.

Still no clue what point you’re making mate. Seem to have moved onto a general critique of ffp rather than the original subject which was writing off loans. To be clear writing off a loan makes no difference to ffp - please explain what you are actually upset about ?