Leyqute:


Oya make we set up account

If I sell nihilistjnr e suppose raise like 20 USD.

Hahaha make I find who I go sell. Make I go Chelsea thread...

Panther7:
Exactly!! They borrowed money to even buy United, it is regard as the most hostile takeover of any Football club till date.

Not just that they borrowed money to buy the club. They secured the loans against the club's assets thereby incurring large interests which the club then had to (and continue to) pay.
Also, every year they award themselves millions of pounds as consultancy fees, then pay off some of the debt before using some of the money made by the club to pay for player purchase and salaries.

If you analyse this scenario they have not spent their personal money at all. Compare this with City, PSG e.t.c where the authentic billionaire owners augment club finances with their money in order to finance huge transfers.

weedtaker:
lol see kweshun, you be newbie for here abi wetin

You said Herrera is technically better than Kante and you're asking if I'm a newbie... E be things.

iamoyindamola:

Just had to chip this in

I'm loyal to that brand.

Leyqute:


Was about to mention this.

How many teams got to the semi final of all the competitions they entered at the beginning of the season?

We were 3 wins away from lifting 3 trophies. That in itself is not enough but no be moinmoin. Last season how many finals did we get to and how many semi finals?

Expert, if progress was staring at you in the face you wouldn’t see it.

Lol

It seems you've forgotten already.. United where in 3 Semis not 3 finals.
3 wins in those games would ensure Manure played in 3 finals not win 3 trophies...

Expert17:


We know all that,.

But we are spending heavily on Transfers regularly.

Maguire- Highest fee for a defender in EPL
Pogba- Highest fee for a midfieder in EPL

We still have the 2nd highest wage bill in the world.

We are spending heavily on one player, the spending is not evenly distributed. People keep saying we spent 200M but we just bought 4 players just 4! Out of that 200M 80 went to slabhead. Even the players we bought are replacement for players that left Maguire for smalling and AWB for Valencia, we didn't spend money to upgrade any position except from bruno which was need.

thorrvik55:


Lol

It seems you've forgotten already.. United where in 3 Semis not 3 finals.
3 wins in those games would ensure Manure played in 3 finals not win 3 trophies...

3 wins if we’d won those semi finals. That’s what I meant. Shekpite.

Nezzjnr:

Happily married to Mukinatu

No wonder you dey chop ban steady

Panther7:
We are spending heavily on one player, the spending is not evenly distributed. People keep saying we spent 200M but we just bought 4 players just 4! Out of that 200M 80 went to slabhead. Even the players we bought are replacement for players that left Maguire for smalling and AWB for Valencia, we didn't spend money to upgrade any position except from bruno which was need.

Nothing concern Glazers with all this...

MRTA7:


Technically that's not true at all.

Really? Please explain

afrodoc2:


It is not that simple. The Glazers are leeches and have been taking money out of the club for years. Do you remember the details of their takeover and why we keep paying off debt every year?

Lol I know that. In as much as they have all these things going on and are running the club down, we can't accuse them of not spending money, at least in the last 5 years. I'll like to get your view on this

eph12:

Really? Please explain

Afrodoc has explained it as well as I could.

Expert17:


Nothing concern Glazers with all this...

obviously na, when the owners of the football club are Americans and know nothing about Football to top it all they put a Banker in charge of a football club

afrodoc2:


Not just that they borrowed money to buy the club. They secured the loans against the club's assets thereby incurring large interests which the club then had to (and continue to) pay.
Also, every year they award themselves millions of pounds as consultancy fees, then pay off some of the debt before using some of the money made by the club to pay for player purchase and salaries.

If you analyse this scenario they have not spent their personal money at all. Compare this with City, PSG e.t.c where the authentic billionaire owners augment club finances with their money in order to finance huge transfers.

Here. @eph12

afrodoc2:


Not just that they borrowed money to buy the club. They secured the loans against the club's assets thereby incurring large interests which the club then had to (and continue to) pay.
Also, every year they award themselves millions of pounds as consultancy fees, then pay off some of the debt before using some of the money made by the club to pay for player purchase and salaries.

If you analyse this scenario they have not spent their personal money at all. Compare this with City, PSG e.t.c where the authentic billionaire owners augment club finances with their money in order to finance huge transfers.

They used the assets of the club to secure the loan? This sounds like some gangster shit. They already owned the club or how were they able to use the club assets to secure the loan used in buying the club?

eph12:

Lol I know that. In as much as they have all these things going on and are running the club down, we can't accuse them of not spending money, at least in the last 5 years. I'll like to get your view on this

They are spending enough of the money made by the club to keep the club competitive enough to keep on making money.

They have not spent any of their own money. The club they own was bought via loans to be paid back by the club.

Other clubs owned by billionaires get extra money from their owners for transfers, our own billionaires use the money the club generates to pay off debt they caused in the first place, then pay themselves huge allowances before thinking of buying players.

They know if they stop spending completely the club will run down fast and stop making money. There is a reason during Fergie's time the club was selling Ronaldo for world record fee and replacing him with Valencia and co. When he left they tried to continue the same policy with piece meal Fellaini signing until reality struck.

Let's not make the Glazers up to be some kindly and generous benefactors. They are leeches who played a major role in all that has happened post Fergie.

afrodoc2:


They are spending enough of the money made by the club to keep the club competitive enough to keep on making money.

They have not spent any of their own money. The club they own was bought via loans to be paid back by the club.

Other clubs owned by billionaires get extra money from their owners for transfers, our own billionaires use the money the club generates to pay off debt they caused in the first place, then pay themselves huge allowances before thinking of buying players.

They know if they stop spending completely the club will run down fast and stop making money. There is a reason during Fergie's time the club was selling Ronaldo for world record fee and replacing him with Valencia and co. When he left they tried to continue the same policy with piece meal Fellaini signing until reality struck.

Let's not make the Glazers up to be some kindly and generous benefactors. They are leeches who played a major role in all that has happened post Fergie.

Afrodoc, Do you think part of the reasons Ferguson resigned was because he knew the Glazers couldn't keep up with the spending like City did?

eph12:

They used the assets of the club to secure the loan? This sounds like some gangster shit. They already owned the club or how were they able to use the club assets to secure the loan used in buying the club?

They didn't own the club. Fans were planning to revolt when this happened in 04/05, and a few fans actually revolted. Manchester United had NO DEBT before the Glazers bought the club.

They loaded the club with the debt of the loans they had used to buy the club. The banks agreed because everybody knew that United would continue making money and pay back the loans with interest.

eph12:

They used the assets of the club to secure the loan? This sounds like some gangster shit. They already owned the club or how were they able to use the club assets to secure the loan used in buying the club?

Like they were able to convince the banks that they will definitely buy united instead of using their own assest as collateral, they used the club's own.

afrodoc2:


They didn't own the club. Fans were planning to revolt when this happened in 04/05, and a few fans actually revolted. Manchester United had NO DEBT before the Glazers bought the club.

They loaded the club with the debt of the loans they had used to buy the club. The banks agreed because everybody knew that United would continue making money and pay back the loans with interest.

Holy cheet!!!

Panther7:
Afrodoc, Do you think part of the reasons Ferguson resigned was because he knew the Glazers couldn't keep up with the spending like City did?

Age, poor health and fatigue had set in. He just couldn't summon that drive and passion like before. Remember he planned on retiring earlier but changed his mind. He just wanted one last title for the road.
Also he had been coaching at a high level continuously for almost 40 yrs.

elrony:


Holy cheet!!!

You mean unholy cheet. That is why when i hear people saying the Glazers have tried i just laugh in Mandarin.

#OleOUT #OleOUT #OleOUT

#8300

I 1 2 thank God for making me see this page today

afrodoc2:


They are spending enough of the money made by the club to keep the club competitive enough to keep on making money.

They have not spent any of their own money. The club they own was bought via loans to be paid back by the club.

Other clubs owned by billionaires get extra money from their owners for transfers, our own billionaires use the money the club generates to pay off debt they caused in the first place, then pay themselves huge allowances before thinking of buying players.

They know if they stop spending completely the club will run down fast and stop making money. There is a reason during Fergie's time the club was selling Ronaldo for world record fee and replacing him with Valencia and co. When he left they tried to continue the same policy with piece meal Fellaini signing until reality struck.

Let's not make the Glazers up to be some kindly and generous benefactors. They are leeches who played a major role in all that has happened post Fergie.

But I'm looking at the data now, and we have spent more than everyone in the epl except city. I think this is the major issue here and not how they bought the club or how they are spending the club's money. What I'm looking at now is how bad we have been when it comes to spending money on transfers

afrodoc2:


They didn't own the club. Fans were planning to revolt when this happened in 04/05, and a few fans actually revolted. Manchester United had NO DEBT before the Glazers bought the club.

They loaded the club with the debt of the loans they had used to buy the club. The banks agreed because everybody knew that United would continue making money and pay back the loans with interest.

Okay I understand what happened now. Never bothered to look it up before.

Mrta7, technically who owns the club?

Panther7:
Like they were able to convince the banks that they will definitely buy united instead of using their own assest as collateral, they used the club's own.

Uhm from what afrodoc2 explained, sounds like they transferred collateral or asset from whatever it was to United assets

afrodoc2:


Age, poor health and fatigue had set in. He just couldn't summon that drive and passion like before. Remember he planned on retiring earlier but changed his mind. He just wanted one last title for the road.
Also he had been coaching at a high level continuously for almost 40 yrs.

City winning the league annoyed him

afrodoc2:


You mean unholy cheet. That is why when i hear people saying the Glazers have tried i just laugh in Mandarin.

That's some top level heist, dayuummm!

eph12:

Uhm from what afrodoc2 explained, sounds like they transferred collateral or asset from whatever it was to United assets

Exactly

eph12:

Okay I understand what happened now. Never bothered to look it up before.

Mrta7, technically who owns the club?

Well if they dont service the debt. The banks own the club.

so its not their money.

I dont see Liverpool, City etc with the same issue.