[quote author=LFC_DO link=topic=34454.msg907820#msg907820 date=1247908141]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=34454.msg907775#msg907775 date=1247885032]
[quote author=LFC_DO link=topic=34454.msg907768#msg907768 date=1247876363]
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=34454.msg907565#msg907565 date=1247846439]
Man U signed Diouf! ;D
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_united/article6717754.ece
[/quote]
Does anyone else think that the Scum's transfer dealing have been very odd this year?
[/quote]
No.
As I mentioned previously their accounts for the past two years show losses of 28m and 26m. That obviously can't go on forever, so the sale of Ronaldo will help balance the books. They've spent about 20m of that 80m they got, I expected them to spend half of the 80m because they need quite a bit of strenghtening but so far so good for us.
The Glazers are the best thing that ever happened to them from our point of view
[/quote]
I think you are mixing up operating losses and financing losses.
MUFC are one of the most profitable clubs in the world. So long as the profit keeps increasing at the club and hence the value of the club increases. I expect the Glazers would be happy with losses at the parent company level so long as the increase in the value of the club it owns grows by more each year. This is the way most leveraged takeovers like our and the scums work.
[/quote]
I'm not mixing up anything, I know where the losses come from but you seem to think they don't affect how United are managed.
I disagree.
I've made two predictions regarding them in the past year the first was that unless they sold someone else I couldn't see where the money for Tevez was coming from. As it turned out they couldn't afford him until it was too late.
The other is that they would only spend about half of that 80m they received. So far so good.
The Glazers aren't going to swallow losses for years on United, just like our two clowns won't. You can see that from how limited our spending has been thus far.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=34454.msg907775#msg907775 date=1247885032]
[quote author=LFC_DO link=topic=34454.msg907768#msg907768 date=1247876363]
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=34454.msg907565#msg907565 date=1247846439]
Man U signed Diouf! ;D
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_united/article6717754.ece
[/quote]
Does anyone else think that the Scum's transfer dealing have been very odd this year?
[/quote]
No.
As I mentioned previously their accounts for the past two years show losses of 28m and 26m. That obviously can't go on forever, so the sale of Ronaldo will help balance the books. They've spent about 20m of that 80m they got, I expected them to spend half of the 80m because they need quite a bit of strenghtening but so far so good for us.
The Glazers are the best thing that ever happened to them from our point of view
[/quote]
I think you are mixing up operating losses and financing losses.
MUFC are one of the most profitable clubs in the world. So long as the profit keeps increasing at the club and hence the value of the club increases. I expect the Glazers would be happy with losses at the parent company level so long as the increase in the value of the club it owns grows by more each year. This is the way most leveraged takeovers like our and the scums work.
[/quote]
I'm not mixing up anything, I know where the losses come from but you seem to think they don't affect how United are managed.
I disagree.
I've made two predictions regarding them in the past year the first was that unless they sold someone else I couldn't see where the money for Tevez was coming from. As it turned out they couldn't afford him until it was too late.
The other is that they would only spend about half of that 80m they received. So far so good.
The Glazers aren't going to swallow losses for years on United, just like our two clowns won't. You can see that from how limited our spending has been thus far.
