While I still feel like it ...
in [Chelsea]
|
Prev: 2014 World Cup in Brazil
Next: Parking the bus
From: Udo Binsack on 18 Apr 2010 17:42 On 18 Apr, 21:15, "Red Rackham" <ONei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Graf Finklestein" <udo_bins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9e06f75e-e673-49c1-adc6-16d8094d863d(a)k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 18 Apr, 12:41, "Red Rackham" <ONei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> "Graf Finklestein" <udo_bins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> Feel free to post anything you feel disproves the above. > > >> Right. So you just want to take a period where Chelsea have already spent > >> well over half a billion quid and pat yourself on the back because they > >> haven't spent any more. > > >> Well done. > > >> PMSL > > > GBU: "I have a hunch since about 2007, coinciding with your current > > run of three straight titles, you've been bigger spenders than them." > > Timmy : "These things are best not done on 'hunches'. Hard facts are > > necessary. They will tell you that Chelsea have *far* outspent > > United." > > Obviously refering to the entire premiership era. > > HTH The question was spending since 2007. You say that "hard facts" show Chelsea have outspent your lot. I've posted proof they haven't. Being the honourable guy you are, you're want to issue a full retraction and apology. Just glad I could be of service.
From: Legend-11 on 20 Apr 2010 17:20 On 18/04/2010 12:41, Red Rackham wrote: > "Graf Finklestein"<udo_binsack(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:8f5d3e66-2d3c-41ad-8c6e-2de848a7b988(a)j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On 18 Apr, 12:12, "Red Rackham"<ONei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Udo Binsack"<udo_bins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:86d79498-5ae0-497b-bf29-e0156b9f4f8c(a)u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> On 18 Apr, 11:18, "Steev"<st...(a)shirleyroad.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> "Google Beta User"<wanyik...(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >>>> I have a hunch since about 2007, coinciding with your current run of >>>> three straight titles, you've been bigger spenders than them. I >>>> haven't run the figures, but you've had some pretty big purchases. >> >>> Your hunch would be wrong. >>> Since 2007 Chelsea have spent 94.2m and Man U 49.75m..(figures courtesy >>> of >>> soccerbase.com) >> >>> Steve >> >> Soccerbase is notoriously inaccurate. >> >> Yeah naff, you're far more reliable. > > More so than you, it seems. Notice you've chosen not to back up your > "Chelsea have spent �2bn" lie. Any reason? > >> GBU's hunch is absolutely spot >> on - Utd have spent far more than Chelsea. >> >> Source for United and Chelsea's spending since 2007? > > Just look it up. > > > I'm asking for 'your' source. > > >> Since 2007, Chelsea have spent �94m, Utd have spent over �105m just on >> the likes of Berbatov, Nani, Hargreaves, Anderson, the Silva brothers, >> Valencia and Obertan. That isn't taking into account how much they >> spent on Manucho, Kuszczak (sp?), Samlling, Diouf, Tosic, Ljajic, etc. >> >> So far I've only found figures for the entire premiership era: >> >> http://transferleague.co.uk/ > > Feel free to post anything you feel disproves the above. > > > Right. So you just want to take a period where Chelsea have already spent > well over half a billion quid and pat yourself on the back because they > haven't spent any more. > > Well done. > > PMSL LOL, I noticed that too...he should get a job in politics....he'd go a long way. :) -- Legend-11 Forget about Ronaldo. Your Carlos Tevez too. 'Cos we've got a player who's United through and through. He just might tw*t your groundsman, and bomb down your wing, He's French, he's fast, he's f*cking CLASS, so hear United sing: Tra la laa, it's Patrice Evra, tra la laa laa laa laa laa...
From: JAB on 22 Apr 2010 14:52 On 22/04/2010 8:33 AM, Diablos Rojos wrote: > The debt only becomes a worry when it is above the value of the club, but > yet again that stock has risen. Forbes only yesterday announcing that MUFC > is the most valuable sports club on the planet with a worth in excess of > $1.8billion dollars, so it looks like the Red Knights might need to cough > up at least �1.2billion to get their hands on the club. > Well I think the dotcom boom showed that isn't overly true! The more important aspect is do Man U have the cash flow to pay off the debt while at the same time keep the club running ... to which the answer is yes at the moment. The worst case scenario is having to sell players to balance the books leading to a downward spiral in popularity and therefore income to service such a large debt. Will it happen ... probably not. I expect Man U to be sold in the next five years or so and the Glazers to go away with a large smile on their faces.
From: Red Rackham on 22 Apr 2010 14:57 "JAB" <nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message news:RV0An.30542$TL1.6656(a)newsfe06.ams2... > On 22/04/2010 8:33 AM, Diablos Rojos wrote: > >> The debt only becomes a worry when it is above the value of the club, but >> yet again that stock has risen. Forbes only yesterday announcing that >> MUFC >> is the most valuable sports club on the planet with a worth in excess of >> $1.8billion dollars, so it looks like the Red Knights might need to >> cough >> up at least �1.2billion to get their hands on the club. >> > > Well I think the dotcom boom showed that isn't overly true! You cannot compare a dotcom company, often with no tangible value at all, with a football club that has again been declared the most valuable sports franchise in the world at �1.2billion. The more > important aspect is do Man U have the cash flow to pay off the debt while > at the same time keep the club running ... to which the answer is yes at > the moment. The worst case scenario is having to sell players to balance > the books leading to a downward spiral in popularity and therefore income > to service such a large debt. Which is why players won't be sold to service the debt. Will it happen ... > probably not. I expect Man U to be sold in the next five years or so and > the Glazers to go away with a large smile on their faces. More worrying is the prospect of Roman leaving after deciding half a billion quid for 2 premierships isn't good value.
From: JAB on 22 Apr 2010 16:29
On 22/04/2010 7:57 PM, Red Rackham wrote: > "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message > news:RV0An.30542$TL1.6656(a)newsfe06.ams2... >> On 22/04/2010 8:33 AM, Diablos Rojos wrote: >> >>> The debt only becomes a worry when it is above the value of the club, but >>> yet again that stock has risen. Forbes only yesterday announcing that >>> MUFC >>> is the most valuable sports club on the planet with a worth in excess of >>> $1.8billion dollars, so it looks like the Red Knights might need to >>> cough >>> up at least �1.2billion to get their hands on the club. >>> >> >> Well I think the dotcom boom showed that isn't overly true! > > > You cannot compare a dotcom company, often with no tangible value at all, > with a football club that has again been declared the most valuable sports > franchise in the world at �1.2billion. > > > The more >> important aspect is do Man U have the cash flow to pay off the debt while >> at the same time keep the club running ... to which the answer is yes at >> the moment. The worst case scenario is having to sell players to balance >> the books leading to a downward spiral in popularity and therefore income >> to service such a large debt. > > > Which is why players won't be sold to service the debt. > > > Will it happen ... >> probably not. I expect Man U to be sold in the next five years or so and >> the Glazers to go away with a large smile on their faces. > > > More worrying is the prospect of Roman leaving after deciding half a billion > quid for 2 premierships isn't good value. > > <yawns> |