Manchester United debt hits ?716m!

[four king power]

Ouch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8470595.stm

 

[Jeff]

They only need to sell another 10 Ronaldos and they'll be debt free.

Or sell each seat in their stadium for £10,000.

 

[Motown Fox]

Fan buy-out on the cards then:icon_wink

 

[bocadillo]

Ouch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8470595.stm

Makes a mockery out of the game. How can other clubs be expected to compete?

 

[Blue Maniac]

How can other clubs be expected to compete?

They aren't. They're expected to allow the rich clubs to get richer.

 

[bocadillo]

They aren't. They're expected to allow the rich clubs to get richer.

But Manchester City are the new rich club who are ruining the English game for everybody else - Jessel told me this yesterday. Are you saying that there are other rich clubs and do they ruin the game for everybody else?

 

[Blue Maniac]

But Manchester City are the new rich club who are ruining the English game for everybody else - Jessel told me this yesterday. Are you saying that there are other rich clubs and do they ruin the game for everybody else?

Yes.

 

[bocadillo]

Yes.

I wonder if Jessel knows this.

 

[Kingy_85]

If investors hadnt moved in and splashed the cash at teams like Man City & Chelsea then Man Utd would have won everything for the last 10 years. (like the 90's )

Im one person who enjoys all this "unwanted" finance.

 

[Blue Maniac]

If investors hadnt moved in and splashed the cash at teams like Man City & Chelsea then Man Utd would have won everything for the last 10 years. (like the 90's )

Im one person who enjoys all this "unwanted" finance.

So you're prepared for clubs like Scarborough and Fisher Athletic and Halifax Town to go out of business just so that the Premier League is negligibly more entertaining?

Edit: And don't say the two aren't related. They are.

 

[Lako42]

Edit: And don't say the two aren't related. They are.

Im glad you have stopped that possible come back dead in the water with a sound and evidence backed argument.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Im glad you have stopped that possible come back dead in the water with a sound and evidence backed argument.

Do you not think lower league clubs are affected by the presence of ridiculous amounts of money at the top?

 

[Lako42]

Do you not think lower league clubs are affected by the presence of ridiculous amounts of money at the top?

Yes :icon_bigg


I was simply being a ****

 

[camberwell fox]

Do you not think lower league clubs are affected by the presence of ridiculous amounts of money at the top?

Without the ''benefit'' of some kind of capping system to prevent foreign investors purchasing football clubs and the introduction of SKY money into clubs, do you not think that the richer would have got richer and the poorer got poorer as a 'natural' evolution of the game?

If the answer to the above is no, then how do you think the leagues would look at this point, would we still not have an imbalance of wealth?

 

[camberwell fox]

Yes :icon_bigg


I was simply being a ****

Lako, you are very good at it, please, there is no need to try so hard! :icon_wink

 

[Blue Maniac]

Yes :icon_bigg

I thought you might.

I was simply being a ****

:icon_lol: It's fun isn't it?

 

[Lako42]

Lako, you are very good at it, please, there is no need to try so hard! :icon_wink

Thanks Camberwell, obviously not in the same league as BG, now that is a real ****.

 

[Lako42]

I thought you might.


:icon_lol: It's fun isn't it?

It's great, as Camberwell says, It's not something I have to put too much effort into either.

 

[Jeff]

Without the ''benefit'' of some kind of capping system to prevent foreign investors purchasing football clubs and the introduction of SKY money into clubs, do you not think that the richer would have got richer and the poorer got poorer as a 'natural' evolution of the game?

If the answer to the above is no, then how do you think the leagues would look at this point, would we still not have an imbalance of wealth?

There has always been an imbalance, but the TV money was more evenly distributed in the past.

The Premier League was created so the top clubs could keep more of the TV money, which created the ever widening gap between the top division and the rest. The Champions League has done the same thing with the top four and the rest of the Premier League.



Without the Sky money there would be less pressure on clubs to stay up, therefore fewer clubs going into debt trying to avoid relegation, and fewer clubs in financial trouble when they get relegated.
Without Sky the bigger clubs would still have dominated (they always have), but not to the extent they have done recently. We used to have the likes of Watford, QPR, f*r*st, Norwich challenging at the top, due to good management rather than massive spending. That's not likely to happen again any time soon.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Without the ''benefit'' of some kind of capping system to prevent foreign investors purchasing football clubs and the introduction of SKY money into clubs, do you not think that the richer would have got richer and the poorer got poorer as a 'natural' evolution of the game?

If the answer to the above is no, then how do you think the leagues would look at this point, would we still not have an imbalance of wealth?

There'd still be imbalance of wealth without Sky or foreign investors - that's how the world works. But would so many clubs be in such trouble if the seemingly infinite piles of cash available at other clubs didn't exist?