Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Manchester United Financial Situation.

12357…32

Comments

  • #122
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,835 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    That's based on nothing other than gut instinct obv.


  • #123
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    The Muppet wrote: »
    The reasoning is we have to prove we still have (Ronaldo) Money to spend irrespective of whether it needs to be spent or not. The published cash reserves of £140 million in the bank in september 09 and the known £75 million transfer funding arrangements is not proof enough that we have money to spend, we have to spend it.

    Most people who actually look at the finances accept that we have money to spend. It's just that we have to ****ing borrow to do it.

    Even if we the ability to borrow to do it, it's not necessarily something we really want to do. It's just there in case Fergie makes it a matter of confidence I would say.


  • #124
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    PHB wrote: »
    Most people who actually look at the finances accept that we have money to spend. It's just that we have to ****ing borrow to do it.

    Even if we the ability to borrow to do it, it's not necessarily something we really want to do. It's just there in case Fergie makes it a matter of confidence I would say.

    What about the £122 million cash reserve United had in the september 09 figures, if I remember correctly the green and gold campaign here have always said United had no cash reserve and that we would have had no cash last summer but for the Ronadlo money. Both False.

    They also claim that the Glazers can take any money they want from the club, I've been reading up on this recently and from what I can see the Glazers can only take money out after the club makes a decent profit. Is this true?


  • #125
    Degag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,056 ✭✭✭✭Degag


    The Muppet wrote: »
    What about the £122 million cash reserve United had in the september 09 figures, if I remember correctly the green and gold campaign here have always said United had no cash reserve and that we would have had no cash last summer but for the Ronadlo money. Both False.

    They also claim that the Glazers can take any money they want from the club, I've been reading up on this recently and from what I can see the Glazers can only take money out after the club makes a decent profit. Is this true?

    I'd imagine that they could take any profit the club makes since they are the owners. They could take additional money as drawings but it would have to be repaid. That's my knowledge of Company Law at least, nothing to say it's not different in Uniteds case.


  • #126
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    Pro. F wrote: »
    The full financial statement was not released last September, it was released early this year during the bond issue, so any figures you are using from back then will be incomplete and out of context and therefor useless. link to the statement.


    United would have made a loss last year except for the Ronaldo sale - that is shown in the financial statement. Here's an article in the Guardian saying so, in case you're not going to believe me.

    No.
    The details of how the Glazers can take money out of the club, and how much they can take, have been widely discussed on here. I've posted about it often when discussing the whole situation with you. But yet again you show that you haven't been paying much, if any, attention to what the other side of the argument have been posting. Here's an article that details the structures with which the Glazers can take money from the club, which I've shown to you before. As you can see, they can take horrendous amounts out of the club, even if profits stay the same, while still leaving the club to somehow try to meet the bond loan when it matures. They can take more money if profits increase, but the club is being absolutely crippled by trying meet the debt they have put on it, so the Glazers syphoning off 50% of profits is very bad news.

    You have no way of knowing United would have made a loss if they hadn't sold Ronaldo. They knew for a year that the Ronaldo money was on the way and made their decisions with that in mind.


    United had 122 million pound cash in the bank in last septembers accounts , thats fact.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    The Muppet wrote: »
    You have no way of knowing United would have made a loss if they hadn't sold Ronaldo. They knew for a year that the Ronaldo money was on the way and made their decisions with that in mind.

    :rolleyes:

    No Mr. Bank, I don't think I will decide to pay off that legally contracted rate of interest on my ****ing huge debt.


  • #128
    Pro. F
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    The Muppet wrote: »
    You have no way of knowing United would have made a loss if they hadn't sold Ronaldo. They knew for a year that the Ronaldo money was on the way and made their decisions with that in mind.

    What PHB said. You don't decide whether you'll pay the bank or not.
    The Muppet wrote: »
    United had 122 million pound cash in the bank in last septembers accounts , thats fact.
    The fact that at one point in the year, in an incomplete set of figures, United showed a cash reserve is irrelevent. When United released the full accounts, with all the incomings and outgoings, they showed that a loss would have been made but for the Ronaldo sale.


  • #129
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    Pro. F wrote: »
    What PHB said. You don't decide whether you'll pay the bank or not.


    The fact that at one point in the year, in an incomplete set of figures, United showed a cash reserve is irrelevent. When United released the full accounts, with all the incomings and outgoings, they showed that a loss would have been made but for the Ronaldo sale.

    It,s not at any given time It's the yearly accounts, what you are doing is exactly what you accuse me of taking your figures from the february bond issue which is mid year and does not measure cashflow as it doesn't take into account movements and changes in working capital. Therefore it is not an accurate reflection of the actual finances of the club. I have just checked my figures and United had £146.6m in the club bank account as of 30 Sep 2009,.

    Your're also assumng that United recieved the Full £80 million fee up front, this would be most unusual. According to this article the fee is to be paid in four installments.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_united/article6481214.ece

    The general consensus is that the bond re-financing and the lowering of the PIK's, coupled with the new lucrative sponsorship deals and aggressive expansion into new markets, has solved the problem of increasing debt.

    Uniteds financial future looks brighter now than they have at any time in the last five years . There is noting to be getting worked up over the accounts are well under control.


  • #130
    Mitch Connor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,642 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    The Muppet wrote: »

    The general consensus is that the bond re-financing and the lowering of the PIK's, coupled with the new lucrative sponsorship deals and aggressive expansion into new markets, has solved the problem of increasing debt.

    What the hell?

    Please show me where this general consensus is. Please.


  • #131
    Spud83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,608 ✭✭✭Spud83


    The Muppet wrote: »
    It,s not at any given time It's the yearly accounts, what you are doing is exactly what you accuse me of taking your figures from the february bond issue which is mid year and does not measure cashflow as it doesn't take into account movements and changes in working capital. Therefore it is not an accurate reflection of the actual finances of the club.

    The general consensus is that the bond re-financing and the lowering of the PIK's, coupled with the new lucrative sponsorship deals and aggressive expansion into new markets, has solved the problem of increasing debt.

    Uniteds financial future looks brighter now than they have at any time in the last five years . There is noting to be getting worked up over the accounts are well under control.

    When did that happen?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    lordgoat
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 11,409 Mod ✭✭✭✭lordgoat


    Mitch Connor wrote: »
    What the hell?

    Please show me where this general consensus is. Please.

    It's in his head Mitch, and i don't think you're able to link directly to it thankfully.

    Seriously guys i know it's annoying but there is zero point in having a debate with The Muppet over finances.


  • #133
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    The general consensus is that the bond re-financing and the lowering of the PIK's, coupled with the new lucrative sponsorship deals and aggressive expansion into new markets, has solved the problem of increasing debt.

    I'm sorry, what the **** are you on about? Please highlight for me the various news articles, opinion pieces, speeches, and statements where this general consensus exists?

    You clearly have absolutely no ****ing idea what you are talking about. When the **** were the PIKs lowered?

    Honestly if you want to defend the Glazers, fine. If you want to talk about how sport has changed and money is a player, fine. But please don't come along and spout absolute utter drivel with any sort of authority, because frankly that post displays absolutely no ****ing idea what is going on. Jesus christ.


  • #134
    Pro. F
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    For the love of fùck Muppet would you ever stop editing new content into your posts 10mins after you post them first. I'm always having to restart my replies to you when you add to your original argument after the fact. Why can you not post it all in one go?


  • #135
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    PHB wrote: »
    I'm sorry, what the **** are you on about? Please highlight for me the various news articles, opinion pieces, speeches, and statements where this general consensus exists?

    You clearly have absolutely no ****ing idea what you are talking about. When the **** were the PIKs lowered?

    Honestly if you want to defend the Glazers, fine. If you want to talk about how sport has changed and money is a player, fine. But please don't come along and spout absolute utter drivel with any sort of authority, because frankly that post displays absolutely no ****ing idea what is going on. Jesus christ.

    I have never defended Glazer, I always said things would work out as it was their only avenue to make money and thats exactly whats happening. Like it or not I have posted the truth.

    You are entitled to you opinion as am I and I'm satisfied that everthing with the club will be fine in the long term, the truth is out there.


  • #136
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    Pro. F wrote: »
    For the love of fùck Muppet would you ever stop editing new content into your posts 10mins after you post them first. I'm always having to restart my replies to you when you add to your original argument after the fact. Why can you not post it all in one go?

    Sorry, hand's up, I do that quite a bit, Some of my posts tend to be a work in progress.;)


  • #137
    Le King
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭Le King


    The Muppet wrote: »
    I have never defended Glazer, I always said things would work out as it was their only avenue to make money and thats exactly whats happening. Like it or not I have posted the truth.

    You are entitled to you opinion as am I and I'm satisfied that everthing with the club will be fine in the long term, the truth is out there.

    The X-Files

    thetruthisoutthere.jpg


  • #138
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    The Muppet wrote: »
    I have never defended Glazer, I always said things would work out as it was their only avenue to make money and thats exactly whats happening. Like it or not I have posted the truth.

    No you have not. You have categorically posted mis-truths, without a shadow of a doubt. The evidence that was requested by the three posters above me all asked the same questions, yet you choose to ignore them and just post, "Ah sure we all have different opinions.

    Fine if you have different opinions, but stop posting absolute utter bull**** like PIKs being reduced on a fake general consenus emerging. If you want an opinion, fine, keep it, just don't post utter tripe, because frankly all it does it make everyone think that the opinion is based on complete and utter bull****.


  • #139
    lordgoat
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 11,409 Mod ✭✭✭✭lordgoat


    PHB wrote: »
    No you have not. You have categorically posted mis-truths, without a shadow of a doubt. The evidence that was requested by the three posters above me all asked the same questions, yet you choose to ignore them and just post, "Ah sure we all have different opinions.

    Fine if you have different opinions, but stop posting absolute utter bull**** like PIKs being reduced on a fake general consenus emerging. If you want an opinion, fine, keep it, just don't post utter tripe, because frankly all it does it make everyone think that the opinion is based on complete and utter bull****.

    An absolutely massive +1


  • #140
    Pro. F
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    (Edit: discussion brought over from United team talk thread)
    The Muppet wrote: »
    It,s not at any given time It's the yearly accounts, what you are doing is exactly what you accuse me of taking your figures from the february bond issue which is mid year and does not measure cashflow as it doesn't take into account movements and changes in working capital. Therefore it is not an accurate reflection of the actual finances of the club. I have just checked my figures and United had £146.6m in the club bank account as of 30 Sep 2009,.
    Let's see these complete yearly accounts that were published in September then. Provide a link.

    Also the accounts that were published in the bond prospectus did encompass the complete financial year. When they were published doesn't define the time period they covered. They also covered lots of other details necessary for the bond issue.
    The Muppet wrote: »
    The general consensus ...
    lol. You are a truly delusional person when it comes to this topic. There have been countless reports in all areas of the media describing United's financial situation as dangerous. The fact that you've built up a belief system for yourself that says everything will be fine and can't even admit that there are many media outlets that disagree with your view is pathetic. It just shows how truly incapable of reasoned argument you are.
    The Muppet wrote: »
    Your're also assumng that United recieved the Full £80 million fee up front, this would be most unusual. According to this article the fee is to be paid in four installments.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_united/article6481214.ece
    That link is returning a 404 message for me btw.

    You brought this point up a few months ago in the main United thread and PHB showed you were incorrect with a link and directions to the relevant info in the accounts. You're just repeating the same argument again now. And you're still wrong. Link to PHB's post:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65114997&postcount=17821


  • #141
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    Pro. F wrote: »
    Let's see these complete yearly accounts that were published in September then. Provide a link.

    Also the accounts that were published in the bond prospectus did encompass the complete financial year. When they were published doesn't define the time period they covered. They also covered lots of other details necessary for the bond issue.


    lol. You are a truly delusional person when it comes to this topic. There have been countless reports in all areas of the media describing United's financial situation as dangerous. The fact that you've built up a belief system for yourself that says everything will be fine and can't even admit that there are many media outlets that disagree with your view is pathetic. It just shows how truly incapable of reasoned argument you are.

    That link is returning a 404 message for me btw.

    I,m quite capable of reasoned debate but when you start to throw words like "pathetic" into the discussion it leads me to believe it's not worth spening the time on. The information I am posting here is freely available on the net. The link works fine for me.
    Pro. F wrote: »
    You brought this point up a few months ago in the main United thread and PHB showed you were incorrect with a link and directions to the relevant info in the accounts. You're just repeating the same argument again now. And you're still wrong. Link to PHB's post:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65114997&postcount=17821

    Ah yes I remember, I also remember it being stated that United had no cash and using that document as evidence, It was only £140 million out.;)

    The ronaldo sale was shown, it does not show if United recieved the money or not, it couldn't because it is being paid in installments as the link above shows.


    That document was never intended to be used as an accurate reflection of Uniteds full accounts.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Le King
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭Le King


    Some people shouldn't post on a topic they haven't a clue on, especially posting absolute lies to back up their points.


  • #143
    Pro. F
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    More discussion brought over from the main United thread:
    The Muppet wrote: »
    My Bad , I didn't realise interest repaymente were uniteds sole expenditure last year, They musn't have purchased any players or extended contracts either then did they?
    Ok, show us all the massive capital outlay that accounts for the club having a tiny profit last year even after flogging Ronaldo for 80m and having a very successful year on the pitch. The truth is that there was no such big spending, the bank debt and interest swallowed the money.


  • #144
    Headshot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,077 ✭✭✭✭Headshot


    PHB you should rant more often


  • #145
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    Pro. F wrote: »
    More discussion brought over from the main United thread:


    Ok, show us all the massive capital outlay that accounts for the club having a tiny profit last year even after flogging Ronaldo for 80m and having a very successful year on the pitch. The truth is that there was no such big spending, the bank debt and interest swallowed the money.


    There was £30 million on Berbatov for a start , is that not big spending?


  • #146
    Peyton Manning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,658 ✭✭✭✭Peyton Manning


    Osu wrote: »
    Some people shouldn't post on a topic they haven't a clue on, especially posting absolute lies to back up their points.

    FYP*



    *I know, I hate when people do this too.


  • #147
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    PHB wrote: »
    No you have not. You have categorically posted mis-truths, without a shadow of a doubt. The evidence that was requested by the three posters above me all asked the same questions, yet you choose to ignore them and just post, "Ah sure we all have different opinions.

    Fine if you have different opinions, but stop posting absolute utter bull**** like PIKs being reduced on a fake general consenus emerging. If you want an opinion, fine, keep it, just don't post utter tripe, because frankly all it does it make everyone think that the opinion is based on complete and utter bull****.

    everything I have posted has also been posted and discussed on Red Cafe. I suggest you have a read there for a more informed opinion on the actual situation regarding our clubs current financial situation.

    Here's a good thread to start on.

    http://www.redcafe.net/f6/all-issues-relating-600m-bond-issue-carrington-glazer-taking-cash-out-etc-280859/
    With the interest rate due to jump to 16.25% in August, you would think the Glazer family, Manchester United's unpopular American owners, would be anxious to start paying off their notorious payment in kind (PIK)loans as soon as possible.

    But it is understood there are no immediate plans to start using United's bulging cash reserves to pay off the £225m chunk of debt - even though their £500m bond refinancing earlier this year has given them the freedom to do so.

    Team building is more important than debt repayment, says a source close to the Glazers.

    Now, if this were you or I and we had a mortgage on our house which was costing us more than 16% in interest a year, I reckon we wouldn't waste too much time in paying it off.

    The Glazers originally borrowed the money from three hedge funds - Och Ziff, Citadel and Perry Capital - at the time of their £800m takeover in 2005. It was one of three tranches of money, worth about £275m, to complete the buyout.

    Unlike other forms of borrowing, these loans came with extremely expensive strings attached. Rather than pay off the loan and the interest each year, the interest simply rolls up and is added to the final bill.

    Even allowing for the £175m which was paid off at the time of the Glazers' first refinancing in 2006, it is estimated that by the time the loans mature they will be worth £600m.

    One of the reasons why the Glazers took out a £500m bond to refinance what they call their "senior debt" (a term which basically tells you it has priority over the PIKs) earlier this year was to free them from the restrictions which prevented them from taking cash out of the club to pay off the PIKs.

    The bond has now liberated them and, with the club predicting cash reserves of £150m by June, the money is there to start paying them off.

    And yet, they don't expect to start removing cash from United's hugely successful commercial operation in the near future - certainly not before the end of the current financial year which closes on 31 June.

    Why? Implausible as it may seem the Glazers are apparently comfortable with the loan. They view it as a tax deductible, benign security.

    Plus, the club's owners have obviously been shaken by the Green and Gold campaign prompted by a possible takeover bid from the Red Knights even though that campaign seems to be running out of steam, according to my colleague, BBC business editor Robert Peston.

    Despite that, they know taking money out of the club to pay off their controversial debts at this moment in time would be a huge public relations disaster.

    A series of recent off the record briefings with journalists - unheard of in the five years the Glazers have owned the club - demonstrate a desire to close what they see as the reality gap between the public perception of United as a business crushed by their weighty debts and what is really going on.

    The Glazers believe their 2007 commercial shake-up is starting to pay off with that part of the business forecast to overtake matchday and media revenue in the next few years.

    In 2008/09 matchday revenue - ticketing, hospitality, programmes etc - was the biggest earner for United with £109m, or 39% of their income; second was media with £99.7m, or 36%; with commercial third with £69.9m, or 25%.

    United's decision to divide up their sponsorship rights globally has turned out to be a masterstroke. For example, they have sold mobile marketing rights to six territories - South Africa, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, India and Malyasia.

    Each company pay United for the right to use the club's badge and players to promote their products and services and give them a share of sales.

    But then United can use the new mobile users to raise even more money by charging customers for a subscription to the club's mobile content services including clips, news alerts and ringtones.

    Make no mistake - with United's global reach this is a licence to print money and must be extremely alarming for the rest of the Premier League teams.

    United's ability to make money - witness the new four year £88m shirt sponsorship deal with Aon which starts next season - remains unrivalled. Last year (08/09) they brought in £288m in revenue.

    But no matter what the club say, whether in public or private, they are held back by the Glazers' enormous acquisition debts.

    And until they start paying them off, it's difficult to see how they can turn these vast mountains of cash to their advantage at the same time as winning the trust of United's most loyal supporters.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2010/05/glazers_in_no_rush_to_pay_off.html


  • #148
    Le King
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭Le King


    Glazers in no rush to pay off United debt - BBC
    With the interest rate due to jump to 16.25% in August, you would think the Glazer family, Manchester United's unpopular American owners, would be anxious to start paying off their notorious payment in kind (PIK)loans as soon as possible.

    But it is understood there are no immediate plans to start using United's bulging cash reserves to pay off the £225m chunk of debt - even though their £500m bond refinancing earlier this year has given them the freedom to do so.

    Team building is more important than debt repayment, says a source close to the Glazers.

    Now, if this were you or I and we had a mortgage on our house which was costing us more than 16% in interest a year, I reckon we wouldn't waste too much time in paying it off.

    The Glazers have been subject to sustained protests at Old Trafford

    The Glazers originally borrowed the money from three hedge funds - Och Ziff, Citadel and Perry Capital - at the time of their £800m takeover in 2005. It was one of three tranches of money, worth about £275m, to complete the buyout.

    Unlike other forms of borrowing, these loans came with extremely expensive strings attached. Rather than pay off the loan and the interest each year, the interest simply rolls up and is added to the final bill.

    Even allowing for the £175m which was paid off at the time of the Glazers' first refinancing in 2006, it is estimated that by the time the loans mature they will be worth £600m.

    One of the reasons why the Glazers took out a £500m bond to refinance what they call their "senior debt" (a term which basically tells you it has priority over the PIKs) earlier this year was to free them from the restrictions which prevented them from taking cash out of the club to pay off the PIKs.

    The bond has now liberated them and, with the club predicting cash reserves of £150m by June, the money is there to start paying them off.

    And yet, they don't expect to start removing cash from United's hugely successful commercial operation in the near future - certainly not before the end of the current financial year which closes on 31 June.

    Why? Implausible as it may seem the Glazers are apparently comfortable with the loan. They view it as a tax deductible, benign security.

    Plus, the club's owners have obviously been shaken by the Green and Gold campaign prompted by a possible takeover bid from the Red Knights even though that campaign seems to be running out of steam, according to my colleague, BBC business editor Robert Peston.

    Despite that, they know taking money out of the club to pay off their controversial debts at this moment in time would be a huge public relations disaster.

    A series of recent off the record briefings with journalists - unheard of in the five years the Glazers have owned the club - demonstrate a desire to close what they see as the reality gap between the public perception of United as a business crushed by their weighty debts and what is really going on.

    The Glazers believe their 2007 commercial shake-up is starting to pay off with that part of the business forecast to overtake matchday and media revenue in the next few years.

    In 2008/09 matchday revenue - ticketing, hospitality, programmes etc - was the biggest earner for United with £109m, or 39% of their income; second was media with £99.7m, or 36%; with commercial third with £69.9m, or 25%.

    United's decision to divide up their sponsorship rights globally has turned out to be a masterstroke. For example, they have sold mobile marketing rights to six territories - South Africa, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, India and Malyasia.

    Each company pay United for the right to use the club's badge and players to promote their products and services and give them a share of sales.

    But then United can use the new mobile users to raise even more money by charging customers for a subscription to the club's mobile content services including clips, news alerts and ringtones.

    Make no mistake - with United's global reach this is a licence to print money and must be extremely alarming for the rest of the Premier League teams.

    United's ability to make money - witness the new four year £88m shirt sponsorship deal with Aon which starts next season - remains unrivalled. Last year (08/09) they brought in £288m in revenue.

    But no matter what the club say, whether in public or private, they are held back by the Glazers' enormous acquisition debts.

    And until they start paying them off, it's difficult to see how they can turn these vast mountains of cash to their advantage at the same time as winning the trust of United's most loyal supporters.


  • #149
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    Osu wrote: »
    Glazers in no rush to pay off United debt - BBC

    As I said earlier peopel are begining to see the long term picture unfold and it's not as bleak as we have been led to believe.


  • #150
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,835 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    The Muppet wrote: »
    There was £30 million on Berbatov for a start , is that not big spending?

    Any more?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    keane2097 wrote: »
    Any more?

    Indeed there is , Ferdinand , Carrick, Evra and Brown all recieved contratct extensions in 2008. Still good to know United managed all this and the Berbatov signing without spending big money .:D


Advertisement