The Official Man Utd & Liverpool plus Chelsea, Everton and City Banter Thread!

No doubting that.

Just not the best people to be commenting on what a football club may do on the pitch. Clearly have no idea about United as a football club. We are pretty decent,

 

Man U?

Then you wonder why people accuse you of being KPR when he used to constantly use these kind of phrases.

 

..

 

I hope for your sake we dont sign RVP, You're half way to a breakdown already.

 

Click on the link and watch how much money Wazza earns while you're on the site(in dollars)

http://www.best-reviewer.com/how-much-money-does-wayne-rooney-make-3537.htm#.UCMBDvZlS0I

Jammy little twat.

 

.

 

Rooney has proved to be worth it but it was a relative unknown player when you signed him, just like Moura is now

 

Not sure I would say PSG qualify as a super power - they have only just gotten back into the CL after an absence of around a decade when they were often closer to the relegation zone than the CL. They have some pedigree, but that would be like saying Villa classify as a super power cos they won the EC in 1982.

Ultimately FFP isn't going to work on a one slip and you're out basis anyway. After the first breach you'll probably get a warning, then a fine, then a ban on new player registrations. A European exclusion will only come in if that still fails to work.

Also, I'm pretty sure the rules don't forbid losses, only losses which are filled by external funds. So a club like Arsenal would be fine, cos they have a big cash pile they've built up over years of Wenger frugality. They could fritter that away over a period of years making losses, and not have any problems from UEFA.

 

Can they ****! They wrote an article praising Standard and Chartered as a bank doing really well in challenging economic conditions....right before the US smacked them and the shares fell by around 8%.

Despite the flashy name the WSJ's investment prediction and analysis record is no better than any other newspaper - they are wholly reliant on publicly available information and weak form efficiency. I reckon they probably made the same comment when Utd floated for £18 million back in 1991.

 

Fact of the matter is PSG, Chelsea & Man City are the teams that on another level as they are essentially a play thing for the uber wealthy, whilst teams like Liverpool & Utd are never going to be able to touch them financially whilst the landscape stays the same, we fall into the bracket that are a business we means we have to be operated within margins, some more successfully than others. Utd might be able to pay the initial fees but the wages that the aforementioned Major 3 can offer cannot be touched realistically Utd never stooda chance getting Moura when PSG came in.

I read a report the other day by a financial institution that described Utds shares for fools and Utd Fans. The glaziers are taking money out the club at the same time as heaping more debt on them, Utd are a big draw for a huge investor no matter what anyone says, the problem is the more debt the club acquires the less attractive it will be ! even if it was the sultan of Brunei that was interested.

Its a sad day when it comes down to who can offer the highest wages & the most money when it has not been earned through success on the pitch, which leads me onto agents ! These days the best players will go where their agent tells them to i.e which club will offer the agent the most money. A well run football club will not will not pay over the odds for Agent fee´s where as a sugar daddy would probably have that in pocket change.

 

Aye, but you don't always need to be able to touch them financially to compete with them on footballing terms. Utd showed that by sticking with City right till the last minute of the title race last season, and both Arsenal and Spurs outdid Chelsea in the league by quite some way.

Not sure which institution wrote that! The whole point of the IPO is for the Glazers to take some money whilst also paying off some of the debt to make Utd more attractive for a sale in the future. Whatever you may think of the Glazers, they are not idiots - the more they can reduce the debt without taking money out of the club itself, the more they will ultimately be able to sell it for. It would take a remarkable act of foolishness to put more debt back on the club now they have gotten it running nicely and profitably.

To an extent that was always the case - just look at how Jack Walker got Blackburn to the title in 95, and Hall and Shepherd got Newcastle into the CL. Those clubs had no success to speak of on the pitch, but a rich owner helped them along and agents played their part in the transfers. The rise of the overseas owners has only magnified the process and made it more high profile.

 

The only reason you competed with City was that you were the previous big boys in town splashing out huge fees for talent like Rio, Rooney, Carrick etc you earned the right to at the time through success on the pitch and marketability, they simply caught up with you & as they have reeled in Utd, your currently on an even keel which is why it was so close last season, give it 1-2 years and they will have surpassed you & the league will no longer be a close run thing between the 2 of you, that's not having a go at UTD for what ever reason, but the harsh reality of Economics.

As for Spurs and Arsenal outdoing Chelsea last year in the League, I think it would be naive to suggest that this was not the exception but the rule.

I didn't say the Glaziers are idiots, quite the opposite, I said the shares are for idiots & Utd fans, as they are B shares which hold no voting rights, do not pay a dividend so your only chance of making money is if you sell at the right time. They also wanted the investor to make their decision based on accounts ending 2011 & not on accounts as at the end of last season prior to floatation. In my book that would be a pretty poor investment decision.

 

nah I believe Rio has been blessed with the biggest!

 

There's a fu.king thread for this

 

You may well be right, but then the harsh reality of economics would have led people to make the same prediction about Chelsea in 2005, when the league was nowhere near a close run thing, Utd were much further behind, and Chelsea's spending advantage was much larger than City's is at the moment. Like I said before, economic realities and football realities are often two very different things. City are obviously going to be up the top end of the table for a long time, and in the long term will probably permanently occupy Liverpool's top four spot, but Utd, Chelsea and maybe even Arsenal will still be able to challenge them given good management and wise investment decisions.

You're probably right, but again like I said people said exactly the same thing when Utd floated for £18 million back in 1991. Never underestimate the ability of football to make money - the PL domestic broadcasting rights just increased by 70% from 2013, and the overseas rights are likely to go up by at least that much, probably more. When you add in the new sponsorship deal and the potential for our kit deal to sky rocket in 2015, Utd could still surprise all the analysts.

He said biggest cock, not biggest gob!

 

Chelsea fans believe players dont go to money clubs for just money.

So what do they offer that real clubs cant ( real as in not a play thing )?

I had a think and there isnt a single football reason. Chelsea and PSG could claim its for the location but to footballers who could go anywhere they want in an instant does it matter?

So what reasons do mercs move to money clubs if its not money?

 

When Liverpool or any other fans say United time is at an end do you first convince yourselves that its true or do you hope by saying it constantly it will eventually become true?

 

It's the chance to win the CL.

And then get pushed out of the way of the trophy celebrations by some **** who wasn't even playing in the final...

 

Well its a better reason that they have come up with but doesnt really work.The chance to win the CL comes from about 32 clubs in europe initially.

Not to worry, CpofL is going to inform us of the reason, hes compiling a list as we speak, it will no doubt be long as I am sure there are many reasons. A free after8 mint on their pillows and the chairman tucks them in to their bunkbeds at night. You know, little things.

 

I think we should compile our own list. Reasons to play for Chelsea:

1. Loadsa money!
2. Free After8 mint
3. Ability to determine how the club is managed by talking to the media behind the manager's back
4. The honour of having JT deign to collect any trophies you might manage to win. And nail your missus
5. The excitement of wondering whether Cashley will shoot you during training
6. A high chance you'll be picked even if you play **** and can't score for toffee, cos Roman spent a lot of money on you (see Messrs Torres and Shevchenko)

It's looking pretty persuasive to be fair. I think I'll get myself an agent and a foreign name and see if Roman's willing to pay me £9 million a year to miss open goals, kick people in the back and shoot people with air rifles

Any more for the list?