Why am I not surprised by this report http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/344338/United-want-fair-fight !!! Finally realising lilving beyond your means can't last (especially when another club has far more money than you). Let's all shed a tear as we listen to the bleating from up the road
Lol a "Fair" fight. If anyone thinks the Premier League was "Fair" before Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abramovich came along then they need their fu**ing heads tested. The PL has never been fair, ever since Sky stuck their snout in and started paying ridiculous TV money to select clubs. United just dont like that they cant tap up and buy the best players unopposed anymore. Sure it still isnt fair to the rest of the League with these Billionaire owners, but I find it funny that United are the driving force behind this. They bleated when Roman came along, but losing the league to City was obviously the final straw for them haha
I think you'll find PL TV revenue in this country is split very fairly, In fact what is not fair is that dross like Wigan with their half empty stadiums and little air time get comparable tv revenue to the bigger teams
It's not exactly even, only overseas revenue is split evenly. Only 50% of domestic rights are split across the board with 25% then split dependent on league position and 25% offered the higher up the league you are so to a point, the Sky/Utd link is there to be seen but not so blatantly obvious as people claim
Yes but it is quite clear that United have become powerhouses as a result of years and years of success and the money that inevitably brings. As the saying goes "success breeds success". City, on the other hand, have done nothing, they are like some chav couple winning the lottery, no class.
I think it's also very clear that United have had years of spending what they don't have and then suffering at the hands of greedy ownership. The old saying is true, you reap what you sow, and United are now experiencing that, hence the decision to force the hand of the powers that be!
Why should the overseas revenue be split evenly? Through their own endeavours both United and Liverpool have fostered their overseas following. Proof of the interest in both of these sides can be seen in the viewing figures generated for the Liverpool v United games - bigger global audience than even the Super Bowl and far far greater than El Classico! Chelsea, Arsenal and City don't even come close.
All cash from overseas TV rights sales is split evenly among the clubs: that was worth £18,764,644 per club in 2011-12. The domestic cash is split three ways: 50 per cent ‘equal share’, 25 per cent dependent on how many times a club was on TV (facility fees) and 25 per cent dependent on where a club finished in the table (merit payment). The bottom club, Wolves, got a merit payment of £755,062 for finishing in 20th place, and Blackburn got twice that much for finishing in 19th place, and Bolton got three times that for 18th place …. and so on up to Manchester City who got 20 times that much (or £15,101,240) as merit payment for finishing in first place.
This is bollocks. United showed a profit for years before the Glazers took over. The debt is nothing to do with overspending, it's purely down to the Glazers being allowed to mortgage the club so they could buy it. I get that you're bitter but that's no excuse for posting drivel that has absolutely no basis in fact. If and when the Glazers sell up to a cash rich buyer that individual will actually see an annual return on their investment, unlike the owners of Chelsea and City who, despite all the money they have pumped into the clubs, still see an annual loss on the balance sheets.
"If and when the Glazers sell up to a cash rich buyer" How cash rich would the buyer have to be?, if the Glazers sell the club on at a profit to someone who repeats what the Glazers did the debt under the new owner/owners would be higher due to the profit the Glazers made when they sold the club. People like the Glazers have no scruples when it comes down to business and would sell to anyone if the price for them is right. So be careful what you wish for.
Love how clueless people are but good to see some sense from some people. Overspending at united though some people eh.
United want a fair fight, did say that when they were offering more wages than anyone else in the league. Only since they were pipped as the big boys do they now what a fair fight. **** off Manchester United, its like the bully that gets beaten up and cries over it United used their position and wealth to stay where they are, some might say they abused their position to prevent fair competition. You might say they are the Apple of the premier league, Samsung are taking the mick so like Apple Manchester United are again preparing the playing field for themselves. Nothing new
Wow. United spent what they earnt. Simples. United spent more because they made more That is what they are pushing for again - for clubs to be able to spend what they earn. I'm pretty sure LFC are pushing for it too considering it would be in the advantage of both of our clubs
To get back specifically to FFP, I think the big thing is that no one wants to see another Portsmouth happening, or worse still, Rangers. It's all well and good saying that City aren't in debt because the money being spent is Mansour's and it's not being borrowed, but what happens when Mansour no longer owns the club? City will be left with a squad of top class players on high wages (as they would be) bt without the means to pay them with thier own money. If Mansour sold City, and it wasn't another mega rich person who didn't care about making up to £200mil losses each year then City could go bankrupt. There's no two ways around that. The same can be said for Chelsea, though to a lesser extent, they spend far more than they earn. I do think Roman has been fairly clever though because he's anticipated these changes imo and he set in motion and global marketing policy which on the face of it seems similar to Manchester Uniteds, and why not follow a succesfull model closely. That said, if Roman sold Chelsea tomorrow, Chelsea would be in big trouble, even with no debt at the time of the sale due to Romans generosity, the debt would quickly mount from then on. The FFP rules are really there to protect the clubs long term, it might mean missing out on some big signings now and then becuase your club just can't justify stretching to buy him for that ammount and believe me, I know how that feels. But when the long term existence of your club is at stake, don't you think its' worth it.
Anyone in Uniteds position would have done same as a business, they always do same. To pretend it is not true is just naive denial. United bossed the early prem off the field too
What exactly am I pretending is not true ? Did United spend more ? YES Did United earn more ? YES I'm not sure what your point is ?
It's the debt issues I think people dislike. Yes it is controllable debt, but still, can't be healthy to live in constant debt, that must be paid back one day. As for ffp, its all a joke, Arsenal and now Liverpool are the only mugs who think UEFA will actually do anything about it. Whilst Chelsea buy another 10 attacking midfielders, cutting off all hope of youth coming through and city paying everyone as much as they like to sit on the bench.
