Real fans are pissed off, idiots who are more concerned about other clubs beat other clubs to titles that they are about their own club missing out are happy as larry.
So the Glazers repay a private loan and that's United debt ? Honestly I'm just going to stop talking to you about this as you have no understanding of United finances at all. Are United in debt yes I am well aware of that and why. However debt that is NOT on Uniteds balance sheet simply isn't United debt regardless of what you want to believe. I've explained this to you , Swarbs has explained it to you and you still insist on banging the same drum. Keep it up
I think most Newcastle fans are realistic about what the club can achieve. We would get battered in the champions league due to a paper thin squad. I am happy we can compete around the top 6. The real challenge to FFP will be when they try to exclude a big club. Real Madrid and Barcelona have a TV deal that is heavily stacked in their favour which will have to be looked at. Also, Real Madrid bleed cash and rely on constant hand outs from its owners. If UEFA tried to ban Real Madrid the TV companies would go MAD and the whole thing would collapse. The TV companies are the guys who really run football, not UEFA.
Simple fact of the matter is there are now richer clubs who can out muscle United in every aspect of the transfer window and they don't like it. You can call me all th enames you like and have odne already but that only deflects from the real issue, United are not competitve in the transfer window like they used to. How someone spends there money is up to them, I may earn more than my neighbours and therefore buy more expensive things, I wouldn't expect them to cry about it and demand a cap on how much I spend - You don't have the clout you used to because football is a business with a lot of money passing around. You can sugar coat it all you like and say "They spent more than us last summer!" or "We only spent such and such!" You can't deny the facts and that is why you can see smoke coming from OT and big shouts for 'Fairplay!' and to be honest, there's a thread about that already titled along the lines of hypocrisy?! Got an issue? Get a tissue guys!
Its the same... Man City have richer owners yet you are saying its not fair for them to spunk cash everywhere?
Why is not Uniteds debt when it applys to United, and when H+G had the leveraged buyout it was Liverpools debt. In reality, the Glazers are in debt and so are Manchester United because the holding company that owns Manchester United is Malcolm Glazer who owns Manchester United. So if the FFP is applied properly, Manchester United after paying their wages and other expenses and their interest repayments will have **** all left to sign players.
Exactly, when Man UTD were hoovering up all the talent no other club could compete with them so they were forced to spend money they didn't have. Man Utd are partially to blame for creating this problem in the first place.
Football has never been 'fair'. The bigger clubs will always have an advantage. But at least when it is based on earnings all clubs have a chance to increase their revenues through shrewd management and promotion. At the moment clubs either get a rich investor who can throw ridiculous amounts of money at their players, or they are ****ed. Look at Everton. They shrewdly invested for years, and had just gotten themselves to a level where they could dream of getting into Europe then Chelsea blew straight past them. Ditto Newcastle, first with Chelsea and now with City. How can that possibly be even close to fair?
If you look at football in this country, go back only 30 years. Big clubs come and go like Leeds, Liverpool, Forest.... Man Utd are aware of the fact that one day the bubble will burst for them too (like it has in the past) and they are trying to set themselves up as untouchable by securing a deal with UEFA so that only certain clubs are allowed to have a lot of money, thus ensuring top flight football forever. This makes perfect business sense but to hide behind fair play is just bull ****.
I think we should reiterate which club pushed for this more than the others. Liverpool Football Club. So why are they ****ing moaning?
Fair enough, might be just out, but it's easy to find clubs wages and is readily available on the internet kid.
Really? Not at all miffed that you will never again have a chance to compete for the title? Never again have a ten point lead over Utd? Never again be able to attract a player of the calibre of Shearer, cos City will treble any offer you could dream of making? Wow, not only hypocritical, but also ironic coming from the club whose owners cited FFP as the only reason they bought the club and mention it in practically every interview P.S. Got my £100 yet?
Finally some common sense. The rules that come in will force clubs to become self sustainable by improving their brand in order to sell their brand. The FFP cannot outlaw increased sponsorship as its generated income, all clubs can have as many sponsors as they like. Thats why Manchester City being sponsored by a company that their owners own is completely legal and above board. What they want to outlaw is clubs having massive spending instantaneously. An owners dropping £100 million for signings when the club only makes £120 million in revenue. This isn't sustainable. Neither is having a wage bill of £180 million when you only make £140 million.
