Soccer 2014 - 2015

Ossoi_sl said:

Oh, you mean when UTD won 1 CL, got to another final and won some league titles, the most recent of which was 2012-2013 (outside your little pity me era)

You are a complete cretin.
...
His whole pity show is about being unable to compete

Click to expand...

Incorrect, as usual for you. Do you not feel embarrassed when you call someone an idiot, yet have the inability to prove a single point?

It's every right as a United fan to complain about the Glazer economics. The fact you tried to counter this with such retarded statements like "but Glazers grew revenue streams!!" "utd historically outspent everyone before!!" "last season started spending again!!" "they still won trophies anyway!!" just shows how inept you are at grasping a simple concept that the Glazers stifled Uniteds reinvestment potential which eventually ended up with the squad they had last season. I'm sure I can find a string of posts from you or Brando rubbishing how poor United's squad is, how badly they'd need to buy several players to get back to a high level!

And now this, your final droll point: "he says united couldn't compete!" - bzz. False. No where did I say that. It's a fact that United could always compete for leagues domestically, they had a genius manager with a large squad at his disposal. Not a great large squad, many mediocre players and others who were ageing. Such a squad needed even more reinvestment, to maintain the heights of 2006/7/8 era. United went from being dominant in Europe to exiting the Europa league and now, not even qualify for it. It's undeniable. But, since Ferguson was there making things competitive in the domestic league still, the ship didn't sink. How he won the league in 2012/13 with the margin he did, is pure insanity. But hes gone now, and all that was left was a squad in shambles.

But by all means, continue to prove your inability to read and bring forth your pro Glazer arguments. Such a great take on club economics!

--
Brando you also failed to read what I wrote. I never said they were unable to compete in general. I was specifically focusing on a small hole in the cabinet: United haven't won the FA Cup since 2004. My first post clearly states this. Maybe the follow up one which says "cups" could be interpreted as cups in general (premier league), but I assumed you knew what I meant considering I spelled it out clearly in the post you emboldened.

And to be fair to you, it might be that SAF lowered the respect for the FA Cup, given fixture congestion or desire to win. It's maybe a stretch to state that if United reimbursed in key areas to maintain a strong starting XI (ie like for like replacements for Keane, Scholes, Ronaldo, decent cover for aged Giggs, etc), they might have fared better in the knockout fixtures against top clubs. But that's just me. It's not an important area of discussion regarding United. The evidence for my point is the 7th place finish last season, and that alone is enough to complain about the Glazer finances since 2005.
That chart you listed was evidence that United could compete and spend money strongly, but also that a smaller club like LFC were outspending United whilst earning half as much!

I love that you think you are an authority on Football, so, you can just talk nonsense and assume you're correct and bash anyone you disagree with. Any idiot can watch football and formulate opinions, for as many years as they like. You're living proof.

Is that all you have to say for yourself after your previous failed attempts of proving a point? That, above all, it's fairer on the league if United are handicapped? Is that it? That's all you've got to say for yourself? That the fans should just suck it up because it's fairer on smaller clubs like Liverpool? ROFL. Well, too bad- the handicaps are nearly off. And no, the point is more that the handicaps did result in squad we saw last season!


And your final attempt at jab finances. AndersRed is a great source of information regarding all of the above. He's a staunch hater on the Glazer economics (notice he ends every post with LUHG), written many articles there addressing how badly the interest has handicapped the team and how poor the Glazers are for the club. I've read everything he's got and the fact you've taken an excerpt from one of his articles, out of context, to some how suggest a debt free United without Glazers being unable to spend money MORE money... laughable. Pitiful.
Even AndersRed has said the complete opposite: Heres the last 3 tweets from AndersRed that completely show you to be the most uninformed, vitriolic rival fan I've ever come across.


Look at how weak you finally make yourself look: "Oh he might not be from England! He's just a glory hunter who found soccer in the last few years!". Grow a pair you pussy, we both know you've run out of arguments to make and you're now going to descend down to the "I'm born 5 miles from Liverpool, my argument means more!! PLEASE! IT DOES!"
Please. Stop embarrassing yourself.

More excerpts from the article you posted, which simply reiterate everything I was saying. Since, you've cited him as a credible source of information of course.

None of this make the Glazers good owners for Manchester United. It will take many years before the club makes enough in profits to compensate for the huge costs incurred. If it wasn't for Fergie's miracle work United could have followed Liverpool or even Leeds down the slippery financial slope. However, in light of the rapidly improving finances, the terms of the debate on ownership will inevitably change. The costs will have been incurred (I estimate total costs from the Glazer structure will top ?1bn by 2016) but they will start to become an unpleasant historical footnote

Click to expand...

And that's it. Fergie had to steer the ship, he still managed to win trophies and United still were able to spend just about enough money along with it. Understand? No, of course you don't.

Ossoi_sl said:

Looking at those lists, there is no way UTD can be described as "trailing". Which was totally the point I was making in my first reply - interest or not, UTD have not been deprived of sufficient transfer funds to compete. As backed up by the spending records of other clubs AND the success UTD has had. City/PSG are exceptions because they are owned by Oligarchs. Real Madrid is another outlier because of the shady way they are structured for tax purposesHow tax break gives Real Madrid and Barcelona an unfair edge - European - Football - The Independent

I'm not the one who tried to argue that LFC net spend of ?17m was higher than UTD net spend of ?27m LOL.

Click to expand...

What a fail: you just compared clubs top transfers. What the fuck.

Over 2005/6 - 2011/12
Club: Total net expenditure over this period
United: ?101.05
Bayern: ?174.15
Barcelona: ?231.35
Liverpool: ?152.8
All courtesy of transfermarkt.com

No need to bother with Madrid or Oil clubs, figures would get too wild.
But yes, that definitely United means were trailing behind. So, yet again, you are wrong.
I have no idea what source Brando was using, but it it's in contradiction with tmarkt.com, which appears more or less accurate from what I can tell.

So your argument is, UTD spent enough money - thanks for agreeing with me, debate over.

Click to expand...

No, you illiterate fool. Point is they spent the bare minimum required, along with Ferguson, to stay afloat. Yes they won trophies - again Ferguson - but in the long run its cost the club ?700m interest/debt repayments, an eventual ?1billion by the time the debt cleans, and in our opinion, the situation with a poor squad last season.

What club would want to run a massively risky strategy such as this? The club's debt could have severely dismantled the club, and what if Ferguson might have retired in the early 2000's? How many trophies could they have won with Moyes at the helm in those years with no chance of being as big a spenders as the clubs I mentioned? You have no legs to stand on here, fuck off already.

2. I know you are a local born from Liverpool, hence I said it - you still act like it means something to any of the arguments. It's pitifully weak logic.