some mention arsenal not winning due to not having enough funds. i beg to differ. it more likely due to the stubborness of AW to refuse adding experience and prefer a youth policy more than financial restriction. of coz i know, gunners could never offer that kind of money man city , chelsea, real madrid, barca offer for players but nevertheless they moreplayers who express willing to play for arsenal at a price affordable to arsenal only to be rejected or turn down by wenger in the end.
how long is the foreign legion of owners interested in soccer? do glazers or parrys or abu dhabi know a thing but soccer? how long before they got tired and wana get out.
what will happen to the clubs, fans alike?
Originally posted by zocoss:
Confuse? They are all valid points I put to you which i kind of belief you got no answer for then trying to act blur now. Don't worry, I'll try to keep this as short as possible.To summarize it...
Do you still stand by your... "the fact still reminds that Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU". Actually I think i should use remains but since I am quoting your statement...
Are the Glazers liable should the club financial fortunes changes or collapse?
You still belief owners don't play a part on the club's fortunes?
Did Barcelona's fortunes changed after Joan Laporta became president?
Was Mourinho, Grant and Scolari sack because they fail to win the title and team's poor performance?
Disagreement, Discontentment and Interference from the owners doesn't effect the team?
George Gillett and Tom Hicks are running Liverpool like the Glazers at United?
Anyway in case you are not clear still... I am just so surprise i have to provide you this... The Glazer bought the club for $780m to $800m pounds and to date, they are said to owe $700m but initially if was only $500+ million. So, do the maths my friend, even if it's the full $700m, where did the shortfall came from?
And btw, that point I made was on my second paragraph... So you sure you stop after the 1st? lol...
1stly, thanks for your summarize, i wouldnt act blur like you do and i dun act things in like you do while taking whats to your disadvantage, but i'll play your way and see if you'll be made a fool yet again.
1. yes they do.
2. yes i still think Glazer didnt do a thing for ManU.
3. Spain runs a different method so to save ourselves from going round the world, lets cut it short and clear before you start adding in another thing which is not even i our initial exchange.
4. wouldnt wanna answer anything not related to our initial exchange
5. i didnt mentioned that it wouldnt, but i put it as you wouldnt know cause it might just be a case of the news being wrap away from the media, which again its something you and me and not forgetting your beloved wiki, wouldnt have a clue about it.
6. they are pretty indentical other then one being too vocal and thier dun, answer me, other then them being in the spot light for the fail/delay stadium, the problems with the fans and so on, what did they do to Liverpool's team?
the shortfall is filled in by self-generating ManU's earnings. just in case you didnt see this word, self-generating incomes, but i wouldnt be surprised thou, this word only made my point strong and clear, and put it this way, you dun have to go ard the bush claiming something like Barca, Chelsea how whatever shit that i always see you add in from time to time even with just about anyone who dare opposed you and your mindset about your beloved Glazer. and btw, it'll takes me 2 word to answer all yours, self-generating incomes, yes or no?? i'm not going to touch on funds from the sales of players and so on, those will just makes you look stupid with regards to Glazer investing their own money into ManU causes. our discussion should just be between self-generating or invested funds from Glazer's pocket, nothing more nothing less, dun go round the bush
Originally posted by Saltiga:1stly, thanks for your summarize, i wouldnt act blur like you do and i dun act things in like you do while taking whats to your disadvantage, but i'll play your way and see if you'll be made a fool yet again.
1. yes they do.
2. yes i still think Glazer didnt do a thing for ManU.
3. Spain runs a different method so to save ourselves from going round the world, lets cut it short and clear before you start adding in another thing which is not even i our initial exchange.
4. wouldnt wanna answer anything not related to our initial exchange
5. i didnt mentioned that it wouldnt, but i put it as you wouldnt know cause it might just be a case of the news being wrap away from the media, which again its something you and me and not forgetting your beloved wiki, wouldnt have a clue about it.
6. they are pretty indentical other then one being too vocal and thier dun, answer me, other then them being in the spot light for the fail/delay stadium, the problems with the fans and so on, what did they do to Liverpool's team?
the shortfall is filled in by self-generating ManU's earnings. just in case you didnt see this word, self-generating incomes, but i wouldnt be surprised thou, this word only made my point strong and clear, and put it this way, you dun have to go ard the bush claiming something like Barca, Chelsea how whatever shit that i always see you add in from time to time even with just about anyone who dare opposed you and your mindset about your beloved Glazer. and btw, it'll takes me 2 word to answer all yours, self-generating incomes, yes or no?? i'm not going to touch on funds from the sales of players and so on, those will just makes you look stupid with regards to Glazer investing their own money into ManU causes. our discussion should just be between self-generating or invested funds from Glazer's pocket, nothing more nothing less, dun go round the bush
Seriously, if you want to give an answer, just give it properly... You seem confused 1st paragraph from 2nd also not clear... And now I am assuming your number 1 answer is for my number 2 question... 2 for 3 and 3 for 4... Weird... but I will just go along...
1. So you are in agreeable that the Glazers are liable should the club financial fortune changes or collapse right? Ok very good... At least we are getting somewhere...
2. Ok lah, if you wish to be in denial just to suit your argument... The Glazers didn't do a thing and the 2 Pool owners did a lot... lol. Happy?
3. What is so different in Spain? The question is very simple, Did Barcelona's fortunes changed after Joan Laporta became president? Very difficult to answer meh?
4. No, it was from our very first exchanged when you asked me to explain why would the Glazer buying got anything to do with Chelsea and their manager's era? Well, I told you the rise of United from 2006 was the main reason that led to these sackings.
5. Yeah right... And I told you if it's there, it will happen no matter how well you try to keep it under the table... But if it's not, then there is nothing to come out of it... United have their very own with the pair of JP McManus and John Magnier...
6. Ok, here you contradict yourself totally... You can't be at opposite ends and still be identical. Well, since you already gave us the wonderful examples of stadium delay problems and asked what else... How about broken promises to the fans? Poor PR with the fans from Owners to family members (“Blow me f**k face. I am sick of you.”) from Hick Jr to a fan. Poor handling of their attempted recruitment for a certain Jungen Klinsmann? The constant fear of not getting re-finance?
And you asked what else they did to the Liverpool team? Not enough ah? Let me see, How about this one... Not qualifying for the CL for the first time in how many years? I don't know, maybe you can tell me...
If you are still not aware, I will just say this... The Glazers didn't purchased the United club like most takeovers... They acquired the shares bit by bit from the stock market and individual shareholders over a period of time like what we see at Arsenal right now until they became the largest shareholder whereby they were required to make a general offer once they crossed the threshold or 30% of the company or club in this case. Even their takeover of the club is totally different from Liverpool's 2 American owners... The one you are saying is more suitable with the way George Gillett and Tom Hicks took Liverpool. They bought it completely at one go... The Glazers didn't and couldn't. Period.
And if you still can't even see the difference between them, God save you... Continue to live in denial for your own good...
And also I may not be a great businessman but I believe it doesn't take a fool to know that the Glazers won't have access to the club's funds initially even as shareholders...
So the question is still... Do you still stand by your... "the fact still reminds / remains that Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU".
Remember the word is a penny...
And for your info, I didn't need wiki for any of these... You should seriously read more if you want to join a discussion... Otherwise you just get exposed easily...
oh, holy moly, i written so many replys and i had this server pulling a fast one on me, but whatever it is, let me just ask you something, you still didnt dare to tell me if ManU is self-generating? and when i said a penny, yes, i meant a penny and pls include my other words as well, i said they didnt spent a penny on ManU cause, i still stand by it unlike you, jumping on single words when you know you're being laugh at now, also it wouldnt takes a great businessman to know that investing for your own cause with something as concrete as ManU is and also with potential returns is different from spending to enhance your investment. you again chose to talk abt liverpool's crappy owners but refused to answer my question abt the players sales? was the money re-invested to make the squad better? or the money was used as salary or even service the loan? and not forgetting the not too long ago thingy where they sell bonds or something so that they're able to service the loan used to buy ManU? using ManU future money to services their initial investment once they brought over the club..
nevertheless, the injection of capital either by glazers or borrow thru man utd has brought 3 titles in a row for man utd. but like i mention, how far can u go on borrow money? all money borrow has to return. they glazers borrow money at a time when borrowing cost in the financial market is cheap. now the cost of borrowing is getting higher and we can see they are struggling now to make interest payment which last i heard was about 50-60million a year.
the + pt of coz fans did enjoy winning 3 titles in a row. the downside of it, the clubs could plunge into one way street, which could destroy man utd in a future ahead.
Originally posted by Saltiga:oh, holy moly, i written so many replys and i had this server pulling a fast one on me, but whatever it is, let me just ask you something, you still didnt dare to tell me if ManU is self-generating? and when i said a penny, yes, i meant a penny and pls include my other words as well, i said they didnt spent a penny on ManU cause, i still stand by it unlike you, jumping on single words when you know you're being laugh at now, also it wouldnt takes a great businessman to know that investing for your own cause with something as concrete as ManU is and also with potential returns is different from spending to enhance your investment. you again chose to talk abt liverpool's crappy owners but refused to answer my question abt the players sales? was the money re-invested to make the squad better? or the money was used as salary or even service the loan? and not forgetting the not too long ago thingy where they sell bonds or something so that they're able to service the loan used to buy ManU? using ManU future money to services their initial investment once they brought over the club..
Come on... You want to include I put it all here lor...
the fact still reminds that Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU cause like a true owner should, everthing is self generated
What normal club isn't self generating I ask you? Are you really that silly or crazy to even ask such a foolish question? I can't even belief I need to reply to this kind of silly question... Are the likes of Chelsea and City the norm to be base on? Or are they in the minority, the very minority? There are 100 over clubs in all the divisions, and maybe more outside of it. Can I ask you how many are there being run like this 2 clubs? 10, 20 or 30? Or just 2?
Is this really what a true owner does? I think you seriously need to check how a true and proper owner works before coming back with more silly statements or questions...
Can I ask you how did the Glazers acquire the club in 2005 with? Stones or money? Money of their own or the club's?
And look here, the only reason Liverpool is being brought in is mainly because you compare their 2 American owners as alike to the Glazers in the first place.
What about player sales? I thought we cover that long ago when I mentioned $50m to $80m spent for players purchased in one window when they took over? Why you didn't bother to mention this? Cos United could never have spent that kind of money before they came right? Do you want to talk about Ronaldo again? He just left almost a year. The market was over heated due to Real and City's spending last season and almost every player had an unrealistic price on his head. Surely Fergie could choose when and how he likes to use it for the good of the club right? I will be more concern if he goes on 3 seasons without spending and he starts complaining through the press that he has no money to spend... But just one season only? Come on...
Anyway it's not that he didn't spent $20m... And there are other reasons too like they can't get the player they wanted... They offered $25m for Benzema but he wanted to go to Real... So what can you do? Just go out and spend $25m on someone else? Thats the way you would do it?
On the bond thing, I personally think it's a genius plan by them. Cos no football club have ever sold bond before to raise money which i stand to be corrected. They being able and successful got it over subscribe... I believe it's a master-stoke. Why? cos now they won't be hold to ransom by the banks on changing interest rates charges and they have secure their financial position for the next 7yrs. Any hostile takeover is also more difficult now given their successful bond rights.
So they have to pay interest on it... But what's the difference if they were a PLC, they will also need to pay out huge dividend to their hundreds or thousands of shareholders... Otherwise Arsenal being one of the most profitable clubs around, where do you think their money go to? Apart from paying interest on their loan, they also need to pay shareholders dividend or you think those shareholders are sitting holding on to the shares for nothing?
The Glazers preside control over the most successful period of United... Gillett and Hicks on the other hand, we can't say the same for Liverpool... Just a simple question, Are they alike? Of course you can continue to close your eyes and your ears and live in denial... But you can't prevent others from the facts... But it would be best if you choose to close your mouth too but it's your choice...
actually the pompey owners are the worst. dun have rich pockets yet bought pompey and looking to make quick buck, making the impression they will invest with their own money.......the proper and fit person criteria is too vague and useless.
Originally posted by zocoss:
Come on... You want to include I put it all here lor...
What normal club isn't self generating I ask you? Are you really that silly or crazy to even ask such a foolish question? I can't even belief I need to reply to this kind of silly question... Are the likes of Chelsea and City the norm to be base on? Or are they in the minority, the very minority? There are 100 over clubs in all the divisions, and maybe more outside of it. Can I ask you how many are there being run like this 2 clubs? 10, 20 or 30? Or just 2?
Is this really what a true owner does? I think you seriously need to check how a true and proper owner works before coming back with more silly statements or questions...
Can I ask you how did the Glazers acquire the club in 2005 with? Stones or money? Money of their own or the club's?
And look here, the only reason Liverpool is being brought in is mainly because you compare their 2 American owners as alike to the Glazers in the first place.
What about player sales? I thought we cover that long ago when I mentioned $50m to $80m spent for players purchased in one window when they took over? Why you didn't bother to mention this? Cos United could never have spent that kind of money before they came right? Do you want to talk about Ronaldo again? He just left almost a year. The market was over heated due to Real and City's spending last season and almost every player had an unrealistic price on his head. Surely Fergie could choose when and how he likes to use it for the good of the club right? I will be more concern if he goes on 3 seasons without spending and he starts complaining through the press that he has no money to spend... But just one season only? Come on...
Anyway it's not that he didn't spent $20m... And there are other reasons too like they can't get the player they wanted... They offered $25m for Benzema but he wanted to go to Real... So what can you do? Just go out and spend $25m on someone else? Thats the way you would do it?
On the bond thing, I personally think it's a genius plan by them. Cos no football club have ever sold bond before to raise money which i stand to be corrected. They being able and successful got it over subscribe... I believe it's a master-stoke. Why? cos now they won't be hold to ransom by the banks on changing interest rates charges and they have secure their financial position for the next 7yrs. Any hostile takeover is also more difficult now given their successful bond rights.
So they have to pay interest on it... But what's the difference if they were a PLC, they will also need to pay out huge dividend to their hundreds or thousands of shareholders... Otherwise Arsenal being one of the most profitable clubs around, where do you think their money go to? Apart from paying interest on their loan, they also need to pay shareholders dividend or you think those shareholders are sitting holding on to the shares for nothing?
The Glazers preside control over the most successful period of United... Gillett and Hicks on the other hand, we can't say the same for Liverpool... Just a simple question, Are they alike? Of course you can continue to close your eyes and your ears and live in denial... But you can't prevent others from the facts... But it would be best if you choose to close your mouth too but it's your choice...
give you S$5 and can you help make your reply short? getting sick of reading those essay like replys. only managed to finish till self-generating before you again divert to others and give our discussion endless new stuff to sarpot your cause, look there is only 1 thing we're discussing on, i'll write it out since the thick head of yours can comprehend, Glazer didint invest a penny into ManU cause simply becos all money used to service the debts (solely a result by Glazer when they made the purchase) are funds arised from self-generating incomes from player sales, season tickets, prize money and others, making the club filled with debts no one had ever seen before do you copy, thickly head??? hahahahahaha
Originally posted by Rooney9:actually the pompey owners are the worst. dun have rich pockets yet bought pompey and looking to make quick buck, making the impression they will invest with their own money.......the proper and fit person criteria is too vague and useless.
cant comprehend with pompey's owners but really like the rest of the post you made kinda same as ManU's Glazer other than Glazer seems looking at making ultra big bucks and not quick bucks, the rest fit them like a T..hahahahahahhaha
and btw, if you dont have to pay a cents every now and then, there is no reason why you needs to end being the owner of one of the best club in football world till this very day and look for the ultra big bucks in time to come.
p.s. you write i changed and make my case, if you kenna sack by thickly head, i'll be truly sorry.
p.p.s. no worries, i kinda just realised he need lotsa ppl from that camp to stand by him now and you being one of the best vocal from the camp might be the one he really need.
Originally posted by Saltiga:give you S$5 and can you help make your reply short? getting sick of reading those essay like replys. only managed to finish till self-generating before you again divert to others and give our discussion endless new stuff to sarpot your cause, look there is only 1 thing we're discussing on, i'll write it out since the thick head of yours can comprehend, Glazer didint invest a penny into ManU cause simply becos all money used to service the debts (solely a result by Glazer when they made the purchase) are funds arised from self-generating incomes from player sales, season tickets, prize money and others, making the club filled with debts no one had ever seen before do you copy, thickly head??? hahahahahaha
Your reply is so baseless that i actually pity how you are trying to wiggle your way out... lol.
Kindly stick to your original statement can...
the fact still reminds that Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU cause like a true owner should, everthing is self generated
1. I ask you this earlier but no reply so I am asking you again. What normal club isn't self generating?
2. Are the likes of Chelsea and City the norm to be base on?
If your answer is Yes, very good... Then everyone here will know what you have been babbling all this time is rubbish on this thread.
But if it's No, then what is so wrong for a club or business to be self-generated I ask you? Errr... Do you know what's the meaning of cash flow? Nvm lah...
3. Did the Glazers had access to the club's finance before they acquire it fully?
4. What did the Glazers used to purchase the club with in 2005? Money or Stones ?
5. If your answer to Q4 is Money which i belief should be, Then whose money?
Ok, now we will have a new quote from you... (The more you try to wiggle the worse it becomes...) lol.
Glazer didint invest a penny into ManU cause simply becos all money used to service the debts (solely a result by Glazer when they made the purchase) are funds arised from self-generating incomes from player sales, season tickets, prize money and others, making the club filled with debts no one had ever seen before do you copy, thickly head??? hahahahahaha
Now it's on your very first line... "all money used to service the debts"
Can I ask you what is the meaning of ALL MONEY? Are we to say everything? Ok since it's everything according to you, then what did they used to purchased players at a cost of more than £130m these last 4 years? More stones?
And you can keep your $5... I suggest you donate it to some worthy charity organization cos I am not interested...
you dont have to pity me, cause i dont have to wiggle like you do..hahahahahaha,
they didnt invest a penny into ManU cause and thats what i'll stick with, everything is self-generated by the club, player purchase, salary everything got nothing to do with your beloved Glazer, and now knowing that you probably losing it, you resort to taking simple word and make a mountain outta a nothing, yes, i did mentioned that all money is used to service the debts, thats because i think i dont have to write everything now as you're probably old enough to understand, but it seems like you're not, which is laughable..hahahahaha, since you like to wiki almost everything then try again, how much did they recoup from selling? how much is their reported salary including the Glazers, how much was their from Nike? how much was their season ticket sales? how much was the normal ticket sales? how much was from winning prize? if you're smart enough, which i think you're not, then add them up and less away whatever overheads they have and tell me how much (if any) comes from your beloved Glazers
we are talking about ManU and Liverpool just keep ManC, Chelsea and Barca outta the pic before i laugh at you for saying the 3 managers from Chelsea are not sack base on their poor showing or the direction of Roman and instead purely from ManU winning the league
and simple, just answer if ManU is self-generating or used money from Glazers? prove pls..hahahahahahaha
the amount of money the club made is already less away the operating cost involved so tell me where did those money goes to? stake holders of the club?
Although 5m for SWP is well worth, I feel AW should not invest the money.
He can save the 5m and find a finisher in the rank of Rooney. Drogbra and Torres.
All big team need a top scorer and we don't have one after Henry left.
Originally posted by Saltiga:you dont have to pity me, cause i dont have to wiggle like you do..hahahahahaha,
they didnt invest a penny into ManU cause and thats what i'll stick with, everything is self-generated by the club, player purchase, salary everything got nothing to do with your beloved Glazer, and now knowing that you probably losing it, you resort to taking simple word and make a mountain outta a nothing, yes, i did mentioned that all money is used to service the debts, thats because i think i dont have to write everything now as you're probably old enough to understand, but it seems like you're not, which is laughable..hahahahaha, since you like to wiki almost everything then try again, how much did they recoup from selling? how much is their reported salary including the Glazers, how much was their from Nike? how much was their season ticket sales? how much was the normal ticket sales? how much was from winning prize? if you're smart enough, which i think you're not, then add them up and less away whatever overheads they have and tell me how much (if any) comes from your beloved Glazers
we are talking about ManU and Liverpool just keep ManC, Chelsea and Barca outta the pic before i laugh at you for saying the 3 managers from Chelsea are not sack base on their poor showing or the direction of Roman and instead purely from ManU winning the league
and simple, just answer if ManU is self-generating or used money from Glazers? prove pls..hahahahahahaha
the amount of money the club made is already less away the operating cost involved so tell me where did those money goes to? stake holders of the club?
Ok, here we go... from the look of your hahahaha post, I am guessing you are rather pissed by now getting found out and exposed all the time with your lame questions.
Ok, thank you very much for making it so clear for all of us to see you are sticking to a false statement and still living in denial just so to try and win this argument... Bravo... I have been waiting for this answer all this while... So we can conclude that The Glazers bought the club Man United with stones (at least in your eyes)... lol.
Now, so you just realised you have opened a new can of worms for me to make you look sillier than you already seems when you mentioned ALL MONEY and even gave us a wonderful set of detailed of where this 'ALL MONEY' of your theory came from... (from player sales, season tickets, prize money and others) and bla... bla.. bla..
Man, you just made yourself a big time laughing stock trying to wiggle out of this... And now you say you think you dont have to write everything now as we're probably old enough to understand? I think we are all old enough to understand what ALL meant, Are you old enough to wiggle? Cos I thought you wrote everything loud and clear and you even underline it to emphasize your ALL point in no uncertain terms.
I am sorry, I take every word at face value what is said. I am not in K1 where you can put something up then changed your direction when proven to be wrong and try to cover your behind by expecting others to apprehend your new thoughts... lol.
Ok, to this point... "how much did they recoup from selling? how much is their reported salary including the Glazers, how much was their from Nike? how much was their season ticket sales? how much was the normal ticket sales? how much was from winning prize? if you're smart enough, which i think you're not, then add them up and less away whatever overheads they have and tell me how much (if any) comes from your beloved Glazers"
To your silly points above...
Ok, since we had early established with you in agreement that The Glazers are liable should the club financial fortunes changes or collapse... So, what is so wrong about them as owners benefitting? In your argument, as owners, you can only make losses and not make gains is it when the business is prosperous? Who would want to own or start a business if that's the case?
Now we see a new word that prove you contradict yourself all over again... And that word is "RECOUP". You asked "how much did they recoup from selling?"... If stick to your believed all along that they didnt invest a penny into ManU cause, then how could thay recoup anything if they didn't put a penny in, in he first place? Sounds silly right?
And why are you so afraid to bring Chelsea, City or Barce in? Because they prove to your disadvantage or they expose your argument all this while? You can laugh all you like while we all laugh at you... The raise of United in 2006 was indeed indirectly the result Roman sack his managers for failing to win cos they all had something in common... They all lost to United in the League or the CL final. Do you see Ancelotti getting the sack this year?
Now this is the 3rd time I am asking you this... Show some balls and give us your clear unambiguous answer to these points made...
1. What normal club isn't self generating? The key word here is Normal ok, just in case you don't understand again...
2. Are the likes of Chelsea and City the norm to be base on?
If your answer is Yes, very good... Then everyone here will know what you have been babbling all this time is rubbish on this thread.
But if it's No, then what is so wrong for a club or business to be self-generated I ask you? Errr... Do you know what's the meaning of cash flow? Nvm lah...
3. Did Barcelona's fortunes changed after Joan Laporta became president?
4. Did the Glazers had access to the club's finance before they acquire it fully?
5. What did the Glazers used to purchase the club with in 2005? Money or Stones ?
6. If your answer to Q4 is Money which i belief should be, Then whose money?
the fact still reminds that Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU cause like a true owner should, everthing is self generated
Also, you seem to have gone rather quiet on your earlier comment of your term on what's a "true owner"? Maybe you may care to enlighten us here...
Ok, now you are weird... All along I already said what is so wrong for a club to be self generating / sustaining? They used money from the Glazers as well as strive to be self generating / sustaining get it? Cos the club belongs to the Glazers and it's their money... As you have also agreed that The Glazers are liable for the club financial fortunes so what else?
Even as recently, Chelsea's chief executive Ron Gourlay said: "In an ideal world future signings would be funded by player sales, and although that seems a remote prospect, the decision to trim the squad is a sign that the club are at least making some efforts to operate as a self-sustaining business."
You see, even Chelsea is striving to be a self generating / sustaining club. So what is so wrong about it? I don't even understand what's the fuss all about? Are the other 17 clubs not trying to be a self-sustaining business?
Lastly, you should be the last person here to accuse me of "taking simple word and make a mountain outta a nothing." For someone who used a simple word ALL and claim he doesn't meant ALL. Didn't put a penny and yet could recoup... lol. What more can you say... Got this kind of lobang I also want... lol
Pathetic...
self-generating or glazer's money? and stop your grandma ultra long essay!! you're just a no lifer who just cannot wake up your idea, go kiss your glazer ass if you have to cos in no time ManU's value will drop if the green and gold thingy seriously takes off and btw you have any idea why the have this green and gold thingy?
Originally posted by Saltiga:self-generating or glazer's money? and stop your grandma ultra long essay!! you're just a no lifer who just cannot wake up your idea, go kiss your glazer ass if you have to cos in no time ManU's value will drop if the green and gold thingy seriously takes off and btw you have any idea why the have this green and gold thingy?
Lol... man you making me laugh harder by the day... And I think some others here too... Answer to your silly question, please look at the post before this, or the one before that or the one before that too or my last 5 posts... And you will get my clear unambiguous answer in all those posts.
The green and gold is just a symbol of certain fans venting their frustration but it's only that and it won't get anywhere if The Glazers aren't selling... period.
And you really still can't understand? Ok, on my 2nd post to you on page 1, in my last 3 paragraphs, I think I have made it very clear how I feel towards the Glazers... So, too bad...
Man you must really be frustrated... Anyhow shoot now... "in no time ManU's value will drop if the green and gold thingy seriously takes off" ... All I can say to this is... Lol. Anyway why sidetrack? I have asked you a few questions a few times already and how come still no reply? Nvm, I will ask again until you do...
Now I am asking this for the 4th time... Asked you to show some balls earlier but unfortunately you didn't the last time... Now can give us your clear unambiguous answer on these... I added a few new ones...
1. What normal club isn't self generating? The key word here is Normal ok, just in case you don't understand again...
2. Are the likes of Chelsea and City the norm to be base on? YES / NO ?
If your answer is Yes, very good... Then everyone here will know what you have been babbling all this time is rubbish on this thread.
But if it's No, then what is so wrong for a club or business to be self-generated I ask you?
3. Did Barcelona's fortunes changed after Joan Laporta became president?
4. Did the Glazers had access to the club's finance before they acquire it fully?
5. What did the Glazers used to purchase the club with in 2005? Money or Stones ?
6. If your answer to Q4 is Money which i belief should be, Then whose money?
7. Your definition of "a true owner" from your earlier comment? (Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU cause like a true owner should, everthing is self generated)
8. Does your ALL MONEY meant everything or not everything?
9. The Glazers invest in the club, And as you agreed they are liable should the club financial fortunes changes or collapse. So are they only allowed to make losses and not allowed to make gains?
10. What constitute the word recoup?