Join the Debate

[Paul Marin]

Lazie - you need to understand basic accounting. No one - not me for sure, said that signing those players put the club in debt. I have made no argument about debt. We are talking about BIG MONEY SPENDING. Your club was the one that started that trend, Chelski then stepped in and abused it -- Arsenal and Wenger have not -- EVER. That's the whole point of this.

[Lazie]

Lazie - you are a master at twisting your arguments from one thing to another. What on earth are you saying now? I don't know why I bother. You would never make a grade 2 logic class.

Let's get this straight. Before I waste my time any more on this:

1. Does Manure have a more expensive squad than Arsenal?

If your answer to that is anything but a "Yes" then you are living in an alternate reality.

2. You said "Manchester United was able to do those transaction because of how the club was being run"

How was it being run Lazie? Explain to me what the club did to make it possible for them to make such massive expenditures.

3. Just the other day you were advancing a ridiculous argument about Liverpool spending 183M pounds; I tried to point out that on a net spending basis Liverpool is nowhere near Manure or Chelski...now you say "Ruud and Hienze was sold to Real, Richardson, Ebanks, Rossi, Eagles and other have been sold in came Nani, Anderson and Hargreves. This season Berbatov and 2 youths from Serbia" - that 's called NET SPENDING buddy. Funny how you use it when it suits you.

Anyway, you are all over the place. The bottom line is that you can not compare the amount of money spent by your club to Arsenal - end of story.

Paul you're the one all over the place bredren. In an earlier post you indicated that the spending of Manchester United cause the club to be in so much debt. That is TOTALLY FALSE!!!! If you want to continue hanging onto myths fine but the fact is Manu wasn't in a debt problem prior to the Glazers taking over.

1. The Glazer Family paid a total of £921 million to buy United.
   They borrowed at least £650 million* of that sum, some at 20% compound interest. (MU Supporters Trust).
   
   
2. There will be much gnashing of teeth among Manchester United supporters at the revelation this morning that the club paid £42 million in the past financial year in interest on the debts put upon it by the Glazer family. ( TimesOnline)
   
   
3. The real problem is the debt of clubs like Manchester United .... The debts were incurred because the people who bought them borrowed heavily to take them over and then dumped the liability on to the club (or on a holding company closely linked to the club). Manchester United's debt is in excess of $1.3 billion, which is more than three times its annual revenue.
   That debt wasn't accumulated to buy assets (like a stadium or a stronger playing squad), rather it was generated simply so that Malcom Glazer and his family could buy the club without needing to put in too much of their own money. As a result, United needs to spend more than $60 million a year just to service the debt. As long as the club is very profitable (like last season, when it won the Premier League and Champions' League), it's not a problem. But what if something goes wrong? (Sports Illustrated).

If yuh need more than that then .... We can do this, but if yuh ago maintain yuh stance from a point of ignorance then we naah guh get no where.

How was Manu being run? Is that a serious question? Glazer took over the club in 2005, how many times they've made the richest club list before that?

If you want to hang onto net spending thats up to you, I guess people not willing to see reality.

[Lazie]

Lazie - you need to understand basic accounting. No one - not me for sure, said that signing those players put the club in debt. I have made no argument about debt. We are talking about BIG MONEY SPENDING. Your club was the one that started that trend, Chelski then stepped in and abused it -- Arsenal and Wenger have not -- EVER. That's the whole point of this.

Ummm someone forgetting what they posted? You mentioned the debt in the post below and that is what I talking about.

"You don't have to go back too far to remember Leeds precipitous fall from grace, not to mention Forest...it can happen to any club when spending becomes the priority over common sense management. He doesn't have an oligarch with a free wheeling balance sheet and is thinking long term. He doesn't have manure or chelski's debt and is creating a far more enduring club that can survive him after he goes...I am not sure that will be so at manure and it ain't so already at chelski."

The reality is when clubs like AC Milan, Real Madrid and Manchester United express interest in a player, the price for that player suddenly go up. It happened with Essien and Benzema. Fergie and Gill understand that, thats why 18 million was paid for Carrick, seems like a bargin now. Fergie knows which player will fit into his team, unlike Rafa who purchased 49 players since 04 and the only quality he brought in is Torres.

[Paul Marin]

Once again, you are side stepping the point. Arsenal is in no way shape or form the BIG SPENDING club that yours is - end of story. Admit it and move on.

(And you are taking my reference to debt out of context).

[Karl]

Bwoy Karl, I think that the worst is ahead of us. The problem is that these errant billionaires have created an unsustainable situation. They should learn from the bankers current situation in the economic meltdown of what can happen when spending is out of control.

Chelski is okay as long as the Russian bankrolls them...but sooner or later...they will have to pay the piper. Manure is in a world of hurt if Slur Arselick does not leave them with a successor who can keep them competitive as their fan base will shrink if they can't sustain it...and when that happens...money will get tighter...and it will happen unless like I suspect, Slur Arselick is in truth a duppy and will stick around forever...........aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh.

Agreed!