• Manchester United Message Board

  • a quick comparison of recent years...

    United bought out by a yank only now to be in huge debt over 800mil...
    Chelski bought out by a ruski for a princely sum only to plunge a further 250mil into the team and infrastructure...

    Chelski 1 ; United 0

    The Glazer's, on take over, come out and publicly pledge to make over 25mil/season available 'for other Rooney type signings'...and haven't...
    Abramovich says nothing, and signs just about anyone available (think Ballack) and not available (think A.Cole and J.O Mikel)...

    Chelski 2 ; United 0

    Moaninho feels that he needs to strangthen his midfield, he asks the Ruski, he gets a blank cheque for the likes of Essien(a hard c*nt), Ballack(a skilled c*nt) and demotes Joe Cole to the role of kitman...

    SAF feels that he needs to strengthen the midfield, he asks the yank who put his thinking cap on... 'why don't we use O'Shea? He's a versatile guy! and while we're at it let's get some marketing exposure in asia and buy Park!'

    Chelski 3 ; United 0

    Moaninho wants a proven match winning striker,
    "VEE GET MAI FREND SHEVCHENKO" says Abramovich
    "THER TEE MIL.. NO PROBLYEM" he adds.

    SAF wants a proven match winning striker,
    "DAGNABBIT PARDNER! WE'LL SELL THAT RUDE GUY FOR 10MIL (HE AINT CAWST ME NUTTIN'!) AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THA-YT" Drawled the Glazers in unison...

    Chelski 4 ; United 0

    The list goes on and on..

    Our illustious owners couldn't give a toss about our history, tradition or us, the supporters ..
    it's all about the Bucks...

    Name: GERRADSAHOMO
    Rank: insurgent
    Religion: MANUTD

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • after all that is said and done if chelsea were sold tom.they wouldnt have a balance sheet they would have a deficit sheet ,,including gate receipts, tv revenue , shirt sales etc ..last year they lost 143.5million and they had a record turnover so what do they do buy more players and put them on silly wages 140.000 a week so this year another 150 mill plus lost !!!! if they were sold no one could afford them unless another idiot with an oilfield came in.... when he gets bored with his little toy it wouldnt surprise me if they had to sell every top player and end up in the old third division..then all the born again chelsea fans would be buying arsenal shirts lol at least at utd if we have to find 60 million profit a year its a piece of piss..chelsea dont do profits ..in fact if they do start putting caps on spending chelsea are all but doomed anyway 35 games to go yet ..and buying a 30 yr old good player for 30 million isnt good buisness he has two years in him then no sell on value..rooney cost that and has twelve to fourteen years left ronaldo 12 mill he has the same no has beens ...come on you reds

    • Who would like to lay a wager here that sooner or later Chelsea would get into some financial shit due to the dealings of Abramovich. It seems that a lot of deals done by Chelsea seems to be quite shady and Peter Fucking traitor Kenyon get his come-uppence

      • 1 Reply to A Yahoo! User
      • I am glad at last someone mentioned Kenyon. Another gold digger, whom I hope will soon realised he invested in Ble-X.

        Chelsea's financial problem will surface very soon. Eventhough Roman can write out lump sum cheques for transfers, but how can they afford the weekly wages of their players, Ballack 140k, Shen 140k; Lampard 110k; Terry 110k; $Cole 80k; Essein 80k; Drogba 80k ,.....?

    • I'm no Man U fan but I do think the original post whilst amusing demeans the situation.

      Yes Abramovich has bought chelsea and they have spent millions on players and are doing well.... however, he has done this NOT with new money but by leveraging debt into the club. If you looked at the Value (debtless) of Chelsea then the current debt level would be many times the actual value of the club ( not the case with Man U). Bear in mind Villa sold for £63m, Chelseas open market value might be generously £200m and yet they running up debts of £140m a year before purchases. As long as Abramovich is there thats fine but when he goes its a real problem.

      Secondly Abramovich has said his plan is to build Chelsea up over ten years so that its a viable business... I don't think it'll happen and Manu by the by is already a viable business even with the debt in there.

      thirdly you need to remeber that whilst its great fun to play fantasy football manager like Mourinhio and Abramovich are doing and whilst you can manage the egos it will work, but as soon as it gets out of control as I believe the Gallas saga ilustrates, things tend to unwind. Just look at the failure Real madrid had over their Gallatico years... the same will happen to Chelsea especially if Mourinhio goes, which I suspect he will.

      If I were to look at the two clubs situations I'd prefer to be in Manu's corner... ok you may not have had the quite the signings you wanted and despite your great start may sruggle later this season but its a long term club with great long term prospects.... chelsea despite initial success risks becoming a billionnaires wet dream.

      I do think longer term the big clubs in england will remain manu, Liverpool, Arsenal.... chelsea will be seen as an interressting footnote in history much like Blackburn were during their years of heavy investment.

      • 1 Reply to A Yahoo! User
      • You are absolutely right, Man Utd is a business, and like any privately owned business, profit is king.

        Abramovich is only relevant because of his vast amounts of 'fuck-off' money, not his business acumen. For him it is a case of 'easy come, easy go'.

        United on the other hand, as a business, and like all of us, want to buy for the lowest price and sell for the highest, keep costs down and revenue high.. fundamental trade principals to make profit.

        And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!

        All I am saying that profit can cloud judgement and in the interest of profit making, opportunities can pass you by.As an example Torres, is probably the most exciting young footballing prospect since Rooney a few years ago and would be more than a valuable addition to the line up, only my opinion though.

        If spending 25-30 mil on him to prize him away from spain and bring him to the most exciting league on the planet is too much, then what the hell is Sheva's transfer?

        I read alot of the shite on this forum from fans and wankers alike that United should only spend on a sure thing, not risk the money etc etc. Any business looking for long term success needs to invest money, and serious amounts of it, to improve/build/grow on the foundation it has built, and inevitably take some risks.

        Forget the shareholders of a PLC, the fans are far stronger,
        we vote with our wallets.

        We buy the home and away replica's year in and out; we get pay tv at a premium; pay the ticket prices at the turnstiles; buy season tickets; memberships etc.

        As a fan, our investment is financial as well as emotional.. and the profits we seek for our investment is success.

        is that too much to ask?

        usamick, realist or optimist?

    • thanks ian,a chance to report a teacher for obcenity!!! reported,yahoo 2.31pm.

    • a quick comparison of recent years...

      United bought out by a yank, who is a smart business man and is here for the long haul. The Glazers and Manchester United WILL make money....no doubt!
      Chelski bought out by a ruski so that he could launder vast sums of cash. Once he has finished washing or he gets thrown in the gulag, Chelski are done!

      Chelski 0 ; United 1

      The Glazer's, on take over, come out and publicly pledge to make over 25mil/season available 'for other Rooney type signings', however as the MANAGER and NOT the Owner has the last say on who to buy, they haven't just gone and bought a load of crap for the sake of it!
      Abramovich says nothing, and signs just about anyone available (think Ballack) and not available (think A.Cole and J.O Mikel), and has 55 midfielders warming his bench getting more pissed off by the week!

      Chelski 0 ; United 2

      Moaninho feels that he needs to strangthen his midfield, he asks the Ruski, he gets a blank cheque for the likes of Essien(a hard c*nt), Ballack(a skilled c*nt) and demotes Joe Cole to the role of kitman. All players have to now question their place in the squad or get used to sitting on the bench, This will lead to a non-cohesive unit that will be lucky to finish in the top 5!

      SAF feels that he needs to strengthen the midfield, he buys Carrick who he has been after for a while. We already have Ronaldo, Giggs, Scholes, Park (CLASS), Fletcher, Richardson etc. He has a look and tries to buy Hargreaves. Can't get Hargreaves yet but won't settle for a lesser player.'

      Chelski 0 ; United 3

      Moaninho wants a proven match winning striker,
      "VEE GET MAI FREND SHEVCHENKO" says Abramovich
      "THER TEE MIL.. NO PROBLYEM" he adds.

      SAF wants a proven match winning striker,
      Can't sign the player he wants yet, and refuses to pay over the odd's for second best 30 year olds! We already have Rooney, Saha and Smith.

      Chelski 0 ; United 4

      The list goes on and on..

      Our illustious owners will ensure success because they are business men in this for a profit. They love our history, tradition and us. Thats why they bought us.

      Name: USAMICK2003
      Rank: Realistic FAN
      Religion: MANUTD

    • It is only a small point but haven't the Glazers invested more in Man U than the ruski in Chelski? No listen a bit... Chelsea was cheep to buy and he has invested a further £250m. Quality comes at expense and although they have borrowed £500m they still had to invest £300m of their own money. And in % terms of their wealth, the Glazers have invested way more than the ruski.

      SAF has made mistakes in buying over priced and overpaid players recently and I guess he is being more careful. If he wasn't getting the money from the Glazers he would be shouting loudly and leaving in a huff, that hasn't happened and so it aint the Glazers holding back the money.

      I don't particularly like the Glazers but at least the money ain't going to shareholders anymore.

      • 1 Reply to NIGEL
      • This is actually a valid post.

        The Glazers have spent more money, but they have spent their money on buying the most profitable sports club in the world. They have acquired a globally respected brand with excellent management and facilities, a sound and progressive squad and a solid, stable financial base.

        Roman has spent less but has acquired a nothing brand (outside of England), a loss making business that was on the brink of calling in the administrators and a management team of questionable ability (as well as morals and scruples). He has invested in massive transfer fees, often for players with limited resale values (eg Shevchenko, Makalele) in the pursuit of short term success. His inflation of transfer fees means that he can never recoup what he has paid for players, but this is unimportant because he does not need to make a profit.

        The players salaries have been inflated way in excess of any other club, and currently represent almost 300% of turnover. Chelsea are not even planning to break even until 2010.

        So, the net result is, Glazer has a long-term investment and ownership of a valuable brand.

        Roman has a plaything, which if he walked, would go tits up instantly. If he gets bored, his best option would be to wind up the club, or merge it with Fulham or West Ham, and use the ground for property development, and no, I'm not joking!

        Roman has spent his

    • I've got an idea to keep all these insurgents happy - let's go and buy every available player on the market, whatever the cost and when the club goes bust we can start again with UFC. If buying every greedy money grabbing bastard around is important to you go and support Chelski!

    • your a bit thick mate -- i'm guessing you have no idea about business... man utd work within their means therefore if man utd "have a debt" it is artificial as it is accountable only to the glazers...

      However if they were to walk away manutd would find new buyers and continue within their means... Now Chelsea work at a loss of £250 million per annum. So if abromovich walked away you would be fucked and do a leeds ... enjoy that knowledge you twat....

      The more I hear from Chelsea twats like this the more i wouldn't mind that if we (Liverpool) weren't to win the league i wouldn't (unbelievably) mind if man utd did --- just to make sure these glory hunting c@@nts fuck off...

    • Looked at the tables this morning and Man Utd is still tops so maybe all the individual superstars at Chelski cant play as a team. The Man Utd management/ownership team does need a bit of a history lesson though I agree. Ass with all things sport,footy has become a major financial investment first and foremost and in all honesty should be managed that way if anyone is to succeed in todays sports environment.If you dont make the money you cant hire the players that draw the fans that buy the shirts after they buy the tickets. its no longer a local market its international big business. Chelsea ownership really dont give a flying f u c k about the Prem title. They want to become the Man Utd or New York Yankees of worldwide footy. When someone in the US mentions "soccer" what team comes to mind? Man Utd or Brasil. When someone mentions baseball in Japan what team comes to mind? New York Yankees. Sad to say but thats the world we live in. Local club history is nice but it doesnt pay mega-salaries nor edoes it make mega-profit.

    • Be careful nick, you will start to confuse some of these folk.

    • View More Messages