Quarterly Quarrel: Financial Discussion Part 4

Why can't the FA/Uefa/FIFA ban LBOs? Or why won't they?

 

On that, Liverpool's commercial income more than doubled from 2006 to 2011 according to the swiss ramble blog.

2nd chart on this link.
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/liverpool-keep-car-running.html

 

You are talking from the perspective of a uk taxpayer, I am talking from the perspective of a "fan"

Afterall any money out of the club is bad

 

actually no...I have more discontent for david gill then the glazers.....if you look at his pre-take cover quotes and the post ones.....I am sure that pay raise has nothing to do with it.....motwyw

 

Nice one... I'll be a "fcuktwit" every day of the year then a glazer apologist who has a his nose so far up their arse that it sticks out of their nose.

No offensive mate.....but you seriously are the only united fan I know on a somewhat personal level who defends these leaches left and right.

 

In responding to a post that calls you a fcukwit, you have to try harder to avoid grammatical mistakes

But no, I don't want the Glazers in charge of the club. I certainly don't want their debt. But we could have been taken over by someone with much worse sense and we could be in a position where we could not run the club properly or be successful. Thankfully, and some of that is down to decent practices by the Glazers, we have been successful. Given the chance, I'd much rather the club was owned by a billionaire who adored the club and left the football up to the football people. But that isn't the case. I see no sense in heaping coals on Malcolm's head for the fcuk of it.

 

They wont because I am unconvinced it is in their interest. Despite all the talking (but no action) from FA's and FIFA / UEFA that debt is bad, and to some extent foreign ownership is bad. Its not actually that bad for the leagues themselves.

Most clubs are expendable. It was good for the EPL for Blackburn, Leeds and god willing in the future, City to burn themselves out. The bigger total spend, the more stars, the more competition, the better for the league. If clubs go broke, for the most part, they can be replaced.

This is another reason why I doubt FFP will come into play.

 

Hmm, that makes a lot of sense.

 

Why does the LBO mean more total spend?

 

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896...ve-glazer-regime-represents-biggest-hurdle-to

Story from Dan Harris.

 

biased bullshit. expropriated is not the word to use there.

 

I'd love to be there if the two of you ever met in person.

 

we'd get along fine. I actually respect him for sticking to his guns. even if those guns are stupid.

 

I'd be eating some popcon.

NM, that isn't journalism. It's easy to handpick the stats you need to write a story from both the pro- and the anti-Glazer sides of this.

It's unfortunate that some find this a black and white issues, as if there's no middle ground. It is perfectly acceptable to acknowledge that certain parts of the Glazers' tenure has been great for this club, while aspects of it has not. Some of you lot act like that George Bush "you're either with us or against us" bullshit.

 

I would gladly buy his 1st and 2nd pint

 

xoxoxoxo

 

The funny thing is that even the likes of Andy Green who is the must financial spokesman (and who NM has quoted a million times over the last half decade) now admit that Glazers have done a good job increasing revenues and that their predictions (which have been posted by NM on numerous other occasions) claiming that we were going to crash and burn within 3-5 years were completely silly and off the mark.

 

I have never once said that we would crash and burn .....

go and find one post....

 

What about mine you ********?

 

Of course I would....maybe when I am over in the winter motwyw

 

MUST most definitely have. I am not going to go about digging through your posts mate.

 

So stop clamming that I have bc I have never said we would go bust....

infact ....edit the post

 

if u don't think we'll go bust then what is all the hullabaloo about?