Sir Alex to be given £75million to spend by the Glazers...?










Say whaaaat?? Is this true? 

Just looking at their smug chevvy chace's, I've gotta a sneaky suspicion that something's not quite right...



Comments

  1. Red Ranter12 January 2010 at 14:16

    But hasn't Ferguson always said he had the Ronaldo money to spend? It's "lack of value" in the market, isn't it? :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. pos12 January 2010 at 14:19

    I think we all knew that Ron money wasn't there completely for the taking and SAF's frugal attitude towards the market isn't simply because he feels his resources are tip-top without needing to spend dollar. As MUST laid out as soon as the deal went through (with Ronaldo) and suggestions were being made about the money being used to refinance the debt: we need some serious, honest answers NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12 January 2010 at 14:26

    its debt money!! its all been revealed in their prospectus - £70m of the ronaldo money is going to be used to pay some of their PIK debt, then they will borrow £75m all of which may or may not be used for transfers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Red Ranter12 January 2010 at 14:39

    Pos -- responded on blog. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous12 January 2010 at 15:04

    Plurals (ie Glazers) do not need an apostrophe.


    Plural's do not need an apostrophe.

    Glazers, Nevilles, Beatles, Conservatives, Supporters, Illiterates, etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
  6. United rant12 January 2010 at 15:58

    Don't believe a word of it. The 75m quoted figure is the amount of revolving credit the Glazers are taking under their reinvestment. Basically a bank loan that is to be used for operational activity not transfers

    ReplyDelete
  7. pos13 January 2010 at 01:40

    @Anonymous,
    Thanks for the apostrophe tip! I always fuck those up.

    @Red Ranter,
    Great point, I'm copying what you said to put on here.
    Red Ranter @ www.RedRants.com:

    "First of all it’s the Daily Mirror. There are no quotes, and only hearsay.

    I’ve endured months of double-speak. If Fergie said there’s no value for money in the market (the same market where he sold Ronaldo for 80m and had no qualms of buying Berbatov for 30m — admittedly before their supposed under-26 policy), then how is another 75m going to change that?

    Of course, if we assume he actually said all that to mask the fact we were skint then (and not now) then we can only believe what happens in action. i.e., if Ferguson buys players.

    On the other hand, if he genuinely believed there was no value in the market, then it wouldn’t matter if he had 200m to spend. As a consequence, I will be worried, because I genuinely believe if we look at the right places we can get value.

    If there is any way we can use the public perception of our current debt situation to our advantage, it is in getting rid of the ‘United tax’. Because now selling clubs may actually believe we can’t be fleeced like we used to.

    In conclusion: As with the chances of Hargreaves returning to first team action: I’ll believe it when I see it."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous13 January 2010 at 13:30

    Those Ginger yanks are going to fuck you right up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. hakanrylander14 January 2010 at 09:24

    I think the sad fact is that the Glazers are not GIVING Ferguson any transfer kitty at all. Instead they are continuosly TAKING MONEY AWAY from what might otherwise have been a substantial transfer kitty. So far their take-over has cost the club something like £325m in interest. Money that could have been spent on players, ground improvements, lower ticket prices etc.

    ReplyDelete
  10. pos14 January 2010 at 14:09

    Is that honestly how much it's accumulated? £325mill?? That's fucking shocking! With that we could've pretty much bought:
    Casillas (£20m)
    --------------
    Maicon (£20)
    Puyol (£25m)
    Lahm (£15m)
    Marcelo (£20m)
    --------------
    Ribery (£60m)
    Xavi (£40m)
    Iniesta (£40m)
    --------------
    Aguero (£45m)
    Villa (£40m)
    Silva (£25m)
    = £350million
    ...PLUS had the passable Evra, Rooney and, assuming we would have kept him rather than falling victim to the debt, Ronaldo in reserve. Interesting.
    Still, 3 Titles, a European Cup, a World Club Cup and a Carling Cup since they bought us aint half bad I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous16 January 2010 at 16:48

    Casillas for 20 million........ lad you´re dreaming. I feel the same but to a lesser extent with Xavi and Iniesta...they would never be sold for 40m.. remember how much Barca payed for Ibrahimovic....... I know i´m being pedantic, but it caught me off guard. as for the vocabulary lesson, fine, but you don´t need to be a CUNT

    ReplyDelete
  12. pos18 January 2010 at 00:33

    HAHA I was being serious you wanker! Jesus someones paranoid.
    As for Casillas, I don't get it, do you think he's worth less or more than £20mill? Less, no way. More? Maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous18 January 2010 at 14:50

    I was on your side...... I was calling the other guy a cunt! with his.... clever little use of the word illiterates in there.....

    casillas..... worth far far more than 20..... how much was buffon those years ago?

    ReplyDelete
  14. pos19 January 2010 at 05:33

    Woops! My bad mate.
    Yeh you're right about Casillas. Buffon was £21million about 9 years ago. Crazy innit?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment