Ages, casualties, and squad progression

[Neiler]

United haven't had to sell because they were the richest team in the world untill recently, so didn't need to worry about buying players when needed, or paying wages to players on the bench.
They've just sold 1 player that we could have bought our entire team with the proceeds of that deal. We really can't compare their structure to ours.

Well when your talking of players the wrong side of thirty yes - Neville 4.5 mill, Cahill 2.5 mill. Im sorry but we could recoup that with them in the team over the next three season - besides they have certainly earned that for us, in placement finishes, FA Cup finals, CL and Europa qualifications.

 

[bluebastardo]

He cant talk to someone until the January isn't it? Then move in the summer, which leaves us with over two years of super ace slotting from outside the box all over the show. And great, great muscular thighs.

He's alright for a ginger.

With the clubs permission, he can talk to any club he wants, when he wants. The difference is that in the final year, with permission, a player can actually sign a provisional contract, or words to that effect.
See what happens when Real Madrid offers to buy him for £50, and Saha puts a request in with a sell me or bench me attitude.

 

[chicoazul]

With the clubs permission, he can talk to any club he wants, when he wants. The difference is that in the final year, with permission, a player can actually sign a provisional contract, or words to that effect.
See what happens when Real Madrid offers to buy him for £50, and Saha puts a request in with a sell me or bench me attitude.

Ah, you're leading us into the realms of hypothetical now.

He could take to someone and arrange a pre contract in 2012, which is nearly two years away, he then would continue to scissor goals all over the show til the end of that season before leaving us.

Your, we should sell him in the summer, is frankly ridiculous x

 

[moyes_bringin_it_back]

Well when your talking of players the wrong side of thirty yes - Neville 4.5 mill, Cahill 2.5 mill. Im sorry but we could recoup that with them in the team over the next three season - besides they have certainly earned that for us, in placement finishes, FA Cup finals, CL and Europa qualifications.

Cahill's fee has been paid by us appearing at Wembley last semi final. That earned the club 2.5 million...

Oh and Neville was 3.5 million not 4.5.

 

[bluebastardo]

Ah, you're leading us into the realms of hypothetical now.

He could take to someone and arrange a pre contract in 2012, which is nearly two years away, he then would continue to scissor goals all over the show til the end of that season before leaving us.

Your, we should sell him in the summer, is frankly ridiculous x

No .
It's just that I don't have the legal documents infront of me from which to quote, so trying to stay 'politically correct', whilst offering certain pitfalls that we could find ourselves stumbling across should he have one year left on his contract.

 

[chicoazul]

No .
It's just that I don't have the legal documents infront of me from which to quote, so trying to stay 'politically correct', whilst offering certain pitfalls that we could find ourselves stumbling across should he have one year left on his contract.

Hmmm.

I really didnt get what you said there lid.

 

[bluebastardo]

Well when your talking of players the wrong side of thirty yes - Neville 4.5 mill, Cahill 2.5 mill. Im sorry but we could recoup that with them in the team over the next three season - besides they have certainly earned that for us, in placement finishes, FA Cup finals, CL and Europa qualifications.

Not sure I follow to be honest bud.
Their salaries alone combined over a period of 3 years would be a considerable sum.
Add to that any loss of fees by selling them and you increase that sum.
Where are your figures from?

 

[moyes_bringin_it_back]

United haven't had to sell because they were the richest team in the world untill recently, so didn't need to worry about buying players when needed, or paying wages to players on the bench.
They've just sold 1 player that we could have bought our entire team with the proceeds of that deal. We really can't compare their structure to ours.

What are you going on about?

Utd made a 6.4million profit AFTER the sale of Ronaldo was taken into account and Valencia was brought in.

If he weren't sold they'd have made a £40million loss.

They are in dire straights. Its £720million debt and its yet to be seen if they can service that even after the bonds issue.

Some commentators think they'll need to start reguarly selling to service the debt. You're right they are in a very different situation.

Why you're second guessing the manager I don't know. He's judged he wouldn't be able to replace Saha with the offers already received easily. Hence given him the contract.

Saha will be 34 at the end of it. Are you saying that we have to make an outlay on someone upfront? Maybe Moyes wants to spend his budget elsewhere and has someone else long term in mind.

The fact he brought Heitinga to Everton for 5million, Jagielka for 4.5m on tribunal, Arteta 2.5, Pienaar 2.05 and Cahill for 1.5 million...

Then I'm going to stick my neck out and say MOYES JUDGEMENT ON PLAYERS IS BETTER THAN YOURS.

 

[Neiler]

Not sure I follow to be honest bud.
Their salaries alone combined over a period of 3 years would be a considerable sum.
Add to that any loss of fees by selling them and you increase that sum.
Where are your figures from?

Memorry wwhich is dangerous as ive paid over a million for Neville.

Point being the club turnover has almost jumped almost approx 45% since Neville and Cahill to name two have been at the club. Surely this justifies the outlay and wages given success and progression season on season.

Last time i checked we didnt fold when we gave Wier and Stubbsey frees! Deserved btw.

 

[bluebastardo]

What are you going on about?

Utd maid a 6.4million profit AFTER the sale of Ronaldo was taken into account and Valencia was brought in.

If he weren't sold they'd have made a £40million loss.

They are in dire straights. Its £720million debt and its yet to be seen if they can service that even after the bonds issue.

Some commentators think they'll need to start reguarly selling to service the debt. You're right they are in a very different situation.

Why you're second guessing the manager I don't know. He's judged he wouldn't be able to replace Saha with the offers already received easily. Hence given him the contract.

Saha will be 34 at the end of it. Are you saying that we have to make an outlay on someone upfront? Maybe Moyes wants to spend his budget elsewhere and has someone else long term in mind.

The fact he brought Heitinga to Everton for 5million, Jagielka for 4.5m on tribunal, Arteta 2.5, Pienaar 2.05 and Cahill for 1.5 million...

Then I'm going to stick my neck out and say MOYES JUDGEMENT ON PLAYERS IS BETTER THAN YOURS.

You don't half enjoy stating things as though you're the only one to know of them m8, really, do me a favour. Saha signs 2 year extension revelation etc etc ........

My point involving Ronaldo was to make an indication between the sizes of fees both our clubs deal with, and the wage allocation of both clubs.

I'm not sure what you mean by a £40 mill loss though.
Ronaldo cost United less than £13 million.
Valencia cost United a little bit more.
United sold Ronaldo for quite a bit more.

The clubs finances are irrelevant, as their income versus expenditure are lightyears apart from ours, and therefore they are able to sustain a different amount of debt.

The rest is speculation on our part, as neither of us are involved in Uniteds accounts directly.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say Moyes didn't put Saha on a new deal just to keep him here for 2 years. Never presume the person you are speaking to is as dumb and ill informed as you imagine.

 

[bluebastardo]

Memorry wwhich is dangerous as ive paid over a million for Neville.

Point being the club turnover has almost jumped almost approx 45% since Neville and Cahill to name two have been at the club. Surely this justifies the outlay and wages given success and progression season on season.

Last time i checked we didnt fold when we gave Wier and Stubbsey frees! Deserved btw.

We're a business Neiler.
Unless we want to end up like Pompey, I suggest we not get too sentimental over players. The buggers do ok thank you very much.

 

[bluebastardo]

Hmmm.

I really didnt get what you said there lid.

Don't worry mate.
Keep Saha. I'm off to support the [Poor language removed]. More open minds there apparently.

 

[moyes_bringin_it_back]

Don't worry mate.
Keep Saha. I'm off to support the [Poor language removed]. More open minds there apparently.

Yeah and look where that's got them!

DEBT DEBT DEBT

 

[chicoazul]

I hope you're not doing this lid.

 

[moyes_bringin_it_back]

You don't half enjoy stating things as though you're the only one to know of them m8, really, do me a favour. Saha signs 2 year extension revelation etc etc ........

My point involving Ronaldo was to make an indication between the sizes of fees both our clubs deal with, and the wage allocation of both clubs.

I'm not sure what you mean by a £40 mill loss though.
Ronaldo cost United less than £13 million.
Valencia cost United a little bit more.
United sold Ronaldo for quite a bit more.

The clubs finances are irrelevant, as their income versus expenditureare lightyears apart from ours , and therefore they are able to sustain a different amount of debt.

The rest is speculation on our part, as neither of us are involved in Uniteds accounts directly.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say Moyes didn't put Saha on a new deal just to keep him here for 2 years. Never presume the person you are speaking to is as dumb and ill informed as you imagine.

Well you are making some bizarre statements on here like lad.

Its a fact:
Manchester United debt hits £716m
Without selling Ronaldo Manchester United's parent company would have made a substantial loss last year.

Their income versus expenditure arn't light years ahead of ours, particuarly with the £69million interest repayments they have to find every season. The point I make they cannot sustain that debt hence their instability and the issues they've got. I'll be very surprised seeing them spending money in the summer. Its a nonsense that they have £80million to spend. That was eaten up by the debt levels, and it's safe to assume that they'll still have to find £60million this year, without the £80.4 million asset sale on the books.

We're in a transition period in English football.

As I said. Bizzare.