RuneEdge
Silent Assassin
- 1 October 2003
- Team
- Manchester United
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.
Thats exactly it. And its how all football clubs should be run, only spend what you earn.

Theres a difference between someone rich and a sugar daddy.
A sugar daddy is someone who's rich and throws his money around on younger women for his personal enjoyment. In the case of football clubs, its someone who takes over the club for pretty much the same reasons, his own enjoyment rather than actually hoping to make a profit. Abramovich has spent nearly £500m on Chelsea out of his own pocket. That's like half of what our whole club is worth. Is he in it for profit? Clearly not. He's now probably hoping its profitable in the long term but its clearly not why he came to Chelsea.
We dont need that. We were doing fine 6 or 7 years ago. We didnt borrow tons of money to fund players and become another Leeds United. We helped ourselves, with of course the fans support.
And it seems like now its only possible to get that back if someone rich enough could come in and buy out our debts.
FSG took over us with the intention of clearing the debt and working us into a position so that we can use shirt sales etc as our transfer funds. It makes sense and we're saving £30m or so a season in debt payments. So if we can put that towards players, plus increase the commercial side, you don't need a chairman to put money in, just run the club right.
I'm assuming that's what you're getting at, and your income from commercial sales would be ridiculous. If your debt was gone and you could use that income for players, you'd be well and truly set.
Thats exactly it. And its how all football clubs should be run, only spend what you earn.
sugar daddy is someone RICH! whether its to pay off debt or players. A group could not be labeled sugar daddy only individuals. So , you want a sugar daddy like Roman that pay-off Chelsea`s debts. I think the club has to revenue it`s earning by debt to ratio. That keeps the Clubs running on the plus factor. Owners take or borrow as collateral put the club at risk.

Theres a difference between someone rich and a sugar daddy.
A sugar daddy is someone who's rich and throws his money around on younger women for his personal enjoyment. In the case of football clubs, its someone who takes over the club for pretty much the same reasons, his own enjoyment rather than actually hoping to make a profit. Abramovich has spent nearly £500m on Chelsea out of his own pocket. That's like half of what our whole club is worth. Is he in it for profit? Clearly not. He's now probably hoping its profitable in the long term but its clearly not why he came to Chelsea.
We dont need that. We were doing fine 6 or 7 years ago. We didnt borrow tons of money to fund players and become another Leeds United. We helped ourselves, with of course the fans support.
And it seems like now its only possible to get that back if someone rich enough could come in and buy out our debts.
That's funny!
