The English Football Thread

[right-track]

Originally Posted by jackhammer

^^^^
According to this site which u have given as an example:

Sadly, the high profile leveraged buy-outs of two of the league’s highest profile clubs, Liverpool and Manchester United, has shown us the other end of the spectrum. In both cases, US investors with no interest in football have used debt financing to purchase the clubs simply to line their own pockets.

I think we already established that in earlier posts and it's common knowledge too. Hardly news.
Not sure what the purpose of pointing that out was, Lee.

Originally Posted by jackhammer

Villa are 93m in debt but that is 'Indicates soft loans (i.e. loans provided by benefactors with reduced or no interest)'
Man Utd are 717m in debt and the interest is nearly 70 m whilst Villa's is less than £400,000

Your profits are way too low though. Good luck shifting the £93M.
The purpose of the link was to point out to other club fans, such as yourself, that they're not whiter than white either.
UEFA have introduced a ruling that will only allows clubs to compete in Europe that spend within their profit margin.

Originally Posted by jackhammer

What I am saying is that a severe financial hit along the line for Man u will seriously hinder their stability whereas Villa's 'Sugar Daddy' has barely borrowed a penny and although it's hard for fans to take, we have barely spent anything in the last transfer market because we just couldn't afford it.

On the other hand, United have spent and within their profit margin.
Any severe financial hit will could prove disastrous to clubs who can't service their debt.
United not being one of them...at the moment.

Originally Posted by jackhammer

Away from this my point was that it's always the jealousy card thrown at anyone time and time again if you dare to criticise Man Utd.

The criticism aimed at United has only been evident since the club began winning honours in the early nineties.
I don't recall anyone hating United in the mid 70's and all the way through the 80's.
Instead, as I recall, it was Liverpool's similar domination of English football that was the cause of hatred from all quarters.
Wonder why that was?

Originally Posted by jackhammer

As for the 'Chelsea were crap before 2004' holds no weight for me. Chelsea and the Glenn Hoddle era brought us Ruud Gullit, Zola, Di Matteo and a virtual rebuilding of the stadium long before Abramovich. The fact that their spending in the last 2 seasons has been significantly reduced and they are still doing well speaks volumes for the business acumen there.

No, they weren't crap. Calling them crap would be a little harsh.
Mediocre at best.
Take a quick look at Chelsea's honours prior to the Abramovich era and tell me they had a long and glorious history.

Originally Posted by jackhammer

Believe it or not, I don't dislike Man U. They are one of the most successful English teams ever and they still retain a fantastic team ethos that we should all learn from BUT you have your faults and it would be so good to hear a few fans actually acknowledge them from time to time. Besides Man U fans are the easiest fans in the world to wind up

This is unfair. United's "faults" are no fault of their own.
Since the 50's United have been building a reputation for attractive, exciting attacking football.
The Busby Babes by all accounts were out of this world. Had it not been for the Munich Air Disaster they may well have gone on to dominate Europe well into the 60's.
Busby's 60's team of Law, Best and Charlton took the name of Manchester United to an unparalleled level making them world famous. It was during this era that United's massive fan base was cemented.
And don't listen to the bittermen's claim of City being supported by locals only and how there are more City fans in Manchester, than there are United fans.
Unless you believe years of success as opposed to years of failure somehow has the opposite effect in a city that loves football.

As we know, the 70's and 80's were a mixed bag, but the brand of attacking football was still evident making United one of the most entertaining teams to watch in English football. A tradition only matched by Spurs IMO.

The Alex Ferguson era saw the league won with kids. Home grown players, some of which are still in the team today. Giggs, Scholes, Neville and that ethos continues to the present day.
The backbone of United's success was built on that philosophy. Not on the chequebook philosophy of Chelsea and more lately, City.
The money United spent on big money players was with the hard earned success of the clubs glorious past and not on the whim of a sugar daddy!

And finally. We acknowledge only too well how a businessman can buy a club and then strip it's assets to finance his debt at the expense of what was once a self sufficient football institution and what was for years the richest club in the world.

You say you don't hate United Lee, yet on more than one occasion on these boards, I've seen you refer to United and it's fans as "scum".
And yet you expect me to believe that your dislike of the club is based purely on it's financial affairs.

Maybe the fans of Villa and others need to change the words of...

We hate Man U and we hate Man U
We hate Man U and we hate Man U
We hate Man U and we hate Man U
We are the Man U haters!

...by substituting the word Man U with Glazer.

We may even join in.