It has no effect because debt has no effect on FFP.
FFP is about spending on transfers and wages.
The 194m was owed to KP hence they could clear it, we still owe about 80 million to a bank (short term debt).
Last edited:
Winter Transfer Window 22/23
- Thread starter Bigpig
- Start date
- Status
FFP is about spending on transfers and wages.
The 194m was owed to KP hence they could clear it, we still owe about 80 million to a bank (short term debt).
It doesn't really change much re FFP. FFP looks at profit and loss, not debt*.
*You are allowed to make slightly larger losses as part of the FFP limits if that loss is covered by an equity injection from your owners but we're talking small numbers.
Permabanned
Where exactly did that investment go?Ferguson took the Utd job in 1986, Utd's investment arrived in 1991
Utd were the biggest spenders in the 90s, setting new levels on fees and wages and they were able to do so thanks to raising equity in 1991 that funded their growth.
On whiskey for Ferguson.
Permabanned
Debt? Training Ground? Stadium? Or just on the playing squad.
It went into funding Utd's growth through all or any of the above. I'm not really sure the relevance of the question. Utd had £x to spend on debt, training ground, stadium and players, after the investment they now had £x + £7m to spend on debt, training ground, stadium and players. Had they not had the investment then they couldn't have spent whatever they spent on all of those things.
Permabanned
But the link I posted doesn’t support your claims of out spending at the same level Chelsea and city have.
The link you posted doesn't look at total investment into the playing squad, including wages and it also cites spending 5 years prior to Utd receiving the investment that we're talking about.
Now I have to get back to some work before I have to fire myself.
Permabanned
1992-1998 net spend
Newcastle: £40,570,000 (> 4000% more than United)
Arsenal: £31,070,000 (> 3100% more than United)
Liverpool: £29,625,000 (> 2900% more than United spent)
Chelsea: £27,705,000 (> 2700% more than United spent)
Spurs: £18,630,000 (> 1800% more than United spent)
City: £12,070,000 (> 1200% more than United spent)
United: -£40,000
United rank: 7th biggest spenders
Caporegime
I'm surprised people still argue with Doobedoo, the bloke is on another planet most of the time.
Caporegime
LOL! You're taking the biscuit now. You began by not acknowledging that Utd set the spending levels in the 90s, you then claimed it was self sufficient when Utd had actually received outside investment, you then claimed it was off the back of success, despite that investment coming in before Utd won anything! You don't half change your argument sometimes
Is this wrong then Baz as it clearly states @53 seconds that net spending for the end of the 90's Premier League clubs. Guess who spent the most?
Liverpool 99 million
United 80 Million
Newcastle 68 Million
Even when you look at 90's transfers that 19 million extra basically buys you an Andy Cole, Dwight Yorke, Teddy Sheringham and OGS altogether! How many league titles did Liverpool win that started in the 90's? Yes we had the class of 92 that does sway it a little but even still United won 7 titles in that period and Liverpool and Newcastle won absolutely nothing. Infact Liverpool won two cups in the 90's and that is it. This myth that United spent like crazy is annoying as hell.
Last edited:
Permabanned
The link I posted.
Caporegime
Permabanned
Have you fact checked it?
Caporegime
I assume you did before posting, or were you too busy mashing the keyboard trying to find anything that may quickly support your flawed argument?
Permabanned
No I posted that I’ve just came across it so I’m not presenting it as absolute fact.
Why the hostility what have I done to you?
Caporegime
Nothing on a personal level, I've just seen similar back and forth from you in threads in which you go completely off course on whatever original point you were attempting to make.
Yes. We get lots of made up reports on transfer fees when the actual numbers are reported by football clubs in their accounts and usually completely different. I know you've previously argued with me about Utd's spending because you've read something on the internet that's different to what Utd have submitted to companies house. And as above, transfer fees are only one part of what a club spends on it's squad. Over the first 10 years of the PL Utd spent considerably more than any club in wages, far in excess of any possible difference in transfer fees.
For instance, Utd spent £100m and £130m more in wages in that period than big spenders Newcastle and Blackburn. Bearing in mind revenues in the early 90s were in the £20m range and only grew to £100m by the start of the 2000's, that's a huge difference.
Permabanned
That’s fair I may not make my points as well as others but it’s not done with malice.
- Status