Manchester United, that didn't last long. Seven up

[pokerfan]

G.Nev signed to ss as common tater.

[ ] surprised

It will be interesting to see how he does, and whether the committed haters can be won over by him. I'd expect him to be far better as an analyst than most of the current crop.

Should be fun watching him cover a Liverpool match.

[Indestructable]

I am cancelling Sky Sports, can't believe they have done this. 

[david3103]

I am cancelling Sky Sports, can't believe they have done this. 

Was probably wasted on you anyway

[The Baron]

G.Nev signed to ss as common tater.

[ ] surprised

It will be interesting to see how he does, and whether the committed haters can be won over by him. I'd expect him to be far better as an analyst than most of the current crop.

Agree. Don't care if you know where his loyalties lie as long as he's good and I'm fairly sure he will be.

[The Baron]

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/04/having_made_gigantic_losses_la.html

....Manchester United would comfortably comply with Uefa's regulations were they in force today. Despite making a £79m pre tax loss in 2010, that was mainly down to one off debt charges relating to the £500m bond refinancing and currency exchange rate swaps.

And the vast sums of money United generate as a football club (£300m according to Uefa's criteria and far more than any rival club) ensures that the regular debt repayments - totalling about £45m - are easily met.

Chelsea and Citeh will find it harder to comply apparently...

Interesting. So it's going to be turnover vs debt? Pretty soft IMO.

[Jon MW]

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/04/having_made_gigantic_losses_la.html

....Manchester United would comfortably comply with Uefa's regulations were they in force today. Despite making a £79m pre tax loss in 2010, that was mainly down to one off debt charges relating to the £500m bond refinancing and currency exchange rate swaps.

And the vast sums of money United generate as a football club (£300m according to Uefa's criteria and far more than any rival club) ensures that the regular debt repayments - totalling about £45m - are easily met.

Chelsea and Citeh will find it harder to comply apparently...

Interesting. So it's going to be turnover vs debt? Pretty soft IMO.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that - I can't see anything wrong with the principle though; if you earn a lot of money through football you can have a higher level of debt; if your debt is currently being paid for by other sources - like your commercial side or from an owners pocket, you're going to have a harder time.

[Indestructable]

G.Nev signed to ss as common tater.

[ ] surprised

It will be interesting to see how he does, and whether the committed haters can be won over by him. I'd expect him to be far better as an analyst than most of the current crop.

Agree. Don't care if you know where his loyalties lie as long as he's good and I'm fairly sure he will be.

It's not just about loyalties as there are United players that i would have no problems with such as Giggs, Van de Sar, Carrick to name a few but Gary Neville is unbearable.

[The Baron]

Obv it's more complicated than that. I just think if you can operate at a loss Coz you have good turnover then the rule is pointless. It should be based around profit.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/04/having_made_gigantic_losses_la.html

....Manchester United would comfortably comply with Uefa's regulations were they in force today. Despite making a £79m pre tax loss in 2010, that was mainly down to one off debt charges relating to the £500m bond refinancing and currency exchange rate swaps.

And the vast sums of money United generate as a football club (£300m according to Uefa's criteria and far more than any rival club) ensures that the regular debt repayments - totalling about £45m - are easily met.

Chelsea and Citeh will find it harder to comply apparently...

Interesting. So it's going to be turnover vs debt? Pretty soft IMO.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that - I can't see anything wrong with the principle though; if you earn a lot of money through football you can have a higher level of debt; if your debt is currently being paid for by other sources - like your commercial side or from an owners pocket, you're going to have a harder time.

[Jon MW]

For a normal company then I'd agree, I just think how they've arranged things is an acceptance that football isn't 'normal' business.

It also might just be a first step, although I doubt it, I think these regulations are just intended to provide a core stability to the finances - as long as a club has fundamentally sound finances then it doesn't matter too much if they take a bit of a loss.

Football is a fundamentally unprofitable 'business', so if an out and out profit were required there would be hardly any football clubs who would 'pass' the regulations.

Obv it's more complicated than that. I just think if you can operate at a loss Coz you have good turnover then the rule is pointless. It should be based around profit.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/04/having_made_gigantic_losses_la.html

....Manchester United would comfortably comply with Uefa's regulations were they in force today. Despite making a £79m pre tax loss in 2010, that was mainly down to one off debt charges relating to the £500m bond refinancing and currency exchange rate swaps.

And the vast sums of money United generate as a football club (£300m according to Uefa's criteria and far more than any rival club) ensures that the regular debt repayments - totalling about £45m - are easily met.

Chelsea and Citeh will find it harder to comply apparently...

Interesting. So it's going to be turnover vs debt? Pretty soft IMO.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that - I can't see anything wrong with the principle though; if you earn a lot of money through football you can have a higher level of debt; if your debt is currently being paid for by other sources - like your commercial side or from an owners pocket, you're going to have a harder time.

[Josedinho]

Siege mentality FTW well done the FA.

[sweet potata!]

Siege mentality FTW well done the FA.

I see Scholes still hasnt mastered the art of tackling yet

[The Baron]

Good losers imo

[George2Loose]

ty Liverpool

[LeKnave]

ty Eboue

[redarmi]

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/04/having_made_gigantic_losses_la.html

....Manchester United would comfortably comply with Uefa's regulations were they in force today. Despite making a £79m pre tax loss in 2010, that was mainly down to one off debt charges relating to the £500m bond refinancing and currency exchange rate swaps.

And the vast sums of money United generate as a football club (£300m according to Uefa's criteria and far more than any rival club) ensures that the regular debt repayments - totalling about £45m - are easily met.

Chelsea and Citeh will find it harder to comply apparently...

Interesting. So it's going to be turnover vs debt? Pretty soft IMO.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that - I can't see anything wrong with the principle though; if you earn a lot of money through football you can have a higher level of debt; if your debt is currently being paid for by other sources - like your commercial side or from an owners pocket, you're going to have a harder time.

Isnt this worse?  Surely the fact a team earns more money from football shouldn't mean they then have more money to spend as this will just perpetuate the gap between the haves and have nots in football or am I missing your point??