blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 03:49:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272476 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16945 Members
Latest Member: Zula
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  Betting Tips and Sport Discussion
| | |-+  Manchester United, that didn't last long. Seven up
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 ... 242 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Manchester United, that didn't last long. Seven up  (Read 484692 times)
pokerfan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5620



View Profile
« Reply #345 on: April 08, 2011, 12:05:13 PM »

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.
Logged

Indestructable
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6485



View Profile
« Reply #346 on: April 08, 2011, 09:51:22 PM »

I am cancelling Sky Sports, can't believe they have done this. 
Logged
david3103
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6104



View Profile
« Reply #347 on: April 08, 2011, 10:19:41 PM »

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

Was probably wasted on you anyway
Logged

It's more about the winning than the winnings

5 November 2012 - Kinboshi says "Best post ever on blonde thumbs up"
The Baron
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9561


View Profile
« Reply #348 on: April 09, 2011, 09:10:13 AM »

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.
Logged
The Baron
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9561


View Profile
« Reply #349 on: April 09, 2011, 09:11:33 AM »

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.
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #350 on: April 09, 2011, 09:58:08 AM »

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.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Indestructable
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6485



View Profile
« Reply #351 on: April 09, 2011, 11:24:14 AM »

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.
Logged
The Baron
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9561


View Profile
« Reply #352 on: April 09, 2011, 12:19:19 PM »

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.
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #353 on: April 09, 2011, 12:58:23 PM »

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.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Josedinho
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4533



View Profile
« Reply #354 on: April 16, 2011, 10:20:39 PM »

Siege mentality FTW well done the FA.
Logged
sweet potata!
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2561



View Profile
« Reply #355 on: April 17, 2011, 03:17:22 AM »

Siege mentality FTW well done the FA.

Smiley

I see Scholes still hasnt mastered the art of tackling yet
Logged
The Baron
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9561


View Profile
« Reply #356 on: April 17, 2011, 10:48:42 AM »

Good losers imo
Logged
George2Loose
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15214



View Profile
« Reply #357 on: April 18, 2011, 12:07:30 AM »

ty Liverpool
Logged

Ole Ole Ole Ole!
LeKnave
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5550


the end of days...


View Profile
« Reply #358 on: April 18, 2011, 03:05:40 AM »

ty Eboue
Logged
redarmi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5232


View Profile
« Reply #359 on: April 18, 2011, 04:12:35 AM »

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??
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 ... 242 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.238 seconds with 21 queries.