FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
The club has been a cluster f**k for years........they finally got what they deserve
-
Join ccmfans.net
ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!
If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.
ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.
The EPL thread
- Thread starter Sym
- Start date
clarence
Well-Known Member
Can only grasp the basics of all this relegation/promotion. Must be heart wrenching for fans, to have your team fall into relegation contention towards the end of a season.
I read with interest that Newcastle have not got too many get out clauses for their players upon relegation, so those players are stuck until Newcastle figures out who to keep and who to transfer list.
But the thing that got my interest was the fact that because of this mismanagement, the club is in peril because of the expected loss in revenue but still having to pay players at Premier League rates.
It is something to think about in our situation where people are salivating at the prospect of a second tier comp. and a promotion and relegation system.
I could not foresee any FTA or Foxtel wanting to pay for rights to a second tier Australian comp. in the near future, so the revenue streams for those second tier clubs will be minuscule compared to the A-League budgets.
Now, I understand that the AFC are a bit antsy pantsy about us only having 10 'premier' league teams, and no promotion/relegation and no knockout comp. And the FFA really has to be very good diplomatically to put our case across to members within the AFC who may argue that we are merely a showcase comp. compared to other AFC member nation's comps.
But the fact is, our sports market has 4 competing premier grade football codes (that is, competing for FTA & Pay TV rights and spectators), and Football is really the new kid on the block. If we expand too much too soon, it will over extend the resources & capital we have and in a year or two will implode. That has to be put across to the AFC, it will have to be small steps all the way.
In respect to a second tier comp in Australia, the relegation escape clause would have to be almost mandatory in every A-League club player's contract.
Interesting to see the tense situations that have developed in the EPL and the CCC this season with those on the borderline of promotion or relegation. Would have made some tough, exciting matches.
I read with interest that Newcastle have not got too many get out clauses for their players upon relegation, so those players are stuck until Newcastle figures out who to keep and who to transfer list.
But the thing that got my interest was the fact that because of this mismanagement, the club is in peril because of the expected loss in revenue but still having to pay players at Premier League rates.
It is something to think about in our situation where people are salivating at the prospect of a second tier comp. and a promotion and relegation system.
I could not foresee any FTA or Foxtel wanting to pay for rights to a second tier Australian comp. in the near future, so the revenue streams for those second tier clubs will be minuscule compared to the A-League budgets.
Now, I understand that the AFC are a bit antsy pantsy about us only having 10 'premier' league teams, and no promotion/relegation and no knockout comp. And the FFA really has to be very good diplomatically to put our case across to members within the AFC who may argue that we are merely a showcase comp. compared to other AFC member nation's comps.
But the fact is, our sports market has 4 competing premier grade football codes (that is, competing for FTA & Pay TV rights and spectators), and Football is really the new kid on the block. If we expand too much too soon, it will over extend the resources & capital we have and in a year or two will implode. That has to be put across to the AFC, it will have to be small steps all the way.
In respect to a second tier comp in Australia, the relegation escape clause would have to be almost mandatory in every A-League club player's contract.
Interesting to see the tense situations that have developed in the EPL and the CCC this season with those on the borderline of promotion or relegation. Would have made some tough, exciting matches.
FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
The Marketing Dept at Oxo has announced this morning that Oxo will
be launching a new stock cube during the summer.
It will have black and white stripes on it
and will be called a 'Laughing Stock'.
be launching a new stock cube during the summer.
It will have black and white stripes on it
and will be called a 'Laughing Stock'.
scottmac
Suspended
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25591208-29437,00.html
Liverpool are reported to be on the verge of financial meltdown, with club accountants issuing a statement admitting there is "significant doubt" as to whether the company which runs the Reds can "continue as a going concern".
The reports claim Liverpool's parent company, Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd, which is run by club owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks, made a 42.6 million ($85 million) loss last year.
More than $70 million of that sum is owed in interest payments on the $700 million loan taken out to refinance the club.
One City of London analyst said: "Unless the owners find more money, the club is facing financial meltdown."
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
verhead: 
irate: 
Liverpool are reported to be on the verge of financial meltdown, with club accountants issuing a statement admitting there is "significant doubt" as to whether the company which runs the Reds can "continue as a going concern".
The reports claim Liverpool's parent company, Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd, which is run by club owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks, made a 42.6 million ($85 million) loss last year.
More than $70 million of that sum is owed in interest payments on the $700 million loan taken out to refinance the club.
One City of London analyst said: "Unless the owners find more money, the club is facing financial meltdown."
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
verhead: irate: 
dibo
Well-Known Member
Kareem said:
we're not exactly a developing country or an 'emerging market'. plenty of money to fox sports here is because of the EPL, they're not going to hand it over for free.
what's more, why would it be in our interests to have the EPL cannibalising the HAL - if it's free to watch and you have to pay to see the HAL, the HAL will lose out big-time.
scottmac said:http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25591208-29437,00.html
Liverpool are reported to be on the verge of financial meltdown, with club accountants issuing a statement admitting there is "significant doubt" as to whether the company which runs the Reds can "continue as a going concern".
The reports claim Liverpool's parent company, Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd, which is run by club owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks, made a 42.6 million ($85 million) loss last year.
More than $70 million of that sum is owed in interest payments on the $700 million loan taken out to refinance the club.
One City of London analyst said: "Unless the owners find more money, the club is facing financial meltdown."
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
whatever. the yanks will re-finance. even if their finances go apocalyptic and they have to liquidate, the club will find a buyer. it's different to the southampton situation - liverpool have an immensely valuable global brand, a side on the verge of breaking through to win the league, a DA approved to build a new, massive, revenue boosting stadium...
serious14
Well-Known Member
Dibo - direct quote from KPMG:
"These conditions... indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt on the group's and parent company's ability to continue as a going concern."
You go into administration and you're subject to the same penalties every other club has been hit with. "Valuable global brand" or not. Now you can either find a new investor (unlikely) or sell off assets to service the debt. What are the clubs greatest assets?? The players. Have fun in the transfer window.....
And you think a brand new stadium is going to ease the money woes?? Ask Wenger how that's worked out, yeah??
P.S. "Verge of breaking through to win the league" - bwahahahaha, how many seasons have we heard that now - will next season "be Liverpool's year"??
"These conditions... indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt on the group's and parent company's ability to continue as a going concern."
You go into administration and you're subject to the same penalties every other club has been hit with. "Valuable global brand" or not. Now you can either find a new investor (unlikely) or sell off assets to service the debt. What are the clubs greatest assets?? The players. Have fun in the transfer window.....
And you think a brand new stadium is going to ease the money woes?? Ask Wenger how that's worked out, yeah??
P.S. "Verge of breaking through to win the league" - bwahahahaha, how many seasons have we heard that now - will next season "be Liverpool's year"??
tuftman
Well-Known Member
serious14 said:Dibo - direct quote from KPMG:
"These conditions... indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt on the group's and parent company's ability to continue as a going concern."
You go into administration and you're subject to the same penalties every other club has been hit with. "Valuable global brand" or not. Now you can either find a new investor (unlikely) or sell off assets to service the debt. What are the clubs greatest assets?? The players. Have fun in the transfer window.....
And you think a brand new stadium is going to ease the money woes?? Ask Wenger how that's worked out, yeah??
P.S. "Verge of breaking through to win the league" - bwahahahaha, how many seasons have we heard that now - will next season "be Liverpool's year"??
snap, that is all
serious14
Well-Known Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/05/liverpool-new-stadium-debt
Liverpool's plan for new stadium hit by debt crisis
'No chance' of 73,000-seat ground unless owners sell
Takeover interest from Dubai and Kuwait dries up
The prospect of Liverpool building a 73,000-seater stadium while Tom Hicks and George Gillett are in charge is more remote than ever following revelations about the debt incurred by the club's American owners.
The need to find wealthy owners to fund proposed new stadium in Stanley Park was the sole reason the club was sold, and the Americans promised that work would commence within months of their takeover in February 2007. Its projected profits continue to influence the co-owners' valuation of the club. The stadium, however, has been "subject to delay" since the economic crisis began to take effect last August and there are no signs of progress, despite millions being spent by Liverpool on preparation works. When asked about the stadium project yesterday, one Liverpool source responded: "You can forget about that."
The regeneration of the Anfield area is dependent on Liverpool's new stadium and has also stalled as a consequence. Last month the leader of Liverpool city council, Councillor Warren Bradley, renewed his calls for Liverpool and Everton football clubs to consider a shared stadium and warned the city could be overlooked as a host venue for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup because of both clubs' inability to deliver new arenas.
Accounts published on Thursday confirmed Liverpool's parent company, Kop Football (Holdings) Limited, owned by Hicks and Gillett, suffered a 42.6m loss for the year ending July 2008 despite posting a record turnover of 164.2m. It was accompanied by a warning from the club's accountants, KPMG LLP, over Kop's ability to continue as "a going concern" should the co-owners fail to refinance a 350m lending facility before a 24 July deadline.
As of January, according to the accounts, Hicks and Gillett had spent 313m of their facility with the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia. It is estimated they will also need to borrow an extra 400m to complete work on the new stadium. Hicks and Gillett, however, remain confident of refinancing their 350m debt with RBS and Wachovia next month. The pair recently met RBS officials to discuss an extension to the loan and were told they would have to significantly increase their personal contributions for the banks to agree. The extension will be for at least six months, possibly with an option for longer, with the personal guarantees estimated to be in the region of 100m-150m.
Despite the parent company's losses, the strained relationship between Hicks and Gillett and the open hostility they have faced from Liverpool supporters since details of their takeover emerged, the Americans are not expected to sell the club in the short term. Hicks, in fact, remains adamant that he will oversee the construction of the new stadium or will at least have a stake in Liverpool when it eventually does rise.
Interest from Dubai and Kuwait has diminished due to financial conditions and the Americans' valuation of Liverpool respectively, and it is expected the refinancing deal will allow Hicks and Gillett to remain in situ until market conditions improve. A new investor may then be required to fund the new stadium.
The announcement of the losses coincided with renewed efforts by the Liverpool supporters group, the Spirit of Shankly, to pressure the RBS out of the proposed refinancing deal next month. Supporters are being encouraged to write to the RBS manager responsible for the Liverpool account and MPs opposing continued cooperation between the bailed-out bank and the club's owners.
John Mackin, spokesperson for Spirit Of Shankly, said: "It is time that, as well as using our money, they actually listen to us. Say no to Hicks and Gillett. Force them out. Let us look for a more viable, a more fitting and responsible option in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club, and not just in the interests of the corporate greed of the current owners."
Liverpool's plan for new stadium hit by debt crisis
'No chance' of 73,000-seat ground unless owners sell
Takeover interest from Dubai and Kuwait dries up
The prospect of Liverpool building a 73,000-seater stadium while Tom Hicks and George Gillett are in charge is more remote than ever following revelations about the debt incurred by the club's American owners.
The need to find wealthy owners to fund proposed new stadium in Stanley Park was the sole reason the club was sold, and the Americans promised that work would commence within months of their takeover in February 2007. Its projected profits continue to influence the co-owners' valuation of the club. The stadium, however, has been "subject to delay" since the economic crisis began to take effect last August and there are no signs of progress, despite millions being spent by Liverpool on preparation works. When asked about the stadium project yesterday, one Liverpool source responded: "You can forget about that."
The regeneration of the Anfield area is dependent on Liverpool's new stadium and has also stalled as a consequence. Last month the leader of Liverpool city council, Councillor Warren Bradley, renewed his calls for Liverpool and Everton football clubs to consider a shared stadium and warned the city could be overlooked as a host venue for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup because of both clubs' inability to deliver new arenas.
Accounts published on Thursday confirmed Liverpool's parent company, Kop Football (Holdings) Limited, owned by Hicks and Gillett, suffered a 42.6m loss for the year ending July 2008 despite posting a record turnover of 164.2m. It was accompanied by a warning from the club's accountants, KPMG LLP, over Kop's ability to continue as "a going concern" should the co-owners fail to refinance a 350m lending facility before a 24 July deadline.
As of January, according to the accounts, Hicks and Gillett had spent 313m of their facility with the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia. It is estimated they will also need to borrow an extra 400m to complete work on the new stadium. Hicks and Gillett, however, remain confident of refinancing their 350m debt with RBS and Wachovia next month. The pair recently met RBS officials to discuss an extension to the loan and were told they would have to significantly increase their personal contributions for the banks to agree. The extension will be for at least six months, possibly with an option for longer, with the personal guarantees estimated to be in the region of 100m-150m.
Despite the parent company's losses, the strained relationship between Hicks and Gillett and the open hostility they have faced from Liverpool supporters since details of their takeover emerged, the Americans are not expected to sell the club in the short term. Hicks, in fact, remains adamant that he will oversee the construction of the new stadium or will at least have a stake in Liverpool when it eventually does rise.
Interest from Dubai and Kuwait has diminished due to financial conditions and the Americans' valuation of Liverpool respectively, and it is expected the refinancing deal will allow Hicks and Gillett to remain in situ until market conditions improve. A new investor may then be required to fund the new stadium.
The announcement of the losses coincided with renewed efforts by the Liverpool supporters group, the Spirit of Shankly, to pressure the RBS out of the proposed refinancing deal next month. Supporters are being encouraged to write to the RBS manager responsible for the Liverpool account and MPs opposing continued cooperation between the bailed-out bank and the club's owners.
John Mackin, spokesperson for Spirit Of Shankly, said: "It is time that, as well as using our money, they actually listen to us. Say no to Hicks and Gillett. Force them out. Let us look for a more viable, a more fitting and responsible option in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club, and not just in the interests of the corporate greed of the current owners."
FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
Given that the 2 banks involved are Wachavia (sp) and RBS, you would imagine refinancing might be a problem.
serious14
Well-Known Member
Fire up the roflcoptor.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/07/liverpool-everton-stadium-share
Liverpool and Everton must share a new stadium if they are to thrive in future, the leader of Liverpool City Council has said. If they do not, the city will not be included within England's 2018 World Cup bid because "Anfield and Goodison Park do not fit Fifa's criteria".
Warren Bradley, also head of the city's 2018 bid committee, has brought the groundshare debate to the fore again after Liverpool's accounts showed the club lost 42.6m last year. Bradley, who says he has "seen the books of both clubs", told The Observer: "We've got to do something if we are serious about being a bidding city for the World Cup. I don't want to see everything migrate down the M62 to Manchester where there are two fabulous stadiums," he said, refering to Old Trafford and Eastlands.
"There is a need for a 60,000 fit-for-purpose, 21st-century stadium in Liverpool. It would cost around 300m. Sure, we still have the tribalistic supporters in the city who would say, 'I won't sit in it after a Liverpudlian or Evertonian has.' But that's not the argument, is it? I don't see any reason why it can't work it does so across the southern hemisphere, and in Germany, Italy and America."
The prospective stadium would be situated between the two clubs on Stanley Park, where Liverpool have said they would like to build their own new ground. Both clubs are dismissive of Bradley's claims, but Bradley is confident he has support across Liverpool.
"What I've said is absolutely right and is now being amplified in the city in business, at the clubs privately, and with the supporters. When you speak privately to different people at the clubs at director level they tell you what they think, but will never publicly go on record.
"There is a groundswell of support now that it is the only way forward for both football clubs."
Bradley's views are backed by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, a major stakeholder in the city's bid, which said: "The Agency was supportive of the idea of a groundshare between Liverpool and Everton due to the economic sense this made. However, we accept that any decision has always been a matter for the two clubs."
Bradley accepts that they must be on board, but believes that there is now no other choice. "We recognise the Fifa criteria that both clubs must have 40,000-plus seats available to the paying public that doesn't include VIPs. I don't believe either club is in a position to satisfy that criteria, so therefore something needs to be done quickly." Goodison Park is definitely too small, while Anfield's capacity of 45,000-plus may also fall short of requirements.
The struggle of Liverpool owners Bill Hicks and George Gillet to refinance their 350m debt facility by the end of next month would seem to threaten the club's plans to build its own stadium on Stanley Park. Liverpool declined to comment, but it is understood they maintain it is business as usual.
Everton, meanwhile, will find out by the autumn if their proposed controversial move outside the city to a new stadium at Kirkby in partnership with Tesco will be agreed by the government.
Bradley is sceptical. "The longer it goes on the less likelihood it can be delivered financially by the club. I firmly believe Everton is taking the wrong step by moving out of the city," he said. "This is raw economics. I've had a season ticket at Everton for 30 years, so this is not about which way the wind is blowing.
"I firmly believe the economic viability of both clubs, not only in the present climate, but, in the future, has got to be the ability to invest on the field, not in hard infrastructure. Having looked at the books of both clubs, at the moment about 70% of the bottom line goes to hard infrastructure. If they shared a stadium they could cut that down to about 30 to 35 per cent and the rest could go on footballers."
While Liverpool would not comment on the record, Everton spokesman Ian Ross was explicit in voicing the club's anger at Bradley. "Yes, the Everton directors have one view and that view is that we should push ahead with the destination project. For Warren Bradley to suggest that the directors have one view and that is [to have] a shared stadium is the usual utter nonsense.
"We have spent nearly three years working on destination Kirkby and are giving absolutely no consideration to any other scheme. Perhaps councillor Bradley should have fought somewhat harder to keep Everton inside the Liverpool city boundary if he is that intent on a joint stadium.
"We would have welcomed more help from our city council that never happened, which is why we pursued Kirkby. For councillor Bradley to now claim there is a weight of opinion to suggest we should now have a joint stadium would appear to be opportunism of the first order."
Bradley said he will chair a meeting over the coming fortnight of the stakeholders involved in the city's bid to be part of England 2018. It will include the directors of Liverpool and Everton and the idea of a joint stadium is bound to be discussed ahead of the first visit to the city by the 2018 committee next month.
By then Liverpool's financial situation may also be clearer. If RBS, one of the two main creditors, does not wish to refinance its part of the debt the bank could countenance actually running the club itself. As the credit crisis has made the government and taxpayer a sizeable owner of RBS this would be unprecedented in English football and would have major implications for the Premier League as a global brand.
The Premier League was unavailable for comment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/07/liverpool-everton-stadium-share
Liverpool and Everton must share a new stadium if they are to thrive in future, the leader of Liverpool City Council has said. If they do not, the city will not be included within England's 2018 World Cup bid because "Anfield and Goodison Park do not fit Fifa's criteria".
Warren Bradley, also head of the city's 2018 bid committee, has brought the groundshare debate to the fore again after Liverpool's accounts showed the club lost 42.6m last year. Bradley, who says he has "seen the books of both clubs", told The Observer: "We've got to do something if we are serious about being a bidding city for the World Cup. I don't want to see everything migrate down the M62 to Manchester where there are two fabulous stadiums," he said, refering to Old Trafford and Eastlands.
"There is a need for a 60,000 fit-for-purpose, 21st-century stadium in Liverpool. It would cost around 300m. Sure, we still have the tribalistic supporters in the city who would say, 'I won't sit in it after a Liverpudlian or Evertonian has.' But that's not the argument, is it? I don't see any reason why it can't work it does so across the southern hemisphere, and in Germany, Italy and America."
The prospective stadium would be situated between the two clubs on Stanley Park, where Liverpool have said they would like to build their own new ground. Both clubs are dismissive of Bradley's claims, but Bradley is confident he has support across Liverpool.
"What I've said is absolutely right and is now being amplified in the city in business, at the clubs privately, and with the supporters. When you speak privately to different people at the clubs at director level they tell you what they think, but will never publicly go on record.
"There is a groundswell of support now that it is the only way forward for both football clubs."
Bradley's views are backed by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, a major stakeholder in the city's bid, which said: "The Agency was supportive of the idea of a groundshare between Liverpool and Everton due to the economic sense this made. However, we accept that any decision has always been a matter for the two clubs."
Bradley accepts that they must be on board, but believes that there is now no other choice. "We recognise the Fifa criteria that both clubs must have 40,000-plus seats available to the paying public that doesn't include VIPs. I don't believe either club is in a position to satisfy that criteria, so therefore something needs to be done quickly." Goodison Park is definitely too small, while Anfield's capacity of 45,000-plus may also fall short of requirements.
The struggle of Liverpool owners Bill Hicks and George Gillet to refinance their 350m debt facility by the end of next month would seem to threaten the club's plans to build its own stadium on Stanley Park. Liverpool declined to comment, but it is understood they maintain it is business as usual.
Everton, meanwhile, will find out by the autumn if their proposed controversial move outside the city to a new stadium at Kirkby in partnership with Tesco will be agreed by the government.
Bradley is sceptical. "The longer it goes on the less likelihood it can be delivered financially by the club. I firmly believe Everton is taking the wrong step by moving out of the city," he said. "This is raw economics. I've had a season ticket at Everton for 30 years, so this is not about which way the wind is blowing.
"I firmly believe the economic viability of both clubs, not only in the present climate, but, in the future, has got to be the ability to invest on the field, not in hard infrastructure. Having looked at the books of both clubs, at the moment about 70% of the bottom line goes to hard infrastructure. If they shared a stadium they could cut that down to about 30 to 35 per cent and the rest could go on footballers."
While Liverpool would not comment on the record, Everton spokesman Ian Ross was explicit in voicing the club's anger at Bradley. "Yes, the Everton directors have one view and that view is that we should push ahead with the destination project. For Warren Bradley to suggest that the directors have one view and that is [to have] a shared stadium is the usual utter nonsense.
"We have spent nearly three years working on destination Kirkby and are giving absolutely no consideration to any other scheme. Perhaps councillor Bradley should have fought somewhat harder to keep Everton inside the Liverpool city boundary if he is that intent on a joint stadium.
"We would have welcomed more help from our city council that never happened, which is why we pursued Kirkby. For councillor Bradley to now claim there is a weight of opinion to suggest we should now have a joint stadium would appear to be opportunism of the first order."
Bradley said he will chair a meeting over the coming fortnight of the stakeholders involved in the city's bid to be part of England 2018. It will include the directors of Liverpool and Everton and the idea of a joint stadium is bound to be discussed ahead of the first visit to the city by the 2018 committee next month.
By then Liverpool's financial situation may also be clearer. If RBS, one of the two main creditors, does not wish to refinance its part of the debt the bank could countenance actually running the club itself. As the credit crisis has made the government and taxpayer a sizeable owner of RBS this would be unprecedented in English football and would have major implications for the Premier League as a global brand.
The Premier League was unavailable for comment.
Arabmariner
Well-Known Member
Great player though he is it would appear that the fans think he's a tosser.The message comes across as f**K off and don't come back!
I reckon that 80 million quid will build a better Man U with no crybaby,wanker superstar who thinks the world revolves around him.
Looking forward to Serious's comments next season when Man U and Real are drawn together in the Champions league !!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/football/goodbye-to-portuguese-peacock/2009/06/12/1244664847647.html
I reckon that 80 million quid will build a better Man U with no crybaby,wanker superstar who thinks the world revolves around him.
Looking forward to Serious's comments next season when Man U and Real are drawn together in the Champions league !!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/football/goodbye-to-portuguese-peacock/2009/06/12/1244664847647.html
FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
Apparently Real Madrid are furious this morning after they were informed they could have bought a big girls blouse from Target for $10, rather than the 80 million they paid.
dibo
Well-Known Member
I'm sniffing the faint whiff of sour grapes from some United fans though. They didn't 'love' him towards the end, but there was clearly a lot of respect there (the Ronaldo song was always the loudest from their fans, and came strong and often) so the good riddance messages have come on a bit strong.
Serious has it about right - he was a great player for them for the time he was there, he's gone to Real and GBP80 million will be handy particularly when United's debts are twice that of Liverpool's and their major sponsor is bankrupt. Will the money cover the loss in pure football terms? A player who is capable of belting in 42 goals from midfield is surely nearly irreplaceable. A player who scored 18 goals out of United's 68 in the League only more so. Especially when the next top-scorer, Rooney, only had 12. I struggle to imagine how Fergie can fill that hole, but I suspect that if anyone can it's him.
The league is a bit closer for Liverpool now too - if anyone thinks Ronaldo didn't make a massive difference to that United side then they're kidding themselves. If Liverpool can keep a side together and build just a little then they're close enough if they're good enough. 38 weeks is a long time in football though. Next year if Torres doesn't miss 14 matches and Liverpool don't have a Robbie Keane moment in the transfer market we could be in for an interesting season.
P.S: Liverpool are extremely confident their refinancing will be sorted shortly.
P.P.S: A stadium sharing deal is frankly the most sensible thing both Liverpool clubs could do. Between them they'd be able to get a big new ground for less cash.
It would likely bigger than they would otherwise be able to afford - instead of 50k for Everton in Kirkby and 60k in Stanley Park for Liverpool, they could build something Wembley sized for both.
Liverpool could take the 'Anfield' end and Everton the 'Goodison' end (meaning just like in their present grounds, the Everton home end is at the North, and the Liverpool end is at the South), each could customise the design to suit. Allianz style customising of the look of the venue depending on the event and top quality fixtures all round would leave both sides with an awesome new home. It could be England's Allianz or San Siro, and if they crack the whip it could easily be ready in time for an English World Cup.
Serious has it about right - he was a great player for them for the time he was there, he's gone to Real and GBP80 million will be handy particularly when United's debts are twice that of Liverpool's and their major sponsor is bankrupt. Will the money cover the loss in pure football terms? A player who is capable of belting in 42 goals from midfield is surely nearly irreplaceable. A player who scored 18 goals out of United's 68 in the League only more so. Especially when the next top-scorer, Rooney, only had 12. I struggle to imagine how Fergie can fill that hole, but I suspect that if anyone can it's him.
The league is a bit closer for Liverpool now too - if anyone thinks Ronaldo didn't make a massive difference to that United side then they're kidding themselves. If Liverpool can keep a side together and build just a little then they're close enough if they're good enough. 38 weeks is a long time in football though. Next year if Torres doesn't miss 14 matches and Liverpool don't have a Robbie Keane moment in the transfer market we could be in for an interesting season.
P.S: Liverpool are extremely confident their refinancing will be sorted shortly.
P.P.S: A stadium sharing deal is frankly the most sensible thing both Liverpool clubs could do. Between them they'd be able to get a big new ground for less cash.
It would likely bigger than they would otherwise be able to afford - instead of 50k for Everton in Kirkby and 60k in Stanley Park for Liverpool, they could build something Wembley sized for both.
Liverpool could take the 'Anfield' end and Everton the 'Goodison' end (meaning just like in their present grounds, the Everton home end is at the North, and the Liverpool end is at the South), each could customise the design to suit. Allianz style customising of the look of the venue depending on the event and top quality fixtures all round would leave both sides with an awesome new home. It could be England's Allianz or San Siro, and if they crack the whip it could easily be ready in time for an English World Cup.
serious14
Well-Known Member
Suffice to say we adored the player, weren't too fussed over the man. He did inhabit that No. 7 shirt with the right amount of gravitas though..... but will he he revered in the same way Best, Cantona, and Beckham are?? Not a chance. But we've gotta be realistic about it all as well - he'd literally won everything he could in England, and his personal desires were to be close to his family. Better to go now than to drag it out to the end of August when a chance for us to replace him has gone for a couple of months.
Like Dibo said, replacing the footballer Ronaldo is gonna be the hard part - any team in the world would miss his goals and free kicks. Might get to see Rooney be a second striker/faux. No. 10 again, which is nice. He's criminally wasted on the wing....
Like Dibo said, replacing the footballer Ronaldo is gonna be the hard part - any team in the world would miss his goals and free kicks. Might get to see Rooney be a second striker/faux. No. 10 again, which is nice. He's criminally wasted on the wing....
Arabmariner
Well-Known Member
Mmmmmmserious14 said:
I was expecting a more "tosser this........tosser that" type of response.........
Give it time.
serious14
Well-Known Member
Arabmariner said:I was expecting a more "tosser this........tosser that" type of response.........
Give it time.
Nah, no point. It's an amicable parting of ways.... he wanted to go, we didn't really want him to go, BUT we wanted him to go if it was going to turn into a "waaaaah, I'm stroppy and don't wanna be here" kinda thing. I'm not denying he'll be missed, but Fergie has that innate way of spotting young talent and nurturing them through (look at Macheda this season).
Ribery, Benzema, Pato, or Moutinho will have to do in the mean time.
Arabmariner
Well-Known Member
They're the reasons I think you'll be better off.serious14 said:but Fergie has that innate way of spotting young talent and nurturing them through (look at Macheda this season).Arabmariner said:I was expecting a more "tosser this........tosser that" type of response.........
Give it time.
Ribery, Benzema, Pato, or Moutinho will have to do in the mean time.
Fergie's gift of finding that young talent along with 80 million quid will build you a better TEAM.
Yes you'd miss him if they let him go and didn't actively do something about it.
But Fergie's no daft laddie!!
Online statistics
- Members online
- 11
- Guests online
- 263
- Total visitors
- 274
