1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Man city confirmed to be cheating count, now with Barca being cheating count as well!!!
Posted on 9/30/26 at 7:23 pm to Srbtiger06
Posted on 9/30/26 at 7:23 pm to Srbtiger06
quote:
They broke the rules sure but it was in the accounting department.
Yea. I’m sure it was isolated to the accounting dept and not spread throughout the entire leadership and culture of the club.
Check in to reality some time mate.
Posted on 9/30/26 at 7:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
wish the top tier didn't protect themselves to only have to worry about Chelsea and City entering that tier. I wish the EPL had 10 more of these clubs competing and expending the top tier of the leage.
So you think all the other clubs were ok with approving the rules because they want to protect Man U and Liverpool?
Clubs can grow organically. It’s just harder. And MC could have cheated a little less obviously
Posted on 9/30/26 at 7:54 pm to Tigerstark
quote:
So you think all the other clubs were ok with approving the rules because they want to protect Man U and Liverpool?
They did it because they saw Chelsea and City just invest and win and didn't want fans asking questions of the owners IMO. No different than fans bitching about the Pirates or A's. Clubs are an asset for them.
quote:
Clubs can grow organically. It’s just harder. And MC could have cheated a little less obviously
Yeah and turn out like Everton, Villa, and Newcastle where they have a little success and then have to turn around and sell your best players to the big clubs to comply with the bullshite rules.
Meanwhile you watch the Glazers rape and pillage the most successful club in the country and saddle them with debt and it's AOK.
Posted on 9/30/26 at 7:55 pm to BamaCoaster
quote:
Yea. I’m sure it was isolated to the accounting dept and not spread throughout the entire leadership and culture of the club.
They've been under the microscope for the better part of a decade at this point and nothing has popped up other than financials.
quote:
Check in to reality some time mate.
Posted on 9/30/26 at 8:18 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Or just grow your club organically.
That's simply not possible
Look at the results
One outlier champion in 30 years
One
Posted on 9/30/26 at 8:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/30/26 at 9:18 pm to cwil177
two things here to consider
1. the club was told in june they were guilty. they then went out and spent 540 million pounds on transfers, including three 100+ million pound transfers. amazing
2. when you look at 2009-2018 their revenue went up each season through illegal means by over 100million pounds. After the line was drawn at 2018 and the investigation was defined they did not have a significant revenue drop and revenue continued to grow. When they were alledgedly playing by the rules and stopped injecting 100million pounds into their revenue reporting.
Is the EPL going to look at their revenue from 2018-2025 next?
Haaland officially cost 50million pounds, but there are rumors of 200million more in the shadows. is that deal also going to be investigated?
ETA BVB rejected 75million from ManU for Haaland and 130million plus a player from CFC but took 50million from MC
I know the player has a lot of power in a transfer but that is intriguing to say the least
1. the club was told in june they were guilty. they then went out and spent 540 million pounds on transfers, including three 100+ million pound transfers. amazing
2. when you look at 2009-2018 their revenue went up each season through illegal means by over 100million pounds. After the line was drawn at 2018 and the investigation was defined they did not have a significant revenue drop and revenue continued to grow. When they were alledgedly playing by the rules and stopped injecting 100million pounds into their revenue reporting.
Is the EPL going to look at their revenue from 2018-2025 next?
Haaland officially cost 50million pounds, but there are rumors of 200million more in the shadows. is that deal also going to be investigated?
ETA BVB rejected 75million from ManU for Haaland and 130million plus a player from CFC but took 50million from MC
I know the player has a lot of power in a transfer but that is intriguing to say the least
This post was edited on 9/30/26 at 10:09 pm
Posted on 9/30/26 at 9:27 pm to Srbtiger06
quote:The $x in cash the Glazers (or any club owners) take out of the club in the form of dividends/distributions just lowers the sales proceeds they would otherwise get when they go to sell the club by $x
Meanwhile you watch the Glazers rape and pillage the most successful club in the country and saddle them with debt and it's AOK.
Exact same dynamic with any debt taken out. Sale proceeds available to the Glazers get reduced by the $y in debt they have on the books at sale. Unless interest rates surge before sale the debt would almost certainly be formally retired in the closing wires, and if not the new owners will be sitting on an extra $y + interest to fully pay it off when it makes sense
Both actions just give the Glazers more cash now and less at the club’s sale. As long as their actions don’t threaten the club with actual insolvency (which might for some clubs, but United is nowhere close) it makes no difference to long-term health. The Glazers’ actions amount to little more than an advance on their future sale windfall
I’m glad you correctly recognize this is AOK, many people with no understanding of how these things work usually aggressively and delusionally argue otherwise
This post was edited on 9/30/26 at 10:07 pm
Posted on 9/30/26 at 9:27 pm to Srbtiger06
Double somehow
This post was edited on 9/30/26 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 9/30/26 at 10:00 pm to supatigah
quote:
1. the club was told in june they were guilty. they then went out and spent 540 million pounds on transfers, including three 100+ million pound transfers. amazing
Where we getting the 540? Most I'm seeing is 525M euro, which is significantly less in pounds. They also brought in a shite load in sales. Net is roughly 190M.
quote:
2. when you look at 2009-2018 their revenue went up each season through illegal means by over 100million pounds. After the line was drawn at 2018 and the investigation was defined they did not have a significant revenue drop and revenue continued to grow. When they were alledgedly playing by the rules and stopped injecting 100million pounds into their revenue reporting.
For one this assumes the Etihad deal was only 11M/year those years which is laughably low even by fair market standards. I get that that's what the report says but come on. The Nike deal was reported to be 20M/year towards the end and then they swapped to Puma for 65M/year in 19. Maybe they juiced it after then but the actual reported numbers from non ADUG affiliates went way up and I'd think they'd be more cautious being under the microscope at that point.
quote:
Haaland officially cost 50million pounds, but there are rumors of 200million more in the shadows. is that deal also going to be investigated?
This is silly. He had a release clause and City met it. Maybe other clubs met it, maybe they exceeded it. At the end of the day as long as the clause was met Haaland could move wherever he wanted. He grew up a City fan, his dad played there, and he was busted posting on City forums. Maybe they paid a shite load of agent fees or signing bonuses but that happens with every single big transfer. Dortmund had a contract that said he could leave for X amount. They were paid X amount.
quote:
ETA BVB rejected 75million from ManU for Haaland and 130million plus a player from CFC but took 50million from MC
Haaland was never going to fricking United. Ever. That ship sailed in 2001. Chelsea IDK. Again, you can't say "Dortmund rejected it" because it wasn't their choice. If they got the release clause then Haaland could go wherever he wanted. If City got Kane in 21 then maybe Haaland goes to Chelsea in 22.
This post was edited on 9/30/26 at 10:19 pm
Posted on 9/30/26 at 10:13 pm to RemouladeSawce
quote:
Both actions just give the Glazers more cash now and less at the club’s sale. As long as the actions don’t threaten the club with insolvency (they’re nowhere close) it makes no difference to the health of the club. It’s merely an advance of the owners’ sale windfall
PSR was implemented to prevent clubs from becoming insolvent. Is it going to happen with United? No. They're too big to fail. It is still an artificial barrier to success for smaller clubs. United, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Chelsea are big enough (or juiced enough) prior to the rules being implemented to where the rules have zero impact on their operations. Villa, City, and Newcastle's owners could write a check for all those clubs right now. Everton isn't far behind. Yet those clubs, bar City for now, constantly have to sell their best players to meet the regulations.
quote:
I’m glad you correctly recognize this is AOK, many people with no understanding of how these things work usually aggressively and delusionally argue otherwise
I understand you're being a smartass here but "advance on the sale's windfall" is mortgaging the future. Still probably doesn't effect United but that's the point. The historical powers can do that, other clubs can't. PSR rules are to prevent debt and insolvency. Pumping money into a club is the opposite of that. Could Mansour and the other owners get bored and quit tomorrow? Sure, but odds are they won't. If they're willing to pump a billion into the club I don't see them just waking up and saying, "yeah frick this I'll let it go bankrupt."
The entire system is anti-competitive.
This post was edited on 9/30/26 at 10:21 pm
Posted on 9/30/26 at 10:28 pm to Srbtiger06
quote:
I understand you're being a smartass here but "advance on the sale's windfall" is mortgaging the future
Net debt less than 3x EBITDA and less than 20% of EV is some mortgage
No smartass sentiment at all. You’re getting a free education
Posted on 9/30/26 at 10:34 pm to RemouladeSawce
quote:
Net debt less than 3x EBITDA and less than 20% of EV is some mortgage
Again, United taking debt isn't the main point. The issue is that they can do that AND operate like a top tier club while other clubs don't have that luxury. United can do shitty business and not have an issue.
Newcastle's owners could buy United today and sell them for a penny tomorrow and laugh about it but due to PSR they have to sell players to meet regulations.
Posted on 9/30/26 at 11:06 pm to Srbtiger06
you are right
it was 526.20 million euro spent
with a net -189.18 million euro versus income (337.02 million euro)
I had the number wrong
it was 526.20 million euro spent
with a net -189.18 million euro versus income (337.02 million euro)
I had the number wrong
Posted on 9/30/26 at 11:35 pm to supatigah
It’s a yes / no question, Pep.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 9/30/26 at 11:41 pm to cwil177
Posted on 9/30/26 at 11:48 pm to Alyosha
Posted on 10/1/26 at 1:12 am to cwil177
Posted on 10/1/26 at 4:59 am to Srbtiger06
quote:
Again, United taking debt isn't the main point.
quote:I’m not sure you’re keeping track of your points at all
Meanwhile you watch the Glazers rape and pillage the most successful club in the country and saddle them with debt and it's AOK.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 5:27 am to supatigah
quote:
Haaland officially cost 50million pounds, but there are rumors of 200million more in the shadows. is that deal also going to be investigated? ETA BVB rejected 75million from ManU for Haaland and 130million plus a player from CFC but took 50million from MC I know the player has a lot of power in a transfer but that is intriguing to say the least
As established earlier, this is largely based on misinformation. City didn’t make an offer, they activated a release clause. They didn’t need to make a deal with Dortmund at all.
Chelsea’s offer was a year earlier when the release clause was not active, and Dortmund refused to sell. The only information I’ve seen about United trying to sign Haaland was when he was still in Austria.
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News