Lack of interesting in buying us

[Micalijo]

Astonishing though it may be for you, I have not at any point said that we are "unable to compete with Bournemouth". Bournemouth have spent over £1m on players this season though and in this league that should put a team well clear at the top.

In case you hadn't noticed, the salary cap is linked to turnover (not profit) leaving clubs free to spend pretty much whatever they want on transfer fees. That means that a club with a higher budget for wages can afford to buy £500k players (Matt Richie).

By contrast, while we've got a higher wages because we're paying what I consider to be inflated wages to average players. That's not the owner's fault - his mistakes have been in the managerial appointments he's made. Is that so difficult for you to understand?


Type "all time league table" into Google. It's just a compilation of league games played in a club's history and doesn't take the division into account, meaning that our habit of finishing near the top of whatever league we're playing in bodes well. It's flawed beyond redemption but we are above Wednesday.

Balham - I really do struggle with your posts I have to say.

SUFC have the highest wage budget in the league - that is beyind doubt. So I haven't got a clue what you are on about when you say 'That means that a club with a higher budget for wages can afford to buy £500k players (Matt Richie).' Bournemouth do not have a higher budget for wages than SUFC. I know you'll say 'how do you know that' but surely it has to be the case.

Youre argument appears to be that if a rich owner comes in and says to a L1 club here is £10m to spend on players they should be 40 points clear. If that club has a T/o of £3m say then how would that club be able to pay the wages of said players and stay within the 65% rule.

So in summary - your comment about Bournemouth should be 15 points clear or whatever it was is very difficult for me to understand.

 

[Balham]

Balham - I really do struggle with your posts I have to say.

Believe me, the feeling's mutual.

SUFC have the highest wage budget in the league - that is beyind doubt. So I haven't got a clue what you are on about when you say 'That means that a club with a higher budget for wages can afford to buy £500k players (Matt Richie).' Bournemouth do not have a higher budget for wages than SUFC. I know you'll say 'how do you know that' but surely it has to be the case.

Sorry, I was typing that at work and got dragged away mid-sentence. Bournemouth may not have a higher budget per se but then they don't have to pay Doyle, Collins or Cresswell's rumoured Championship-level salaries. Yes, our budget is higher than any other side in the league but on the flip side of that is the millstone of overpaid players.

The point was intended to be that if, say, Yeovil wanted to pay £4m for a centre forward from, say, Accrington Stanley and that striker was willing to fit into their wage budget there is nothing at all the FFP rules can do to prevent that.

Also - I wasn't going to say "how do you know that" about United's relative wage budget; it's obvious.

Youre argument appears to be that if a rich owner comes in and says to a L1 club here is £10m to spend on players they should be 40 points clear. If that club has a T/o of £3m say then how would that club be able to pay the wages of said players and stay within the 65% rule.

Clever sponsorship. Accepting the transfer embargo which would be enforced after those players were bought. Whatever the rules there's normally a way around them, see Ken Bates' repeated purchasing of Leeds United.

I haven't ever said that any side should be 40 points clear and I'm struggling to understand your logic there.

So in summary - your comment about Bournemouth should be 15 points clear or whatever it was is very difficult for me to understand.

If any side had matched Charlton's 82 points from 39 games last year they'd be 10 clear at the top (if it was Doncaster, they'd be 15 clear).

I'm sorry that you're struggling with that. In a way, it's a criticism of how United has been run these last two seasons - I would have thought that is something you'd agree with.

Objectively, we should be well clear at the top; really we shouldn't even be in this league. However, the bad decisions by McCabe in terms of managerial appointments and subsequent bad investments in playing staff mean that we are where we deserve to be.

 

[FleaPitBlade]

Aside from being fans, here’s why very rich men own football clubs:

Owners get lauded for pumping cash into their clubs and sometimes, that’s fair. But in a lot of cases, it’s a little bit cannier than that.
Let’s say your company made £100 million profit last year. You’re due to pay £20 million in corporation tax. That’s £80 million left to you. You’re a good citizen. Well done.
But let’s say the club you also own lost £40 million the same year. And you put £10 million into the club, your company’s tax bill will now be just £10 million.
You’re in the same position – you’ve still spent £20 million – but this time, you’re the king of [insert name of city] and people think you’re fantastic. They’ll ask your opinion on everything and you’ll be invited to all sorts of dos and people will sing your name at matches. Which one would you rather do?

 

[Foxy]

God I hope for your sake you aint as gullible when buying your boy racer cars and other stuff as you are when talking about McCabe.

You are right, a 56plate 1.6 5 Door Focus is certainly the choice of a boy racer.

What is gullible? you asked if I'd asked him, I merely stated what he's said publicly a number of times. If he just wanted to sell up to the first joker to express an interest, I'm sure he'd have been long gone.

Your post reads as a pathetic list of excuses as to why SUFC is struggling to keep pace with the might of Brentford, Swindon, Yeovil and Donny.

Yep, that's exactly what suggesting we as a club and as fans don't want the sort of investment mentioned in the original post actually equates to, you cracked the special secret code... Well done.

It is quite clear to the more perceptive amongst us why nobody is interested so I will spell it out again. Any new owner would have to pay rent to McCabe and quite rightly nobody in their right mind would do so.

I didn't ask you to repeat your opinion, I asked you to quantify what it was based on, as usual that wasn't forthcoming.

 

[louthblade]

I don't think that the fact of SUFC not owning the ground per se would necessarily put off potential owners :-

Rather it's the terms of a rental agreement e;g.

The annual amount
the length of the lease
the conditions attached to the lease.

The spammers have just signed a 99 year lease for the Olympic stadium for £2m per annum just look what they are getting for that.

Also in premier league terms £2m is chicken feed it doesn't buy you a reserve fullback.

My guess is KM wants to get the annual subsidy for the football side off his back and to do this he could well be reasonable in what he wants re rent.

He also seems not to want to put the Blades in the hands of , for want of better words, dubious investors take a look at the Guardian article on Birmingham

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/27/birmingham-city-peter-pannu?CMP=twt_gu