Money Is An Issue For Glazers In England
April 10th, 2010
Those wacky Manchester United fans no doubt lost sleep last night after new reports surfaced that Team Glazer won’t spend the roughly $60 million asking price for a superstar scorer in Spain, David Villa, who wants to play for them.
Villa, one of the most revered forwards in the world during five prolific years at Valencia, is to leave the Mestalla in the summer and, after initially stating that he wanted to stay in Spain and move to either Barcelona or Real Madrid, has changed his position with information reaching United in the last few weeks that they are his preferred destination.
Ferguson is a long-time admirer of the 28-year-old but Valencia want around £35m to £40m and United’s position is that the fee will have to be lowered otherwise it will be financially prohibitive at a time when the club has accrued debts in excess of £700m. This is despite Ferguson’s repeated insistence that the balance from the £80m sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid last summer is available, United having already spent £20m.
Instead, Manchester United announced it would sign cheap labor a promising, young Mexican forward for an undisclosed fee. In the world of English soccer, young North American players are low-budget signings.
One of the greatest public relations challenges for Team Glazer in England is that star players from all over the world want to play for Manchester United. It’s arguably the premier destination in the world. So Team Glazer, if they’re counting their nickels, inevitably will have to turn down players. And shooting down Villa represents a real we’re-low-on-cash response that will ignite fans.
Team Glazer really needs to win that fourth straight championship over there, otherwise the pack of wolves circling them will get bigger.
Bucs fans, however, can rest easy knowing that Joel Glazer told them last month that “money will never be an issue when building [the Bucs].”
April 10th, 2010 at 8:12 am
Great article. So if Man U is such a Burden….what about the Bucs???
April 10th, 2010 at 8:14 am
Joe I wish you would stop this “money is tight” nonsense.
There are SERIOUS reason Mann u won’ hire David Villa:
1. He’s too old – we’ve decided to go with a youth movement – 16 to 18 year old’s preferred
2. He’s Spanish and we’re and English team
3. He wouldn’t shake our coach’s hand the last time both teams played
4. We don’t want to spend our profits from the Bucs on Mann U players
You see there are legit reasons for our serious business decisions!
April 10th, 2010 at 8:35 am
Not that hard to connect the dots is it Joe. Unfortunately, there are those out there that continue to choose to bury there heads in the sand about what the true circumstances are right now with this ownership. For those burying your heads, keep believing the “plan” is a legitimate building block for this team. The rest of us will continue to connect the dots and call bullspit on the Glazers.
April 10th, 2010 at 8:37 am
Typical misleading BS. Joe, you might want to learn a little about “kickball” before you start spouting off.
Ferguson did not say that the price for Villa was too high because of ManU’s debt. (The transfer money set aside from the Ronaldo sale has no bearing on debt). Fergs said the price was too high — period — for a player of his age. In “kickball” the teams own the players so it make sense to buy a 21 year old potential star — you called him “cheap labor” — because he can br sold later. The same is not true of an older player, so you pay premiums for older players only if really needed.
By the way, most would not consider ManU a better destination than Real Madrid or Barcelona. Most people with even a general understanding of “kickball” would know that.
Finally, to use your own “logic” if ManU acquired 6 players at $10 mil transfers they would be “cheap” but if they acquired one at a $40 mil transfer they would be big spenders? C’mon now Joe.
April 10th, 2010 at 8:44 am
jake — in the time it took you to write that response, you could have gone online and read for yourself that Manu is making millions in profit. How does that mesh with your connecting of dots? Just saying . . .
April 10th, 2010 at 9:00 am
the bucs cheapest spending team in the nfl for 7 straight years , cheapest hc and gm in the nfl our hc is also our d cord coach so paying 1 guy to do 2 jobs and the Only Reason gruden and allen were fired is because bruce allen said in a interview a week before he was fired that he was planing on spending all the cap money he had been saving up within a couple of days allen and gruden were fired , gruden found out he was fired while driving in his car with his family not even face to face, its alot cheaper for the glazers to pay gruden and allen 20 million to go away then for them to have to spend the cap money and if they dident spend the cap money gruden and allen would of went public with the glazer money problems no way raheem or dominik would ever say anything about money when they shouldent even have this job in the 1st place
April 10th, 2010 at 9:00 am
@JimBuc.. I did read the article before posting. Net worth does not mean they are liquid or dont have cashflow issues. The article specifically references the 700 million pound debt service as being the main financial consideration in declining on this player: “Ferguson is a long-time admirer of the 28-year-old but Valencia want around £35m to £40m and United’s position is that the fee will have to be lowered otherwise it will be financially prohibitive at a time when the club has accrued debts in excess of £700mpound” Maybe you should try reading with comprehension JimBuc before calling me out.
April 10th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Actually I think it is the guy in the Guardian doing the spouting off.
And the nickname of the the player in question is “little pea”.
So, what the title of this post should be, if i can be so bold to recommend is:
“Glazers refuse to pay for their little pea”
I myself am going to have an early morning jack and coke and try and forget I ever heard of these gay soccer players and their stupid little teams. Joe, please do not undertake to learn anymore about “kickball”, I would lose all respect for you.
At least Hugh spent his time chasing young woman.
April 10th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Joe here,
JimBuc – A few things. First, Joe played soccer in college and hosted the first syndicated soccer talk show in the U.S. out of the BSPN studios at Disney World. Joe probably knows more about the business of “futbol” than you’ve forgotten. …Second, you might want to check your reading comprehension of what’s actually in this post. The linked and quoted material in the center is out The Guardian yesterday. ….And I made it clear that Man U. is “arguably the premier destination.” And that can’t be disputed. It surely would get votes for No. 1 among players and surely would land in the top 5.
April 10th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Joe wrote: “It [Mann U] surely would get votes for No. 1 among players and surely would land in the top 5.”
Does that mean opposing Mann U players shake the hand of the Mann U coach? If so that would validate your earlier post…I’m just say… 😉
So why is Mann U the premier kickball destination? It’s NOT the weather. Since the Glazers are hated more in Europe than here I know it’s not the owners.
Maybe because Mann U does one thing the Bucs haven’t done – WIN!!!!!!
April 10th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Joe — first, sorry for grouping you in with the Guardian. I lumped you in with the Guardian because your comments embraces it and (because this is a Buc site) use it as a way to ridicule Glazer’s recent comments on Buc spending.
On the issue of soccer, you might want to be a little more careful in suggesting that you probably know more about the business of “futbol” than I have forgotten. My playing credentials exceed yours, but more importantly I actually made my living in the soccer business for many years. You may have played at some level (many people play soccer in college) and you may have talked about it for a living (I presume less do that, so congrats), but I actually made a living in the sport for a number of years. I also have other reasosn to have insight into “futbol” generally and English futbol specifically, but the point is that it does not take any of that knowledge to at least see that there is another — equally relevant — side to the story. Speaking of that — Joe, when was the last time you told the other side of that story? Perhaps that is why I mistakenly linked you to the Guardian?
April 10th, 2010 at 11:29 am
OMG the battle of the soccer experts. Someone pull out a yellow card or whatever.
This is pathetic.
April 10th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Eric is pathetic.. go coment on another non-soccer post if you don’t like it.
April 10th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Joe, next time you may want to quote more than just the controversial part of the story you linked to. I think this is equally relevant and in all fairness should be mentioned:
“As well as currently being out of United’s price range, however, Villa does not fit the Glazers’ policy of avoiding spending large sums on players who are 26 or above and who would, in theory, have little resale value at the end of a four- or five-year contract. The club made an exception for Dimitar Berbatov, who was 27 when he signed from Tottenham Hotspur for £30.75m in September 2008, but that transfer has been described by the chief executive, David Gill, as the last of its kind.”
£40m is a very high price to pay for a 28-year-old player in English football.
April 10th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
I’m with Eric on this one.
Seeya boys.
Enjoy the cold miserable weather.
I think I’ll go to the gun range today, something you can’t do on the other side of the pond.
April 10th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I think the mens figure skating championship is on later today. Perhaps you guys can give us some commentary on that also……………..
April 10th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
JimBuc,
Tell me, do you think the profits the Glazers pulled in last year outweighed the large interest payments that year on the 700 million pound debt they acquired to own the team?
If that isn’t the case, or even a marginal difference upward, wouldn’t it be fair to assume the ownership is suffering or disinclined to add to their spending which makes for a less competitive on field product?
April 10th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Hey Eric oh Danny boy only responded so quickly because he had to run off and watch womans badminton on ESPN8 – THEN couples synchronized swimming – THEN mens figure skating.
How come the rest of the world likes kickball anyway? BORING.
April 10th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Tom:
The profits are post-debt service. Even excluding the $80 million Ronaldo sale, the debt went down and ManU pocketed a hefty profit. That is the part that many ignore. Almost everything at ManU is going well, you just don’t hear that in the British press or on Joe’s site. The team is near the top of the tables (although tough losses recently in CLeague and PLeague). The team leads the league in attendance by as much as 20K people per game (even with the huge ticket increase that is the true source of discontent). The team has started to strike HUGE regional sponsorhip deals that are bringing in millions and revenues and profits are up — AFTER debt service.
Besides that — as Sander correctly points out — even the Guardian went on to explain the actual reason that ManU will not pay too much for Villa. Joe (conveniently) left that part out and, what do you know, we have 18 comment thread going! Good job Joe . . . uh . . . you know what I mean.
No one here should be expected to be a ManU expert, but the actual facts about ManU don’t match up with the theory. Now, the Bucs . . that is a different story.
April 10th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Mr. Lucky — the real reason is because soccer takes little more than a ball to play, so it is well suited for any country, rich or poor.
This is no place for a discussion of the merits of soccer, but I will add, quickly, that we don’t have a lot of ground to stand on — as for as boring goes — given that baseball is the National pasttime. Soccer will never hit the big time in America, but not because it is boring (baseball is boring), but rather because it is not well-suited for TV or at least TV with commercials paying for everything. American sports have been transformed by TV. Football is perfect because of all the stoppages, baseball too. Basketball has been changed by TV and hockey struggles because it is tough to see the puck. Soccer is two 45+ minute halves with no time outs.
April 10th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Just a quick note, too. Most people here (I live in Europe) don’t like American Football and give two reasons for it:
– It’s boring (and the commercials make it worse)
– It’s a sport for pussies (because of the pads)
Now look at the reasons some Americans give for hating soccer: it’s boring and for pussies.
In my opinion, it’s just a case of what you know: American football is hard to appreciate if you don’t understand the rules (and almost no one in Europe does), soccer is hard to appreciate if you don’t understand some of the rules (though they’re a lot simpler) and you can’t see what the exciting plays on the field are because you’re not used to watching it.
Of course, that’s no fun and yelling at people for liking a dumb sport is a lot more fun.
April 10th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Joe here,
Sander – I didn’t conveniently leave out anything from the story. The story – and this goes to JimBuc as well — is that the Glazers are turning away from a transfer because of money. End of story. …Everything else is irrelevant to the point I made, which is because many Man. U fans will consider this another way to get on the case of the Glazers and fuel the fire over there of the alleged effect of the debt load on the team.
You guys are reading way into what was written here, and you’re trying to read Joe’s mind and assume that Joe has an agenda and isn’t well versed on the topics. …The fact that United is trying to stick to a policy of avoiding older players in the transfer market because they won’t have a resale value is not relevant to the post on JoeBucsFan.com.
It’s really simple for Bucs fans:
1) For many Manchester United fans, this is an example of the Glazers being tight with a buck in England.
2) It’s more fuel for the anti-glazer crowd over there.
3) Glazers should pray they win another title there, or the heat will turn up.
3) We Bucs fans don’t have to worry because the Glazers tell us they will never skimp on running the Bucs.
April 10th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Joe, Joe, Joe . .. .
April 10th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Joe:
“The story – and this goes to JimBuc as well — is that the Glazers are turning away from a transfer because of money. End of story.”
That is your story, but it is not the “end of the story,” as evidenced by the rest of the Guardian piece, which provides the other side of the story. So, if you only told one side of the story, you have an agenda, don’t you? If your story is the end of the story, you have an opinion, right? You are not reporting fact, just opinion. No problem with that. That is how it should be. Just like talk radio. You don’t think Sileo and Big Dog are on the air because they are fair and impartial do you? Maybe you intend for us all to just read and agree? I mean if you say that is the “end of the story.”
April 10th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Joe here,
JimBuc – First, I can’t be held responsible for your reading comprehension. …I still advise you to back to go back and read what is actually written in this post. I think you’ll find something very different to your initial interpretation. …
It’s the “end of the story” as it relates to this post and for Bucs fans, meaning the points I itemized in the last comment explain what was written here in the post.
And there is no agenda. Good grief, already. You don’t get it. This site woudn’t work if there was, in fact, an agenda. And frankly, Joe doesn’t have the mental or physical energy to come up with agendas.
Some want Joe to sit here and crank out every side to every story and unearth every possible interpretation. That’s not going to happen, and it would be extraordinarily boring for the masses. Joe cranks out facts and opinion and clearly distinguishes between the two. It’s usually all very clear unless you go looking for what’s not here.
And for you to say, “Maybe you intend for us all to just read and agree.” …Again, this goes to you assuming and thiniking Joe has some sort of agenda. …Frankly, Joe spends no time wondering what the many thousands who come here every day agree or disagree with. Couldn’t care less. Readers can disagree, and you’re welcome to comment and call Joe a moron and an asswipe.
April 10th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
LOL. Joe just to prove me wrong take stock of your hit count right now and then for the next month write nothing but positive pieces (you know, the other side of the story) about the Bucs and the Glazers. How about taking this piece down and replace it with one about the Guardian being wrong. Measure your hit count again. It will go down significantly, but you know that.
Of course you have an agenda. This is a business. Your agenda is to increase traffic. You choose to do that by writing in third person and, in my opinion, by writing provocative pieces that occassionally leave out one side of the story. Nothing wrong with that. Somehting wrong with the holier than follow-ups.
On the repeated reading comprehension knock, just read your piece again. Don’t see where it mentions the teams explanation for not wanting to pay for Villa. Even the Guardian included it. Sorry I compared you to the Guardian. Thanks for the discussion though.
April 10th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Unless the Glazers spend some money this offseason and avoid taking the cheaper way out then Joe has every right to post these articles about Man U and question their financial abilities and committment. Spend some money and this man u debate goes away.
April 10th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
jake — you are illustrating my point. If ManU is now making huge profits — which it is — what could ManU have to do with Bucs spending? That ship has sailed. Joe certainly should take issue with the Bucs spending habits, I am only suggesting that he find another horse to kick. The ManU stuff is demonstrably false.
April 10th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Here you go Jake and Joe. Takes 10 seconds to find it, if you want to:
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=749635&cc=5901
April 10th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
So let me get this right JimBuc, the source of this financial info is the Glazers and we are supposed to accept it as Gospel cause the Glazers are the pillars of veracity? The Glazers would never spin the truth would they? Please. Without an independent auditor I’m not buying what your pitchin…Sorry
April 10th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
This one paints a slightly less optimisitic view of the Manu finances.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/mar/31/manchester-united-drop-revenue
April 10th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Jake — the source was ESPN reporting and it was not the Glazers. When ManU floated a bond offering the figures became public. You think you might be a little predesposed to a point of view?
April 10th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Eric — C’mon now. The Guardian articles discusses “projections” of game day revenues. The link I provided was actual performance for the entity. Even if you accept the projections as true, it is still only game day revenue. Like all sports teams, game day revenues is only one part and a smaller part at that. Just like the Bucs, ManU makes money from sponsorships and TV etc.
Me thinks you might be looking for a negative.
April 10th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Joe here,
JimBucs — First, there are differences between Manchester United and Red Football and the entire accounting operation is very complicated. I’m sure you know that, so trying to simplify it with one link to an ESPN wire story is silly. …Second, it’s a little comical that now you’re trying to tell me how I run the content here. …Again, there is no agenda. Here’s the business model: Joe spits out the news with attribution — when its not his own — and writes what he thinks about the topic. …That’s about it. … There’s no writing to drive traffic with issues. …Joe just shares what he thinks is interesting — the kind of stuff diehard fans talk about before and after a game and through the offseason. …Thankfully, it works. …Anyone is free to follow the same model. It’s pretty first-grade.
As for the team’s explanation for not wanting to pay Villa, it’s not relevant to the post. The post here is about the perception of some Man. U fans of that decision, and how that’s a PR issue for the Glazers over there. .
A percentage of Man. U fans will/are completely annoyed by the disinterest in the player and use it as more ammo against the Glazers.
That’s what the post is about. …Again, it goes to the reading comprehension thing. …That’s what the post is, but you don’t seem to want to accept that.
April 10th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Not looking for a negative, just reviewing the situation realistically. These guys have a 700million debt and the margin is pretty darn thin.
Do you really believe that Manu and the Bucs arent related even though they share the same owner?
What do you think happens at Board meetings, they discuss Manu, then say, Ok now were talking about the Bucs which is entirely different.
These guys prepare for every eventuality. Everything in their portfolio is related. Like the article says times are a bit tight on the discretionary spending side. Same is true around these parts.
I think to take the position that one has nothing to do with the other is incredibly naive. Especially the way they have Manu leveraged.
Your argument is counter intuitive. Can I prove it? Not without looking at the real books. They wont even let the Players association do that.
But, by the same token, you can’t disprove it, can you?
April 10th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Joe, your post is about the perception of ManU fans? That is why you mentioned in your article that ManU took the cheap choice in taking a Mex player and you mentioned saracastically in your article that we have Glazers guarantee? My bad. I completely misunderstood your point. Here I was thinking that your article on a Buc site was about perpetuating a storyling about the Bucs owners. Man, I need to work on my reading skills.
My bad too for suggesting your agenda is to drive traffic to your site. I must have been distracted by all the banners and side bar ads. My apologies. Who knew you were the only outlet in the sports talk genre that is completely disinterested in traffic. Pure altruistic pursuit I guess. Sorry.
April 10th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Eric — to float the recent bond offering they had to open up the books. That is why they are reporting real financial information. Do you understand that part?
If not, then how about this. With all that debt they were able to convince the world’s largest investment banking firms to underwrite the bond offering. Would the investment banks do that if the situation was dire?
By the way, the Glazers do not sit in a room by themselves and conduct board meetings. That is a naive to think so. The debt holders and the investment bankers are the ones in control. That is why ManU reports financial performance now.
April 10th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Joe here,
JimBuc – Look, you used the word agenda. But don’t blame me for you not knowing what the word really means.
“Of course you have an agenda. This is a business. Your agenda is to increase traffic. You choose to do that by writing in third person and, in my opinion, by writing provocative pieces that occassionally leave out one side of the story. Nothing wrong with that. Somehting wrong with the holier than follow-ups.”
An agenda is not a business’s goal. Two seperate things. Sure, Joe wants traffic. Duh. But an agenda, by the Miriam Webster definition (hopefully that works for you), is “an underlying often ideological plan or program.”
So forgive me for knowing the definition and responding to your use of it.
Again, there is no agenda in the writing on this site other than to deliver the news and offer an educated opinion, which barely even qualifies as an “agenda.” ….
Joe just sticks to that and lets the traffic be what it is. That’s how this started in August 2008, and that’s how it will stay. … If it falls off, it falls off. So be it. If people are sick of reading Joe, then they’re welcome to go somewhere else.
And you think the third person thing drives traffic? You must be the only one. Joe knows it’s driven a lot of folks batty — and away.
April 10th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Jimbuc
The issue is cash flow. The refinancing was accomplished because of the value of the franchise, which has gone up since the glazers bought the team, and the same applies to the bucs.
The Glazers are equity rich, but that doesnt tell us the amounts they have available for things like bucs player salaries.
By the way, some of the worlds largest financial institutions went completely belly up.
To think the overall Glazer financial strategy doesnt include both Manu and the Bucs is rediculous. 700 mil is a lot of debt sir.
Amazingly, the bucs reduction in player payroll just happens to coincide with the 700 million debt. Hmmmmmmmmmmm wonder why that would be.
In any event, to draw absolute conclusions, as you have, simply isnt supported by any data you or I, or Joe for that matter, have available to us.
So how in the world can you be so condescending and cocky about it?
April 10th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Joe, I am honored that you seem to feel compelled to take shots at me over and over again. First I cannot read. Now I don’t understand the meaning of the word “agenda.” Wow. Honored.
Strange that you — a journalist by trade (if that is the Joe I am speaking with) would refer to this site as delivering “news,” but I suspect that is why you added the part about offering an educated opinion. Since I cannot read and have trouble with English, which was this piece? Were you delivering news or offering an educated opinion? I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but I presume ManU potentially passing on a player may be “news.” So, how about the conclusion that it was motivated by financial difficulties? Was that “news” or an opinion? I will double check, but did anyone from ManU say it was due to financial difficulties? What did Fergs say? Hmmm … pretty sure he is the one that mentioned age and price? Maybe I missed it. Was there a quote? You know, reading comprehension problem and all.
So, if we assume for the moment that you were offering your opinion and we know you have this response feature on your website, am I allowed to offer mine? How about if I am willing to accept the risk of being insulted repeatedly by my host? Let’s give it a shot and see what happens. My opinion is that this site’s underlying program — like all sites or shows that exist by selling advertising — is to drive traffic and stay times to drive ad revs. It is my (educated) opinion that in this market space the best way to drive traffic is to play to discontent. Hardly a novel or controversial opinion, I would think. But hey, maybe Joe is truly different. Maybe the banners are just decorations.
In any event, lay on Macduff. What did I mis-read and what word don’t I understand?
April 10th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
JimBuc,talk about predisposed. If your not on the Glazer payroll you must be one of the Glazers themselves. So what if the bond sale was a public offering. Balance sheets can be adjusted to appear many different ways using discretionary accounting methods such as accelerating and decelerating such things as depreciation and making discretionary adjustments to officer compensations. Bottom line don’t cite a prospectus for a public offering as authority that the glazers don’t have liquidity issues! Unless I have access to their books..which wont be anytime soon, I will continue to connect the dots and use my God given common sense which apparently don’t have
April 10th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Sorry..which You apparently don’t have
April 10th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Eric — do not mean to come across as cocky or condescendings, so my apologies.
Let me just ask you a very simple questions — Do you think that an investment banking firm that was going to underwrite a BOND offering would be more interested in assets or cash flow? I am going to suggest cash flow, but I am sure we may differ on that.
You also misunderstand a fundamental point. I have no doubt that when the Glazers bought ManU they did everything they could do to make the Bucs as profitable as possible in the short-term and that would mean cutting expense. But that does not mean that the Glazers took Buc profits to finance ManU debt. It just means that they wanted their most profitable asset to be as profitable as possible.
It also does not mean that things should be the same now given the profitability of ManU (after debt service). Besides, why so willing to accept ManU as the source of all problems — even in the face of numerous facts to the contrary — when there are also reasonable non-ManU explanations for the low payroll (i.e. CBA agreement, poor drafting for years)? Why are you and so many other so willing to point to ManU as the source of every spending constraint, even when ManU is so profitable? That’s what does not make sense to me.
That is why I carry on this long conversation. What is it that makes everyone so unwilling to modify their points of view when faced with contrary facts. That, my friend, is an interesting question.
April 10th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
jake — you are smarter than that. The bond offering required an audited prospectus which included audited financials. We are not talking about you local lawn mower shop. This was a huge bond offering underwritten by some of the largest IBs in the world.
By the way, I could care less about the Glazers. What I find interesting — as I mentioned above — is that so many so willingly subscribe to the mythology even when presented with contrary facts. The facts are just explained away as part of a grand conspiracy. ManU is profitable and successfully sold a huge bond offering because the Glazers are cooking the books. That is too funny.
April 10th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Jimbuc
Ok, could be a variety of reasons for the lack of spending. Point conceded.
But would you agree one could possibly maybe be the 700 million debt they have for the soccer team!
If one of your business enterprises had a 700 million debt, wouldnt that be the one you were most concerned with? vs. 192 million and the bucs with the guaranteed t.v revenue? Seems like a lot easier to cut costs on the latter than the former.
Isnt it clear the risk in Manu far exceeds risk in the bucs situation? Couldnt that enter into these folks business decisions?
April 10th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Joe here,
JimBuc – You say I’ve insulted you repeatedly, but Joe never once insulted you. Feel free to go back through my responses.
Questioning reading comprehension doesn’t qualify in my book, and surely Joe meant no insult. Joe never said you couldn’t read. Heck, Joe needs to read things two and three times himself sometimes.
As to the other points, I give up. …You’re entitled to your opinion. Just expect to be challenged when it mis-represents what we do here.
April 10th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Joe — I think you are funny. In your book saying that it’s not your fault that I can’t read is not an insult. Saying that it not your fault that you took my “mis-use” of a word literally is not an insult. LOL. What # Caybrew are you on? Take care.
April 10th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Eric — I agree that the large debt was a likely cause of the fiscal constraint in Buc land. My question is just whether it will continue now that ManU is in green. The real test will be FA spending next year. This year they have several legitimate excuses — no FAs to speak of and (or the next year with a CBA) building through draft. Next year (or the next year where there is no lockout) they will not have that excuse. If the Glazers do not spend then, I will wear a Green and Gold scarf (the ManU protest colors) and march around their home all year. I will also buy you a year’s supply of your favorite beverage and start apologizing profusely.
April 10th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
I have to note that I cannot find fault with what JimBuc writes and largely agree with what he says. I know that a large number of Bucs fans like to shift the blame to Man U, but with the knowledge I have of soccer (which far preceeds and exceeds my knowledge of the NFL) I cannot see what Man U is doing as a faulty or aberrant process caused by a lack of funds. It is what many fans choose to see, but is not something that is unilaterally supported by objective facts.
April 10th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Joe here,
JimBuc wrote: “In your book saying that it’s not your fault that I can’t read is not an insult. Saying that it not your fault that you took my “mis-use” of a word literally is not an insult. LOL. What # Caybrew are you on? Take care.”
Again, Joe NEVER said you couldn’t read. And saying you mis-used a word surely isn’t an insult and neither is saying you didn’t fully comprehend what was written. Understand that Joe is a product of the publishing world where language is scrutinized and people — editors, writers, etc. — discuss it and argue about it all the time like fans at a game. All in a day’s work. So for Joe it’s never an insult to go there. Perhaps Joe should have realized that those rules don’t apply in the real world. Sorry if I offended you.
April 11th, 2010 at 12:05 am
Joe, no offense taken. Thought it was funny. Still a fan. Buy you a Caybrew sometime.
April 11th, 2010 at 8:09 am
@jimbuc
Ok, sounds fair to me.
You know, one thing I havent figured out is why the bucs offered that huge contract to Haynesworth.
It runs counter to the manu/increased debt, CBA, and their own stated “build through the draft” theories.
Still scratching my head over that one.
April 11th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Stammers got 50 last night. Hopefully he can get a hat trick tonight and win the title.
I would love to see some English tart walk up to Joey Porter or Chris Pronger and call him a pussy to his face. The reaction would surely be funny.
Show me a hockey player that is a pussy and I’ll show you a Limey that can fight. Reminds me of the MMA match between Michael Bisping and Dan Henderson.
I think Bisping said Henderson was a pussy too, before he went to sleep on his back.