terrysilver.bsky.social
@terrysilver.bsky.social
W203 🇾🇪
He’s right ! Standards
March 9, 2025 at 7:28 PM
They couldn’t borrow £1billion to give them a transfer pot. Transfer purchases are linked to income (PSR) borrowing a billion doesn’t increase their income. King of Spain purchased Real Madrid’s training ground for an inflated amount and sold it back for €1 to clear RM debt ahead of FFP in 00’s
February 13, 2025 at 6:20 PM
Agree with that entirely. FFP/PSR was brought in to stop for example what Leeds did in the 00’s and nearly went bust. No governing body is ever gonna stop an owner clearing a clubs debt.
February 13, 2025 at 6:02 PM
A debt free Man Utd would always have an advantage over other clubs due to our income (genuine income not exaggerated like City). In reality if debt free we wouldn’t need any billionaire owner putting money in we make enough it’s Glazer debt repayments that have killed us.
February 13, 2025 at 5:53 PM
That is effectively what city are accused of selling a sponsorship deal for an exaggerated price to inflate their income that’s what many of the charges relate to that and not making financial disclosures.
February 13, 2025 at 5:49 PM
A new owner however could not just buy Man Utd and say there’s £1billion to spend on players
February 13, 2025 at 5:40 PM
Everton’s owners have cleared their debts but they’re the only owner. INEOS only own 25% so never gonna put more in without gaining more ownership. A new owner could purchase Glazer and INEOS shares 100% and clear all debts no issues ( they’d need deep pockets obvs).
February 13, 2025 at 5:39 PM
No new owner at Utd is going to clear our debt why would they, but if they did that’s no issue. That’s not why City have been charged. City exaggerated sponsorship deals to show they had higher income than they actually did allowing them to spend more.
February 13, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Honestly, how does anyone listen to that prick Merson he’s literally the worst pundit ever and has been stealing a living from Sky for years. If he told me it was daytime I’d go and check
February 2, 2025 at 7:02 AM
Thanks Adam, wasn’t sure but from memory, But nothing good has ever come from players being represented by family. Let’s not forget Paul Scholes turned up to contract negotiations with his accountant and asked what do you want to pay me and where do I sign !
January 25, 2025 at 4:14 PM
Entirely agree with this.
He’s let himself down and needs to leave
January 25, 2025 at 4:10 PM
Isn’t he represented by Roc Nation ? Jay Z talent agency ! I’m fairly sure he is
January 25, 2025 at 4:04 PM
He’s got to many family “guiding” him he’s too emotional he’s unable to block out the noise and he’s forgotten what it means to play for the club. He needs to leave. Too many stories that he’s unapproachable to young players. Call it what it is he’s unprofessional and a disruptive influence.
January 25, 2025 at 4:02 PM
The Mrs has one, we went away for the weekend to Abersoch and she brought it, took up half the boot
January 20, 2025 at 6:19 AM
Did you never see the Ta ra Fergie banner from the late 80’s it’s styled on that I assume
December 19, 2024 at 10:30 PM
Firmly believe whilst the club have to take the main responsibility for development of players and not giving to much too soon, players choosing to have family represent them rarely ends well.
December 18, 2024 at 7:21 AM
Agree with you Gary, he needed a strong football person in his ear. Family members just want to get best wages they can. The club have to take much of the responsibility though. Lingard, Greenwood, Rashford and previously Morrison. They needed strong influences to make it not huge wages.
December 17, 2024 at 8:52 PM