egafd.com

Overpriced tat, maybe. But I'm a Sheffield Wednesday supporter and our shirts are around the same price as Man Utd shirts.

Given the amount of trophies Man Utd have won over the last 30 years to Sheffield Wednesday you could argue that buying a Man Utd shirt has put money into the club and helped pay for the cups/leagues Man Utd supporters enjoy seeing their team win. A Sheffield Wednesday supporter has put in the same amount and got less enjoyment back.

So one could argue that Man Utd tops/tickets etc are a bargain when you take into account the number of trophies won and it's the shirts of clubs who don't win so much that are actually much more overpriced.

Just a thought.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Robches man. Look at what you're saying. One minute they have
> no money and the next they have spare cash to go mental buying
> big name players. Make your mind up.
>
> Of course they had it and they're spending it now. Simples.
>
> You've still not told me which Premier League owners are
> 'fools' like the Glazers and why. Or is that something you said
> in the heat of the moment and didn't actually know what you
> meant so now trying to pass it off as 'stock market speak'?
>

The Glazers had no money to invest in Utd because they were paying ?70 million a year in interest. Utd for them was something to take money out of, not put money into. They bled more out of Utd than Sheik Mansour has put into City. However, they have since managed to sell part of the club to greater fools, and negotiated some big sponsorships.

The team fell apart after Ferguson left, so they have been finally forced to invest money made by selling part of the club and the sponsorships into strengthening the squad. The fact that ?150 million has been spent so quickly shows how little investment was made for the past several years. Why is any of this so hard for you to understand?

Ok, ok.......I'll be patient. I'll try and follow what you're saying. Here goes:

[quote]The Glazers had no money to invest in Utd because they were paying ?70 million a year in interest. Utd for them was something to take money out of, not put money into.[/quote]

Ok. I'm with you up to now. !thumbsup!

[quote]They bled more out of Utd than Sheik Mansour has put into City.[/quote]

Ok.....I'll take your word for that. But, one question if I may: How can they be taking money OUT of United but not have any money like you say in the previous quote?

[quote]However, they have since managed to sell part of the club to greater fools,[/quote]

Greater fools........yeah. Still don't get what you mean by that. It implies they themselves are fools. How foolish, and why, you don't say, despite me asking you numerous times. Please explain how they are 'foolish' and put that foolishness into context with other Premier League club owners. Cheers.

Up to now, you've told me they take money out of United but don't have any money and you've told me they are fools without explaining why they are fools.

If I don't understand, maybe it's because you're talking bollocks.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Ok, ok.......I'll be patient. I'll try and follow what you're
> saying. Here goes:
>
> [quote]The Glazers had no money to invest in Utd because they
> were paying ?70 million a year in interest. Utd for them was
> something to take money out of, not put money into.[/quote]
>
> Ok. I'm with you up to now. !thumbsup!
>
> [quote]They bled more out of Utd than Sheik Mansour has put
> into City.[/quote]
>
> Ok.....I'll take your word for that. But, one question if I
> may: How can they be taking money OUT of United but not have
> any money like you say in the previous quote?
>
> [quote]However, they have since managed to sell part of the
> club to greater fools,[/quote]
>
> Greater fools........yeah. Still don't get what you mean by
> that. It implies they themselves are fools. How foolish, and
> why, you don't say, despite me asking you numerous times.
> Please explain how they are 'foolish' and put that foolishness
> into context with other Premier League club owners. Cheers.
>
> Up to now, you've told me they take money out of United but
> don't have any money and you've told me they are fools without
> explaining why they are fools.
>
> If I don't understand, maybe it's because you're talking
> bollocks.
>
My rule of thumb is that when someone starts to insult me, I can't be bothered dealing with them. I think you just passed that test.

Saying you're talking bollocks is not the biggest insult in the world, Robches.

And to be fair, it's true. Nothing of what you've said has made any real sense and now you've found a way out.

No-one is under any obligation to contribute to this site. I advise you to keep a civil tone in future.

Robches.......accusing someone of talking bollocks on this forum is considered civil, in case you haven't noticed. It wasn't that long ago one forumite was saying he hoped another forumite would die of cancer.

You're being over sensitive because you can't defend your points. I understand and won't ask you again if you don't want to explain yourself. It's cool.

Think what you like, I choose not to deal with rude people, life is too short to waste on them.

That leaves you with about zero forumites to speak to !laugh!