Almost certainly not true, but...

[Craig_H]

I don't think their debt is £800m mate. That's a load of money, a lot more than the GDP of some entire countries.

It isnt far off that. I'd read that it was around £700m.

[Guest]

It isnt far off that. I'd read that it was around £700m.

But it doesn't seem to be causing them problems though. Not heard their banks saying they're in the red or things of the sort. They've got huge revenues that servicing their debts seems to be completely in control.

[Rich]

They have HUGE debt, but also MASSIVE revenue streams. It's a bull**** rumour if you ask me.

IF the Glazers were struggling they'd find a willing buyer in minutes.

[Craig_H]

But it doesn't seem to be causing them problems though. Not heard their banks saying they're in the red or things of the sort. They've got huge revenues that servicing their debts seems to be completely in control.

Do you not wonder why, out of the £80m they got for CR, they've only spent under £20m?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/manutd/5130064/Manchester-United-debt-soars-to-700m-despite-record-season.html

[kingfunk]

Complete bollocks.

[Guest]

Do you not wonder why, out of the £80m they got for CR, they've only spent under £20m?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...rd-season.html

This is only speculation mate. Maybe there's a degree of truth in your assessment but maybe it's not.

[Rich]

When does a club HAVE to spend any money that it brings in through transfers?!

Why do we have a fixation that this is something which simply has to be done when you're running a football club.

Seems odd

[Craig_H]

This is only speculation mate. Maybe there's a degree of truth in your assessment but maybe it's not.

Fredo, the glazers borrowed over £600m to buy the club, and then put the debt onto the club. With interest added to the loan - on what basis could you even dispute that they're in about £700m worth of debt?

[Craig_H]

When does a club HAVE to spend any money that it brings in through transfers?!

Why do we have a fixation that this is something which simply has to be done when you're running a football club.

Seems odd

Possibly when they've just lost 2 of their best and most productive players?

[Rich]

Possibly when they've just lost 2 of their best and most productive players?

Ronaldo can't be replaced like-for-like unless they can get Messi - so what's the point in trying?

Tevez - well, they've brought in an international striker with a better strike-rate, although they'll lose out on his industry.

I get the feeling that Ferguson will be implementing new tactics (which I think he confirmed) because of the loss of Ronaldo, not because of the loss of Tevez, therefore it wasn't really a priority to replace like-for-like for the Argentine.

ManU still have significant strength and depth to cover a 4-4-2 formation.

[Guest]

Fredo, the glazers borrowed over £600m to buy the club, and then put the debt onto the club. With interest added to the loan - on what basis could you even dispute that they're in about £700m worth of debt?

I'm not disputing the fact that they are £700m in debt, but that part of the Ronaldo money has been used to service those debts. This is pure speculation IMO and which has been denied by the Glazer's themselves.

[Craig_H]

Ronaldo can't be replaced like-for-like unless they can get Messi - so what's the point in trying?

Tevez - well, they've brought in an international striker with a better strike-rate, although they'll lose out on his industry.

I get the feeling that Ferguson will be implementing new tactics (which I think he confirmed) because of the loss of Ronaldo, not because of the loss of Tevez, therefore it wasn't really a priority to replace like-for-like for the Argentine.

ManU still have significant strength and depth to cover a 4-4-2 formation.

I dont get your point about Ronaldo - you wont get anyone like for like, but it's still a substantial void in their squad. Are you suggesting they just forget about trying to strengthen a vastly weakened area? Dont get that at all.

They bought Owen, who everyone knows is a risk, fitness-wise. Someone as canny as ferguson would surely have preferred to maybe get another body in, just to leave him covered if Owen crocks again. But he hasnt.

Forget systems and such like, Ronaldo scored a phenominal amount of goals for them which will need to be assigned elsewhere. Do you think Ferguson really feels that he can achieve that with just Owen and Valencia?

I certainly dont think so.

It seems fairly clear to me, given the lack of strengthening they've done, coupled with the quality they've lost, that he's not been given the Ronaldo money to spend. And if that's the case, it can only point to the debt.

[Craig_H]

I'm not disputing the fact that they are £700m in debt, but that part of the Ronaldo money has been used to service those debts. This is pure speculation IMO and which has been denied by the Glazer's themselves.

Ok, so if it hasnt - why, in your opinion, do you think Ferguson's only signings were a midtable midfielder and an unreliable, often crocked striker?

For example, he'd publicly highlighted how much he rated Benzema - so with the best part of £60m in his kitty and with Benzema's fee ony being £35m - why do you not think ferguson was in for him?

[Rich]

I dont get your point about Ronaldo - you wont get anyone like for like, but it's still a substantial void in their squad. Are you suggesting they just forget about trying to strengthen a vastly weakened area? Dont get that at all.

They bought Owen, who everyone knows is a risk, fitness-wise. Someone as canny as ferguson would surely have preferred to maybe get another body in, just to leave him covered if Owen crocks again. But he hasnt.

Forget systems and such like, Ronaldo scored a phenominal amount of goals for them which will need to be assigned elsewhere. Do you think Ferguson really feels that he can achieve that with just Owen and Valencia?

I certainly dont think so.

It seems fairly clear to me, given the lack of strengthening they've done, coupled with the quality they've lost, that he's not been given the Ronaldo money to spend. And if that's the case, it can only point to the debt.

He's brought in Valancia as Ronaldo's replacement - like I said there is no-one who he could replace like-for-like, it's not like there is a striker-cum-winger that scores 26-42 goals a season available on the market.

So a change of tactics and a promising winger later we've got a 4-4-2.

Ferguson, no doubt, will be hoping that Berbatov and Rooney as a forward two will score more goals than the pair of them did last season - which I think is probably a fair assumption. Throw into the mix Owen who could bag 10-15 goals if he stays fit and you're probably not that far away from an additional 25-30 goals, which is what Ronaldo would likely contribute.

Anyway, I firmly believe that IF Ferguson thought Aguero (for example) was worth the asking price that United would buy him. Which to me suggests that while the Ronaldo money has been used to offset the debt, an equivalent sum would be available for team strengthening

[Rich]

Ok, so if it hasnt - why, in your opinion, do you think Ferguson's only signings were a midtable midfielder and an unreliable, often crocked striker?

For example, he'd publicly highlighted how much he rated Benzema - so with the best part of £60m in his kitty and with Benzema's fee ony being £35m - why do you not think ferguson was in for him?

He was in for him. Benzema even toured Old Trafford if the rumours are true. The player picked Real Madrid.