After Sir Alex Ferguson boycotted a press conference following several newspapers’ decision to claim our manager had called Fernando Torres a ‘cheat’, Federico Macheda is the latest victim of the tabloids trying to stir up trouble.
Several papers went with a headline claiming that Kiko had called Wayne Rooney ‘vulgar’.
“Rooney is a really great person, he always gives me advice, but he’s a bit working class and vulgar,” they quoted him as saying.
Of course, the interview was in his native Italian, with our striker on duty with Italy’s U-21 team, and he used the word ‘coatto’.
It has since been revealed the word is closer to meaning something like ‘chav’ or ‘skally’, which one would struggle to argue against describing Wazza pretty well.
Macheda has today confirmed he meant no disrespect to Rooney.
“I said ‘coatto’ in the Roman way, but with the minimum intention to offend Rooney,” said Macheda. “I like him and I have maximum respect for him. What I wanted to say is that for me he is a free spirit and genuine. I sent a message to Rio Ferdinand to clarify everything with Wayne and Rio told me not to worry, everything is fine.”
Man Utd News 24/7
Non story
No further comment
When are United back?
This is worse than paint drying
: )
First and second : )
Glad this has been addressed. The press can have an absolute field day with foreign interviews, and often do. They scour dictionaries for the most unpleasant/controversial translation of something that’s been said and splash it all over the headlines. If Rio had said jokingly of Wayne, ‘he’s a cheeky scally’ or something, there’d be no such uproar.
MSN’s news service, which I believe is associated with the same group as the Mail, even referred to this whole thing as a ‘bust-up’ between Rooney and Macheda.
Absolutely pathetic.
Maybe there’s a bigger difference in England, but I can’t see the big distinction between Chav and vulgar. He spits, he swears, he pisses in the street. That’s our Wayne, he’s vulgar and we (mostly) love him. Pity he’s a cunt to his wife but that’s not here nor there.
Absolute non story this one.
MG- I second you, when is this bloody international break over?
F*** the press! they’re trying their best to cause us more trouble and especially between two strikers @@ I bet it’s clear to everyone how much respect they have towards United now that they’ve misquoted 2 people in a row
Rooneys a chav – Evras Black and O’sheas Irish
I think we’ve all learned something today
I am more worried by losses that will be posted today, than a little nothing that media cunts are trying to blow out of all proprtions!
the financial results are out…
GHTT
Yes we’ve learned something today under one banner they like us are all still Manchester United : )
MG- And that’s all we really care about.
Alright guys, I’ve got a game of cricket to play, see you later.
PS: Once all the financial reports are out, can someone translate into plain English for me? Cheers.
@arijc and it’s a loss – food for thought for the Glazers
Okay 100 million operating profit
83.6 million overall loss
That’s taking the fucking piss period
That does not make sense whatsoever – are we now expected to see United losing over making profit or profits pulling away from losses?
Fuck me these Yanks…
as an accountant, the operating profits are amazing….however we are in a loss due to the finance charges such as interest, which is a disgrace
we would be so cash rich, and would have more money than Barcelona and Real Madrid if it wasnt for the finance cost of the debt
the Glazers are a disgrace…we should be affording the likes of Villa, Sneijner easily with the operating profits we have
DISGRACE
LUHG
Watch Gill try and spin his way out of this one…
Little Red Ant
Wasn’t expecting anything other than a loss with the interest payments and refinancing charges. Apparently £64.7 mil were due to one time charges. The operating profit of £100.8 mil with a turnover of £286.4 mil is the only good news i guess.
MG – Hello mate. Where are you getting a loss of eighty odd million from?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/8049476/Manchester-Uniteds-operating-profits-set-to-top-100-million.html
@King Eric
financial accounts are split up into operating profts, then profits after interest and finance, and then finally profits after tax
in this instance, our operating profits show how well we do revenue wise, but our finance cost due to the debt is massive, resulting in a loss, and no tax this year to HMRC
Wakey/ Red Devil anyone in the “know” please try and explain todays figures in a nutshell as we are just gonna get all kinds of figures and losses etc posted on here today.
Cheers
King Eric
Hi mate
On the SSN ticker and sky news…
sayidd – Cheers pal. I sort of understand that but I just couldn’t find anywhere where it states an eighty odd million loss. Thanks.
@MG
Wait I can do maths – I emember my school days ,United made 100million and reported a loss of £83.6m . which means .dan dan da da. . . The Glazers have cost this club £183.6m in 12 fuckin months
MG – Cheers
God I fucking hate the Mail. What is there bastard problem? Even putting Bebe into a headline about the Glazers. What the fuck. Just look at the abu comments. “Who cares about Man Who”, “Baconface” “lets see them not being able to by the league” etc etc blah blah fucking blah. Some people are so bitter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1318683/Manchester-United-pay-on-debt-new-stars-like-Bebe.html
King Eric
Do you know if those bloody Americans are using United to pay the United debt down – so be it – but if they are taking it out to have themselves a nice little earner – then seriously I have no idea what they want anymore
It’s pretty obvious that Manchester United as known for so long can save the Glazer’s skin – and of course the club can through it’s sheer status save itself
This hopefully will continue
But what’s not clear is why this debt isn’t being brought down
I’m not fucking brilliant on maths but if this was my business I’d be looking to knock out the debt even it were a little at a time – the fact is after five years which is a long time in business they are not doing that as of yet.
If anything they should at least show as businessmen that they are trying to do something – but of course they have another idea about it.
That’s the saddest thing
MG – Yeah true. Just sick of it all to be honest.
King Eric
Analyst on Sky news referred United to Man U
I’ll tell you what the fucking problem is – they are thick in the skull and then so to the max
I am lost among all this. Did the club make a profit or a loss in the last 12 months?
Costas
Loss.
@ghtt
£183.6m or 6 Berbatovs or 30 Chicho’s or 24 Evra’s or 7 Sneijners, or 14 Ozils
The only other true part is this
If it were not for the debt
Madrid Barca et al would not even touch United – the things that can be done with that extra money would be incredible.
And that is not only on buying players…
@kanchelskis
Thanks. Damn Glazers.
MG
You would have thought the debt would have reduced by now, or even been wiped out. There is no ray of light, unless the Glazers make some money elseqhere, and pay off the deby they owe in one massive payment…which i doubt
Costas
Loss of £83.6m with an operating profit of £100.8 mil.
The interest and re-financing charges come to £107m.
GHTT
These Americans better pray to God that there plan works – but for the life of me why they can’t just use the money to bring the debt down is just so confusing.
They maybe doing it but it doesn’t look like it.
They maybe okay but are not showing it
And therefore that’s what makes it so frustrating and hard for many fans who can’t grasp the mathematical side of the Glazer equation – and ultimately release there anger through the emotional side – which is quite right though at times it does get far fetched – though understandably so.
Costas
We made a profit of 100 million
And then they took out 83+ to pay the interest – is that correct I’m thinking or did they directly pay debt + interest or did they pay just all interest?
You’re not the only one lost mate…
@arijc, MG
Thanks guys. Just trying to make sense of it all.
Any word on what the current debt is?
To clarify,
an operating profit is just a figure which shows how day to day operations have brought in revenue.
This does not take into account tax and the interest payments.
The £100m figure does not mean the Glazers cost us £180m. Taxes are a big chunk. What it does mean, as I believe this is the highest figure ever reported by an English club, is that the green and gold campaign and everything else has been a complete non-starter, as merchandise and ticket sales have brought in just as much money as always.
If anything, it confirms that the Glazers will be dragged down by their own debt rather than the fans. It is just a case of whether they take us down with them or not.
Business sense suggests that either:
a. The Glazers genuinely think that they can pay off the debts and keep the club in good shape. After which I assume they would milk the cash cow or sell the club on for a profit.
or b. The Glazers are in dire trouble, and need to get out quickly, before their whole empire collapses. We could be sold to anybody.
sayyid
Well thats the point
I’ll go far to say okay United make the money Glazer’s get rid of the debit or at least bring it down
But that doesn’t get happen – so what is the end game – where is the end game and whats the point?
No one has ever said how the debt is going to come down and how far it will come down
It all gets put aside to Manchester United being finished – extended Bond Issue till 2017 – Panorama – Green and Gold – MUST – Red Knights – Fans upset etc etc
The question never gets paid attention to – the question is never made clear – no intentions are ever made public – which they don’t have to – but then surely if the Glazer’s have a plan they should at least make it known – because even when the Bond happened no one made sense as to what will happen after 2017 – everything that was ever said about that was that it buys Glazer’s time – yes great – but whats the end game?
If we are guessing – if I am guessing this is what they want – operating profits increase but losses continue – until 2017 to see if they can bank enough to oversee the loss and make United richer still.
But as someone mentioned yesterday and what Di mentioned last year they are looking at least 2 billion plus to walk
So who has got that? Unless you are an Arab and Oligarch or a billionaire – no one
So again the question comes down to this – is there anyone out there that would buy this club at that amount? Is there anyone out there that will not levy the club will stupid amounts of debt?
Again the thoughts are just sad and everything is lost in translation – yet again
Or the other one which no one looks at is this
They are prepared to carry this on short term and the truth is that they do have a plan and that they are really not going to sell United because they know as a business it is second to none and as a sports brand it is by far the biggest in the world?
You see anything you begin to think makes as much sense as it doesn’t at all – no one knows apart from the Glazer’s what the end game is
@MG
I think thats a very valid point.
The glazers must have some plan. I think what we as fans really need is clarification on what exactly that is and how it will work.
What we should be campaigning for at this point, is more information. We just dont know whats going on at all.
-MG
Excellent points raised. I agree with you that its high time the Glazers reveal their plan.
Funny the english media trying to stir things up by misquoting what macheda meant by sensationalising the words in other to give a false impression that there is some sort of friction among united ranks, especially between kiko and rooney.
I think its pretty sad but i’m not suprised they’ve resulted to this level, the clowns would do anything to derail united’s title challenge, now its up to the players to prove this clueless doubters wrong by winning this league.
These comments are spot on from Kiko. He’s just saying out loud, what everyone else is thinking. Don’t know if Wayne will see the funny side of this though.
MG – of course they won’t sell. Put club’s money in your own pocket for one hundred years and still sell the club for the same price.
ABU cnuts.
That is all.
I’m flabergasted that a ‘developed’ country means the media can print shit as they like. If de Jong were a ManU player, you know for sure he will still be on the headline. Now it’s about the ‘hypocritical’ Dutch coach.
We have the Ronaldo money? Well surely not anymore!
The report I read said there’s a cash balance in the bank of £163.8m. Of course, just because that money is there doesn’t mean it has been (or will be) made available for buying players, or for paying down the debt. On the other hand, it obviously means the club is not skint either.
Opinions vary about whether it made sense to spend 7m (or 8m, or whatever it was) on Bebe (sight-unseen), when there were other established players available for about the same or not much more. But in my opinion, taking a 7m gamble on a complete unknown is not the action of a club that’s desperate to shave every shekel.
It’s not a question of whether we could have gotten better value elsewhere. The point is that Bebe can hardly be expected to justify that outlay in his first year; obviously, then, the purchase was not some cheap-skate attempt to improve the squad in the immediate short-term. If SAF was so hard up for a transfer kitty, that 7m (or thereabouts) was all he had available, then he had two obvious options: (a) if he felt the squad needed an immediate improvement, he could spend the money on someone established player who was available; or (b) if he felt the squad did not need to be improved immediately, or couldn’t see any way to do it for that amount of money, he could simply have held on to the funds for later. Instead, he chose to take this “gamble”.
It just doesn’t seem consistent with the notion that we have no money to spend. Unless you’re a kamikaze gambler, you don’t spend your last few pennies (or a good chunk of them) on some wild long-shot, especially when it will be some time before that long-shot pays off (if it ever does).
Also, while I deplore the debt, I do not agree that if it were not for the debt, we could (or would, or even should) go out and “compete” at the top end of the transfer market. For one thing, even with the huge revenue the club brings in, it would still be tough to compete the “open cheque-book” approach of some other clubs. And for another thing, I would like to think that we are smarter than that. We have a fine and proud history of building teams through a mixture of young players and the occasional “headline” purchase. Even if we were able to take the Shitty/Chelski/RM approach, I would not like to see it. Seriously.
And finally (sorry for the long post): a lot of people want to know why the Glazers are not paying down the debt. I don’t know, either. But one possible explanation is that, as a business matter, they don’t see it as important; they may even see the idea of paying down the debt as silly. Why? Because from their perspective, revenues have been growing (and continue to grow) from their global expansion/marketing operations, and for a lot of businesses, the issue is not whether you have debt, but whether you can service it.
While ordinary people like us recoil at the size of the debt and the interest payable on them, for many business-people, interest is simply a normal “cost of doing business” expense. Interest on loans is deducted from revenue, as an operating expense, BEFORE tax is charged. So even without the interest, not all of that money would have been available — some of it would have gone in extra tax.
I’m not defending the Glazers or the loans and interest, just trying to add some additional perspective. Cheers!
… er, bugger, posted my comment on the topic! Oh well…
er … double bugger, I mean to say the “Wrong topic” … not having a good morning…
Scott red one humble request please why don’t you expand great ROM blog to ROM daily or something n rape the rival team..
this is the real story about this.
http://www.kickette.com/kiko-macheda-lost-in-translation/