rss twitter facebook mobile

Rio: Who wouldn’t want to play for United?

Rio Ferdinand has agreed a new one year extension deal to keep him at the club until the end of next season.

“I am delighted to have signed a new contract,” he said. “Who wouldn’t want to play in this fantastic team in front of 76,000 fans each week? It has been an incredible journey and I am glad it will continue. I can now fully concentrate on my club career which has worked well for me over the past few years. This is a great team to be part of and we are now moving into a new era with the club which is very exciting. I have met with David I am really looking forward to working with him and winning many more trophies with this great club.”

About Scott

Scott is the editor of Red Matters - 50 Years of Supporting Manchester United and an author of Play Like Fergie's Boys and Not Nineteen Forever. He writes for ESPN, The Metro and Bleacher Report. Follow @R_o_M on Twitter.

View all posts by Scott »



  1. WeAreUnited says:


    Spot on with your last comment my friend, spot on!

    Get Thiago with that money and probably Lewa or another midfielder to make us a bit stronger cause that is all we lack.
    RVP, Chica and Wlbz can do well as the only striker and lso double up if needed, put it to that midfield:)

    The thing is that we probably have to cover Nani also, but that is the beauty o the upcoming summer, we have no idea who will leave if leaves and who will come.


  2. FletchTHEMAN says:

    Morning Reds,

    Happy Birthday Eric!

    47yrs young today. 185games 82 goals. Right, and he won it 4 times in 4 yrs!

    Certified Legend! :twisted:

  3. FletchTHEMAN says:

    So lucky that Cantona chose this club! What a player!

  4. FletchTHEMAN says:

    Everyone seems to be patting the Glazers on their back for refinancing $290M in high-interest debt (BONDS).

    The deal will cut costs by around $15M a year

    But wait a minute. . . . thats 5x £31m in bond interest alone not available for transfers in last 5yrs. £150M might have been handy.

  5. Costas says:


    Well, it’s not like any past restructuring of the debt has been beneficial to the strengthening of the team so that was never going to change.

    Not to worry. We have Anderson.

  6. FletchTHEMAN says:

    Cheers mate. Hope the bankers wives are enjoying “our” money! Shhheeeesh! ;)

  7. Costas says:


    Oh I am sure investors and bankers will be over the moon. That’s the oxymoron. Everyone benefits but the aspect of the club that actually generates the cash, benefits the least.

  8. Wakey says:


    As I keep pointing out everytime someone pulls the ’The Interest money could have been used on players’ argument is that without the Glazers that money spent on servicing the debt wouldn’t have been there.

    The PLC couldn’t have increased profits like they have. The club was was overspending on staff, had to pay more in transfers to get deals done quickly (as shareholders had to be informed of the bids we made so transfers leaked and we could be gazzumped as happened with players like Robben), we paid more to the agents (agent fees according to the 99 questions letter were 30% rather than the normal 10%) to encourage agents to encourage their clients to sign quickly and wage offers were also comparativly higher for the same reason. The PLC also couldn’t have made the deals the Glazers have as they didn’t have the contacts and more importantly the desire to do so (The PLC board had concerns that were less about money, for example selling season tickets well below the market rate and below our rivals simply to maintain a waiting list for status reason). The PLC was also paying out significantly more in management fees than the club currently pays the Glazers, management fees that today would have been higher had the PLC continued.

    The club were also effectively servicing a debt as they were having to pay a dividend to investors for their investment back in the 90’s (a dividend which if the PLC had been able to make every business deal and had been able to cut costs) would have been not far from the costs of servicing the debt at the old rate.

    So its easy to say ‘we would have had x to spend if we didnt have to service the debt the Glazers added’ but in reality its not the case.i would estimate that at worst its in a status quo as far as how much we have to spend due to the Glazers compared to what we would have had with the PLC and most likely there is more to spend than the PLC would have been able to offer.

    Additionally most otter ownerships would have been the same, the only type where we would have most likely had more would have been a billionaire owner who wanted a play thing and personally that’s the worst kind of owner I can think of. I wouldn’t ever want United to end up like City, Chelsea, Malaga, PSG and the likes where they lose the heart of their clubs because their owner just throws stupid money at buying every superstar they can

  9. lordrt says:

    A well deserved extension for him…

  10. denton davey says:

    Wayne @ 01:39: “take the 40 get everything done quick and reinvest the money.Or hold out for 60 it drags on all summer and maybe the deal won’t happen,stuck with a unhappy Rooney”

    Even then – in January – there’s no guarantee that a deal would get more than 40 million. It’s a classic bird-in-the-hand/two-birds-in-the-bush scenario.

    Like Lady Macbeth told her hubby, “if it were done, then it’s well it were done quickly”.


You must be logged in to post a comment.