He would have been a good signing, how come you are trying to get players on loan if you have money to spend?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/sheff_utd/7872595.stm

Because blackburn probably didn't want to sell him? Or we didn;t want to buy him? thats the usual reasons i would say?

Its a shame he didn't make it to the lane, he would have fit in well i think- apparently monty would have been sent out on loan to coventry if this had gone through.

Because blackburn probably didn't want to sell him? Or we didn;t want to buy him? thats the usual reasons i would say?

Its a shame he didn't make it to the lane, he would have fit in well i think- apparently monty would have been sent out on loan to coventry if this had gone through.

I think its a sign of the times down at the lane more like, selling your best player and replacing him with a league 2 striker isnt exactley gonna set the fans pulses racing is it, and nearly every player you have tried to capture since the signing of Ward has been an attempted loan deal.
The money is drying up one thinks.:)

Well you can read into it whatever you want, but i would think that there would be an element of guarding against the coming global recession yes.

don't you think we would be stupid to continue spending if money is going to be tight for EVERYONE over the next couple of years?


Or is it just wishful thinking by wednesday fans hoping that we are going to get ourself into terrible financial problems like you did when you dropped out of the premiership?

Blackburn dont want to sell him, they were going to loan him out but because of injuries they didnt allow it, McCabe is being very clever and is doing what a lot of other clubs wont do, and it could give us a big advantage int he future.

I think its a sign of the times down at the lane more like, selling your best player and replacing him with a league 2 striker isnt exactley gonna set the fans pulses racing is it, and nearly every player you have tried to capture since the signing of Ward has been an attempted loan deal.
The money is drying up one thinks.:)

Got to agree with Scott, theres a global recession coming thats already started this side of the pond and McCabe is just making sure theres a Sheffield United FC after....As for if theres a Sheffield wendy well I guess we will to wait and see what the co-op says :o

Or is it just wishful thinking by wednesday fans hoping that we are going to get ourself into terrible financial problems like you did when you dropped out of the premiership?

Fingers crossed, eh?

Fingers crossed, eh?

Oh definately, this recession has hit every team in the world and to think that our clubs can survive without tightening our belts is nieve at best, and downright dangerous!

i think if you look at the overall picture down at the lane ,we must be thinking ahead there can't be to many clubs with a better set up than we have at the moment.i think KM
is waiting to see how the credit crunch will pan out regarding football clubs in the next 12/18 months then reinvest in the team you've only got to look at Southampton,Watford+Charlton to realize how dangerous it can be spending money time will tell

loan signings are vital, i mean wednesday have literally stayed in this league with loan signings, no point buying a player who you dont know if he will benefit the team i.e sharp. may aswell take em on loan and then buy if he is a good benefit.

He would have been a good signing, how come you are trying to get players on loan if you have money to spend?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/sheff_utd/7872595.stm

Man United have tevez on loan .do you think they are skint ?.

Man United have tevez on loan .do you think they are skint ?.

unless you call being over 500 million in debt not skint then yeah :hihi: was different with tevez though, his greedy owner wouldnt let him go because he had his contract and wanted some serious deniro.

unless you call being over 500 million in debt not skint then yeah :hihi: was different with tevez though, his greedy owner wouldnt let him go because he had his contract and wanted some serious deniro.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/richest_football_clubs

don't call that skint .

man u are different because although they are 500million in debt- their assets and their brand far outweights that debt.

Unlike whats happeneing at clubs like coventry, wednesday etc etc where the sum total of all they own and are worth ISN'T worth the debt- thats why you see clubs being sold for £1 - basicaly what bates did at chelsea- he gambled that he could grow them to be profitable again.

man u are different because although they are 500million in debt- their assets and their brand far outweights that debt.

Unlike whats happeneing at clubs like coventry, wednesday etc etc where the sum total of all they own and are worth ISN'T worth the debt- thats why you see clubs being sold for £1 - basicaly what bates did at chelsea- he gambled that he could grow them to be profitable again.

agree , but hursty says £500 million in debt .

man u are different because although they are 500million in debt- their assets and their brand far outweights that debt.

Unlike whats happeneing at clubs like coventry, wednesday etc etc where the sum total of all they own and are worth ISN'T worth the debt- thats why you see clubs being sold for £1 - basicaly what bates did at chelsea- he gambled that he could grow them to be profitable again.

yeah, all there assets mean they are alright, still in debt though :thumbsup: haha

agree , but hursty says £500 million in debt .

the glazors borrowed a large amount of money to buy man utd, but like scott says, although they are in large debt, they will always have the sponsors, assets etc to support them

i think its a sign of clubs being more careful ,what with the present climate

the glazors borrowed a large amount of money to buy man utd, but like scott says, although they are in large debt, they will always have the sponsors, assets etc to support them

most large businesses are in debt , doesn't mean they are skint .

i never said they were skint, just said they were in debt

semantics people!!!!!!

i never said they were skint, just said they were in debt

actually in post twelve you did , but it doesn't matter .