ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[TheMancRedDevil]

There's at least four other possible reasons which have been speculated on in this thread. Fact is, no one knows. But it is the pressing question.

I'm sure that you have noticed a marked deterioration in the quality of discussion in the last couple of hours. It's great isn't it?

Personally, I don't think the fact that the Glazers haven't taken money from the club represents the "pressing question".

You are simply doing what everyone else has done for the last ten months. We have all been brainwashed into thinking that it is a given and now it isn't there, we want to know why not!

Maybe the other had it all wrong from the very beginning?

The assumption is that the Glazers have no money of their own, the assumption is that their other business interests have been losing money hand over fist.

The assumption is that without Manchester United, they have no hope of paying down those PIKs.

What if all those assumptions are merely... well... wrong?

What if the Glazers simply set up that £70million carve out thing as a safety measure for if their REAL plan didn't quite work out?

What if the Glazers gave themselves the option to take out a £25million dividend in case they had a bit of a cashflow problem at some point?

What if they never actually specifically planned to take any of it and are happy to see the value of United grow?

Presumably, they were all living pretty comfortably before 2005 and have continued to do so ever since.

 

[ralphie88]

From what I can see from the accounts, in the last year we spent £40.087m on amortisation of players’ registrations (i.e. buying players), plus £8.307m since June 30th (on buying Bebe).

Amortisation of player registrations is not the same as buying players by any stetch. Amortisation costs include player bought years ago.

However it certainly does look like £8m came out on Bebe. Which is very, very odd.

 

[ralphie88]

Surely that's the whole point of PIKS. If you could just pay high interest for a short while and then pay the debt off, then the lenders would be standing a high risk for relatively feck-all. The PIKS rate is so high because they couldn't borrow the money anywhere else at the time, not for any other reason, and the lenders will want their premium for that in full.

Yes. I'd be astonished if that money in the account isn't still spent on paying off the PIKs. After all, that was the point of the bond issue.

I'm damn sure that it isn't sitting there just waiting for Fergie to "find value in the market".

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Amortisation of player registrations is not the same as buying players by any stetch. Amortisation costs include player bought years ago.

However it certainly does look like £8m came out on Bebe. Which is very, very odd.

ralphie... this is why mere mortals such as you and I cannot understand these accounts.

Players bought years ago do indeed have an impact on the accounts of today.

I had it explained to me the other day that a player bought four years ago on a four year contract for £20million gets spread across the four years as £5million per year.

We spent the £20million four years ago but £5million of it appears on the accounts every year for the three years afterwards.

We didn't actually spend £5million on that player this year but it appears on the account as if we did, hence these "losses".

This is my very basic understanding of it and, no, I don't think it makes any sense but there it is.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Yes. I'd be astonished if that money in the account isn't still spent on paying off the PIKs. After all, that was the point of the bond issue.

That is what Anders told us. What if he was wrong? In light of the situation with Liverpool, can you not think of any other advantages to taking the debt away from the banks and putting it into another instrument?

 

[Red Dreams]

ralphie... this is why mere mortals such as you and I cannot understand these accounts.

Players bought years ago do indeed have an impact on the accounts of today.

I had it explained to me the other day that a player bought four years ago on a four year contract for £20million gets spread across the four years as £5million per year.

We spent the £20million four years ago but £5million of it appears on the accounts every year for the three years afterwards.

We didn't actually spend £5million on that player this year but it appears on the account as if we did, hence these "losses".

This is my very basic understanding of it and, no, I don't think it makes any sense but there it is.

Actually we Did spend the 5 million this year. There is a difference between cashflow and Profit and Loss.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Actually we Did spend the 5 million this year. There is a difference between cashflow and Profit and Loss.

Hmm... So I have just got it wrong yet again?

Well, I give up. I don't give a monkeys about accounts anyway. I tried to show them courtesy and respect and they keep taking the piss out of me. Bastard things.

 

[Escobar]

Well, some points to take from:

- the debt is being handled well enough
- the club increases turnover
- the debt is still huge, and interest and its costs are still very high / we would be very well off without the Glazers
- we have a lot of money in the bank but we are not spending it for whatever reason (nor players, no debt)
- no one knows what the feck really is going on
- i am fecking glad i became a laywer and not an accountant

 

[711]

Yes. I'd be astonished if that money in the account isn't still spent on paying off the PIKs. After all, that was the point of the bond issue.

I'm damn sure that it isn't sitting there just waiting for Fergie to "find value in the market".

Nah, that's not what I tried to say ralphie. I don't think the PIKS can be paid off, or at least the club won't save much money if does so. The profit of the lenders would have been set at the start to reflect the fact that no normal lender was willing to stand the unsecured risk.

The other debts (which were secured on the assets of the club) could be re-arranged because of the bond issue, but they were at more standard rates, the PIKS was emergency stuff.

 

[ralphie88]

ralphie... this is why mere mortals such as you and I cannot understand these accounts.

Players bought years ago do indeed have an impact on the accounts of today.

I had it explained to me the other day that a player bought four years ago on a four year contract for £20million gets spread across the four years as £5million per year.

We spent the £20million four years ago but £5million of it appears on the accounts every year for the three years afterwards.

We didn't actually spend £5million on that player this year but it appears on the account as if we did, hence these "losses".

This is my very basic understanding of it and, no, I don't think it makes any sense but there it is.

That's exactly how it works.

Player amortisation is pretty basic to understand, but it's certainly not intuitive.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Well, some points to take from:

- the debt is being handled well enough
- the club increases turnover
- the debt is still huge, and interest and its costs are still very high / we would be very well off without the Glazers
- we have a lot of money in the bank but we are not spending it for whatever reason (nor players, no debt)
- no one knows what the feck really is going on
- i am fecking glad i became a laywer and not an accountant

I would agree with all but one of your points.

"- the debt is still huge, and interest and its costs are still very high / we would be very well off without the Glazers"

Yes, we might be well off without the Glazers but would we be making the revenues that we are currently making without the Glazers?

You have to keep it in context.

Commercial Revenues under the Glazers have increased enormously. The previous ownership showed no inclination to increase them by such an amount.

Matchday revenues have increased enormously. The previous ownership showed no inclination to increase them by such an amount.

One of these days, I am going to make a point of establishing exactly how much Commercial revenues have increased. If they have increased more than the debt interest then they have had no effect whatsoever on the state of Manchester United's finances.

As for the Matchday Revenues, people can complain all they like about how they have been priced out but the Glazers have found people to take their place. There is nothing intrinsically "wrong" about this.

The stadium holds a fixed amount of people. Once it is full, the rest can't get in. Someone will find themselves disappointed whichever way you do things so why not make as much money for the club as you can while you're disappointing people?

In the end, this increased money enables the club to compete at the highest level which ultimately makes us all very happy when we win Champions League and Premier Leagues titles.

 

[ralphie88]

Ah, we're back here again are we?

As for the Matchday Revenues, people can complain all they like about how they have been priced out but the Glazers have found people to take their place. There is nothing intrinsically "wrong" about this.

The stadium holds a fixed amount of people. Once it is full, the rest can't get in. Someone will find themselves disappointed whichever way you do things so why not make as much money for the club as you can while you're disappointing people?

(1) Because the loyalty of the fans who supported us through the bad times should be rewarded.
(2) Because Manchester United's local fanbase in Stretford and Salford is not exactly swimming in money.
(3) Because having some kind of atmosphere would be nice.
(4) Because having a stadium that was actually full (as opposed to all tickets sold but only 80-90% occupancy rate) would be nice.

In the end, this increased money enables the club to compete at the highest level which ultimately makes us all very happy when we win Champions League and Premier Leagues titles.

No, this increased money enables the Glazers to service their debt.

Without the debt we could let everyone in for free and still compete for the same players.

 

[711]

I would agree with all but one of your points.

"- the debt is still huge, and interest and its costs are still very high / we would be very well off without the Glazers"

Yes, we might be well off without the Glazers but would we be making the revenues that we are currently making without the Glazers?

You have to keep it in context.

Commercial Revenues under the Glazers have increased enormously. The previous ownership showed no inclination to increase them by such an amount.Matchday revenues have increased enormously. The previous ownership showed no inclination to increase them by such an amount.
One of these days, I am going to make a point of establishing exactly how much Commercial revenues have increased. If they have increased more than the debt interest then they have had no effect whatsoever on the state of Manchester United's finances.

As for the Matchday Revenues, people can complain all they like about how they have been priced out but the Glazers have found people to take their place. There is nothing intrinsically "wrong" about this.

The stadium holds a fixed amount of people. Once it is full, the rest can't get in. Someone will find themselves disappointed whichever way you do things so why not make as much money for the club as you can while you're disappointing people?

In the end, this increased money enables the club to compete at the highest level which ultimately makes us all very happy when we win Champions League and Premier Leagues titles.

Neither you nor I will ever know what the previous ownership would have done. But we do know they were the most successful English club when it comes to marketing, and that as a plc they would have fired and hired appropriately in order to maximise their commercial revenue.

Matchday revenues have increased not only because of price increases, but also because of capacity increase by, guess who, the previous ownership.

I'm open to argument, but I can't see what the Glazers have brought yet except ticket price increases and debt. And debt. And debt.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

(1) Because the loyalty of the fans who supported us through the bad times should be rewarded.
(2) Because Manchester United's local fanbase in Stretford and Salford is not exactly swimming in money.
(3) Because having some kind of atmosphere would be nice.
(4) Because having a stadium that was actually full (as opposed to all tickets sold but only 80-90% occupancy rate) would be nice.

Ticket prices are competitive, ralphie. Look at what our competitors are charin

No, this increased money enables the Glazers to service their debt.

Without the debt we could let everyone in for free and still compete for the same players.

I won't bother to answer your first parts because it has been done to death.

But I will answer your last part because, when you think it through, it contains the answer to all the rest.

We could NOT let EVERYONE in for free because the stadium holds a fixed number of people.

We have a worldwide fanbase of between 70 and 330million people.

How do you decide which 0.1% - 0.03% of those people get through the gates?

If you want it all to be restricted to monies generated from Stretford and Salford, well fair enough. Welcome to the Conference.

You can't take money from people all around the world and then discriminate against them when it comes to tickets. That would be a pretty cnutish thing to do, really.

 

[ralphie88]

I won't bother to answer your first parts because it has been done to death.

But I will answer your last part because, when you think it through, it contains the answer to all the rest.

We could NOT let EVERYONE in for free because the stadium holds a fixed number of people.

We have a worldwide fanbase of between 70 and 330million people.

How do you decide which 0.1% - 0.03% of those people get through the gates?

If you want it all to be restricted to monies generated from Stretford and Salford, well fair enough. Welcome to the Conference.

You can't take money from people all around the world and then discriminate against them when it comes to tickets. That would be a pretty cnutish thing to do, really.

I think you have missed my point.

You argued that matchday income enabled us to compete for the best players.

I said that actually without the debt we didn't need any matchday income at all to compete at this level.

Our increased matchday income is needed for one reason and one reason only. To service the Glazer debt.

 

[e.cantona]

Press the ticket prices to maximum for long enough and force the hardcore fan base out you lose a big part of what is United tho, dont you. In an economical perspective they are after all part of the image of the club, they help spreading the good word and so on. In case of bad times they'll still be there to give support and so on. Wont be a good thing in the long run, 's all I know.

 

[Ole'sbodyguard]

Neither you nor I will ever know what the previous ownership would have done. But we do know they were the most successful English club when it comes to marketing, and that as a plc they would have fired and hired appropriately in order to maximise their commercial revenue.

Matchday revenues have increased not only because of price increases, but also because of capacity increase by, guess who, the previous ownership.

I'm open to argument, but I can't see what the Glazers have brought yet except ticket price increases and debt. And debt. And debt.

This is essentially my position on the Glazers as well.

I'd take the previous ownership over them any day of the week purely because of the debt situation. The amount of money pouring out of the club to service the debt has always really irked me. I just can't see how it can be spun as anything else other than a huge waste of resources. I get the previous ownership model is what permitted them to buy the club in the first place.

I honestly could not see the PLC going with the transfer policy we have adopted post Ronaldo either. We would never have been spending to the extremes of City or Real but United should comfortably be able to spend the way the next lot of big clubs do(e.g. Inter, Bayern, etc).

I backed Fergie's decision to stick with the squad he had this summer but I'm not going to pretend that our recent transfer policy of stockpiling the likes of Bebe, Obertan, Diouf, Tosic, Hernandez, Smalling, and picking up the likes of Owen of a free is something that fills me with much encouragement. We just seem to be improving the squad on the cheap when we always mixed and matched between unknown prospects before and some proven quality whatever the value in the market and trust me the market was inflated plenty of times in the past by the spending of Real, Barca, Chelsea, Newcastle, Blackburn and the Italian clubs during different periods. This City and Real splurge is not much different to what has been done before.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Neither you nor I will ever know what the previous ownership would have done.

Of course we do. They were made an offer and they accepted it. That's what they would have done because that is what they did! If they thought that there was more gold in them thar hills, they wouldn't have accepted it. They would have doubled the revenues in the last five years, as the Glazers have done.

But we do know they were the most successful English club when it comes to marketing, and that as a plc they would have fired and hired appropriately in order to maximise their commercial revenue.

I disagree. There was a complacency amongst the PLC board if you ask me. A complacency that enabled the likes of Chelsea to come along and steal our thunder.

The Glazers came along at a time when we were no longer the super-power in English football. Yes, we were doing ok and the previous years of the PLC were a success but it had just been overtaken by foreign owners with even bigger pockets.

Rather than dig in and accept the challenge, they sold up. Perhaps thinking that the glory days were behind us and they were getting out on the crest of a wave.

The Glazers clearly saw a different future for Manchester United.

Let it not be forgotten that during this time, Fergie was embroiled in a dispute with a couple of the major shareholders which could have led to his position at the club becoming untenable.

Matchday revenues have increased not only because of price increases, but also because of capacity increase by, guess who, the previous ownership.

The Glazers saw this increased capacity and the fact that the club was sitting on a massive waiting list for season tickets and laughed their arse off at the PLC's stupidity.

Who the hell in their right mind has a waiting list for their product when there is fixed supply?

If you're smart at what you do, you tear up the waiting list and you subject prices to the laws of supply and demand. The ideal situation is when there is no waiting list.

This is what the Glazers did.

We can argue all day long about whether this is a good or bad thing but I can list as many positives that have come about from this as you can negatives.

I'm open to argument, but I can't see what the Glazers have brought yet except ticket price increases and debt. And debt. And debt.

People who don't open their eyes, tend not to see very much.

The Glazers have done what the PLC didn't do. The PLC "could" have... but they didn't.

It is very easy to say "I could have done that". In theory, it is true. We all have two arms, two legs and a brain.

In practice, it is different.

That's why so many of us are working in "normal" jobs and not playing centre-forward for Manchester United.

 

[ludvik]

To defend The Glazers is an intellectual suicide. To sit there with your thumbs up your ass and say things like: "would we be better off without the Glazers?" or "the Glazers are good for us", or any of that fecking rubbish is an insult to the idea of IQ. Of course the Glazers are bad. If you get the impression they are not you are in dire need of a shrink because your head has been turned inside out. Or you are on their pay-roll (advice: check your account frequently).

No, not really: debt is not good. Alot of debt is not very ok. If anyone come up to you and say they want to buy your trade, and they ask you to cover up for their lack of money: that is not good. Never was, never will be. Not even for "the biggest club on the planet".

Just because you have tons of nodders here saying otherwise, don't buy it. 1 000 000 000 000 000 flies does not prove it. Shit is still not very tasty. Kick the cnuts out. The Club deserves better owners than this. Doesn't the world's best club deserve better owners than miserable Americans with nothing else to show for than a pile of debt and mountains of promises?

I don't know about you, but I rate my club higher than that.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

I think you have missed my point.

You argued that matchday income enabled us to compete for the best players.

I said that actually without the debt we didn't need any matchday income at all to compete at this level.

Our increased matchday income is needed for one reason and one reason only. To service the Glazer debt.

If that is your argument then I think you are missing a bigger point.

Revenues from this latest account were £280million.

You want to take away the £110million matchday revenues.

That leaves us with £170million.

Our wage bill is £130million.

That leaves you with £40million to run the club (electric bills etc etc etc) and compete in the transfer market.

Who are you trying to kid?

You still seem to be drawing from the MUST bullshit propaganda which said that not only could we all get in for free but we could have a cash lump sum of £800 to boot.

I think I might have mentioned in the past but in case you missed it - this was a pack of LIES.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

To defend The Glazers is an intellectual suicide. To sit there with your thumbs up your ass and say things like: "would we be better off without the Glazers?" or "the Glazers are good for us", or any of that fecking rubbish is an insult to the idea of IQ. Of course the Glazers are bad. If you get the impression they are not you are in dire need of a shrink because your head has been turned inside out.

No, not really: debt is not good. Alot of debt is not very ok. If anyone come up to you and say they want to buy your trade, and they ask you to cover up for their lack of money: that is not good. Never was, never will be. Not even for "the biggest club on the planet".

Just because you have tons of nodders here saying otherwise, don't buy it. 1 000 000 000 000 000 flies does not prove it. Shit is still not very tasty. Kick the cnuts out. The Club deserves better owners than this. Doesn't the world's best club deserve better owners than miserable Americans with nothing else to show for than a pile of debt and mountains of promises?

I don't know about you, but I rate my club higher than that.

If you put a drop of poison into a bucket of pure water. You end up with a bucket of poison.

 

[ludvik]

If you put a drop of poison into a bucket of pure water. You end up with a bucket of poison.

You are such a fecking gay soap box preacher, they don't come any lower than this. Your words carry the weight of zero. I will be standing here when the storm is over. Trust me: you won't.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

This is essentially my position on the Glazers as well.

I'd take the previous ownership over them any day of the week purely because of the debt situation. The amount of money pouring out of the club to service the debt has always really irked me.

That is because you are ignoring the fact that the amount of money pouring into the club since the Glazers took over is now almost double what it was before them.

I don't blame you for this. It is rarely mentioned.

I just can't see how it can be spun as anything else other than a huge waste of resources. I get the previous ownership model is what permitted them to buy the club in the first place.

Yes. When the club was a PLC, you or I could buy a share in the club. If you or I bought all the shares, we would now own the club. The Glazers bought all the shares. It is as simple as that.

I honestly could not see the PLC going with the transfer policy we have adopted post Ronaldo either. We would never have been spending to the extremes of City or Real but United should comfortably be able to spend the way the next lot of big clubs do(e.g. Inter, Bayern, etc).

The PLC had a responsibility to their share holders. There is no way of knowing exactly what they would have done. An £80million windfall may well have had a few shareholders clamouring for a bigger dividend. We will never know.

What we do know is that Manchester United's record signing has been made during the Glazer era.

What we do know is that Fergie says the Glazers have never refused him funds when he has asked for them.

What we do know is that the Fergie says that the Glazers wanted Ronaldo to stay more than Fergie did himself.

I backed Fergie's decision to stick with the squad he had this summer but I'm not going to pretend that our recent transfer policy of stockpiling the likes of Bebe, Obertan, Diouf, Tosic, Hernandez, Smalling, and picking up the likes of Owen of a free is something that fills me with much encouragement. We just seem to be improving the squad on the cheap when we always mixed and matched between unknown prospects before and some proven quality whatever the value in the market and trust me the market was inflated plenty of times in the past by the spending of Real, Barca, Chelsea, Newcastle, Blackburn and the Italian clubs during different periods. This City and Real splurge is not much different to what has been done before.

Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that as of today we have £160million in the bank in hard cash.

To suggest that Fergie would not be allowed even £20-30million of that is frankly absurd. We can only assume that it is Fergie's judgement that he doesn't need it and so will not spend it.

I don't want to turn this into a transfer thread because there are plenty of others out there for that. This is about the financials. Let's try to keep it that way.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

You are such a fecking gay soap box preacher, they don't come any lower than this. Your words carry the weight of zero. I will be standing here when the storm is over. Trust me: you won't.

I will be where I have always been, my friend... trust me.

 

[ludvik]

I will be where I have always been, my friend... trust me.

Yeah, hiding behind Ciderman's back. Asking if it's safe to peek-a-boo.

Nah. You're both gone by then.

 

[e.cantona]

.

No offence or anything, really! I buy into a lot of what you've said..

You spend a lot of time on here, what kind of work do you do beside this?

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Yeah, hiding behind Ciderman's back. Asking if it's safe to peek-a-boo.

Nah. You're both gone by then.

No. I am red through and through. Born in Miles Platting to a Salford mum and a Denton dad.

I currently live in Moston.

Manchester is in my veins and it will never leave me, wherever I go.

I just don't think Manchester United is on the road to ruin under the Glazers. I can actually see a bright future ahead.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

No offence or anything, really! I buy into a lot of what you've said..

You spend a lot of time on here, what kind of work do you do beside this?

Less than I should be doing to be honest! I just get carried away.

I work for myself from home on my own internet business. This means that I am online for hours on end every day.

A blessing and a curse!

 

[e.cantona]

Less than I should be doing to be honest! I just get carried away.

I work for myself from home on my own internet business. This means that I am online for hours on end every day.

A blessing and a curse!

Any chance of more detail then that?

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Any chance of more detail then that?

It would be a bit irrelevant to the thread.

I just build websites. Some are sports related. Some are gambling related. Some are general shopping related. One is Manchester United specific but I do that for fun, not really profit.

I sell stuff from them all and they all make me money. I can be making money while I am typing a post on here which is good for me because if that wasn't the case, I'd be fecking skint!

Anyway... the Glazers...

 

[Red Dreams]

No. I am red through and through. Born in Miles Platting to a Salford mum and a Denton dad.

I currently live in Moston.

Manchester is in my veins and it will never leave me, wherever I go.

I just don't think Manchester United is on the road to ruin under the Glazers. I can actually see a bright future ahead.

the debt is certainly not healthy. But I agree with you. I do see a bright future for the club.

If you think back to when Edwards had the club, we were debt free but he was a penny pinching bastard, with whom Sir Alex had to fight with for every player almost.

He almost left because Edwards would not budge on Keane's wages.

It really is a matter of earning more than what we have to pay out.

The club is being run responsibly.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

the debt is certainly not healthy. But I agree with you. I do see a bright future for the club.

If you think back to when Edwards had the club, we were debt free but he was a penny pinching bastard, with whom Sir Alex had to fight with for every player almost.

He almost left because Edwards would not budge on Keane's wages.

It really is a matter of earning more than what we have to pay out.

The club is being run responsibly.

I don't think you would find anyone amongst the "supporters" of the current regime who would say that the debt is a "good" thing. It obviously isn't.

Every one of us would rather it wasn't there and we would all lose it tomorrow if we could.

However, with every ownership model there is good and bad - the perfect owner probably doesn't exist. As Fergie has said, we have complained about every regime about something or other down the years.

I just wish people would give the Glazers a break and see what they have tried to do with the club in terms of bringing the money in (the on-field success hasn't exactly dried up over the last five years, either, if you'd rather concentrate on that).

There are undoubtedly challenges ahead for them and they have still to pass one or two tests but I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt. I have done this for the last five years and, all things considered, I have not been particularly disappointed by them.

If they fail these tests then by all means do everything necessary to get them out but today's financial reports show a club on the up and if it ain't broke...

 

[e.cantona]

It would be a bit irrelevant to the thread.

I just build websites. Some are sports related. Some are gambling related. Some are general shopping related. One is Manchester United specific but I do that for fun, not really profit.

I sell stuff from them all and they all make me money. I can be making money while I am typing a post on here which is good for me because if that wasn't the case, I'd be fecking skint!

Anyway... the Glazers...

Was just trying to figure you out a little considering how devoted you seem But fair enough, no problem.

 

[Red Dreams]

I don't think you would find anyone amongst the "supporters" of the current regime who would say that the debt is a "good" thing. It obviously isn't.

Every one of us would rather it wasn't there and we would all lose it tomorrow if we could.

However, with every ownership model there is good and bad - the perfect owner probably doesn't exist. As Fergie has said, we have complained about every regime about something or other down the years.

I just wish people would give the Glazers a break and see what they have tried to do with the club in terms of bringing the money in (the on-field success hasn't exactly dried up over the last five years, either, if you'd rather concentrate on that).

There are undoubtedly challenges ahead for them and they have still to pass one or two tests but I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt. I have done this for the last five years and, all things considered, I have not been particularly disappointed by them.

If they fail these tests then by all means do everything necessary to get them out but today's financial reports show a club on the up and if it ain't broke...

I subscribe to MUST, not because I want them to be a nuisance and hurt the club, but because I hope some day that supporters like you and me can actually own a piece of the club. The Barcelona model is the ideal one.

We live in hope eh?

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Was just trying to figure you out a little considering how devoted you seem But fair enough, no problem.

I love my club as much as the next fan. Some people cannot understand why I show this love by defending what is perceived to be such a malignant force as the Glazers and such a contrary view of the situation takes a lot of explaining.

 

[ludvik]

I love my club as much as the next fan. Some people cannot understand why I show this love by defending what is perceived to be such a malignant force as the Glazers and such a contrary view of the situation takes a lot of explaining.

You are bent. Enough said.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

I subscribe to MUST, not because I want them to be a nuisance and hurt the club, but because I hope some day that supporters like you and me can actually own a piece of the club. The Barcelona model is the ideal one.

We live in hope eh?

In principle, I have nothing against MUST's ideals. The way they go about achieving their aims has been counter-productive for themselves, the fans and the club though, in my opinion. I could not align myself to a body that behaves in the way that MUST do. I find their methods completely unethical.

At the end of the day, even if the club were fan-owned, we would still have a President in charge (the extent of our influence would be to vote on the President we want in charge) and he might turn out to be a complete plank who promised us the world and delivered next to nothing except a load of Galacticos and a new manager every five minutes (ask Real Madrid fans about this).

Barcelona is a good model but that was a club established on fan-based ownership from the very beginning. It may be that we are too far gone to go back to that now.

In any case, until that day comes along, we have what we have. We either work with it or we work against it. I just believe that working with it is the better option especially as they aren't doing all that bad a job.

Some might call it apathy. I call it pragmatism.

 

[ludvik]

In principle, I have nothing against MUST's ideals. The way they go about achieving their aims has been counter-productive for themselves, the fans and the club though, in my opinion. I could not align myself to a body that behaves in the way that MUST do. I find their methods completely unethical.

At the end of the day, even if the club were fan-owned, we would still have a President in charge (the extent of our influence would be to vote on the President we want in charge) and he might turn out to be a complete plank who promised us the world and delivered next to nothing except a load of Galacticos and a new manager every five minutes (ask Real Madrid fans about this).

Barcelona is a good model but that was a club established on fan-based ownership from the very beginning. It may be that we are too far gone to go back to that now.

In any case, until that day comes along, we have what we have. We either work with it or we work against it. I just believe that working with it is the better option especially as they aren't doing all that bad a job.

Some might call it apathy. I call it pragmatism.

Don't flatter yourself. You align yourself with whatever body is in control. Don't pretend you are growing balls. You're just a muppet, and a solemn Thought Police deputy. Not sure where Gills' hand ends and where your bottom begins. Somwhere in the middle I suppose.

 

[VoetbalWizard]

Don't flatter yourself. You align yourself with whatever body is in control. Don't pretend you are growing balls. You're just a muppet, and a solemn Thought Police deputy. Not sure where Gills' hand ends and where your bottom begins. Somwhere in the middle I suppose.

he's the type of lad that would've bent over to the germans if they had invaded.

 

[Crerand Legend]

You are insulting people's intelligence though.

How is this then? Just because you dont agree with me. If you think todays accounts are good for Manchester United the football club then that is your right