Hey, anders, you didn't answer my question from the previous page (or maybe the page before, hang on...)
Ahh here it is...
Post #5578
Ahh here it is...
Post #5578
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
I think you're being extremely generous, TMRD.
Just read his conclusion where he completely fails to mention the existence of the RCF, never mind the size of it. For me it's inconceivable that he's simply made an innocent oversight there. The entire article is aimed towards arguing that significant repayment of the Glazers PIKs will leave the squad without adequate investment.
You realise the RCF has a net clean down to £25m don't you?
Fair enough. To be honest, I have been forced to think about this a bit today and this thread is a total cluster feck. It hasn't helped that the other threads on the subject were closed and this is now the only one where anything remotely Glazer/Ownership/Debts/Ticket Prices etc etc etc can be discussed.However, we are all Manchester United fans at the end of the day and I don't see why a thread should exclude the views of the majority just because they don't enter the debate with the professional qualifications of a vast minority.
This shit affects us all and even if there's bugger all we can do about it, sometimes getting stuff off your chest and discussing it with other fans just... helps.
Well. He asked me to read it through before he published it and asked me if there's anything (I thought) he had left out.
So I'm as much to blame as he is, I suppose!
Maybe this is why he asked me to read it first? Hmm... Anders, you sneaky git!
However, we are all Manchester United fans at the end of the day and I don't see why a thread should exclude the views of the majority just because they don't enter the debate with the professional qualifications of a vast minority.
This shit affects us all and even if there's bugger all we can do about it, sometimes getting stuff off your chest and discussing it with other fans just... helps.
You're absolutely right of course. I think the frustration is that we have pages and pages of non qualified people talking serious figures. I don't mind people trying to understand what the accounts/anders/rood/redjazz/gchq have said regarding the figures and even using them to clarify how things work, but we've got far too many without the requisite knowledge making complex calculations or simply stating "facts" which in reality equate to laymans interpretations of the situation as they want it to be. I think I've managed to get an idea of how things stand but it's made incredibly hard by ding dongs involving somebody trying to rationalise with a complete spaz.
No, it doesn't really. It's just waffle without explaining that the additional cash required for that major squad investment could be financed by drawing down a small portion of the RCF for a few weeks in the year. How is that in any way ''tricky''. It looks bloody simple to me.
Your conclusion, which completely fails to acknowledge the existence of the RCF and how it would be utilised, is quite clearly geared towards leading the reader to believe that there won't be major squad investment if the £123m PIK repayment is made.
When I see blatant deception about a subject that I'm passionate about (Manchester United), then yes, I will put forward my point of view in a firm manner.
Well. He asked me to read it through before he published it and asked me if there's anything (I thought) he had left out.
So I'm as much to blame as he is, I suppose!
Maybe this is why he asked me to read it first? Hmm... Anders, you sneaky git!
I asked you to read it because I'm sick of these accusations of being a propagandist and I wanted someone with a different take on things to have a look first.
I am slightly bemused about this RCF point, which I answered in reply to the first comment. You can use the RCF to fund seasonal cash flow (at a cost) but the clean down provision makes it useless for funding long-term squad investment.
I do yes. How does that affect what I've said about the major squad investment and how it will be financed even in your doomsday £125m PIK repayment scenario?
Well now you know how I feel.
And I'm not talking about long-term squad investment. The £30m per year that the club can finance will be more than enough after the major investment which we assume will be required over the next year or two.
I take it from your last few comments that you don't understand that the RCF cannot exceed £25m over a 12mth period.
That means (with the seasonality) that if the club spent all the RCF on players post a full dividend payment, there would be a £50m cash requirement PLUS the seasonal £35-50m requirement. No further credit facility would be available by definition (not to mention the additional annual £3.3m cost of the RCF at current LIBOR, probably double at "normalised" interest rates in years to come would have to be found somewhere).
Where would that £85-100m seasonal dip plus RCF clean down come from if the cash balance were taken down close to zero by dividend payments and a bad season?
Is an additional £75m of debt a good thing?
Can't you see how preposterous the fact that we are even debating the impact of £120m+ of dividends on our ability to strengthen the squad is?
Let me know if you need promotional help with a blog by the way!
Sorry Cider, I'm going out to dinner, will get back to you on that. I must have missed it.
Sounds like Anders is going to keep plowing this furrow that the Glazers are going to take as much out of United as soon as they can at the expense of the squad or at the risk of leaving us in a potentially perilous situation- even when the evidence and logic is completely against him. 
No, I understand that perfectly well. Clearly you've haven't been following what I've been saying about the affect the major squad investment would have on cash flow. I've stated (based on your numbers I might add) that the club could finance a £75m net cash outflow on players over the period between now up until the end of the 2011/12 financial year and only have to draw down c. £15m or a ''small portion'' of the RCF for a month or two even in your doomsday scenario whereby £123m leaves the club for PIK repayment.
I asked you to put a ball park figure on what you'd describe as major squad investment about 100 posts ago. I think £75m net is more than enough. Just what exactly do you have in mind Anders?
I don't want to start a blog thanks, but I know if I did start one I wouldn't use it as a vehicle to advise and encourage other Manchester United supporters to boycott their own club. I'd like to think I've got a bit more class than that.
What do you reckon will be available for transfers next summer, GCHQ?
Sounds like Anders is going to keep plowing this furrow that the Glazers are going to take as much out of United as soon as they can at the expense of the squad or at the risk of leaving us in a potentially perilous situation- even when the evidence and logic is completely against him.
Looks like it. Sad to see really.
"Do a Hicks"?
You make it sound like he sold up by choice!
Have I said that? I'd love the Glazers to leave (With their debts) ASAP whether they like or not.
So in few words we are stuck with the Glazers and their mountain of debt for good. Meanwhile we search 'value' on minimum wage from the flea market while all the cash generated by the club (usually fleeced by the home fans who has to foot the bill) is used to pay off their debt. Thank god that we have 300m in the bank.
£50m-£60m net cash would be available (would be a bit higher if we don't spend anything in January). I think it's more likely that there will be a £50m-£60m net commitment though.
The problem is not the fees its the salary. A 100 grand a week player can cost the club 48m in 10 years time (salary).
Cheers. Well, if that's anywhere close to the mark and Fergie actually spends it then I can't see many complaints.
When you thought it couldn't get any worse devilish turns up. We just need crusoe now for a full house of forum nutjobs. I'm off.
True - for example "free agent" Joe Cole will cost liverpool 18.7 million over 4 years.
I appreciate that but I think we're all expecting that there will be several high earners leaving the club at the end of this season which would offset the majority handed to the new signings.
If there aren't any departures then it won't make any sense to buy new players because the squad would then be far too large.
Are you referring to VDS, Neville, Scholes and giggs ?
I think that only one or two of them will or perhaps may eventually leave - i cannot see all the four of them retiring at the same time
I'm not referring to all them, no. By several high earners, I mean 2-3 and you've got to include the likes of Hargreaves and a few other first team players as possible departees.
Given the current transfer policy it will be relatively young players brought in who are unlikely to be anywhere near the salary levels of the players they will replace initially.
I agree. I imagine maybe a couple this summer and a couple next, plus Hargreaves not having his rather expensive contract renewed. I imagine it will be one out one in, meaning we dont have to go batshit transfer crazy all in one summer.
Regarding the post above yours, when have we ever signed a £100,000 a week player? I dont expect us to this time either. Id imagine we'll do the same as we always have and buy talanted young players from second tier clubs on moderate wages. Id be surprised if we gashed much more in wages than the players we lose are receiving. Conceivably Owen could leave too. Thats a lot of cash off the wage bill.
i can see vds,scholes and giggs still playing next season....
not so sure about neville and hargreaves and perhaps brown
not so sure about neville and hargreaves and perhaps brown
Current policy? One or two top names aside its always been the way we've done business under Lord Fergus.
if i m not wrong Owen's salary is related to the number of appearances ...so it should not be a big burden for the club
I think you are right on Neville and Hargreaves and I must admit that Brown did come to my mind. I dont really see what value he brings to the squad anymore.
Yes it is. I just meant thart its another name off the wagebill, even if its 20,30 or 40,000 a week or whatever. It all counts. The squad is too big now anyway.
They might well be young players but they'll be far more established than the likes of Diouf, Obertan and Bebe were when we signed them and as such they'll be handed significant pay packages, albeit perhaps not quite at the level of the players they'll initially replace.
They have explicitly outlined the policy in recent years so I referred to it. The main point was about the wage differential.
Id be surprised when Giggs, Scholes, VDS, Hargreaves, Neville and Owen are gone if we are significantly over the current wage bill, and then only possibly because of Rooneys renewal.
That's rather obvious. Those 3 were speculative purchases on the basis that they could develop and become regular first team players in a year or two. Any replacements would need to be immediately ready to be first choices.
You'd imagine Scholes and Giggs are near £100k+ pw, I can't see us replacing them with players at that level upon signing.
What a load of rubbish some people write here. The squad we currently have may well be damn good, but it is also an old one (no, there is NO need to cover this ground yet again in this thread also). Both Neville, Scholes and Giggs are very special veterans for us - and the two latter have to be said are of unique and historical qualities. To undermine the fact that all of these three most likely won't be playing in 1-2 years is dodging bullets: blatant lies. Add Van Der Sar and you get an idea of the magnitude.
What utter nonsense and complete bullshit this Forum is burden with (no, not the Forum itself, but the fecking crap contributions here). The club is tied financially: FACT. We need player investments: FACT. No, every Tom, Dick and Harry won't do: the players in question that needs replacement in very few years, or maybe one year even, is not sorted out with the bat of an eye. The only reason as to why we already haven't got the replacements installed already has NOTHING to do with the market. Look in your pockets.
It's not only new owners we need. We need new fans.
What utter nonsense and complete bullshit this Forum is burden with (no, not the Forum itself, but the fecking crap contributions here). The club is tied financially: FACT. We need player investments: FACT. No, every Tom, Dick and Harry won't do: the players in question that needs replacement in very few years, or maybe one year even, is not sorted out with the bat of an eye. The only reason as to why we already haven't got the replacements installed already has NOTHING to do with the market. Look in your pockets.
It's not only new owners we need. We need new fans.
It's Owen Hargreaves
I'm not sure why people are getting excited.
I'm not sure why people are getting excited.
According to the telegraph: giggs and scholes are on around 75 K/week, if i did my maths well...
Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Kaka pip Premier League stars in football wages list - Telegraph
- Status