ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
What the feck are you on about Fred?!
This is a new level of low for you.

GCHQ gets his info from the financial statements released by the club just like everyone else (apart from you who just makes it all up as he goes along) - he analyses them and gives his conclusions - that is all there is to it so stop your bullshit please.
 
RedRichio said:
Say he came out and said,"I'm john from Manchester and I'm an accountant". What would you say then Fred?
Click to expand...

Well lets try it then.

I am actually thinking it would be an idea for a thread with Anders and GCHQ to just debate it from start to finish on their own.

A rumble in the Caf Jungle for want of a better phrase.
 
I think the best idea would be to make a 'fredthered thread' - you can sit on your own in there posting whatever conspiracy theories and utter bollocks you managed to come up with that day - would leave the rest of us to get on with having the intelligent debate that goes on whenever you are not around.
 
fredthered said:
Well lets try it then.

I am actually thinking it would be an idea for a thread with Anders and GCHQ to just debate it from start to finish on their own.

A rumble in the Caf Jungle for want of a better phrase.
Click to expand...

Not sure what debate there would be given that they both broadly agreed on the analysis of the latest set of Man Utd accounts?
 
If andersred has an issue with GCHQ's ability to give analysis then surely he can raise it himself? Or even, if it is the work of someone with limited knowledge and insight, blow it out of the water on the points raised without resorting to petty challenges. Thankfully andersred does seem quite happy to actually focus on the real issues and as such between all the dross there is some interesting stuff raised on both sides of the argument.
 
Rood said:
I think the best idea would be to make a 'fredthered thread' - you can sit on your own in there posting whatever conspiracy theories and utter bollocks you managed to come up with that day - would leave the rest of us to get on with having the intelligent debate that goes on whenever you are not around.
Click to expand...

Who says its conspiracy theories and utter bollocks? Fred might be completely accurate in his claims, personally it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest

The point is, QCHQ shouldn't have to answer to this, his employment is irrelevant. We should argue the anti Glazer position with him on the merits of the debate and no more

This just takes the focus off his ludicrous views, and people that would ordinarily spend time debating those with him and now having to defend him instead
 
B Cantona said:
Who says its conspiracy theories and utter bollocks?
Click to expand...

Me :D

But anyway I agree with you - people should just stick to debating the issues at hand.

The problem is that this is not the first time we have had all this crap from fred et al - I have previously had the same shit before with people demanding to know my job, qualifications etc which is plainly idiotic :wenger:
 
His analysis is shoddy in the fact it is totally one sided and concentrates only on cash, ignoring the balance sheet (strange for an accountant).

Also ignoring cost of capital and risk structures, more pertinent to a corporate finance specialist and the debate itself.

His figures are put forward well and add up although should come with a disclaimer of ignoring quite a few relevant issues.

He has a bad habit of saying a few million in costs are insignificant while at the same time championing a few million in extra revenue (sponsorship for example) which is underhand imho.

Either a few million is relevant or not.

Also dismissing one off costs even if they are 15% of turnover.

If he had an ounce of even handedness in his portrayal it would be very worthwhile but he is no worse than the complete doomsdayers.

His attitude to putting the information out there though is a tad defensive although he will probably say its because he keeps getting targeted which looks like fair comment.
 
DFreshKing said:
His analysis is shoddy in the fact it is totally one sided and concentrates only on cash, ignoring the balance sheet (strange for an accountant).

Also ignoring cost of capital and risk structures, more pertinent to a corporate finance specialist and the debate itself.

His figures are put forward well and add up although should come with a disclaimer of ignoring quite a few relevant issues.

He has a bad habit of saying a few million in costs are insignificant while at the same time championing a few million in extra revenue (sponsorship for example) which is underhand imho.

Either a few million is relevant or not.

Also dismissing one off costs even if they are 15% of turnover.

If he had an ounce of even handedness in his portrayal it would be very worthwhile but he is no worse than the complete doomsdayers.

His attitude to putting the information out there though is a tad defensive although he will probably say its because he keeps getting targeted which looks like fair comment.
Click to expand...

All of which he is criticised for. He still has a right to put forward his opinion for that critique. It has nothing to do with the demands and accusations being directed at him and discussed now. We can all read what he, andersred, rood etc have to say and form our own conclusions.
 
DFreshKing said:
His analysis is shoddy in the fact it is totally one sided and concentrates only on cash, ignoring the balance sheet (strange for an accountant).
Click to expand...

Whether he's an accountant or not, his accountancy knowledge easily outstrips mine, so I would find it very difficult to argue with him over financial statements for that reason.

On the other hand I remember how spasticated he was in the great 'waiting list' argument, in which one didn't need any specialist knowledge at all to know he was a propaganda machine, and a spectacularly feck witted one at that.

Incidentally I received a club email last week, yes last week, offering season tickets on a pro rata basis in the south stand, of all places.
 
RedRichio said:
All of which he is criticised for. He still has a right to put forward his opinion for that critique. It has nothing to do with the demands and accusations being directed at him and discussed now. We can all read what he, andersred, rood etc have to say and form our own conclusions.
Click to expand...

And?

Where do I say he has no right?

We should be judging his arguments not his job as I have said.

Pointless post and I have no idea why you decided to quote me in relation to it.

Also I would like to see where you have criticised the things I alluded to in my post.
 
DFreshKing said:
And?

Where do I say he has no right?

We should be judging his arguments not his job as I have said.

Pointless post and I have no idea why you decided to quote me in relation to it.

Also I would like to see where you have criticised the things I alluded to in my post.
Click to expand...

Steady moody.

I didn't say you did say he had no right. I just used your post to make a general point.
 
in an attempt to get the thread back on track, here is something for the accounting types out there ...

Was looking through the notes in the financials and came across this:

9 Profits of holding company
The directors have taken advantage of the exemption available under Section 408 of the Companies Act
2006 and have not presented a profit and loss account for the company alone. The Company’s profit for the
financial year was £202,799,000 (2009: Loss of £31,099,000) which includes dividends received of
£266,951,000 from direct subsidiary undertakings.​

So what's that all about then?
 
Rood said:
in an attempt to get the thread back on track, here is something for the accounting types out there ...

Was looking through the notes in the financials and came across this:

9 Profits of holding company
The directors have taken advantage of the exemption available under Section 408 of the Companies Act
2006 and have not presented a profit and loss account for the company alone. The Company’s profit for the
financial year was £202,799,000 (2009: Loss of £31,099,000) which includes dividends received of
£266,951,000 from direct subsidiary undertakings.​

So what's that all about then?
Click to expand...

Refers to an exemption from providing P&L accounts to companies house.
 
I dont give a monkeys what GCHQ does but I do hope he is not an accountant considering the nonesense he consistently posts on here, in charge of spin for a political party would be an ideal job for him
 
Crerand Legend said:
I dont give a monkeys what GCHQ does but I do hope he is not an accountant considering the nonesense he consistently posts on here, in charge of spin for a political party would be an ideal job for him
Click to expand...

What if he's actually a spin agent, but works for MUST? It'd be a great way to further annoy the undecided fans into joining up.
 
this is a very valuable thread for many members on the forum i suspect, especially with the input from GCHQ, Anders & cider. i for one have read nearly every post, but my lack of accountancy knowledge keeps me from posting.

so fred, are you going to divulge this "information" that will discredit GCHQ and his arguments, or are you going to pop up again in another 3-4 months peddling the same shit?

i think you should maybe steer clear of this thread unless you have something of substance to add.
 
fredthered said:
Well do us all a favour then and tell us.

Who is it you work for ?

Hardly the hardest question in the world to answer.. Yet over on Red Issue, like here, you are desperate that no one finds out.

Perhaps we should invite Julie from RI to come in and tell us all what she found out. Apparantly it was very interesting. Very very interesting.
Click to expand...

What the feck does it matter who GCHQ works for? Just because you're a fecking lift attendant in a hotel doesn't mean you have to get all bitter about it.

You're a fat, sad, bitter, twisted cnut and if you tell me where YOU work, I'll come and say that to your fat face.

PM me if necessary.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
You're a fat, sad, bitter, twisted cnut and if you tell me where YOU work, I'll come and say that to your fat face.

PM me if necessary.
Click to expand...
:lol: The return of t'internet 'ardman beating his chest and swinging his club. Hull is the preferred venue.
 
peterstorey said:
:lol: The return of t'internet 'ardman beating his chest and swinging his club. Hull is the preferred venue.
Click to expand...

T'internet bully boy is Fred, I'm afraid.

Anyone can chest thump behind a keyboard and take the piss because someone, shock, horror, doesn't want to say where they work for fear of a load of knobs turning up at their workplace.

I'm just calling Fred out on that one. Put up or shut up kind of thing.

Whatever GCHQ's arguments are, discredit them on their merits, not based on who he works for. He's either right or he's wrong. Who he works for matters not one jot.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
T'internet bully boy is Fred, I'm afraid. Anyone can chest thump behind a keyboard and take the piss because someone, shock, horror, doesn't want to say where they work for fear of a load of knobs turning up at their workplace. I'm just calling Fred out on that one. Put up or shut up kind of thing. Whatever GCHQ's arguments are, discredit them on their merits, not based on who he works for. He's either right or he's wrong. Who he works for matters not one jot.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the internet's bully boy is Fred, simply because most here have blood on their hands. No reason to stigmatise anyone in particular here. No one really stands out in any special way, not negatively nor positively.

That said: it will maybe take a couple of centuries before I agree with you on anything, but here I am totally with you. Professions are irrelevant. What is written is relevant. Let's keep it that way, and avoid embarassing ourselves even further. Agree with you totally here.
 
The fact is that Fred is not a United supporter anymore. He gave it up five years ago but he continually litters his posts with "us" and "we" but he made the conscious decision to separate himself from us and we five years ago.

In the meantime, Manchester United has gone on to enjoy one of the most successful periods in its history and this has led Fred to become extremely bitter because he "enjoyed" these moments via the internet on dodgy streams.

He now seems to take great delight in taking the piss out of Manchester United supporters who have stuck with the team through this "difficult" period. He takes the piss out of Fergie. He takes the piss out of the squad. He takes the piss out of Gill. He takes the piss out of the Glazers. He takes the piss out of anyone who dares to defend what we currently have.

He's a WUM. A total and utter WUM.

I have no problems with people who support other teams coming on here and having a bit of banter but Fred is beyond banter. He's fecking poison.
 
ludvik said:
I wouldn't say the internet's bully boy is Fred, simply because most here have blood on their hands. No reason to stigmatise anyone in particular here. No one really stands out in any special way, not negatively nor positively.

That said: it will maybe take a couple of centuries before I agree with you on anything, but here I am totally with you. Agreed.
Click to expand...

ludvik, you complete knobhead... please keep up with what Fred is saying to GCHQ before you spout your shite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.