This is shit because i really like Rooney, or perhaps 'liked', i don't even know what to think now 
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Hi all, I'm back. Feeling terribly embarrassed.
I was indeed extremely pissed the other night having been at my nephews Christening all day (as an atheist, this did not put me in the best of moods to start with but you have to do the family thing, or be castrated, apparently).
So, at the party afterwards, I got completely smashed and continued to drink when I got home.
This is obviously no excuse at all for what I said and did and I can only apologise to all those who I offended.
The worst thing though was to be thought of as racist. I'd rather be thought of as an arsehole than a racist.
I was indeed extremely pissed the other night having been at my nephews Christening all day (as an atheist, this did not put me in the best of moods to start with but you have to do the family thing, or be castrated, apparently).
So, at the party afterwards, I got completely smashed and continued to drink when I got home.
This is obviously no excuse at all for what I said and did and I can only apologise to all those who I offended.
The worst thing though was to be thought of as racist. I'd rather be thought of as an arsehole than a racist.
I am happy to oblige.
Welcome back..
For all your faults you're OK really...
( is our date still on ? Your place or mine ? )
I never mentioned or referred to the Rooney situation.
I am simply talking about out squads recent decline and lack of investment in the last three years. We were kings of Europe and in an incredibly healthy position. Then we didn't invest or improve. We sold and didn't even REinvest.
The debt is taking its toll massively. No question.
The Glazer's must be disturbed by this Rooney situation. It might possibly push fergie closer to retirement, which would and will lose them a pillar of stability that they will never be able to replace. Furthermore, Rooney is the most marketable player at the club by a country mile and we will not be able to replace him anytime soon. The gloss in the team is fading and that will hurt ticket revenues, sponsorship and merchandise.
Ronaldo was named the world's most marketable footballer, with Rooney second. And we don't have either anymore
This is shit because i really like Rooney, or perhaps 'liked', i don't even know what to think now
I keep wondering what will happen if Rooney turns round and signs a new contract in a few weeks. Could be a bit awkward! His relationship with the manager and fans will never be the same after he's screwed everyone over like this though.
This is shit because i really like Rooney, or perhaps 'liked', i don't even know what to think now
I think this is the problem most are having.
Because for some reason he convinced us he was different.
The lad who grew up hoofing the ball around the park with his mates, who played because he loved the game and not the money.
The truth is he's just another greedy cnut. Just like the rest of them.
He sure had me fooled. Of all the players at United he was the one I felt was the most down to earth and could relate to the supporters.
What the feck do I know huh...
Hes fecked now.. No matter what happens.
Theres no way he's stopping at United now.
This is shit because i really like Rooney, or perhaps 'liked', i don't even know what to think now
I am waiting until I hear Rooney's side of the story before I cast judgement (although if it turns out he ends up at City on £250k/week, that'll be all the evidence I need) but half of me is wondering if he has become a little disillusioned at United due to our lack of spending.
If this is the case then I would like to think that he would at least sit down and discuss his concerns with Fergie first - a manager like Fergie surely merits every benefit of the doubt when it comes to building/rebuilding a winning side. Lack of ambition is surely a phrase that Fergie doesn't even understand.
If Rooney does indeed leave (which obviously looks 99.9% certain at this stage) then I think there will be no excuse for Fergie - money will have to be spent. The "value" things won't cut it anymore.
That was in the Tollgate too. He went to speak to Crerand but he was having none of it.
Keep digging my friend keep digging
I am happy to oblige.
Welcome back..
For all your faults you're OK really...
( is our date still on ? Your place or mine ? )
Oh... ffs... I went there didn't I? Am happy to meet up at some point Fred. I probably deserve a slap anyway.
(RedCafe went completely down for me for an hour there, dunno what happened - did anyone else experience this? I thought it was the ban to end all bans!)
Rooney's been ill-advised by his agent to play the fans off against the master of playing fans off. He hasn't counted for despite how much the fans love Rooney, Fergie's the main man. We've lost better players than Rooney. We recovered from losing a 30 goal a season man in Ruud. We recovered from Beckham leaving. To a lesser extent Ronaldo.
His agent's the greedy cnut and unfortunately Wayne's been daft enough to let the hype get to his head. He'll sign the new contract and you'll all love him again.
His agent's the greedy cnut and unfortunately Wayne's been daft enough to let the hype get to his head. He'll sign the new contract and you'll all love him again.
I don't know, URR. Fergie's words and tone spoke more to character assassination than reconciliation. The reaction on Redcafe today would tend to back that up.
I think Rooney's camp might use it, as you say, but even if we had no debt, no interest payments and all the money we earned was being ploughed back into the club, we still wouldn't be able to match City's spending on transfers and particularly on wages. I agree with you that we wouldn't want to, even if we could, but I don't think we ever could, without a super-rich owner and who wants that?
We wouldn't need to, but atleast we could buy a top player and a couple of youngsters each season.
Rooney deserves to be playing with the world's bets footballers. He was two years ago, but right now he is playing with a few good players and a ton of average players.
Real Madrid and Barca are hogging all the top players at this moment. Looks like Fabregas will heading that way too.
If only we had money, we would be able to compete with them.
If Rooney aint happy playing alongside Scholes, Giggs, Rio, VDS, Vidic, Evra, Berbatov, Fletcher and Nani then he can feck right off to Real Madrid, the spoilt bastard. He's done well for us, but if at the first sign of his form dipping he throws in the towel and cries off with excuses, laying blame where blame shouldn't be, then he's not a United player and never really was; he's a coward.
I see that despite there being no official line from Rooney's camp on the whole saga, MUST have already decided that it's all the Glazer's fault.
Is it me or has MUST become just like a really crap internet poster? I think they've been on the bollocks for so long that they've actually started to believe their previous bollocks and are using it as unequivical proof that the latest bollocks must be true. There was a time when i thought that MUST had some influence over the hearts and minds of United fans, but now they're nothing but a laughable wumming irrelevence that can only ever hope to achieve influence amongst those few fans in the absolute lowest of IQ brackets. I hear they're still pretty popular on Red Issue though.
The best part was where they refer to Manchester City as a "small club".
Yes, clearly a bit of a joke but they do themselves no favours when they fail to acknowledge that that particular "small club" could outbid any club in the world for any player they like. Still, I wouldn't expect facts to get in the way of a good opportunity to stick the boot in.
I can only speak for myself but I dont care if he DOES stay, Ill never trust or like the fat bald greedy cnut ever again.
A question for Anders
As has been reported the Glazers can take up to £75 million from the club and use it to pay off the PIKs.
Now we've all questioned why this hasnt been done yet, and no one seems to know why.
Is it at all possible that they have deliberately left that money in the bank so as not to leave them short of cash, but now with the injection that they no doubt will get from the sale of Rooney they could wait till right to the end of the financial year, then take £75 million. Wait a couple of weeks into the new financial year then take another £75 million meaning ultimately they take out £150 million within the space of a few weeks.
£150 million would all but wipe out the PIKs and they wouldnt have broken the terms of the agreement.
As has been reported the Glazers can take up to £75 million from the club and use it to pay off the PIKs.
Now we've all questioned why this hasnt been done yet, and no one seems to know why.
Is it at all possible that they have deliberately left that money in the bank so as not to leave them short of cash, but now with the injection that they no doubt will get from the sale of Rooney they could wait till right to the end of the financial year, then take £75 million. Wait a couple of weeks into the new financial year then take another £75 million meaning ultimately they take out £150 million within the space of a few weeks.
£150 million would all but wipe out the PIKs and they wouldnt have broken the terms of the agreement.
The £75m is a one off thing - they cannot take it every year.
They can however take a £25m dividend every year as long as they hit EBITDA targets.
As we know they chose not to take either this year.
They can however take a £25m dividend every year as long as they hit EBITDA targets.
As we know they chose not to take either this year.
How has this gem not been posted yet?
MUST weighed in yesterday, their Lords and Masters weigh in today:
Sky Sports | Football | Premier League | News | Glazers urged to consider sale
They're "happy" to watch United go into turmoil if possible, all so that this group of businessmen can snap them up as cheaply as possible.
What true and great noble supporters of the club. They only want what is truly best, and have no motives outside of saving our beloved club. Obviously completely and totally different from any other businessmen in the history of business.
Good thing we have such Knights (they're red, even!), and their dear friends at MUST too. All to guide us through these interesting times with no motive but peace on earth and goodwill to men. Otherwise we'd be truly up the spout.
Veritable Mother Teresas, the lot of them.
MUST weighed in yesterday, their Lords and Masters weigh in today:
Sky Sports | Football | Premier League | News | Glazers urged to consider sale
They're "happy" to watch United go into turmoil if possible, all so that this group of businessmen can snap them up as cheaply as possible.
What true and great noble supporters of the club. They only want what is truly best, and have no motives outside of saving our beloved club. Obviously completely and totally different from any other businessmen in the history of business.
Good thing we have such Knights (they're red, even!), and their dear friends at MUST too. All to guide us through these interesting times with no motive but peace on earth and goodwill to men. Otherwise we'd be truly up the spout.
Veritable Mother Teresas, the lot of them.
I don't believe this is connected.
It is worth remembering that selling Rooney doesn't change the amount they can take out of the club at all.
I am not saying they are connected, far from it.
I am just wondering if what they take out the club can be set up so that on certain dates they could effectively take a double whammy.
If the accounts end on 31st July for example, could they not take £25 million on the 30th of July, then on the 2nd August take another £25 million. Effectively 2 lots in a short period of time, but in two different financial periods.
Question for Anders (I mused on this in the Financial Fair Play thread):
Say we receive a large fee for selling Rooney in the January transfer window, given that the FFP rules come into force from July 1st 2011, would we be able to spend that money in the summer window on transfers and still meet the FFP rules? Basically, will all that cash in the club's bank accounts at the start of FFP (assuming it is still there) be able to be used for transfers? Do the FFP break-even rules take account of the opening cash position?
Say we receive a large fee for selling Rooney in the January transfer window, given that the FFP rules come into force from July 1st 2011, would we be able to spend that money in the summer window on transfers and still meet the FFP rules? Basically, will all that cash in the club's bank accounts at the start of FFP (assuming it is still there) be able to be used for transfers? Do the FFP break-even rules take account of the opening cash position?
I don't know a lot about them but I shudder to think what would happen to our club if they got the hands on it. (Red Knights)
Must also really need to look at their goals and how the are handling PR. Even a little bit of tacked could have progressed their cause in this situation but the go in ham fisted and just come off as chancers.
Must also really need to look at their goals and how the are handling PR. Even a little bit of tacked could have progressed their cause in this situation but the go in ham fisted and just come off as chancers.
OMG - so-called "financial expert" on SSN right now spouting complete bollocks about the debts and the figures. Apparently we paid £40m towards the PIKs during the last financial year.
Hmm... you're hitting the bottle early today Fred?
As long as you stay clear of it TMRD we will be alright.
As long as you stay clear of it TMRD we will be alright.
One question that was asked the other day which I don't think received an answer but I thought was worthy of clarification if anyone is able (and is loosely connected to what Fred is saying) is if the Glazers fail to take their Dividend during one financial year, can they take it retrospectively?
I presume the Dividends are based on Financial Years (July-June) rather than the Bond Year (January - December - or whatever it is).
So, they can't take, for example £50m Dividend and their £75m carve-out this financial year to make up for not taking their dividend during the last financial year?
One question that was asked the other day which I don't think received an answer but I thought was worthy of clarification if anyone is able (and is loosely connected to what Fred is saying) is if the Glazers fail to take their Dividend during one financial year, can they take it retrospectively?
I presume the Dividends are based on Financial Years (July-June) rather than the Bond Year (January - December - or whatever it is).
So, they can't take, for example £50m Dividend and their £75m carve-out this financial year to make up for not taking their dividend during the last financial year?
The dividend is capped each year so they would not be allowed to go over it.
One question that was asked the other day which I don't think received an answer but I thought was worthy of clarification if anyone is able (and is loosely connected to what Fred is saying) is if the Glazers fail to take their Dividend during one financial year, can they take it retrospectively?
I presume the Dividends are based on Financial Years (July-June) rather than the Bond Year (January - December - or whatever it is).
So, they can't take, for example £50m Dividend and their £75m carve-out this financial year to make up for not taking their dividend during the last financial year?
Kind of what I am getting at, albeit coming from a different angle.
Can they take one payment late in the year, then one early in the year, so effectively taking two at almost the same time, but in different accounting periods.
In my uneducated opinion, I don't see why not and I don't see why it would make that much of a difference anyway. At the end of the day, it IS two different accounting periods. The most important consideration is the effect it would have on cashflow but you'd hope they'd do their sums beforehand.
The reason if could make a difference is that there may be clauses in the PIK notes which say they can only pay off some if its above a certain %.
Supposing the terms say they can only pay some off is amounts of £100 million for example, then in one year there may not be enough in the bank to do so, but by timing it correctly they could meet such a criteria.
That could be why they didnt pay any off, because the terms were such that there wasnt enough in the bank to make a payment, and leave them enough to cover the rest of the season.
Can you really imagine the PIK's having such restrictive terms? I can't see it myself; why would loans with such high interest rates be so restrictive over repayments?
I suppose but I would have thought that if they have just foregone last years' £25million (my question above) then this hasn't really helped them in any way because they would have been better taking it and stashing it in their own bank until they can take the next one? As it is, they would have only delayed things by a year to achieve what you are suggesting?
Because the longer they go unpaid the more they make in interest.
I'd actually think the terms would be even more restrictive to try and ensure that they dont get paid off early.
- Status