This thread is feckin weird....
....especially the last few pages.
....especially the last few pages.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Where did I say that ?
I dont recall saying such a thing...
Now what would make you believe that was what I was on about ?
OK, lets play it your way...
Now, can you tell me precisely what experience you have of business, of finance and of football club takeovers.
Its all very well you coming out with all this stuff, but at least tell us all where your experience lies, how you know it and more importantly why we should take what you say on face value..
You've been asked several times to explain your background, and you keep dodging the question..
Tell us what your experience is and we may then take what you say with some seriousness...
We have been givn the other side for the last five years. If you feel it is one sided why don't you provide the counter argument if you're so sure GCHQ etc are wrong? If you can't do it get somone on here that can. It's not up to GCHQ ect to counter his own argument in order to give balance.
I am quite capable of looking at all the information given and making up my own mind as the whether we are being given spin or not. The only way to counter that is to give the counter argument. The tactics you are currently employing just portrays your side of the argument in bad light.
I diasagree, this thread or one like it should be left open to discuss the financial situation at our club. It's an important subject and the more it's examinied the more likely we are to be able to make an informed opinion.
Well:
a) just after roodboy posted last night you said "I'm expecting gchq to post any minute now" or words to that effect. Also when I said something similar last night you said I'd worked it out for myself. What a clever boy.
and
b) if it's not that then it's absolutely nothing. A little smear campaign you've dreamt up.
Either way spit it out or I'll report you for fecking up an informative thread and trying to discredit another posters value on this forum by making up spurious rumours simply because he doesn't agree with you and regularly trumps you. It's fecking pathetic and this forum could do without it.
You tart...
Whatever. I'm bored of you glazer haters having nothing to support your arguments so slinging mud like children. Five years of bile and nothing to show for it.
That's a bit rich, considering how willing you are to crap on at length about all things financial.
How's about you show us yours first?
Qualifications, that is.
Not your knob.
I am not the one trying to tell everyone that my side of the arguement is gospel and should be believed.
But as you ask, I have worked for many years in the hospitality industry, and have worked on hotel and pub chain takeovers. My experience of finance is ( granted ) limited to the hotel and catering industry not the footballing industry.
erm... try £700 million worth of debt..
That unless I am mistaken, is significantly more than nothing.
I'm a commercial property consultant and have acquired goods in shops using money.
Was it your own money or did you use someone elses credit card and hope they'd pay it off for you ?
It's easy.
Only numpties think that Glazers have been good for the club.
They have plunged us into considerable debt and people are concerned.
They have screwed match-goers over and some of us chose to bin off the STs immediately, others later and still more that protest to the Glazers while giving them a grand a year for the privilege to do so.
Some have given a reasonable explanation of the finances but, at times to suit, reckon we should not count the Ronaldo sale. It's only as exceptional an item as paying (up to) £25m for a teenager in the plc days or paying £30m for Berbatov. Somehow we shouldn't include it in net transfer spend despite in minus out equalling net. According to roodboy, net spend is irrelevant. Seems bizarre for someone who appears adept at analysing the accounts, where net profit matters....
As far as my feelings on it, I don't like the debt situation but accept that we're not at death's door financially. What myself and others do not like is that the Glazers are milking the fans and anybody else they can to pay of the mortgage that the Glazers took out on United with a 30% deposit. Come 2017, they'll have paid £300m for a £2bn company. Twats they may be, but they're not stupid. It would take over half the ST holders to vote with their feet to make a difference though, but they won't do it, simple as that.
Sorry about the full stops, just thought I'd add to the conspiracy theories.
Only numpties think that Glazers have been good for the club.
They have plunged us into considerable debt and people are concerned.
They have screwed match-goers over and some of us chose to bin off the STs immediately, others later and still more that protest to the Glazers while giving them a grand a year for the privilege to do so.
Some have given a reasonable explanation of the finances but, at times to suit, reckon we should not count the Ronaldo sale. It's only as exceptional an item as paying (up to) £25m for a teenager in the plc days or paying £30m for Berbatov. Somehow we shouldn't include it in net transfer spend despite in minus out equalling net. According to roodboy, net spend is irrelevant. Seems bizarre for someone who appears adept at analysing the accounts, where net profit matters....
As far as my feelings on it, I don't like the debt situation but accept that we're not at death's door financially. What myself and others do not like is that the Glazers are milking the fans and anybody else they can to pay of the mortgage that the Glazers took out on United with a 30% deposit. Come 2017, they'll have paid £300m for a £2bn company. Twats they may be, but they're not stupid. It would take over half the ST holders to vote with their feet to make a difference though, but they won't do it, simple as that.
Sorry about the full stops, just thought I'd add to the conspiracy theories.
Strikes me that noone is suggesting otherwise. It's the implications of that being discussed here, something you are not remotely capable of commenting on in an informed manner so why criticise and try to discredit those who feel they can and seem to have some grasp on it?
Was it your own money or did you use someone elses credit card and hope they'd pay it off for you ?
Nope, but I do meet the payments and pay it off over time.
This is where it all falls down though.
Some are arguing "well we are in debt, so lets see if we can afford to be in debt"
Others like myself arent prepared to consider that as an option. As far as I am concerned we shouldnt be in debt, so its not a case of how do we manage it, its a case of how do we get rid of it.
It's easy.
Only numpties think that Glazers have been good for the club.
They have plunged us into considerable debt and people are concerned.
They have screwed match-goers over and some of us chose to bin off the STs immediately, others later and still more that protest to the Glazers while giving them a grand a year for the privilege to do so.
Some have given a reasonable explanation of the finances but, at times to suit, reckon we should not count the Ronaldo sale. It's only as exceptional an item as paying (up to) £25m for a teenager in the plc days or paying £30m for Berbatov. Somehow we shouldn't include it in net transfer spend despite in minus out equalling net. According to roodboy, net spend is irrelevant. Seems bizarre for someone who appears adept at analysing the accounts, where net profit matters....
As far as my feelings on it, I don't like the debt situation but accept that we're not at death's door financially. What myself and others do not like is that the Glazers are milking the fans and anybody else they can to pay of the mortgage that the Glazers took out on United with a 30% deposit. Come 2017, they'll have paid £300m for a £2bn company. Twats they may be, but they're not stupid. It would take over half the ST holders to vote with their feet to make a difference though, but they won't do it, simple as that.
Sorry about the full stops, just thought I'd add to the conspiracy theories.
This. Good post.
It's easy.
Only numpties think that Glazers have been good for the club.
They have plunged us into considerable debt and people are concerned.
They have screwed match-goers over and some of us chose to bin off the STs immediately, others later and still more that protest to the Glazers while giving them a grand a year for the privilege to do so.
Some have given a reasonable explanation of the finances but, at times to suit, reckon we should not count the Ronaldo sale. It's only as exceptional an item as paying (up to) £25m for a teenager in the plc days or paying £30m for Berbatov. Somehow we shouldn't include it in net transfer spend despite in minus out equalling net. According to roodboy, net spend is irrelevant. Seems bizarre for someone who appears adept at analysing the accounts, where net profit matters....
As far as my feelings on it, I don't like the debt situation but accept that we're not at death's door financially. What myself and others do not like is that the Glazers are milking the fans and anybody else they can to pay of the mortgage that the Glazers took out on United with a 30% deposit. Come 2017, they'll have paid £300m for a £2bn company. Twats they may be, but they're not stupid. It would take over half the ST holders to vote with their feet to make a difference though, but they won't do it, simple as that.
Sorry about the full stops, just thought I'd add to the conspiracy theories.
Yup. Good summary.
And Richio, you put it very succinctly, just now..
"you Glazer haters"
So if you are totally and utterly against the debts, and want them out to rid the club of something that is totally abhorrent to United, then you are simply a Glazer hater..
If hating the club being £700 million in debt is so bad, then I am guilty.. Hang me out to dry...
I dont care whether we can afford it or not.. we shouldnt be in fecking debt in the first place, and anyone who suggests that its nothing to worry about, and we can afford it is laying down and allowing our club to be buttfecked...
Whether we can afford the debt or not isnt the point. THe point is that debt shouldnt be there in hte first place.
"you Glazer haters"
So if you are totally and utterly against the debts, and want them out to rid the club of something that is totally abhorrent to United, then you are simply a Glazer hater..
If hating the club being £700 million in debt is so bad, then I am guilty.. Hang me out to dry...
I dont care whether we can afford it or not.. we shouldnt be in fecking debt in the first place, and anyone who suggests that its nothing to worry about, and we can afford it is laying down and allowing our club to be buttfecked...
Whether we can afford the debt or not isnt the point. THe point is that debt shouldnt be there in hte first place.
Fine, then post on that in the relevant thread rather than jabbering on about debt management, a topic you have no experience of.
It's easy.
Only numpties think that Glazers have been good for the club.
They have plunged us into considerable debt and people are concerned.
They have screwed match-goers over and some of us chose to bin off the STs immediately, others later and still more that protest to the Glazers while giving them a grand a year for the privilege to do so.
Some have given a reasonable explanation of the finances but, at times to suit, reckon we should not count the Ronaldo sale. It's only as exceptional an item as paying (up to) £25m for a teenager in the plc days or paying £30m for Berbatov. Somehow we shouldn't include it in net transfer spend despite in minus out equalling net. According to roodboy, net spend is irrelevant. Seems bizarre for someone who appears adept at analysing the accounts, where net profit matters....
As far as my feelings on it, I don't like the debt situation but accept that we're not at death's door financially. What myself and others do not like is that the Glazers are milking the fans and anybody else they can to pay of the mortgage that the Glazers took out on United with a 30% deposit. Come 2017, they'll have paid £300m for a £2bn company. Twats they may be, but they're not stupid. It would take over half the ST holders to vote with their feet to make a difference though, but they won't do it, simple as that.
Sorry about the full stops, just thought I'd add to the conspiracy theories.
Got to admit, thats pretty good..
Who said this was a thread solely about managing the debt.
Its called "ALL ISSUES"
So therefore, someone against the debt has as much relevance in this thread as someone who thinks its managable.
I don't hate the glazers as people. I understand what they are doing. Its not to my taste but it's how it is. You hate them as people and call them cnuts. I don't think they are that.
Ooh... scary.
I like the way that the thread is informative, as long as the information it is divulging is about how everything's fine financially and the debt isn't a problem. Anything else is propoganda.
I think maybe we need split into two threads to stop the bickering - one for those who believe that we're in a bit of a shit state financially thanks to the Glazers, and one for people who want to discuss how everything's fine.
To be honest, we shouldn't be in debt, but a bigger portion of blame should be directly squarely at the Premier League for letting such a highly-leveraged buyout to happen in the first place. The Glazers are businessmen who simply saw an under-exploited brand there for the taking and they took it.
Words that should result in instant defenstration: "the debt aside...."
Words that should result in instant defenstration: "the debt aside...."
If we are going to restrict it to people who have experience of debt management relating to football clubs, how many people in here are qualified to comment ?
Who here has the knowledge and experience to disect the financial accounts and portray that they are managable ?
Whoever it is, by your reckoning, they are the only ones allowed to comment..
May as well lock it now then....
Whether you'd use that word and whether you hate them is down to personal temperament really.
But I think, given the way they've always ignored thousands of ordinary people against whose will they've bought the club,not to mention their carry-ons with their other business, that they are not particulalry nice people.
Yes I completely agree..
The PL should be held to account, and in some ways, I am pleased UEFA are acting to try and curb the blatant abuses that are happeing in the PL.
However, given the power of the clubs and the revenues they generate, I really cannot envisage UEFA having much chance of doing anything because ultimately, the clubs are what UEFA rely on to survive, and take out the english teams from the PL the revenues they generate would fall dramatically.
However, that being said, the Glazers history in the past, relating to business, does not make pleasant reading. They are well known for their underhanded tactics, their blatant disregard for customers, and more importantly, their reliance to take on huge debts to get what they want.
Whilst the PL is to blame for letting them in, its not unreasonable to feel anger at them as well for even having the tenacity to try pull off a stunt like that and not expect a certain backlash.
As far as I know no one has previously asked me about my experience - regardless I have no desire to post the details of my CV up here because it doesnt really prove anything anyway.
I dont expect anyone to believe everything I say - if you dont agree with it then feel free to question it, that was the whole point in what i was trying to do here at the start. In fact at the start you did try to do that before realising that you were way out of your depth and reverting to the kind of crap that has ruined the thread.
I will continue to post my views and leave it upto others to decide whether they think I know what I am talking about or not.
In short, you have no more experience than anyone else on here, and are no more qualified to comment on the feasibility of the Glazers plans than I am, or anyone else on here.
Fred, you're confusing the two issues.
An experienced management accountant isn't the same things as a financial troubleshooter. The first may have worked in a successful business all their career and has never been exposed to the more creative side of accounting.
Similarly knowing how to get a business back in the black doesn't rely on you being a good financial accountant.
Now if roodboy is the former, it may explain why he can analyse the accounts with such positivity.
Shinawatra was allowed to take over the bitters. The controls are/were a joke.
Whatever you reckon Fred, why dont you stick to discussing the finances and let others decide who is and isnt qualified? I think my posts speak for themselves, as do yours!Fred, you seem to be repeatedly making the mistake of interpreting a lack of hatred for the Glazers as evidence of a love for them. No matter how much we try to tell you that that's simply not the case, you seem hell-bent on erroneously sticking to this vastly oversimplified view of the situation. I can't speak for the others - they've already spoken for themselves and promptly been ignored - but i can tell you right now that i am not pro-Glazer. I do not hate the Glazers, as i believe doing so would be completely devoid of point and would only serve to cloud my judgement of their actions in past as well as future, but this lack of hatred does not translate as an existence of love for them. I believe that we'd probably have been better off without them at the club - i've never said any different - but i accept that, for better or for worse, they are at the club. I'm not one to be looking backwards and dwelling on what could have been; what could have been is irrelevant, i'm interested only in what is, and i accept the reality of the Glazer ownership, and thus i accept the reality of our debt. Now, rather than fruitlessly converting that reality into a personal hatred or vendetta, i seek to understand it; this is where my objection to the actions of MUST arises. I believe that, rather than seek to understand the Glazer ownership and the debt et al, MUST want only to perpetuate a hatred for it; they care little for the realities of truth and understanding, they offer the common fan nothing but justification for his hatred, and, as i bear no hatred, MUST offer me nothing - furthermore, as already explained, i deplore hatred as a mechanism for shutting oneself off from the truth and the closing of the mind to further understanding, i find that MUST aim to do nothing but stunt the minds of the United fanbase; an aim that i do not agree with. I'm neither pro nor anti-Glazer, i just believe that a lot of negativity has been unnecessarily heaped on the Glazer ownership by certain parties and it's shrouded the truth from the fans to such an extent that many are now unable to see anything past the black and white simplifications that have been relentlessly forced upon them for the past five years. That's my opinion.
That's exactly how I feel too. I also think the attempt to stifle discussion on the topic is damaging to the "Anti Glazers" campaign. It's a little too dictatorial for my liking.
MUST can offer nothing because of the cost of buying the club. It would take 100,000 members paying 10 grand each to raise a billion quid. That said, I'm still a member and have been since it was called SU.
So to try and get the thread back on track ...
Nobody is saying that you should not count the sale of Ronaldo when discussing our general financial situation and trying to assess whether the Glazer business model is sustainable.
However, most rational people now seem to have accepted that the business model is sustainable, but then some start to question whether it is starting to have a negative impact on our transfer spending. The most common indicator used for this is 'net spend' (and yes I do believe that this is not a good way to assess the level of investment in our squad for reasons which I will explain).
Whether people want to accept it or not, by financial definition, the Ronaldo sale would be classed as an 'exceptional item' and it does massively skew our current 'net spend' levels. Now I am not saying that the sale should be ignored, just saying that for such an unusual transaction people should wait a couple of years before seeing how much of that is reinvested and what impact it has on average net spend.
Additionally, I personally feel that 'net spend' does not give the full picture of how much money is being invested into our playing squad. I have several issues with it:
Firstly, nowadays almost all our transfer fees are 'undisclosed' so often we dont know for sure how much we paid (or received) for individual players and usually 'net spend' calculations just uses media guestimates.
A connected point is that the vast majority of transfers nowadays are installment deals with a certain amount paid upfront plus often some proportion is dependant on success of the player and the club (this is another reason that the Ronaldo transfer is so unusual because it was all paid upfront) - 'net spend' figures never take this into account and so end up allocating money spent to the wrong years.
Secondly, 'net spend' only counts transfer fees and completely ignores wages, sign on/win bonuses etc - nowadays we have a very big squad, much deeper than ever before and this of course means we have a huge wage bill (obviously significantly higher than the PLC days). A better indicator would take into account both how much money is spent on transfers plus wages etc.
That also brings up the issue of Bosman signings (e.g. Michael Owen) who can still cost us a lot in wages and sign on bonus etc but do not appear in 'net spend' calcs at all. For example, we could get Joe Cole this summer and would obviously be adding a top class player to the squad and paying out huge wages to him but the net spend would be unaffected.
Thirdly, the thing that often gets over looked is that we have vastly increased the amount of money we bring in from selling players who are deemed surplus to requirements - especially young players like Richardson, Pique, Rossi etc. To me this is a positive move as I think we undersold players in the past but it obviously brings down our net spend numbers.
As far as I am concerned, we currently have a very strong and deep squad, one of the best ones we have ever had in fact - the fact that we have had a lot of success in recent years reflects this and even though the past season was a disappointment, we were still in contention all the way through and I think it is too much to expect to win everything every year.
More generally, as long as the team is successful and stays competitive, to me it is actually good to have a low transfer spend. I am proud of the fact that our team brings success by developing youth players and finding good value signings (e.g. Vidic, Evra, Park) - I would take less pleasure in just buying success like Chelsea or City now attempt to do, that does not seem like the United way to me.
Regardless of that, anyone can go and look at the financial account and see how much cash is available for transfers (£140m last summer and around £100m at last count at end of March) so if Fergie decides he sees a player who is good value then the cash is there.
Some people might have missed it due to large amount of crap posted yesterday so it is worth flagging up that GCHQ wrote a lengthy post on this issue - for those who are interested, he calculates a 'net cash spend' of £57.5m under the Glazers:
https://www.redcafe.net/f6/all-issu...-cash-out-etc-280859/index55.html#post8107766
What attempt to stifle discussion on the topic is that?
Most of what i see in this thread is people saying that, based on their very specific interpretation of elements of the accounts, everything is fine, and then taking the piss out anybody who still opposes the Glazers as being some kind of knuckle-dragging moron who is too thick to understand their incredible superior intelect. Most of which is pretty ironic when you look at some of the people involved.
Read back through the thread and you'll see that the ones who keep coming out with stuff like "why are you still arguing? I've already proved my point" are Roodboy/GCHQ etc. If it was down to them, there wuold be no debate, we would all just bow down to their opinion.
Good point...but still you try and remove amortisation of player contracts from your profit calculation?
If you go back to my original calculation (which was specifically for last year as taken from bond prospectus) you will see that I removed it and instead did my own estimate of how much cash was spent on players last year.
I allowed a very healthy £20m to £30m which would cover the whole of Valencia's fee plus a Berba installment plus more and is actually likely to be way over what was spent in real cash terms.
If you are looking at transfer spend over a number of years then I think it is valid to include 'amortisation of players' as a cost but on any individual year you would have to do your own estimate as we dont get that breakdown.
- Status