ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[afrocentricity]

Yes, but if you a) constantly spend all your time and effort trying to undermine the Anti-Glazer movement, and b) hide the fact that you work for United then you fall into the latter category.

No you don't... you happen to be a united employee who (shock horror) lied about his occupation... who may or may not have a valid opinion on our owners.

Dodgy ground this, how many posters on here have lied about something? it's the internet.... are we banning that type of thing now?

The problem with measures like that is they can easily be turned around (as has happened in the last few posts - see the Stalin comparisons) and used against the people asking for them, and so become self defeating.

It's a bit like the balance that has to be struck with stuff like anti-terrorist security measures. You could strip search everybody that goes through an airport with a Muslim sounding name, but it would just lead to more resentment and work in the terrorist favour.

An no, I'm not calling GCHQ and Roodboy terrorists before one of the shool-children pipes up.

You're overcomplicating it, and going off on one tbf...

It can't be proved because unlike the police the caf hasn't got the resources or the power to investigate it. I mean what would be proof? a Tesco wageslip? a Sign-on book? a signed letter from the Glazers saying 'we do not employee this cretin, signed glazers...'?

Impossible...

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

The first part is pretty much impossible, you're right. And I'm not sure asking people to prove they don't is the right avenue to go down.

But regarding the second question - if, in theory, it did come to light that a poster was working for United and had hidden the fact, then surely you can see how that would utterly discredit their "blanced objective opinions"?
I know I'd be pretty furious if I'd formed an opinion based on what that poster had said, only to find out they were being paid to push a certain agenda.

I'd still try to take information from what they post and form my own conclusions. I read andersreds blog and think it's excellent. It's quite possible to draw from him and gchq/roodboy and form an informed opinion. They don't disagree on a lot of things.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

Christ, this forum is a write-off if people are accusing posters of being "plants" for Glazer because they take a different view.

It's bad enough that certain posters were complaining about "big words" and "complicated figures" being used in this thread. Can't we leave the knuckle-dragging to Red issue?

It's a football forum on the internet! If it upsets you that somebody somewhere is writing something you don't agree with then God help you!

Anything anyone writes here has zero impact in the real world!
You're not actually giving Glazer one in the eye by trying to get some poster on RedCafe banned!

Careful. It's not the disagreement that people object to. It's the arrogant manner in which roodboy and gchq reply to people and more importantly the potential hidden agenda that people are objecting to.

 

[Sir A1ex]

No you don't... you happen to be a united employee who (shock horror) lied about his occupation... who may or may not have a valid opinion on our owners.

Dodgy ground this, how many posters on here have lied about something? it's the internet.... are we banning that type of thing now?

Well, for me, if you've lied about something that has such a bearing on the argument, then you lose all credibility. Imagine the field-day Cidreman would have if it emerged that Fred was working for the Red Knights.

I'm not saying such a poster should be banned, but I wouldn't listent ot another word they said.

It can't be proved because unlike the police the caf hasn't got the resources or the power to investigate it.

Well yes, that's the other side of it - it would not only be seen as draconion, but it would be easily circumvented, so is doubly self-defeating.

 

[peterstorey]

GCHQ is obviously a plant I haven't seen him say Fletcher is world class or Berbatov is crap yet.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Provide a works landline, scan of your payslip, genuine email signature, etc. If he didn't work for United then what reason would he have to hide the fact?

If someone asked me for that, whether I worked for united or not, I'd tell them to feck right off. What right does some cnut from the Internet have to see my private employment details?

 

[charleysurf]

Careful. It's not the disagreement that people object to. It's the arrogant manner in which roodboy and gchq reply to people that people are objecting to.

Did you read that stuff yesterday where roodboy was being attacked for using "big words", "complicated figures" and not replying to a question within ten minutes?

That's just mental stuff. Things are getting way too serious and people need to calm down.

It's understandable that people are pissed off about Glazer, and looking to find something, anything, they can do to progress the situation. But launching witchhunts against some guys on a football forum is not changing anything in the real world.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Well, for me, if you've lied about something that has such a bearing on the argument, then you lose all credibility. Imagine the field-day Cidreman would have if it emerged that Fred was working for the Red Knights.

I'm not saying such a poster should be banned, but I wouldn't listent ot another word they said.




Well yes, that's the other side of it - it would not only be seen as draconion, but it would be easily circumvented, so is doubly self-defeating.

fred would be the shittest plant in thr history of espionage.

 

[afrocentricity]

If someone asked me for that, whether I worked for united or not, I'd tell them to feck right off. What right does some cnut from the Internet have to see my private employment details?

Reminds me of the time DJS had to post a scan of his ticket stubs to prove he was a matchgoing dipper... DJS being a spastic obliged of course.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

I think there's a frustration from some that they don't get bummed when they say glazer and cnut in the same sentence as they do on red issue.

 

[Rood]

There's a difference between banning posters just because they dont like what they have to say, and bannig them because they have deliberately lied about their situation and motives for posting. I've seen plenty of people banned for pretending to be United fans, only to turn out to be other teams' fans "undercover".

However, in the case of the caf, you're right that its slowness to ban is one of its strengths, and I'd like to hope that, if somebody were to turn out to be a "plant" such as teh alleged RI situation, they wouldn't actually be banned but would be allowed to stay so that they could be ridiculed and their entire argument taken apart, a la Nick Griffin on Question Time.

I have no idea what exactly happened on RI as I have never read that forum - but from the post Fred reposted it sounded very much like people just didnt like what the guy had to say so banned him. Guilty until proven innocent?

Regardless, as you rightly say, even if that person was a United employee I dont see why they shouldnt be allowed to post. After all we have had representatives of MUST on here giving their side of the story for a long time.
It is good to hear both sides of the argument so you can decide for yourself - only hearing one POV is not healthy.

 

[afrocentricity]

I think a few posters in this thread need to take a step back...

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Reminds me of the time DJS had to post a scan of his ticket stubs to prove he was a matchgoing dipper... DJS being a spastic obliged of course.

 

[Sir A1ex]

They don't disagree on a lot of things.

That's not really true.

Here's some extracts from "Debt Junkies" that I'd love to see Roodboy or GCHQ agree with (and this just on a subject that they have been pretty careful not to get into too much, dismissing as "not relevant to United):

Half the [shopping] centres will not be able to generate sufficient income to pay their mortgages and therefore risk going bust...

...the root causes are the disastrous decisions made by the Glazers in the mid-2000s as the US property boom neared its height, shattering their self professed reputation as savvy business people...

...the evidence I am publishing today...shines new light on the family's inability to pay off "their" PIKs without using Manchester United's cash.

First Allied has total mortgage liabilities of c. $570m, secured on properties with a total estimated value of only c. $556m.

The crisis at First Allied is only partly due to the recession in the United States and is mainly caused by the excessive debt the Glazers have loaded onto the portfolio...

...the Glazers made a disastrous change of strategy later that year and started a binge of remortgaging...

...the Glazers piled unsustainable amounts of debt on many of their assets and it is this that is now causing such a severe strain on the business.

The argument that the United bond issue was undertaken entirely for the purpose of using the club's cash and profits to repay the PIKs is indisputable.

The Glazers are not business geniuses. Malcolm's long term track record is better of course, but since he became incapacitated, the whole structure has begun to creak at the foundations.

We arrive at a figure of at least $1.8bn of total Glazer family debt. This is supported by $225-250m of EBITDA (depending on how far the Bucs' EBITDA fell last season from the $69m earned the year before), a terrifying debt to income ratio of almost 8x.

I can only assume that David Gill and Sir Alex Ferguson have no idea about the true state of the Glazers' finances.

For those of us who have watched as ever more debt is piled upon Manchester United, the story of First Allied revealed in this research has some chilling parallels.

The more I discover about the Glazer family, the more they seem to be an unappetising morality tale for our times. Their story is one that takes in financial "innovation" by out of control banks like Lehman Brothers, which in turn allows pointless real estate speculation and creates the mirage of wealth creation, before the whole facade starts to crumble. Now we know that we can monitor the performance of First Allied on a monthly basis (and I will be doing just that you can rest assured) as well as the sports clubs, the facade is well and truly down.​

It really doesn't sound like the sort of stuff you'd see Roodboy or GCHQ writing, does it?

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

I didn't say everything, and they've both got their positions to take. Gchq and roodboy don't deny that some sums will go from united to pay down the piks do they?

 

[Sir A1ex]

Did you read that stuff yesterday where roodboy was being attacked for using "big words", "complicated figures".

You like going back to that, don't you?

I think the guy who posted it (Crerrand?) could have phrase it better, but he actually had a very good point.

Most of GCHQ's and Roodboy's arguments follow a pattern of taking some facts that are actually relatively simple (and indicate that the Glazer's aren't so great for United), and then selectively taking certain parts from which they can then build a complicated explanation of how everything is OK, and how if you disagree it's because you're too thick to keep up with their superior intellectual understanding. After all, they started with facts, so you can't argue against their conclusions, right?

Their arguments, much like the Glazer's weeler-dealings all just the worst kind of financial froth, compounded by their condescending and snobbish attitude, which actually works amazingly well at fooling people into believing them, largely out of fear of looking thick.

Fortunately, Andersred's blog does a much better job of drawing much more direct and sustainable conclusion from the same information, and he does it without talking down to anybody, knowing that his arguments can stand up on their own.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

I didn't say everything, and they've both got their positions to take. Gchq and roodboy don't deny that some sums will go from united to pay down the piks do they?

They seem to thinkthat somehow the Glazers will be able to pay off all their other debts and keep United competitive. The Glazers will be getting a club for free, paid for by fans and sponsors. If people really want the Glazers out of United, then a boycott is the only solution. If you restrict their income then they won't have enought to take out of the club. Would imagine Gill can still somehow put a spin on that though.

Impressive CE but a complete Glazer sycophant and as useful as the Iraqi propaganda minister.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

I see freds started his own bum me thread on red issue as I-8-kopites. They don't seem to like us much on there. Apparently fred is "taking time to educate us".

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

They seem to thinkthat somehow the Glazers will be able to pay off all their other debts and keep United competitive. The Glazers will be getting a club for free, paid for by fans and sponsors. If people really want the Glazers out of United, then a boycott is the only solution. If you restrict their income then they won't have enought to take out of the club. Would imagine Gill can still somehow put a spin on that though.

Impressive CE but a complete Glazer sycophant and as useful as the Iraqi propaganda minister.

Surely just letting the team decline will have the same effect if you are so sure that will happen. A widespread boycott is pie in the sky. It just won't happen.

 

[Rood]

That's not really true.

Here's some extracts from "Debt Junkies" that I'd love to see Roodboy or GCHQ agree with (and this just on a subject that they have been pretty careful not to get into too much, dismissing as "not relevant to United):

Basically, there is very little in Andersred analysis of the current situation which is any different from what I have tried to explain here - I have posted his analysis here in the past to back up my own because the facts and figures speak for themselves.
However, our opinion is clearly not the same - we do differ on the outlook going forward and certain other issues which is more based on opinion than fact. But then Andersred has himself admitted that his analysis comes from a strongly antiGlazer position whereas, despite what others say, I am neither pro nor anti Glazer.

Similarly, my view is also not necessarily the same as GCHQ. If you read the other threads you will see that he has gone to some detail in refuting what Andersred has posted about First Allied etc (in fact if you read the comments on the Andersred blog you will see that several people are questioning the assumptions that Andersred used there). Whereas I personally feel it is pretty irrelevant to United so have not commented too much on it.

 

[GCHQ]

The first part is pretty much impossible, you're right. And I'm not sure asking people to prove they don't is the right avenue to go down.

But regarding the second question - if, in theory, it did come to light that a poster was working for United and had hidden the fact, then surely you can see how that would utterly discredit their "blanced objective opinions"?
I know I'd be pretty furious if I'd formed an opinion based on what that poster had said, only to find out they were being paid to push a certain agenda.

Well I can assure you that I certainly do not work for United. I think it really does say all we need to know about the lunatics within the anti-Glazer movement that just because I have the nerve to put forward an alternative, and accurate as it happens, point of view on the club's financial position I for some reason need to prove who I work for.

It's totally absurd, which is exactly how I would describe MUST and the G&G campaign.*


* Enter MUST member Ralphie threatening to take me to court.

 

[Rood]

Most of GCHQ's and Roodboy's arguments follow a pattern of taking some facts that are actually relatively simple (and indicate that the Glazer's aren't so great for United), and then selectively taking certain parts from which they can then build a complicated explanation of how everything is OK, and how if you disagree it's because you're too thick to keep up with their superior intellectual understanding. After all, they started with facts, so you can't argue against their conclusions, right?

That is complete bullshit - I took A LOT of time to clearly explain certain things to you after an initial question about EBITDA - at the start you tried to question what I said and I welcomed the challenge and answered every single question you posed.
After you realised that there were no holes in my argument, you (and others who to be fair are far worse than you) have proceeded to try and discredit me at every opportunity or derail the discussion.

Our finances are complicated and if you want to discuss them then feel free - if you dont like what I have to say then perhaps you would feel more at home on Red Issue where I would probably have been censored by now?

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Well I can assure you that I certainly do not work for United. I think it really does say all we need to know about the lunatics within the anti-Glazer movement that just because I have the nerve to put forward an alternative, and accurate as it happens, point of view on the club's financial position I for some reason need to prove who I work for.

It's totally absurd, which is exactly how I would describe MUST and the G&G campaign.*


* Enter MUST member Ralphie threatening to take me to court.

Does your username not stand for 'Glazer cnuts Headquarters'?

To be sane for just a second, I very much doubt United or the Glazers would employ someone to post in a thread on a United forum to try influence the dozens of people reading it. Okay, now on with the madness...

 

[afrocentricity]

I think he works or is associated with SU in some form and enters threads to stir up the hornet's nest and spread anti-Glazer propaganda.

Ban him!!

On FDR from 2005...

 

[didsbury1982]

An obscene amount of money taken out of the club, a huge rise in ticket prices and the ACS and still people defend the Glazers. Amazing.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

An obscene amount of money taken out of the club, a huge rise in ticket prices and the ACS and still people defend the Glazers. Amazing.

A total straw man argument - no one is defending the effect the Glazer ownership has had on the supporters of the club. All anyone is trying to do is determine whether the club or the owners are going to go tits up, and how quickly if they do so. People saying 'I don't think the club will go under any time soon for reasons x, y, z' isn't a defense of the owners.

 

[Sir A1ex]

That is complete bullshit - I took A LOT of time to clearly explain certain things to you after an initial question about EBITDA - at the start you tried to question what I said and I welcomed the challenge and answered every single question you posed.
After you realised that there were no holes in my argument, you (and others who to be fair are far worse than you) have proceeded to try and discredit me at every opportunity or derail the discussion.

Very good.

As you well know, I asked you to explain a bit further what you were talking about, why you chose to pick out the specific parts of the accounts you did and ignore others, and how you justified that working.

Once it became apparent that there was no justification other than trying to construct an argument that the finances were fine, I did indeed stop bothering you with more questions. Your insistance on trying to make a quasi-cashflow statement from selected parts of the accounts, while pretending that accumlated transfer fees and taxation were not releveant was long since discredited.

 

[esmufc07]

I blame Capitalism. I'm going to become a revolutionary I think. Time for change.

 

[afrocentricity]

I think he works or is associated with SU in some form and enters threads to stir up the hornet's nest and spread anti-Glazer propaganda.

So fred, is it true that you are MUST/SU employee sent here to whip us up into a frenzy? (not that it matters)

 

[Sir A1ex]

SU? What decade are we living in here?

 

[didsbury1982]

A total straw man argument - no one is defending the effect the Glazer ownership has had on the supporters of the club. All anyone is trying to do is determine whether the club or the owners are going to go tits up, and how quickly if they do so. People saying 'I don't think the club will go under any time soon for reasons x, y, z' isn't a defense of the owners.

That's not the only thing being discussed here though is it. How about those dismissing the fans protests against the owners. Does that mean they don't have a problem with the issues the Glazers have brought?

 

[Sir A1ex]

the lunatics within the anti-Glazer movement

Is there really much difference between certain posters being called Glazer stooges, and classifying anti-Glazer posters as lunatics?

There's a lot of high ground being claimed in here by people who are in no position to whatsoever.

 

[Sir A1ex]

That's not the only thing being discussed here though is it. How about those dismissing the fans protests against the owners. Does that mean they don't have a problem with the issues the Glazers have brought?

Exactly.

There are posters who say "can't see the Glazers going bust anytime soon, worst luck", there are those that say "happily, I don't think the club is going to go bust". There are plenty of people saying both these things, and they tend not to get any stick for their reasonable points of view.

And the there are those that say "the Glazers are doing fine, the club's doing fine, everything's fine and the anti-glazer movement are lunatics who you should ignore, they've got an agenda to destroy the club...[strangely one-sided rant continues ad infinitum]"

 

[MikeUpNorth]

There are posters who say "can't see the Glazers going bust anytime soon, worst luck", there are those that say "happily, I don't think the club is going to go bust". There are plenty of people saying both these things, and they tend not to get any stick for their reasonable points of view.

And the there are those that say "the Glazers are doing fine, the club's doing fine, everything's fine and the anti-glazer movement are lunatics who you should ignore, they've got an agenda to destroy the club...[strangely one-sided rant continues ad infinitum]"

They are arguing that the club is doing fine from a financial business point of view and that the people who said the club would go under within three years were wrong and that similar prophecies being made now will also turn out to be wrong.

I presume you are referring to Roodboy and GCHQ, however they have both explicitly stated they wish the takeover had never happened, so I don't really see how they are 'pro-Glazer' in any meaningful way. What they do seem to realise is we are where we are, and let’s try and do our best to understand what is likely to happen in the future. I can understand why people have trouble analysing the situation dispassionately, but if there is to be any point to it, we have to try.

 

[Commadus]

It was stated in the bond issue prospectus that they plan to set up a £6m management services agreement with the club and would not draw on the additional £3m available to cover general corporate expenses. We'll have to wait for the year ending June 30 2010 accounts to see if that's what has happened.

Where does it say that in the prospectus they will not draw the additional 3m?

 

[redmattb]

Is there really much difference between certain posters being called Glazer stooges, and classifying anti-Glazer posters as lunatics?

There's a lot of high ground being claimed in here by people who are in no position to whatsoever.

Nobody knows the exact ins and outs. Unless you are a Glazer.
The accounts that are public can be read either way.
I give my accoutant one set of figures and he gives me something completely different back!
The Glazers own Manchester United, and can prety much do what they like.
How anybody can claim they are right or wrong in this thread is beyond me!!

 

[afrocentricity]

SU? What decade are we living in here?

It's from 2005... the similarities are quite funny ... I'm waiting for him to post a scan of his wage sl... oh hang on.

Exactly.

There are posters who say "can't see the Glazers going bust anytime soon, worst luck", there are those that say "happily, I don't think the club is going to go bust". There are plenty of people saying both these things, and they tend not to get any stick for their reasonable points of view.

And the there are those that say "the Glazers are doing fine, the club's doing fine, everything's fine and the anti-glazer movement are lunatics who you should ignore, they've got an agenda to destroy the club...[strangely one-sided rant continues ad infinitum]"

It's all getting a bit silly don't you think?

 

[didsbury1982]

They are arguing that the club is doing fine from a financial business point of view and that the people who said the club would go under within three years were wrong and that similar prophecies being made now will also turn out to be wrong.

I presume you are referring to Roodboy and GCHQ, however they have both explicitly stated they wish the takeover had never happened, so I don't really see how they are 'pro-Glazer' in any meaningful way. What they do seem to realise is we are where we are, and let’s try and do our best to understand what is likely to happen in the future. I can understand why people have trouble analysing the situation dispassionately, but if there is to be any point to it, we have to try.

The issue I have is while we have the Glazers as owners are we expected to just sit back and let them fleece us? The Green and Gold protest has raised awareness of the problems with the Glazers ownership of the club. I personally think it has also prevented another ticket price rise this season and has improved atmosphere in the ground. For that alone it has been worthwhile. To completely dismiss is out of hand is showing a lack of understanding of the fans plight in my opinion.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

The issue I have is while we have the Glazers as owners are we expected to just sit back and let them fleece us? The Green and Gold protest has raised awareness of the problems with the Glazers ownership of the club. I personally think it has also prevented another ticket price rise this season and has improved atmosphere in the ground. For that alone it has been worthwhile. To completely dismiss is out of hand is showing a lack of understanding of the fans plight in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for consumer protection (to put a horrible industry term on it, put hey, this is the business thread) and certainly supporter groups are right to raise the issues we all have with how fans are being treated. And if that can have a positive influence, great. I wouldn't condone misrepresentation of the facts or scaremongering though, but you are right there are many issues with the way fans are being treated.

 

[fredthered]

Well I can assure you that I certainly do not work for United. I think it really does say all we need to know about the lunatics within the anti-Glazer movement that just because I have the nerve to put forward an alternative, and accurate as it happens, point of view on the club's financial position I for some reason need to prove who I work for.

It's totally absurd, which is exactly how I would describe MUST and the G&G campaign.*


* Enter MUST member Ralphie threatening to take me to court.

So I take it you admit you are Eaststand..

WHy dont you tell everyone about your famous "10 questions"



You know.. the 10 questions, where you asked number one, got proven to be a complete jerk, and then ran off refusing to ask the other 9.