ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a bait and switch tactic putting the emphasis on MUST and discrediting them and thus tarnishing legitimate concerns re the Glazers. Frankly I don't give a hoot about MUST and will never join them.

All the data is out there and it's not as unfathomable as they experts make out. Financial jiggery pokery is not rocket science - if you can think logically then you can understand it. Read the prospectus and look at the accounts.
 
Well you will have to ask GCHQ about that as I cant answer on his behalf.

Personally, I have a problem with people who are protesting based on fear of the club going bust or there being no cash available for transfers etc. I believe this kind of feeling is based on misinformation and propoganda from the media and supporter groups.

If you go and look at the G+G thread, you will actually see that people who are also very clearly antiGlazer are also slagging off the campaign. While I choose not to personally participate, I have defended the campaign several times from the perspective of someone who supports the message of fan unity and also improvement in atmosphere.

Yeah that was aimed at GCHQ really, I am interested to hear what his views are on the Glazers ownership. I don't think the club will go bust I do believe it could be crippled though if success isn't continued on the field. I also think the debt has clearly damaged the clubs competitiveness in the transfer market but like you say this kind of stuff probably belongs in the other thread. Just like peoples views on the Green and Gold protests.
 
That's an interesting one. Why not? You seem to generally be pretty upset about the Glazer's ownership, but your very dismissive of the main organised opposition to them too?

I am upset re saddling United with debt and the general way leveraged takeouts and Private Equity work which I have mentioned more than once.

Perhaps my reaction was a tad harsh but frankly MUST seem to sail with the wind at times. Look at what Rogan Taylor and the Liverpool supporters are doing in raising £40m to buy shares and have at least a stake in the club. I am sure MUST have their hearts in the right place but not sure about their methods at times.
 
Look at what Rogan Taylor and the Liverpool supporters are doing in raising £40m to buy shares and have at least a stake in the club.

I heard there was some more progress on that... have they actually got £40m together from fans?:eek:

If so, then your right that MUST have somehow massively missed a trick, as I'm pretty sure the Phoenix fund is a small fraction of that.

Edit - just had a look at some of today's articles... doesn't look like the scousers are any further on than we were 5 years or more ago - they are just starting out and have next to nothing from what I can see?
 
Well Fred has already presented his case - that GCHQ is EastStand from another forum and got banned from there after being accused of working for the club.
Even if all that was all true (and I have no idea so dont want to comment), I dont actually see what the problem is.

Personally, I dont think who you work for is of much relevance, I have been asked to prove my credentials but I refuse to do so because I feel it is a pointless exercise. I prefer to let my posts speak for themselves.

If that's all he has then I don't see the problem either...
 
I heard there was some more progress on that... have they actually got £40m together from fans?:eek:

If so, then your right that MUST have somehow massively missed a trick, as I'm pretty sure the Phoenix fund is a small fraction of that.

Edit - just had a look at some of today's articles... doesn't look like the scousers are any further on than we were 5 years or more ago - they are just starting out and have next to nothing from what I can see?

I think you are right re they have not raised anything but are planning something and that's the type of thing MUST should be doing more. Well that's my opinion.
 
There are some who say that who GCHQ works for, and what his motives are, are irrelevant.

Let me take things back a bit.

I posted on here that the Glazers are free to remove funds from MUFC, pay them to RFJV, and then what they do with that money is up to them. They can keep it for themselves of move it to another part of their empire.

GCHQ was quite categoric that it wasnt possible, and went into a little spiel about how the most they could take was a few million each year, as they were tied under the PIK debts as to what they could do.

Having spoken to several clued up people, and checked myself through the prospectus, its now clear that GCHQ was talking out of his rear oriface, and in fact when challenged to come up with conclusive evidence that what he was saying was fact, he miraculously refused to answer, which ironically is what happens everytime something he says can be counter argued and proven wrong. You try getting a straight answer out of him... you wont... and thats precisely what has been happening over on RI, where he posted time after time about the debts, about the finances. Each time he was contradicted he simply moved on to another subject, refusing to answer.

GCHQ is saying he wants a fair and balanced argument. Fine, lets have one. Lets debate the issue, but its a bit pointless if the moment he gets remotely stuck on a question he simply ignores it and changes track. He cannot go about posting a totally one sided argument, and dismissing what other people ( some of whom appear to be far more qualified than himself ) say.

I really wish the mods would allow Andersred to be promoted so that people like myself can take a back seat, and let the two "experts" battle it out themselves. GCHQ then would have someone whos very very clued up, and far more qualified than the rest of us to have his debate with.

I strongly suspect however, that should Andersred be allowed to post in this thread, you would find GCHQ would disappear very very quickly, because as has been proven on Red Issue, once he's up against someone who does actually have the experience needed to debate this issue, he fecks off rather sharpish.

And if you want to see just how pathetic his arguments are, just look at the blog Andersred has created. The questions being asked by Eaststand are almost comical, and the rebuttals by Andersred are even funnier.

Let Andersred loose on this forum, and you'll see GCHQ for what he is...

At the moment people are falling for his spin, and much of it is just that.. spin.. showing a one sided view totally aimed at discrediting MUST and the anti Glazer fans.

Why would someone be running round virtually every forum for United fans, and feeding people with garbage if there wasnt a motive in it ?
 
Fred, we discussed Andersred already. He was a little embarrased when i last spoke to him because Ralphie was trying to get him promoted. Andy knows what he needs to do in order to get promoted, we've bent the rules a bit for him but we cant completely break them as its not fair on the other new members. We cannot promote anyone with ZERO posts.
 
Interesting stuff fred but with your 'patchy' track record wouldn't it be better to just link the items you are talking about? takes a few minutes at most...

A few example posts from Eaststand, the blog back and forth... examples of GCHQ dodging questions... that sort of thing.

Otherwise it's just he said she said...
 
@ Afro

I am still waiting for an answer to a question I asked GCHQ but perhaps he is busy - I can accept that just hope he comes through as I can't seem to find the reference in the Bond Prospectus.
 
Fred, we discussed Andersred already. He was a little embarrased when i last spoke to him because Ralphie was trying to get him promoted. Andy knows what he needs to do in order to get promoted, we've bent the rules a bit for him but we cant completely break them as its not fair on the other new members. We cannot promote anyone with ZERO posts.

How many posts does he need to make?
 
Fred, we discussed Andersred already. He was a little embarrased when i last spoke to him because Ralphie was trying to get him promoted. Andy knows what he needs to do in order to get promoted, we've bent the rules a bit for him but we cant completely break them as its not fair on the other new members. We cannot promote anyone with ZERO posts.

No fair comment, and I respect you sticking to the rules.

Its just very frustrating when you have two people both using his blogs, arguing the toss, and we cant have Andersred here to give his views in person.
 
As I have said previously, I would also welcome Andersred - I am bit a bored of the usual suspects going round in circles on the same issues and unlike others I welcome a different point of view.

To be honest, he probably has his hands full already as he has started to get a fair bit of debate going in the comments section of his blog. There are many people who do not agree with his analysis - anyone who is interested can follow the discussion there if they want.
 
Don't know but if he's going to be posting on finance issues (in this thread) it seems that he'll also be expected to state his occupation and who he works for.

Yes, I want proof that he's not working for a company that's shorting against the United bonds.

It's just not right that people can post here and we don't even know who they work for! JP Morgan employees (225,000 of them) are apparently to be banned, but who else?

I think anyone that works for Standard and Chartered, yet claims to be a United fan, should get the bullet straight away. That's just 75k employees though. If we could ban some big hitters like IBM or Microsoft then we'd really be getting somewhere.
 
What is the question Commandus? Maybe I can answer it ...

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.

I can't find where it says they will not draw the £3.0m if they withdraw upto £6.0m.
 
I can't find where it says they will not draw the £3.0m if they withdraw upto £6.0m.

Cant help you there Im afraid - it is not a part of the prospectus that I have explored properly.

The prospectus does give the Glazers flexibility to take out cash from the club (as long as profit levels are high enough) but only time will tell if they actually take everything they are entitled to or not.
 
Now where has anybody said that?

This sort of scare-mongering doesn't help anybody.

I can't stand scare-mongering, y'know.

Well apparently debating on facts and figures is too much work, and anyone whose views are not agreed with can just be dismissed unless they can prove they don't work for Glazer and/or JP Morgan.

And as we all know, the very future of Man United depends on what is posted in this thread.
 
That went down well fred. Expect a round of applause? Red issue is a pathetic forum full of knuckle dragging sheep. Fortunately people on here form their own conclusions. How does one prove they don't work for united and even if they do does it make them wrong? I've seen more sense from gchq on here not to mention evidence based analysis than you've ever offered. Ditto roodboy. How embarrassing for you. Saving it up for so long and everyone thinks you're the twat.

I find that comment to be really arrogant. I post on Red Issue and know other people who do too. Salt of the earth blokes who are neither sheep, nor drag their knuckles.
I often see threads on Red Issue about helping out fellow Reds (often financially) who are having a difficult time.
Your comment is a bit like someone on Red Issue posting....
'Redcafe is full of poncy glazer loving twats from London and America'.

(I'd rather be a knuckle dragging sheep)
 
Try wearing a green and gold scarf whilst selling pies in one of the kiosks in the ground.

:confused:

Alternatively, try wearing a 'don't eat meat' shirt while serving up a mixed grill in TGI fridays... Or a piratebay T-Shirt while working at Virgin... or wait for it, a greenpeace shirt while working on an oil rig...

Apart from the obvious question 'Why would you do that?', what in the world does this have to do with my point?
 
:confused:

Alternatively, try wearing a 'don't eat meat' shirt while serving up a mixed grill in TGI fridays... Or a piratebay T-Shirt while working at Virgin... or wait for it, a greenpeace shirt while working on an oil rig...

Apart from the obvious question 'Why would you do that?', what in the world does this have to do with my point?

Your point was about working for United and having an agenda. As far as the Glazers ownership is concerned of course they have an agenda.
 
Cant help you there Im afraid - it is not a part of the prospectus that I have explored properly.

The prospectus does give the Glazers flexibility to take out cash from the club (as long as profit levels are high enough) but only time will tell if they actually take everything they are entitled to or not.

:lol:
 
Your point was about working for United and having an agenda. As far as the Glazers ownership is concerned of course they have an agenda.

I suppose you think they go through a week of intensive brainwashing on induction too?

These people are normal and have opinions just like you or me... you'd think we were talking about some kind of regime.
 
I suppose you think they go through a week of intensive brainwashing on induction too?

These people are normal and have opinions just like you or me... you'd think we were talking about some kind of regime.

Brain washing...no overtly no, but I've worked for many a company that if full of people who are proud to tow the party line and happily spout the bollox that they are told to believe by the directors.

So whilst they are normal and have opinions like you and I, sometimes it seems they don't exercise those opinions.

So an employee of United coming on here might easily have his or her opinions shaped by their paymaster. That's normal it happens all the time in every walk of life.
 
I find that comment to be really arrogant. I post on Red Issue and know other people who do too. Salt of the earth blokes who are neither sheep, nor drag their knuckles.
I often see threads on Red Issue about helping out fellow Reds (often financially) who are having a difficult time.
Your comment is a bit like someone on Red Issue posting....
'Redcafe is full of poncy glazer loving twats from London and America'.

(I'd rather be a knuckle dragging sheep)

Is that amongst the forty threads talking about shagging, asking for naked pictures of each others nearest and dearest to wank over and facebook stalking? Not to mention the jumping on of any negative united story in the daily sport or equivalent as further evidence of uniteds downfall.
 
Is that amongst the forty threads talking about shagging, asking for naked pictures of each others nearest and dearest to wank over and facebook stalking? Not to mention the jumping on of any negative united story in the daily sport or equivalent as further evidence of uniteds downfall.
As opposed to that bastion of enlightened soccer debate and high-mindedness that is the caf?
 
Jeepers this thread has'nt half gone mad since the last time I was on, the sooner we all go back to being football fans the better. I dont know whether GCHQ is posting on behalf of himself or whether he is representing someone, his performance's on here however are polished to say the least and remind so much of the type of answers I would get in this country from politicans who dont want to give a straight answer. They waffle their way out of trouble but it always sounds good and by the end of it you have almost forgotten what you asked them in the first place
If he or anybody else is representing a third party I would love them to come clean, sure would'nt the banter be great and I certainly would'nt want them banned because of their opinons. However after tonight they will probably be very quiet anyhow
 
The problem is not that gchqs answers are polished but that noone with any know how has countered them on here. He and roodboy are the only ones to have provided any proper analysis. I'd love to have andersred on here but he isn't and until someone can do better than calling him a glazer stooge you can't expect people not to listen to him.

As for tonights programme, I'm sure it will be nice and scandal filled. But its a one sided account, right or wrong and thus of little value.
 
As for tonights programme, I'm sure it will be nice and scandal filled. But its a one sided account, right or wrong and thus of little value.

Oh believe me its of very great value.

The Glazers would have been asked if they would like to comment or counter the arguments.

If they decline, then its a fair assumption to make that they have something to hide.

If they dont want people believing what Andersred is saying, then all they have to do is come out and tell us the real truth.

The fact they wont is very very informative
 
Status
Not open for further replies.