Quote:
Originally Posted by GCHQ
Jazz, I made that comment in relation to the 2010 financial results (you should really know that in June 2011, the 10/11 financial year results weren't available). Since then we've seen commercial revenue increase by c. £40m over the next two years so I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that the gap in revenue between what the Glazers have acheived compared to what the PLC would have has now grown to c. £50m. It's due to the ever increasing Glazer-inspired commercial revenue stream that I'm now perfectly comfortable to take the line that the Glazers are now positively benefiting the club financially. ''Little to no effect'' has now become ''positive contribution''. Capiche?
|
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
Yet you decided to use your projected pre exceptional EBITDA for 2011 in your calculation. A prediction you made in May 2011.
So when you say (in June 2011):
"I think in reality revenue and profit under the PLC would have currently been c. £20m lower than it is under the Glazers"you were really referring to the previous trading year (which ended 11 months before the date of your statement). I guess that's an easy mistake to make.
Presumably the same error is at play when you allude to the £20m negative impact in the "
current year". Right?
And when you refer, in the same post, to the negative impact of the Glazer ownership "over the last 6 years", you were mistaken- you meant to say "the last 5 years" as you couldn't possibly know the 2011 YE results (though you had predicted the key results a month earlier).
Hmmm!
Capisco.