Spoony
The People's President
If anything GCHQ has single-handedly brought the MUST campaign back on track. . .
A MUST wind up/cunning plan?
A MUST wind up/cunning plan?
Except that those who, for example, contributed funds under the old SU, appear to no longer have voting rights.But they remain a completely democratic organisation. If the people they represent don't like the direction they're going in, they can vote the current Committee and/or Exec out and take it in a direction they prefer. In fact there are elections this summer I believe.
There's certainly nothing to stop groups like the RKs trying to take advantage of them. But MUST (and IMUSA) were always clear that their support for the RKs was provisional on them delivering supporter ownership (or a device to enable them to move towards that aim). If the RKs dropped this from their manifesto then they would not get the support of the supporter groups.
But nusing the logic of GCHQAugust comes after June.
June does come after August to be fair.But nusing the logic of GCHQ
I'm telling you the June comes after August and it says so in my calender
And I can argue that till you are red in the face
May have something to do with the way I manipulate it by starting at the back of the calender first
Just goes to show how you can bend the truth
You got the same calendarJune does come after August to be fair.
I just want to know what May had to do with it!You got the same calendar
or you using the August 2009 June 2010 argument
What's May no such thingI just want to know what May had to do with it!
GCHQ made an analysis of actual cash costs of Glazer ownership from June 30th 2005 to June 30th 2010, he was quite clear on this. You can't then tell him that his analysis is wrong because he hasn't included cash costs that will be incurred in August 2010!Oh you think you are smart. The looming payment of £22m is not far off.
Pick and chose dates that suit your argument.
Is that the best you can do? We just won't takea look a the balance sheet - no need to look there.
GCHQ railed against Anders about what he left out of his caluclations its as much what is not said as what is said.
GCHQ I am still waiting for that reference in the Prospectus - or we agreed you lied?
Dude you either are being facetious or plain dumb. How many times does it have to be pointed out that looking at the cash side (even accepting his wild assumptions) you miss the rising liabilities on the balance sheet.GCHQ made an analysis of actual cash costs of Glazer ownership from June 30th 2005 to June 30th 2010, he was quite clear on this. You can't then tell him that his analysis is wrong because he hasn't included cash costs that will be incurred in August 2010!
He certainly did. In fact, for some reason he has become obsessed with actual cash costs of Glazer ownership from June 30th 2005 to June 30th 2010, it's the only thing he'll talks about - check out his first post on the previosu page.GCHQ made an analysis of actual cash costs of Glazer ownership from June 30th 2005 to June 30th 2010
You know why. It's because there's a fundamental disagreement about what "cost" actually means. You're insisting on only including the money that has already left the club, while others, rightly in my opinion, believe that a cost is something that you are liable for, particularly if we are looking at the differences between one ownership model and another.I like how you've managed to not give a figure for the actual cash outflow cost of the Glazers ownership compared to the PLC structure in the five years to June 30 2010. So going by your figures (which aren't accurate) that would be £240.7m - £113m = £127.7m.
The only way that I could see this being even remotely fair is if you were to exclude any natural rises in revenue and even the revenue that has come about because of price rises. Without that, you are necessarily forcing people to accept the rises that are at the very heart of the dispute.Firstly, why have you not included the additional revenue that the Glazers ownership has generated over and above the level that would have been acheived by the PLC. Do you not think revenues are higher now than they would have been under the PLC? If that's the case then you can't blame the Glazers for either the ticket price rises of the compulsory ACS.
I believe that the PLC wouldn't have increased prices to that extent or enforced the ACS as a compulsory policy for season ticket holders. I estimated a figure (net of reduced corporation tax and dividends) of £45m that the Glazers ownership has added to the club in revenue over the past five years, and that includes some additional commercial revneue to go along with the increased matchday revenue.
So in my opinion, that is £45m that needs to come off the £127.7m cash outflow figure that your table does its best to hide. So £82.7m.
Surely, not unless you can actually show that it is a reality and then where it comes from?Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that there weren't any PLC related costs that amounted to savings under the Glazers ownership? This was estimated at around £3m-£4m a year at the time of the takeover. So we can knock a further £15m-£20m off that £82.7m figure. So down to £62.7m-£67.7m.
LolGCHQ made an analysis of actual cash costs of Glazer ownership from June 30th 2005 to June 30th 2010, he was quite clear on this. You can't then tell him that his analysis is wrong because he hasn't included cash costs that will be incurred in August 2010!
I think it's just full members (i.e. a tenner a year) who get the right to vote - there's about 9,000 of them I think. I assume the issue of voting rights is set out in the Trust's constitution and is in line with Supporters Direct. I don't think comparing them with for-profit corporations is particularly helpful, but if you've concerns, then I'd advise contacting MUST about it.Except that those who, for example, contributed funds under the old SU, appear to no longer have voting rights.
Is this correct?
Would that publicly traded corporations could require you to keep funding them to a certain amount every single year or else you cannot vote.
Or nations required you to pay a certain quantity of tax in a year before allowing you to vote.
Those who were shareholders under SU should always have voting rights.
Any democratic group should be looking to allow voting rights, not to limit them.
But the reason you hounded him so much was because you said you'd caught him out bullshitting. But, he was clear enough in saying that he was comparing actual cash costs, not future liabilities, and clear over the financial timescale he was looking at. GCHQ obviously thinks that direct cashflow is important. The level of debt is well known, what's less known it's effect on our immediate and future finances; i think that what GCHQ is trying to say is that, when looking at cashflow of the past five years, the debt has had, in his opinion,only a negligible effect in comparison to what would have happened under the PLC. If GCHQ thinks this a point worthy of attention then who are you to call a witchhunt over it?He certainly did. In fact, for some reason he has become obsessed with actual cash costs of Glazer ownership from June 30th 2005 to June 30th 2010, it's the only thing he'll talks about - check out his first post on the previosu page.
Never mind the balance sheet, as long as he's found a period with a positive cash-flow, eh?
I took £50 out of a cash machine today. Hurray, I'm £50 richer than I was this morning!
Fortunately everybody's seen through this ridiculous obsession.
To be fair MUST already has gained outside support. It is under the umbrella of Supporters Direct, which is Government-funded, it was at No.10 a few months back, and it and SD got the principle of supporter ownership into both Tory and Labour election manifestos. If MUST was considered to be anything other than straight with its assessment of the Glazer situation, do you think the likes of David Cameron would have risked being anywhere near it?But if you and RK/MUST should gain outside support from the comminty, politicians, other supporters and in general. Keep it simple and hold on to the truth. That is my advice.
You're confusing shareholders / Phoenix fund investors with MUST members.Except that those who, for example, contributed funds under the old SU, appear to no longer have voting rights.
Is this correct?
Would that publicly traded corporations could require you to keep funding them to a certain amount every single year or else you cannot vote.
I've never called a witch-hunt on anyone but I'm more than within my rights to point it out as bullshit if he thinks that.If GCHQ thinks this a point worthy of attention then who are you to call a witchhunt over it?
To be fair, I doubt Cameron's given it anything like that much consideration, and he would probably ditch all connection to MUST as quickly as he jumped on the bandwagon. But that is a point entirely about David Cameron and similar politicians, not about MUST.If MUST was considered to be anything other than straight with its assessment of the Glazer situation, do you think the likes of David Cameron would have risked being anywhere near it?
June 30 2010 is the end date of the club's current financial year. That is why I have quite legitimately used that date as the closing point of my cash outflow analysis.He certainly did. In fact, for some reason he has become obsessed with actual cash costs of Glazer ownership from June 30th 2005 to June 30th 2010, it's the only thing he'll talks about - check out his first post on the previosu page.
Never mind the balance sheet, as long as he's found a period with a positive cash-flow, eh?
I took £50 out of a cash machine today. Hurray, I'm £50 richer than I was this morning!
Fortunately everybody's seen through this ridiculous obsession.
Thank God for that.People can make up their own mind as to which opinion they now wish to believe about the state of the club moving forward.
So you're not willing to address my other points? Just cheap point scoring then. Do you agree with the questions I posed?Thank God for that.
With your ridiculous cash-based arguments thoroughly shot to bits, you can keep on repeating them, as you just have yet again, for as long as you like but everybody has seen through the emporers new clothes, I'm afraid.
If you really do work in any branch of finance or accountancy, I'm glad you don't look after any funds I have an interest in. Your belief that cash makes you rich / stable, regardless of your over-all position is just scary.
I never implied anyone was a shareholder in MUST.You're confusing shareholders / Phoenix fund investors with MUST members.
MUST / SU has always been a subscription based members' organisation, much like most equvalent not-for-profit bodies. You pay annual subs, you're a member, you get to vote. Those funds are used to meet the costs of running the organisation.
Those who have money in the Phoenix fund have not "contributed money" to MUST, it is still their own investment. They no more have voting rights than you do if you have money in a bank account. They are certainly not shareholders in MUST.
So to answer your "Would that publicly traded corporations.." point - any bank operates this way, as does, on the other side of the coin, any members' organisation like the National Trust, or more pertinantly, "supporter-owned" clubs like Barcelona.
I think its reasonable to take the end of year accounts as a cut off point, the time to look at what happens in August is next June when we will have the complete picture for the trading year.Thank God for that.
With your ridiculous cash-based arguments thoroughly shot to bits, you can keep on repeating them, as you just have yet again, for as long as you like but everybody has seen through the emporers new clothes, I'm afraid.
If you really do work in any branch of finance or accountancy, I'm glad you don't look after any funds I have an interest in. Your belief that cash makes you rich / stable, regardless of your over-all position is just scary.
If you gained outside support from David Cameron then MUST have come a long way. That's good. What they need to do is continue this and attract more attention.To be fair MUST already has gained outside support. It is under the umbrella of Supporters Direct, which is Government-funded, it was at No.10 a few months back, and it and SD got the principle of supporter ownership into both Tory and Labour election manifestos. If MUST was considered to be anything other than straight with its assessment of the Glazer situation, do you think the likes of David Cameron would have risked being anywhere near it?
I suppose there is an argument for separating the control of the Phoenix Fund from the running of the rest of MUST (lobbying, campaigning etc). Ultimately though you do have control over your money, and can decide whether it is used in any potential Red Knights scenario.They hold the money that I contributed to the only realistic hope of dislodging Uncle Malc.
In order to have any say on what they do moving forward with that money in that account, I have to pay an annual membership fee to vote in order to say how they should move forward on how to run the affairs of the organisation including how to find a way to use my "investment".
Are you kidding?Could we have a cash flow forecast for the next five years?
Only as long as you want them to hold it. The option remains to either pay for membership or withdraw your funds if you are unhappy with the direction MUST is going.They hold the money that I contributed to the only realistic hope of dislodging Uncle Malc.
Well, they gained support from both the resident Government (Labour) and the opposition (the Tories). It's in black and white in the manifestos of both, which is far more important than mere lip-service from Cameron. However, the next step is to ensure that the current government keeps its manifesto promise (not an easy task at the best of times!)If you gained outside support from David Cameron then MUST have come a long way. That's good. What they need to do is continue this and attract more attention.
:lolAre you kidding?
Have you seen the controversy in trying to accurately pin down what has already happened?
Are you kidding?
Have you seen the controversy in trying to accurately pin down what has already happened?
So who is included then? pray not me, I kept asking questions to which getting an answer was impossibleI think its reasonable to take the end of year accounts as a cut off point, the time to look at what happens in August is next June when we will have the complete picture for the trading year.
I also think the abuse GCHQ is taking form people who have had very little input into this discussion is very childish and unnecessary. (I wouldn't include yourself in that group.)
In reality what happened is that you got answers but were unable to understand them and described them as waffle.So who is included then? pray not me, I kept asking questions to which getting an answer was impossible
Sour grapes from you my friend, I asked the questions he did'nt want to answer by keeping it simple and got called various names instead of answers. Dont be a sore loser now that his whole bollox's has been discredited and yourself and the rest of disciples discredited on a financial level. Good to see that sensible economic examination of our American friend now prevails.In reality what happened is that you got answers but were unable to understand them and described them as waffle.
Eventually everybody realised his financial gymnastic's were a sham, good work there FredI go away for 5 days and when I get back everyone is slating GCHQ and saying he's a bullshitting twister of facts.
What happened ?
Having seen him in action on Red Issue, it was only a matter of time.Eventually everybody realised his financial gymnastic's were a sham, good work there Fred
That perhaps would suggest that people like GCHQ were hoping that if they spoke in fancy terms, people would believe they were the genuine article.In reality what happened is that you got answers but were unable to understand them and described them as waffle.
Not really. What happened was that GCHQ put forward an analysis of the last five years' actual cashflow costs of the Glazer ownership in relation to a hypothetical five years under the PLC, Anders then posted a spreadsheet showing vaguely related but essentially completely different calculations, then everybody got their cocks out, switched into witchhunt mode and declared this as unarguable proof of GCHQ talking bollocks. The fact that GCHQ's point and Anders' counter bared little relation to one another - that they'd each either missed the other's point or were being deliberately obtuse - went right over everyone's heads amongst the wild celebrations of the cringe-worthy but very typical victory-parade. Crerand had a premature orgasm, Ralphie came back from his sulk, Jason posted something, Redlambs plugged his comic, and everything basically carried on as it has been for the last six months.Eventually everybody realised his financial gymnastic's were a sham, good work there Fred