That's OK then.
Green and Gold till the club is Sold!
- Thread starter ralphie88
- Start date
- Status
That's just you being a pedant in referral to my wording.
The Club's revenues then..
Childish nitpicking as usual - if you have anything interesting to say then let me know.
You are defending the indefensible, the constant bad news from the Glazer accounts is why the Green/ Gold campaign will get stronger, do they never feel ashamed of what they have done to this club?
Oh right.... not an issue then, sorry.I'm not defending it - it clearly isn't good news, I am happy to admit that. But in the grand scheme of things 2% isnt going to make a big difference - as I understand it, it is likely that the rise only lasts for 6 months and goes back down in Feb anyway.
As I said, it has all been discussed before.
Why don't you go back and read the whole post again? I was merely commenting on how I didn't know what the hell was going on with the finances back in 2005-2009 and so I just felt that ticket prices were just going up in the same way that a lot of things go up.
I don't know about you (you're so anal that I suspect you do actually) but I don't sit there working out how much, as a percentage, everything I purchase goes up year on year.
My car insurance seems to go up every year but I don't get the calculator out and work it out as a percentage, I just pay the fecking thing and get on with my life.
Yes, it IS called inflation. You might want to read about inflation because you clearly don't understand it. You seem to think that someone plucks an arbitrary figure out of the air and all businesses are supposed to put their prices up by that amount and no more when it's the other way round.
The rate of inflation is arrived at as a result of the general increase in prices across the board.
A football club can charge whatever the hell it likes for ticket prices and people can decide for themselves whether they wish to pay it. If the price is set too high, they won't sell tickets, if the price is set too low, they won't be maximising revenue and so will be "losing money". It is a balancing act and the Glazers appear to have pretty successfully achieved an optimum balance.
Whether you think they're too high is besides the point. Whether you think they have risen too steeply is besides the point. Whether a loaf of fecking bread costs 20p more now than it did in 2005 is totally besides the point too.
Go and bore someone else.
They've probably paid off at least £100M reducing the PIK to about £130M so the 16% will lead to an interest bill of about £20M rather than the £37M being bandied about.
Gullibility at it's finest.Well well well.. What have we here?
"Failure to meet the borrowers' terms by 16 August meant the annual interest rose from 14.25% to 16.25%.
Analysts predict the annual payment will now increase to about £38m, up from £25m last year. Because the interest on the loans is "rolled up" and added to the original sum borrowed the Glazers will owe around £267m on the PIK loans by 2011 - almost a £100m increase in only five years."
fecking hell!
Can't be arsed reading the thread but I assume TMRD, Ciderman, GCHQ and the rest of the Glazer bum-brigade are having a good go at fighting the Glazers cause with regards to this?
I'm sorry but there's little doubt the Glazers will use the club's money to pay off the PIKs.. Anyone who can't see that's an idiot.
They're leeching twats who need to feck off asap.
They're just scaremongering, the debt wont escalate as these latest articles suggest because they'll have been partially paid off and stabilised well before that is likely to happen.
Don't you read these fecking threads? I'd suggest you look into what you're talking about next time before swanning in with your smart-Alec bullshit.
In order for it to maybe sink into your gullible skull a bit better, i'll post this next bit in bold...
The press report scary bullshit in order to sell newspapers to thick cnuts like you who; stop being a thick cnut and believing every word.
Of course one of the "idiots" who swears blind that the repayment of the PIKs is not United's problem is David Gill. You should have a word.
Exactly - of course, this point will be ignored/missed by the majority who prefer to go with the doom and gloom scenario.
Pete said "probably paid" Rood.
NO. The Glazers' money.That's just you being a pedant in referral to my wording.
The Club's revenues then..
I run my own business, the money it makes is mine all mine.
I don't sit there and think, "Should I take some money out of my business? Hmm, maybe I shouldn't, it belongs to the business... oh what to do?"
Get a grip.
Depends which scenario you're talking about. I'd say, £95m taken out of the club to pay the PIKs despite vehment assurances that they were not the club's responsibility was a pretty "gloomy" scenario.
Let's say that £95m didn't have to go to pay the PIKs, seeing as you all love the "70p in the pound" analogy, that £95m is equivalent to over the matchday income from over 40 Champions League games.... Free tickets for every ST holder as a reward for their loyalty for the next 40 CL home games or £95m to bail the Glazers out of their feck-ups?
Which would you choose?
That is correct - we don't know at the moment. Next set of accounts should shed more light.
Well, if he completely blanks such an esteemed member of the United community such as your good self then I don't think he'd entertain me, would he?
You're becoming a bit of a goldfish, Anders.
One day you agree that the Glazers are entitled to dividends and are allowed to spend those dividends on whatever they like - even their personal debts - and the next day you seem to have forgotten that fact.
Normally I'd agree. However, some of these loans have all manners of terms and conditions which means the money does not necessarily belong to the owners, just as the debts.
I don't dispute their legal entitlement. Who does?
Just because something is allowed doesn't make it good does it?
Actually, TMRD, why do you think Gill has denied the club will pay the PIKs if it's so obvious to everyone else (you included)?
Bail the Glazers out. Because the other choice is delusional no matter who the owners are, and I'd like to retain my sanity.
They are entitled to certain sums if certain profit targets are met, is my understanding.
If they are entitled to those sums then those sums become theirs to do with as they wish.
Obviously whilst every penny that comes into Manchester United is technically "theirs", they do have certain commitments and obligations with a lot of it (player wages set down by legally binding contracts, for example).
What's left when all of these commitments have been met is theirs.
Stupid question - the answer is obvious.
That choice isn't on offer though (and never will be regardless of who is in charge) so I don't really see the point in the question.
As others have noted you do seem to prefer to talk about hypotheticals rather than focusing on realities.
Of course, I would argue that seeing a reduction in the debt levels of the club is a good thing.
You see the problem with your argument is that you want to have it both ways - if we talk about the club's total debt then you include the PIK, but we talk about paying off the PIK and reducing the debt then you start saying that it is not the club's debt!
BTW I note that you ignored my question to you last night, not for the first time either ...
Absolutely. I can't deny that fact.
The issue here is (todays news) the loan targets have not been met.
Because when the Glazers take out their dividends, it is no longer the club's money is it? It becomes the Glazers' personal income, doesn't it?
It might just be a semantic argument but, technically, it is perfectly true.
Of course, there is another way of looking at it and that is that the Glazers have something completely different in mind about how to pay off the PIKs (sell the Buccs, for example) or use some of their own personal wealth.
As I am happy to work with the worst case scenario then I am happy to be led by what you have to say on the matter and go with the notion that every penny will have to come from money that comes into United until proven otherwise.
What does that tell us then? That they haven't been taking enough money out of United? Which way do you want it?
Ah, I get it... everything is besides the point, and boring, unless it fits in with your own views.
Not sure a web forum is for you mate.
It's obvious to any intelligent person that the level of increase, in relation to inflation, is highly relevent.
If you want to arbitrarily declare Ticket Prices out of the scope of the converstion, fell free, but don't try and justify it by passing it all off as every day inflation.
Nitpicking?!
You're insane. I'm quoting what you said, and then denied saying. It's the exact opposite of nit-picking.
It's you that's splitting hairs by trying to deny you said something because of a minor point of syntax.
You just can't face the fact that your whole "MUST should be doing other stuff" point is totally flawed and nonsensical.
MUST should either continue trying to promote moves towards fan ownership, or give up and go home.
It couldn't be much simpler.
Where did the bulk of the 100m come from? Selling our greatest asset, the more you think what they done the angrier you get. I would not trust them as far as I could throw them they are a devious bunch who should never been allowed to run a football club
The problem with these imaginary scenarios, apart from the fact that you continue to try to rile the matchgoing fans (I notice you're going after CL games now - is this your new plan? Boycott big European nights? Good luck with that) is that they presume everything else is equal.
On the one hand we have your friend Little Dunc telling everyone how we could have a Rooney over the life of the debts or a Chicharito every year (
) and then we have you on the other hand telling us that we could have free CL tickets.If the debt interest wasn't there, a lot of that money would be sucked up by tax and dividends of some kind or another so your silly little analogy falls on its arse almost immediately.
If the debt interest wasn't there then we may well do what Little Dunc wants us to do and go out and buy players so the free CL tickets still wouldn't be there.
We might then end up with a higher wage bill (the money is there, we might as well use it eh?) because of all these new players we'll be buying so again, the money still isn't there to give anyone a free ticket.
We might end up with a worse owner who, whilst not having high interest payments to meet, might pay himelf super-humungous dividends every season so again, the money still might not be there in a different reality.
I'd like to live in Andersland, Andy, I really would. Old Trafford will seat a million people and we'd all get in for free. It sounds like a great place.
Someone asked ME earlier if I'd woken up yet...
You either didn't read what I said or you didn't understand it.
Be scared.The Daily Terror said:
Your last post? Well most of it was still hopeless floundering about what you meant by comparing the ticket price rises to other price rises, so we'll ignore that as pointless.
Which leaves your return to the supply and demand / maximising profit argument...
Well we've been through that a hundred times on here, and I think all sides agree that it comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion in what you think a football club should be.
So not much point going back into that.
As I said at the beginning, I was only really interested in what you mean tin the original post, and we've done that to death.
I only made the CL analogy to wind you up. Sorry, boring Friday afternoon.The problem with these imaginary scenarios, apart from the fact that you continue to try to rile the matchgoing fans (I notice you're going after CL games now - is this your new plan? Boycott big European nights? Good luck with that) is that they presume everything else is equal.
On the one hand we have your friend Little Dunc telling everyone how we could have a Rooney over the life of the debts or a Chicharito every year (
If the debt interest wasn't there, a lot of that money would be sucked up by tax and dividends of some kind or another so your silly little analogy falls on its arse almost immediately.
If the debt interest wasn't there then we may well do what Little Dunc wants us to do and go out and buy players so the free CL tickets still wouldn't be there.
We might then end up with a higher wage bill (the money is there, we might as well use it eh?) because of all these new players we'll be buying so again, the money still isn't there to give anyone a free ticket.
We might end up with a worse owner who, whilst not having high interest payments to meet, might pay himelf super-humungous dividends every season so again, the money still might not be there in a different reality.
I'd like to live in Andersland, Andy, I really would. Old Trafford will seat a million people and we'd all get in for free. It sounds like a great place.
Someone asked ME earlier if I'd woken up yet...
Turn it around and drop the analogies.
Do you, TMRD, think that there is a better use that could be made by Manchester United Football Club of £95m if it didn't have to be used to pay of some of the PIK loan?
Whilst I'm asking questions, let's do Ruud:
Sadly it doesn't lend itself to a "yes or no answer". Am I allowed a more nuanced one?
Stick up the others and I'll see what I can do....
Oh yes, my hopeless, pointless, floundering "supply and demand argument".
You're not trying to write it off as pointless because it doesn't suit your argument, by any chance, are you?
Incidentally, what exactly IS your argument?
Come on. Let's have it. How should a football club work out its ticket prices? What would be a fair way? How much should it cost to go and watch Manchester United right now? What should a football club "be"? Who decides what a football club should "be"?
Let's turn it around another way Anders. Without the debt interest do you, Andersred, think that the Glazers would be as incentivised to go out and pursue commercial revenues with such zeal in order for much of that £95million to be there in the first place?
Well I would prefer you to give a straight 'yes' or 'no' as I feel it is a pretty simple question, but then feel free to elaborate on your reasons for the answer.
The relevant sporting authorities?
Would you like to see the FA's Rule 34 restored? That would deal with a lot of this:
If David Gill was doing his job that investment from commercial streams would still have happened and to give him credit I believe it would have. Lets face it the Glazers in their other business's have shown they dont have a clue so it is unlikely they would add anything to the way the club is run. The Glazers money was made by Daddy who is now too ill to participate, the younger ones have not inherited his ability to make money.
Of course it lends itself to a yes or no answer.
I wasn't asking you, I was asking dozy Dan.
Thanks for that anyway, I'm off out to buy myself a penny farthing. Victorian days rock!
- Status