Hit your head, more like.Hit a nerve lads have I
Hit your head, more like.Hit a nerve lads have I
A nice bit of 'bullshit propoganda', MancRed- the Glazers haven't sold all our best players ergo investment in the team is a priority. If this sorta syllogistic claptrap is the best you can offer by way of deductive reasoning you need to go back to logic preschool especially if you want to enhance you reputation as an 'outspoken critic' of MUST. When did you become an 'outspoken critic' anyway? Can I add delusions of grandeur to delusions of persecution?If the team was made weaker, why would that make selling the Bonds easier?
If the team was not made weaker, why not go for less expensive options?
If Ronaldo had always said that he loved being a Manchester United player and wanted to see out his playing days in the Red shirt, I think you'd have a point but that is a million miles away from the truth. He always spoke of his "dream" being to play for Real Madrid. For himself and for his mother.
By all accounts, we could have sold Ronnie twelve months earlier than we did but Fergie talked him 'round to staying for one more season. If his hand was being forced by the Glazers, do you think he would have been able to talk Ronnie 'round? No. The Glazers would have sold the player regardless and got the £60million (or whatever was on offer at the time).
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Glazers had anything to do with the transfer of Ronaldo but when it became clear that, on balance, it was the right thing to do, it was great business to get a world record £80million fee upfront.
Tevez is another story. He has no particular allegiance to any club in England. He came along with his pimp a few years ago and joined, of all places, West Ham. The idea was to put him in the shop window and get the most money out of him for himself and his pimp.
We took the option on him, gave him a couple of seasons and then, by all accounts, offered the fee that was agreed at the beginning.
In the meantime, Manchester City came sniffing with their mega riches and I believe Tevez is on something in the region of £150k/week there.
As I believe that we are trying to get the far superior Wayne Rooney to agree a £140k/week deal, there is no way on earth that we would insult Rooney by offering Tevez more. I doubt we would have offered Tevez more than £100k.
So, Tevez and his pimp are sat there thinking to themselves, "Shall we go to City for £150k a week or stay at United for £100k a week?" Hmm... it's a toughie.
If players want to play for Manchester United then they are rewarded for their loyalty to the club. This has always been the case and continues to be the case.
For your argument to hold any water at all, we should also have let Vidic leave this summer and gone with a cheaper option (Smalling, for example) but instead we gave him an improved deal which he signed yesterday.
This proves that investment in the team is a priority for the Glazers and, contrary to what you say, they are not selling off our best players in order to balance the books.
Rubbish. The club can afford to take a hit on ticket prices given other revenue streams. Either that or we're over-leveraged. Hmmm.Because you said:-
A wage bill of £130million covered by the matchday revenues plus £20million from other revenues, would seem like we're trying to work within what you're saying there, wouldn't it?
Given that revenues were £278million last season then a £130million wage bill is something like 45% of revenues. I think that's a sensible figure, personally. A lot of clubs run at a higher percentage than that and that's why a lot of clubs end up in the shit.
If we drop ticket prices considerably then the wage bill would either be a dangerously large percentage of revenue or we'd have to slash the wage bill to remain within sensible levels and that would mean selling players or asking them to take a pay cut.
It wasn't a snide remark, it was a comment aimed at you and GCHQ and others with their "if you can't afford it, tough shit" attitude, which is helping to divide the fan base.I don't know why you feel the need to add the snide remark at the end there, I thought we'd been having a fairly reasonable conversation today but hey ho - whatever floats your boat.
Of course it will. Why lend the money from United when you believe that he has such wonderful personal wealth? Do you seriously believe that money will ever re-enter the club or there will be a default and write off of said loan?No idea. Apparently, it was a loan to one of the Glazer family (one of their sisters, I think). Knowing Malcolm Glazer, it attracts a 50% interest rate and that is how he intends to pay off the PIKs.
Get on it, Joga, time to save TMRD's skin like you said you would and tear Crerand a bible length arsehole!
I don't know what you are complaining about. In 'make it up as you go along world' neither crerand or TMRD are wrong in their own heads. Anything that I do would therefore be superfluous.Brace yourself, fool, the Jogaman's gonna open up a whole can of whoop-ass on your narrow behind!
I tell you what could be worth your while though; why don't you set to work admonishing all those that repeatedly call our great manager a liar everytime he mentions money or the owners? There's far more of that goes on; no need to be picking on TMRD all the time, eh?I don't know what you are complaining about. In 'make it up as you go along world' neither crerand or TMRD are wrong in their own heads. Anything that I do would therefore be superfluous.
Anyway, I've been accusing old ladies of mass murder all afternoon for nothing more than walking funnily.
I feel liberated, to be honest, now that I don't have to use language properly.
I don't exactly hide the fact that I think MUST are a bunch of fecking amateurs, I hate the way they go about their business and I'll say as much whenever and wherever appropriate. I think that makes me a critic and an outspoken one. It's not delusions of grandeur, it's just a fact.A nice bit of 'bullshit propoganda', MancRed- the Glazers haven't sold all our best players ergo investment in the team is a priority. If this sorta syllogistic claptrap is the best you can offer by way of deductive reasoning you need to go back to logic preschool especially if you want to enhance you reputation as an 'outspoken critic' of MUST. When did you become an 'outspoken critic' anyway? Can I add delusions of grandeur to delusions of persecution?
You'll need to put all this into proper context Redjazz. There were various accounting expenses entered into the account as a result of the unexpected windfall that was the sale of Ronaldo which, being accounting gobbledegook, go largely above my head to be honest.They did sell our best player to secure better terms in the refinancing. The 80m (or 25-33% of the MV of the first team eleven) was used to secure the special dividend carve-outs in the bond document. Would you disagree?
'Use of proceeds' or how the 'Ronaldo money' is used is what's relevant. Repeating ad nauseam that Ronaldo wanted away is relevant from a P.R. perspective but is completely immaterial to any discussion on 'use of proceeds'. Are you trying to say that because Ronaldo wanted to leave, it's more acceptable to use the 'Ronaldo money' to pay down the PIKs? The Glazers are going to exercise their special dividend entitlements (max 95m), right? You were '99% sure' they would at one stage. On that basis, we can be
99% sure they will use the 'Ronaldo money' to pay down the PIK. Would you agree?
In this instance, I'd call it a cnut on a discussion forum attempting to twist the situation to suit his argument and railroad someone with less knowledge of accounting than him into agreeing with him.What would you call using the proceeds from the sale of an asset (a player) to pay down debt?
I could say that I don't have to answer for David Gill and that would be perfectly reasonable given that I am not David Gill and have absolutely no control over what comes out of his mouth and I could say that you're being very unreasonable by asking me to do so.Maybe you could apply your finely-tuned 'bullshit propaganda' detector to these comments from David Gill to Sam Wallace of The Independent on 28/5/2010 (I am sure we can count on you to be absolutely impartial):
Q On suggestions that the Glazers are taking money out of the club to finance the personal heavy-interest, payment-in-kind loans – currently £220m – that they used to buy the club.
DG: All I can do is say what they [the Glazers] said in the offer document in 2005. That money we have discussed, particularly from the [Cristiano] Ronaldo sale, is still there in the business and there is no recourse to it [from the Glazers]. When we present our budget to the board the budget is basically the results of Manchester United Ltd and the bond interest. Full stop. I don't wake up at night [worrying about the PIK loan]. That is what they put in place to acquire it. That is their responsibility. That is the situation. The money is in the club and they have no recourse. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Any 'bullshit propaganda' or misrepresentation there? Anything that might be technically true but misrepresentative at the same time?
How about this from Davil Gill in Jan 2006:
"People need to recognise the cost of servicing the interest on that debt is not in excess of what we were previously paying in dividends and corporation tax as a publicly quoted company”.
(Even without PIK interest, cash interest in 2005/2006 was about 4 times 2005 dividend\tax payments and 2 times 2004 dividend\tax payments.)
Absolutely none. Gill said the Ronaldo money is ringfenced for transfers for SAF. Unless you're calling Gill a liar?You'll need to put all this into proper context Redjazz. There were various accounting expenses entered into the account as a result of the unexpected windfall that was the sale of Ronaldo which, being accounting gobbledegook, go largely above my head to be honest.
I think you need to bring them into the equation. I don't know what they were exactly but I do know that they were important because they were responsible for the notion that we would have lost money without the sale of Ronaldo - a claim which has been refuted even by Anders.
Ronaldo was sold for £80million, £20million of it was re-invested in the squad (Valencia & Obertan) leaving £60million. £60million will not provide for a £95million withdrawal. Now, I'll have to find out how much those "financial housekeeping" expenses came to because we should probably knock that sum off the £60million, too.
Hmm... I would suggest that we could perhaps go to 50% of revenues but I think you'll find that much above that is not considered very good business practice.Rubbish. The club can afford to take a hit on ticket prices given other revenue streams. Either that or we're over-leveraged. Hmmm.
That's my attitude is it? OK.It wasn't a snide remark, it was a comment aimed at you and GCHQ and others with their "if you can't afford it, tough shit" attitude, which is helping to divide the fan base.
I have no idea really and neither do you. We can only speculate either way. My own bit of speculation is that it was a way to get some money off the books to avoid tax or something.Of course it will. Why lend the money from United when you believe that he has such wonderful personal wealth? Do you seriously believe that money will ever re-enter the club or there will be a default and write off of said loan?
Of course I'm not calling Gill a liar. That's what Redjazz (and many others) are doing.Absolutely none. Gill said the Ronaldo money is ringfenced for transfers for SAF. Unless you're calling Gill a liar?
How about enlightening us Joga?I don't know what you are complaining about. In 'make it up as you go along world' neither crerand or TMRD are wrong in their own heads. Anything that I do would therefore be superfluous.
You said there was a financial readjustment of some sort paid out of the Ronaldo money.Of course I'm not calling Gill a liar. That's what Redjazz (and many others) are doing.
Redjazz has to prove that £80million is not there for Fergie to spend.
The last accounts showed £95million in the bank.
I go along with the PIK thing because I cannot provide evidence that the PIKs will be paid any other way and even I have to concede that it looks 99% likely.
There is still the £75million RCF though which I believe is specifically for transfers if Fergie needs it.
The argument from Redjazz was, I think, that the Glazers are selling players to balance the books.You said there was a financial readjustment of some sort paid out of the Ronaldo money.
The last accounts showed £95m in the bank. The Glazers are allowed to remove £95m from the club this year. Smack my thigh and call me Roger, what a coincidence!
We've got a facility to get even more into debt? Coolio.
As to your last point(s), You will have to try a little harder. You can source the relevant accounts for the information. The offer document contained the plc accounts for the 3 years preceeding the takeover. RFaccounts are widely available. Feel free to disprove the numbers.You'll need to put all this into proper context Redjazz. There were various accounting expenses entered into the account as a result of the unexpected windfall that was the sale of Ronaldo which, being accounting gobbledegook, go largely above my head to be honest.
I think you need to bring them into the equation. I don't know what they were exactly but I do know that they were important because they were responsible for the notion that we would have lost money without the sale of Ronaldo - a claim which has been refuted even by Anders.
Ronaldo was sold for £80million, £20million of it was re-invested in the squad (Valencia & Obertan) leaving £60million. £60million will not provide for a £95million withdrawal. Now, I'll have to find out how much those "financial housekeeping" expenses came to because we should probably knock that sum off the £60million, too.
I don't. David Gill did that for me with 'the ronaldo money is there' line.
Feel free to prove David Gill wrong. Rather than disprove another's argument why don't you provide proof for your own instead. Consider it a positive challenge.
In this instance, I'd call it a cnut on a discussion forum attempting to twist the situation to suit his argument and railroad someone with less knowledge of accounting than him into agreeing with him.
Now now! I know you are really an erudite and sophisticated chap with an impeccable sense of intellectual honesty. Any dishonesty, irrsepective of the source, will be treated with the scorn and contempt it deserves be it from MUST or any Glazer apologist. Having to use of that sort of vernacular must cause you great discomfort. I truly empathise.
I think your knowledge of accounting is pretty fine; you just plead ignorance when it suits you and of course in that circumstance you deploy your other default tatic as well-the old sleight-of-hand, financial-finangling accusation.
I'd also point out that until such time as the money is withdrawn from Manchester United and is shown to have paid off the PIKs, I reserve the right to that 1% I set aside when I said "99% certain". I suggest you do the same for now because you can't prove anything either way either.
I will. Thanks for the advice.
I could say that I don't have to answer for David Gill and that would be perfectly reasonable given that I am not David Gill and have absolutely no control over what comes out of his mouth and I could say that you're being very unreasonable by asking me to do so.
You don't have to answer for David Gill. You can if you like. I was merely asking you (not demanding you) to filter his comments with your infamous 'bullshit propaganda' detector. I am no expert in the field so I thought you could help.
However, given as you clearly have a selective memory about what I post, I will repeat, for your benefit, something I must have said twenty times already.
You can repeat it another 20,30... times (and I'm sure you will-it's a good filler in the absence of anything substantive), and I will say exactly the same thing as I did on the very first occasion: I agree with you. Can you encode that in your long term memory and save us both some time?
The Glazers are entitled to their dividends. If they use these dividends to pay off their personal debts, that is their choice. There is nothing that David Gill is saying there that is factually incorrect or even misrepresentative of the situation.
Are you suggesting that the Glazers should not be allowed to take money from profits despite the fact that they are the owners? Are you saying that they should only be allowed to take money from their business on condition that they absolutely don't use it to pay off their personal debts?
A question unasked and of course a question answered. I used to do the same thing in exams back in the day; if you weren't too well up on a subject introduce some slightly related bullshit and waffle away. It worked sometimes.
I still say however that we still don't know with 100% certainty that the PIKs will be dealt with in this way.
I 100% agree but I take your 99% surity onboard.
As for the second bit about the interest being "not in excess" of dividends and tax, I always felt that those two things were an important consideration which a lot of people were forgetting (and continue to forget to a large extent).
The slight problem with what the "figures" you provided "(Even without PIK interest, cash interest in 2005/2006 was about 4 times 2005 dividend\tax payments and 2 times 2004 dividend\tax payments.)" is that you're asking me to take your word for all that and form an argument against it. I'm not going to.
It does seem a bit harsh however, to be using that quote when it is from January 2006 (i.e. in the middle of the accounting year and only six monthssince the takeover) because at that stage, he can't have been in a position to know for certain what the final figures would be.
Given that, he probably should have said nothing at all because it only allows knobs like you to regurgitate his words almost five years later and ask other people like me to explain them.
^^Of course I'm not calling Gill a liar. That's what Redjazz (and many others) are doing.
No. I was merely asking you to impress us with your intellectual honesty.
To run your bullshit detector over his comments and report back. You have (reported back).
Redjazz has to prove that £80million is not there for Fergie to spend.
No again. David Gill said it's there. I am happy with that.
The last accounts showed £95million in the bank.
I go along with the PIK thing because I cannot provide evidence that the PIKs will be paid any other way and even I have to concede that it looks 99% likely.
There is still the £75million RCF though which I believe is specifically for transfers if Fergie needs it.
You disagreed with this before if I recall correctly. It's a working capital line of credit with certain maintenance covenants that makes it much less useful\flexible as an alternative to the 'Ronaldo money' for player funding. I think P.R. has dressed it up as something else.
You'll have to be very careful about using words such as "liar" around here, pal.You've avoided my question - you've said that there were financial finesses made using the Ronaldo money, yes? That therefore makes either you or David Gill a liar.
It's fecking messy, I'll give you that.This thread is fast becoming the Messi Vs Ronaldo thread.
'Well pardon me all over the place' is a quote from Scorsese's Cape Fear. Will that do?@Redjazz - learn to fecking quote properly. Responding to that shit is a nightmare!
No, you've used that one already.'Well pardon me all over the place' is a quote from Scorsese's Cape Fear. Will that do?
You should really pipe down if you have nothing but stupid shit to add.RedJazz's quote boxes =
wh... wh... why you being s... s... so nasty to m... mmm... me?You should really pipe down if you have nothing but stupid shit to add.
You clearly are out of your depth in this forum and no one finds your stupidity funny.
You belong here with the rest of the Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime.
Off you go. Fshhhhhhhhht.
awwwww, thanks, manI find cider very funny btw.
I really wish people would stop putting words in my mouth.
Fixed.
Knobs.
Good!
and...Arbeloa plays there.
What again?
Now that's not funny!awwwww, thanks, man
No i didn't like the cats, i couldn't decide which one was you and which one was meNow that's not funny!
I preferred the cats!
And you can now?No i didn't like the cats, i couldn't decide which one was you and which one was me
That's probably the first on-topic post in the last 300.No particular point to this but there appears to be almost no green and gold at the cottage today and there wasn't much at ot last week. Just an observation.
Nothing wrong with the oul head nor my theories either. A Ronaldo or Tevez might have made the difference today, pity we had to sell them to make the books look good.Hit your head, more like.
With many performances like today they will soon be back out in forceNo particular point to this but there appears to be almost no green and gold at the cottage today and there wasn't much at ot last week. Just an observation.
So the G&G campaign is now a campaign against United players defending badly and missing penalties?With many performances like today they will soon be back out in force
Get off your high horse it was meant to be a light hearted remark. Almost G/G supporters would do absolutely nothing to hurt the club and players, they have total support. So what have your American friends done for the Club/players? Got rid of a couple of the best ones to make the world think they aint brokeSo the G&G campaign is now a campaign against United players defending badly and missing penalties?
Wow, it's really all over if that's what you've reduced it to.