Hit your head, more like.
Green and Gold till the club is Sold!
- Thread starter ralphie88
- Start date
- Status
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?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.
Can I add delusions of grandeur to delusions of persecution?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?
What would you call using the proceeds from the sale of an asset (a player) to pay down debt?
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.)
Rubbish. The club can afford to take a hit on ticket prices given other revenue streams. Either that or we're over-leveraged. Hmmm.
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?
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 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 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?
There's nothing propagandistic about what I have written there. It was widely documented that Ronaldo's mother wanted to see her son wear the white of Real Madrid.
Before I die I would like him [Ronaldo] to play for Real Madrid
Are you suggesting that that might not have had an influence on Ronaldo's decision to leave for Real Madrid?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
I still say however that we still don't know with 100% certainty that the PIKs will be dealt with in this way.
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.
Absolutely none. Gill said the Ronaldo money is ringfenced for transfers for SAF. Unless you're calling Gill a liar?
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.
On balance, I think I'd rather leave the business decisions to someone other than fans.
In any case, the team remains competitive and that is the ultimate measure by which we should be judging the spending.
That's my attitude is it? OK.
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 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.
How about enlightening us Joga?
What is the absolute truth behind the whole situation? I'd love to hear it and then we can all put these threads to bed.
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.
The argument from Redjazz was, I think, that the Glazers are selling players to balance the books.
I believe the books would have balanced without the sale of Ronaldo.
There is still an awful lot of emphasis being placed on the "fact" that the Glazers are about to take out £95million.
How something that hasn't happened yet and no one knows for certain will happen can be considered a fact, I don't know.
Because I am a reasonable person, however, I do not ask for people to show me proof that the £95million has, in fact, been taken out (it would be unreasonable of me because I know they can't - it hasn't been shown on any accounts).
However, I have listened to the line of reasoning behind it and I can't disagree because I have nothing better to offer (certainly nothing that is any less speculative than their argument anyway).
I gave what I thought was a perfectly reasonable explanation for the sale of Ronaldo and this has been supported by Fergie himself.
When we sold Ronaldo, he had three years left on his contract (he signed a five year deal in 2007).
It could be argued that the best time to have sold him, if money was the motivating factor would have been this summer, not last summer. He would still have had two years on his contract and that is commonly accepted as a good time to sell, if that is the intention.
The Glazers certainly haven't touched the £80million since last summer and it has just been sloshing around in the bank ever since. Given the marketing value of someone like Ronaldo, surely keeping him here for another twelve months would have made some financial sense?
I am pretty certain that the money from Real Madrid would have still been there this summer.
Why sell him last summer then? How have the Glazers benefited financially from that?
If selling our best players in order to pay off their debts is the Glazers' game, why haven't we sold Vidic? Why don't we sell Rooney? Why are we looking to tie them into longer term (more expensive) contracts (in the case of Vidic, it is already a done deal)?
I'm sorry but I just believe that the sale of Ronaldo was going to happen sooner or later, debt or no debt and anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves. Ronaldo desperately wanted to go and an unhappy player, even one as good as Ronaldo, is not going to be 100%. I do believe we saw a bit of this from Ronaldo in his last season and it could be argued that the media circus surrounding his every word was becoming a major source of irritation for Fergie and a distraction for the team.
With £80million on the table, I believe the decision was made by Fergie alone to take it. How people can totally disregard the wider picture of the Ronaldo situation and focus solely on the accounts is beyond me.
You make a joke of the Glazers wanting £95million and £95million being in the bank but this is along the lines of what I was saying earlier.
Money moving here, money moving there, expenses this, expenses that, financial housekeeping, no money wasted on corporation tax despite a massive £80million windfall and bingo... right where they want to be.
Accident or design?
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.
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.
David Gill is an accountant and was previously the finance director at the club. He was a member of the board which repeatedly rebuffed the Glazer takover on the grounds that the "Glazer's business plan assumptions are too aggressive' and contained "more leverage than the board would consider prudent".
Are you trying to suggest that he was unaware of what was in the plan? That he was incapable of working out the debt interest for one year?
@Redjazz - learn to fecking quote properly. Responding to that shit is a nightmare!
You'll have to be very careful about using words such as "liar" around here, pal.
Now, show me where I said anything of the sort.
I don't subscribe to this "Ronaldo money" thing and I tend not to use it, by the way.
David Gill said that the money from the sale of Ronaldo was in the account.
The last time any of us saw the accounts, there was £95million in there.
£95million is more than £80million, yes?
Therefore the money is there.
My point was that as a result of that money coming in and with nothing doing with it at the time in terms of actually spending it, the Glazers took the opportunity to do a bit of financial housekeeping. It didn't have to be done but it was prudent to do so (and probably meant that money wasn't wasted on corporation tax in the process).
I can't explain it any better than that.
Others could do a better job so why not question them on it? I presume that you are more interested in seeking the financial truth about our situation than winning a petty argument on a discussion forum?
I don't intentionally avoid people's questions but I am not an accountant and I have never claimed to be. I am out of my depth on the finer points of accountancy, that's why I pay an accountant to do it all for me in my own business.
This thread is fast becoming the Messi Vs Ronaldo thread.
It's fecking messy, I'll give you that.
RedJazz's quote boxes =
'Well pardon me all over the place' is a quote from Scorsese's Cape Fear. Will that do?
Cider, if you want to test your self discipline, you ought to make a vow that you won't post anything related to Ownership and purely concentrate on football on the pitch for a week in Redcafe.
Come on, be the man
Come on, be the man
@Redjazz - The overall problem is the PIKs. No one knows what the hell is going to happen about them.
Andersred's theories on the Bond Issue and the various entitlements provided by it are difficult to argue against, especially when there is absolutely no evidence that the PIKs are going to be paid off from other sources.
This gives rise to the ridiculous scenario where people are being expected to explain a situation that has not actually happened and people are attaching significant weight to the situation that has not happened.
The easiest thing would be to say to you, "Prove it" but I like to be fairer than that.
I am just playing devil's advocate here but if David Gill has been telling a few porkies (and I am not for one moment suggesting that he has) then I can well understand that.
He can't exactly go out and say, "actually, we're fecked" can he?
If he is telling a few white lies (and, again, I am not suggesting he is) then I can forgive him for that. His job is to promote Manchester United in the best possible light at all times. Manchester United fans should be happy about this and not take the piss out of him, he is doing his job and doing it properly.
When MUST lie and spout their shit, they have no good reason to do it. They don't represent Manchester United, they supposedly represent the fans.
Well, I am a fan and they sure as shit don't represent me so I tend to take the hump with them for putting words in my mouth.
My personal feelings about MUST is that if they started walking roughly East and didn't stop even when they hit water, I wouldn't be too sad to see them go.
They are nothing but a fecking nuisance now. They have feck all to add to the situation and are now only trying to make life difficult for those who are engaged in the very real and very difficult job of running one of the biggest football clubs in the world.
Anyway, here's a question of my own...
When the Bond Issue was made, why was it made for £500million?
Why didn't they make it for £700million and pay off their PIKs with the proceeds of that?
Apparently the Bond Issue was twice subscribed and so they could easily have raised £700million for it.
That's a serious question. I'm not being a smart arse. I am genuinely puzzled by it.
Andersred's theories on the Bond Issue and the various entitlements provided by it are difficult to argue against, especially when there is absolutely no evidence that the PIKs are going to be paid off from other sources.
This gives rise to the ridiculous scenario where people are being expected to explain a situation that has not actually happened and people are attaching significant weight to the situation that has not happened.
The easiest thing would be to say to you, "Prove it" but I like to be fairer than that.
I am just playing devil's advocate here but if David Gill has been telling a few porkies (and I am not for one moment suggesting that he has) then I can well understand that.
He can't exactly go out and say, "actually, we're fecked" can he?
If he is telling a few white lies (and, again, I am not suggesting he is) then I can forgive him for that. His job is to promote Manchester United in the best possible light at all times. Manchester United fans should be happy about this and not take the piss out of him, he is doing his job and doing it properly.
When MUST lie and spout their shit, they have no good reason to do it. They don't represent Manchester United, they supposedly represent the fans.
Well, I am a fan and they sure as shit don't represent me so I tend to take the hump with them for putting words in my mouth.
My personal feelings about MUST is that if they started walking roughly East and didn't stop even when they hit water, I wouldn't be too sad to see them go.
They are nothing but a fecking nuisance now. They have feck all to add to the situation and are now only trying to make life difficult for those who are engaged in the very real and very difficult job of running one of the biggest football clubs in the world.
Anyway, here's a question of my own...
When the Bond Issue was made, why was it made for £500million?
Why didn't they make it for £700million and pay off their PIKs with the proceeds of that?
Apparently the Bond Issue was twice subscribed and so they could easily have raised £700million for it.
That's a serious question. I'm not being a smart arse. I am genuinely puzzled by it.
No, you've used that one already.
Just put what I say in quotes.
And you accuse me of not making an effort. Putting quotes around shit is a damn sight easier than wading through 50 pages of financial gobbledegook.
You should really pipe down if you have nothing but stupid shit to add.RedJazz's quote boxes =
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.
I find cider very funny btw.
I really wish people would stop putting words in my mouth.
I really wish people would stop putting words in my mouth.
AgainstAllOdds, the poster who brought us such rapier-like witticisms as...
and...
Now that's not funny!
I preferred the cats!
No i didn't like the cats, i couldn't decide which one was you and which one was me 
And you can now?
That's quality !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.
That's probably the first on-topic post in the last 300.
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.
With many performances like today they will soon be back out in force
So 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.
Thank feck Chelsea won the league last year eh?
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 broke
- Status