Yeah, they're not as good.
Panorama: Man United - Into the Red, BBC One, Tuesday, 8 June
- Thread starter mickthered
- Start date
I don't like this "victory" stuff on internet forums. What does it achieve?
As for my "agenda" 7even, I'm in the (weird) position of being outed as a real person, rather than the comfortable anonymity of the web. Ask me anything you want about my motivation please.
You're a gayer? Careful, there's some round here don't take kindly to a bit of man-love.
Bastard.Yeah, they're not as good.
(Although impressive if you actually read all the other 100 or so and their threads, though I doubt even I would spend my time doing that!
)Eghh?
GCHQ just failed to answer tough questions and as Dan pointed out he just went after Fred et al.
He made outright lies and fallacies and when challenged just failed to respond - as to his caluclations in the other thread I had a long debate about his speculative PLC figures.
His tactics was simple concentrate on cash side and keep the discussion away from the balance sheet and then pull out assumptions left right and centre.
Shit no, hands up on that one... I got thrown by the "Caftards 4" title and thought here were only the first 3.Bastard.
(Although impressive if you actually read all the other 100 or so and their threads, though I doubt even I would spend my time doing that!
I've now noticed the "No 109" and I'm scared, both for myself and for you.
While MUST have over the years worked hard to protect supporters, it has appeared in recent weeks to be little more than a PR outlet for the Red Knights bid, which is why I take issue with them. Their unquestioning and undivided loyalty to the prospective Red Knights bid is concerning, considering the lack of details on how the bid will be financed.
MUST's committee members have been given much greater detail on the proposed Red Knight's bid, and clearly liked what they saw.
If the Red Knight's bid was in line with where they would like to see the club going, why would they not support it? I don't see them becoming a mouthpiece for the RKs, they are still very much their own organisation. But given the number of people who say "what alternative is there to the Glazers anyway?" and question MUST's end-game, it would be contrary of them not to get behind such an oppportunity when it came along.
It's unfortunate that the full details can't be made public, but that is bound to be the case at this stage of any kind of take-over bid, as has been discussed.
Now you could argue, as Ciderman does, that MUST don't have the club's interest at heart and are following some other agenda, so them backing the Red Knights isn't categorical proof that it's all we'd hope for.
But I just don't see any reason to believe that of a voluntary organisation set-up by United fans specifically to look after United fans.
The Red Knights are not going to give their plan away in the same way that the Glazers aren't.
I agree, and I should really have mentioned you as one of the people who has honestly challenged what has been said. But a few people have not done so and then declared victory when someone else has come along and done the hard work.
"Knowing" that someone is wrong is not the same as conclusively showing that they are, as I'm sure you would agree. It's certainly possible to spot some of the unjustified assumptions that GCHQ has made and to argue against them, as various people have done, but it's a lot more difficult to show that the wider context doesn't support his general argument, which is what Andersred has done.
As I've said, I disagree with GCHQ's wider argument, but I'm actually glad that some people are prepared to challenge and question my own assumptions, because it is the people who I disagree with that tend to learn the most from.
Since the G&G campaign began MUST has seemed largely to be the political wing of the RK bid.
Which is really depressing, because that isn't the point of why people have donated to them, joined them, or of why most people are wearing G&G.
They seem to have completely abrogated their role as "independent".
To echo A1Dan, MUST are in an unenviable position. They don't claim to speak for all supporters, just those who want some form of full or partial supporter ownership.
The RK consortium is the ONLY entity to come along with such a proposal since 2005 but did so under conditions of secrecy about the details. What was MUST supposed to do? Refuse to talk to them? Demand full public disclosure? If anything too much has been said in the media...
People can either place some trust in a voluntary organisation, some of whose officers have worked unpaid for five years relying on spouses or partners to support their families, or can take the world weary view that everyone is on the take and everyone is in it for themselves.
The RK consortium is the ONLY entity to come along with such a proposal since 2005 but did so under conditions of secrecy about the details. What was MUST supposed to do? Refuse to talk to them? Demand full public disclosure? If anything too much has been said in the media...
People can either place some trust in a voluntary organisation, some of whose officers have worked unpaid for five years relying on spouses or partners to support their families, or can take the world weary view that everyone is on the take and everyone is in it for themselves.
Exactly.
Check out MUST's Goals, which as far as I'm aware have been stated exactly the same way since long before the RK's showed up:
So we ask again, when somebody shows up offering the only feesible route to partial supporter ownership to be put on the table, then as long as MUST are satisfied that the bid adds up, what are they supposed to do?
Check out MUST's Goals, which as far as I'm aware have been stated exactly the same way since long before the RK's showed up:
Our objective is simple. We envisage a future where the supporters of Manchester United FC have a meaningful ownership stake in the club.
So we ask again, when somebody shows up offering the only feesible route to partial supporter ownership to be put on the table, then as long as MUST are satisfied that the bid adds up, what are they supposed to do?
I completely agree.
That's part of the problem though, the attitude of black and white. There are many shades grey in between, I for one sit on the side of MUST (as opposed to pro glazer, or the middle ground) but I'm not convinced enough to join.
Yet.
Apologies if that sounded like "join MUST or be a twat". That wasn't the aim. It was in direct response to the criticism of MUST for supporting the RKs.
That's fine, but up to and including the point that you have personally shown that each and every one of those assumptions and arguments is unsupportable with genuine arguments to the contrary (including figures and supporting explanations), it's just not honest to keep talking about his motives and his "tactics", because that is largely irrelevant.
Andersred is really the only one to understand the wider context well enough, as far as I am aware, to be able to seriously challenge the coherence of GCHQ's entire argument. Others, including yourself, have certainly picked away at various points, but that's not enough to thoroughly discredit someone. For example, I don't recall you conclusively showing that his entire argument about the PLC was not supportable, so if you have a link, I'd like to see it.
Yeah I should have expanded my point there to say that wasn't directly aimed at you, but on the face of it to many fans who won't bother to look into like we are it seems that's the way, which helps cause division.Just to clarify, I respect the people who run MUST and any other supporters trust, I just think it's human nature to be attracted to promises such as the RK's have made, especially if they are offered places within the hierarchy, and maybe be a little bit starry eyed.
My personal opinion is they should have simply said something like "The Red Knight bid is certainly interesting and we of course will communicate the fan's point of view to them, however we will reserve judgment until we see the full plan of theirs or anyone else's bid" and left it at that. Of course, this wouldn't have been necessary if the RK's had been (again in my opinion) a bit more professional and not gone running to the press at every opportunity until they actually had a firm plan. As it stands they (and MUST) left it wide open for the fans to split on the issue, hence the lack of any real action to force the Glazer's to seriously think.
It's a long way back now, they have to re-unite the fans and come completely clean with what they need and expect us all to do (if/when they will be back) so we can make up our minds properly.
But they have seen the full plans. Maybe their mistake is in not communicating that clearly?
What you suggest above is exactly what they did say before they had seen the plans.
What, so the Knights had everyone and everything in place? It doesn't seem that way to me, maybe I'm wrong but that's the impression their press releases have given me.
Besides, my main point is how this has been handled publicly, it doesn't give me complete confidence in either group.
MUST and the RKs are not the same people remember. MUST don't control the RK press releases (of which there have been three) or the off the record briefing (of which there have been a lot).
Some of the RK's media relations has been ill advised in my view, and I and MUST advised against some elements of the statements they made. You should be reassured that neither group does what the other says!
Some of the RK's media relations has been ill advised in my view, and I and MUST advised against some elements of the statements they made. You should be reassured that neither group does what the other says!
As I understand it they had the details of the structure all sorted yes.
The step after that was to find investors who were happy with the structure (many would be put off by the level of altruism) and with who the bid leaders were happy to have on board. As I understand it, that part is largely in place, though until a formal bid is made it is, by nature, always potentially in flux.
Andy can probably confirm this and fill us in more, to the extent to which he is able to without giving away anything confidential.
It would seem that you are right that the Pee Are and communication side of this hasn't been handled well, given the level of confusion and frustration amongst many fans about the RKs and their plans.
The problem for the RKs is that Keith Harris appears to be another Kenyon who thinks he should get air time but doesn't come across well. imho they need more of a statesmanlike figure to head up the bid.
Name names, Ralphie. Don't be scared. No one's going to sue you.
That could well be a good point.
I guess on the other-hand, to a degree they need some publicity, and he certainly ensures that. They may need to re-evaluate that now though!
That's a fair summary Dan. I'd add that people shouldn't forget that this would be an unprecedented transaction, a billion pound plus not for profit takeover....
Not exactly easy!
Not exactly easy!
It's not Vodaphone-Mannesmann but yeah I see what you're saying.
Of course they are seperate, however sometimes it seems to the outside world like MUST are their puppets, so it's not hard to see why some of our fans are confused.
This confusion and split is what concerns me about any possible action.
Here is the crux of the matter. Although the people behind MUST are no doubt aiming to do right by the fans and club, there's little to stop groups like the RK's in using them to their advantage. I mean it is pretty easy to give the illusion of including the fans and tying them up in knots. They are already not listening to views on how this should be played out, you'd have thought if they were being sincere then they'd think a bit more about this.
It may be a cynical view yes, but it's also one based on human nature and the poor way this has been publicly handled only fuels my opinion on it.
Again, and I stress this, it hasn't turned me anti-MUST or RK's, I'm just not willing to jump in bed with either based on what I've seen. This may change in the future, and I hope it gets to a point where it does.
I don't know if anyone on this messageboard falls into that category.
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.Redlambs said:
How exactly have they seemed like the political wing of the RK? What did they do specifically? They were party to info which they believe is aligned to their aims' agenda and values and have chosen to back it. Andersred described it as 'the real deal'.
If the RK do eventually take over and subsequently behave in a way which is contrary to MUST's aims I am confident that they will be ruthless in their criticism.
I give you huge cred for not hiding who you are. That thing alone makes you unique on this place. As I wrote earlier it's weird when a poster on a football forum pretend to have so much knowledge of United finance that you actually think his an insider. Things like that make me sceptical.
I think you (including RK and MUST) have a very good case just to analyse the inpact of the depts and how RF and sister companies is connected. You don't have to include less transfers-activity, Bucs, shopping mals and irrelevant things because that take light and energy out of the intresting stuffs. For an outsider it's to much information to handle.
I have all the way said that I support the G&G. I new owner could change a lot of bad things sourounding our club. If the RK are the one's I don't know. I haven't seen any documents regarding their businessplan. I understand it's complexed and that you need some sort of secret agenda. That goes with the territory.
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.
If you want to share something of your plans I would be delighted. But I also understand your position so I don't blame you if you couldn't.
It's that a fair analyse?
This page has been great reading.
Great questions from Redlambs, and very eloquently answered by Anders, Dan, Joga and Ralphie.
I'm ordering the new MUST teeshirt
Great questions from Redlambs, and very eloquently answered by Anders, Dan, Joga and Ralphie.
I'm ordering the new MUST teeshirt
Ah yes, the great bastion of objectivity himself turns up with a fancy table of figures and his followers declare ''victory''.I tell you what, this is a list of what I think they have "cost" and "saved" the club divided into categories. People can make up their own mind how many hundreds of millions they think is the correct answer to "what have the Glazers ever done for us?"
If people (yes even you GCHQ) find factual errors I'll update the table.
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.
Why don't you mention that figure in your final analysis? Too low for you? Not high enough to whip up the sufficient level of anger from the club's supporters?
Now, let's focus on the items that you have conveniently left out of your table.
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.
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.
Thirdly, I think your estimate of dividends is too low. At least £6m too low. So we're then down to £57.7m-£62.7m.
So let's call it £60m. That's the negative cash outflow impact to the club of the Glazers ownership compared to what would have happened under the PLC. So roughly £10m a year and for a business generating revenues of close to £300m a year that is an essentially nominal sum of money.
Anders, you've admitted yourself that the club's net cash profit under the two ownership structures would have been almost exactly the same in the year ending June 30 2009. Why are you therefore still trying to claim that the Glazers are costing the club hundreds of millions of pounds when it just simply isn't the case?
Yes, this thread certainly has taken a much more positive tone. Good discussion with no hidden agenda makes a nice change!This page has been great reading.
Great questions from Redlambs, and very eloquently answered by Anders, Dan, Joga and Ralphie.
I'm ordering the new MUST teeshirt
Although I've read nothing to fundamentally change my opinion on MUST and RK's, I've certainly taken what's been said on board. Thanks guys.
No. You can say it until you're blue in the face but it won't make it true. The Glazers have not taken £160m out of the club.
It wasn't even £160m anyway so can I suggest you actually get your facts right before somehow claiming ''victory'' from this discussion.
We went through this before - I asked you about where you got your £3-£4m cost of doing business as a PLC and you didnt respond. The rest of your assumptions are justr numbers plucked out.
You forget to mention the £22m interest rate that will be paid by 1st of August or the £28m extra in liability due to the swap which has not been paid out as yet but will do in the future. Serious the same old rubbish you posted before - because it hasn't left our accounts does not mean it will not or you expect that £50m not to be paid?
August comes after June.
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?
It's amazing the level of sensible discussion that can be achieved without gchq and his tedious, broken record wind-ups, isn't it?This page has been great reading.
Great questions from Redlambs, and very eloquently answered by Anders, Dan, Joga and Ralphie.
I'm ordering the new MUST teeshirt
Edit: Oh.