Panorama: Man United - Into the Red, BBC One, Tuesday, 8 June

[Wibble]

Does anyone really think Glazer's debt burden is unimportant and not at least potentially a financial house of cards?

The problem as I see it is that whoever eventually buys the club, barring an oil rich Sheik perhaps, will have to carry a debt burden as high or higher. It has still to be explained to me how any normal buyer, Red Knights included were going to buy the club, service the debt, transfer 25% ownership to the fans (was the idea to see this 25% to the fans over a long period or?), do something about ticket prices and transfer funds without having an equally precarious debt load (or probably even worse in terms of gross debt)?

No point getting rid of the Glazers if the alternative is little/no better or worse.

Anyone know how the Red Knights were planning to fund the buy out and run the club? Specifically I mean?

 

[fredthered]

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.

I think the fact that PeterStorey happened to point out his glaringly obvious mistake of hiding the fact the original £160 million debt was now Uniteds and not the Glazers also had a fair part to play in it.

Once PeterStorey showed he was deliberately "ignoring" certain aspects, then it all collapsed around his ears.

Just like GCHQs famous 10 questions that were going to expose the MUST propoganda as a sham. He got to question 1 and then had to admit he was completely wrong and backtracked completely claiming he was anti Glazer all the way along.

 

[fredthered]

Does anyone really think Glazer's debt burden is unimportant and not at least potentially a financial house of cards?

The problem as I see it is that whoever eventually buys the club, barring an oil rich Sheik perhaps, will have to carry a debt burden as high or higher. It has still to be explained to me how any normal buyer, Red Knights included were going to buy the club, service the debt, transfer 25% ownership to the fans (was the idea to see this 25% to the fans over a long period or?), do something about ticket prices and transfer funds without having an equally precarious debt load (or probably even worse in terms of gross debt)?

No point getting rid of the Glazers if the alternative is little/no better or worse.

Anyone know how the Red Knights were planning to fund the buy out and run the club? Specifically I mean?

Wibble, you have hit the EXACT problem I have with the RK bid.

Firstly, MUST are telling us the debts are the problem. If the RKs are not going to pay them off, then as I see it, they arent solving the problem. If the Glazers will struggle, then sorry, unless those debts are gone so will the RKs.

Secondly, many people argue that the Glazers are getting United on the cheap, and the fans will have to pay for it. Is that so different to the RKs coming in, keeping the bonds in place and then getting the fans to pay them off ? OK the fans get 25% stake in United, but ultimately, they are still getting 75% on the cheap. If they pay £1 billion and the fans get £250million worth of the club, they are still only paying £250million for their £750 million share, and its the supporters that ultimately will pay for them to own the rest.

This is why I want more information about the RK bid before I say whether or not it would be better for United.

If the debts are still there, or the fans are still expected to pay for someone else to own the club, then sorry, theres no difference from where I am standing.

 

[Wibble]

Presumably how they intended to do this is known? I'm assuming that MUST wouldn't have thrown their weight behind the Red Knights without knowing quite specifically how their ownership was going to be better?

 

[fredthered]

Presumably how they intended to do this is known? I'm assuming that MUST wouldn't have thrown their weight behind the Red Knights without knowing quite specifically how their ownership was going to be better?

I would suspect, and this is purely my personal speculation, that quite a few fans are suspicious of MUST and feel that there must be some vested interests in it for them.

What the fans need to know is just how the RKs propose to raise the funds, and more importantly, if the fans are to get 25% of the shares, how those fans get to have a say.

What you cannot have is a closed shop of supporters acting for the entire support of United. There has to be complete openness, democracy, and every fan should have an equal say in what happens. How MUST propose to implement that is as much of a problem as how the RKs are going to fund the bid.

I for one would not like a little clique of "best buddy" United fans holding 25% power in the club. Imagine if our supporters were represented by the likes of Tufty, Tony O Neill and Pete Boyle....

 

[Wibble]

Secondly, many people argue that the Glazers are getting United on the cheap, and the fans will have to pay for it. Is that so different to the RKs coming in, keeping the bonds in place and then getting the fans to pay them off ? OK the fans get 25% stake in United, but ultimately, they are still getting 75% on the cheap. If they pay £1 billion and the fans get £250million worth of the club, they are still only paying £250million for their £750 million share, and its the supporters that ultimately will pay for them to own the rest.

Is this their stated plan?

Whatever the plan I'd like to know it in detail before backing it (or not). I'm concerned at the possibility that MUST are using my funds before I am informed enough to make a decision TBH. Hopefully they know what is being proposed and the RK's plans are a huge improvement on the Glazer's.

Are the Red Knights goin go get a bid together? Last I heard was a newspaper report about conflicting opinions amongst the Red Knights themselves and troubles raising the 1 billion (assuming the Glazers would sell for that much which seems unlikely). Are they alive and well or is the bid dead in the water?

 

[fredthered]

Is this their stated plan?

Whatever the plan I'd like to know it in detail before backing it (or not). I'm concerned at the possibility that MUST are using my funds before I am informed enough to make a decision TBH. Hopefully they know what is being proposed and the RK's plans are a huge improvement on the Glazer's.

Are the Red Knights goin go get a bid together? Last I heard was a newspaper report about conflicting opinions amongst the Red Knights themselves and troubles raising the 1 billion (assuming the Glazers would sell for that much which seems unlikely). Are they alive and well or is the bid dead in the water?

From what I have read, and many people conjecture, the bonds would stay in place.

What I would want to know is how they would be paid off in 7 years time, and who pays the interest over that period.

If the supporters are paying off the interest and then its simply re-financing to get the bonds cleared off, its no different to what we have now.

Whether that is the plan I dont know, but from what I've been led to believe the bonds would stay in place, and thus we're actually no better off as the debts ( which is what 99% of fans oppose ) would still be there.

 

[Wibble]

I would suspect, and this is purely my personal speculation, that quite a few fans are suspicious of MUST and feel that there must be some vested interests in it for them.

What the fans need to know is just how the RKs propose to raise the funds, and more importantly, if the fans are to get 25% of the shares, how those fans get to have a say.

What you cannot have is a closed shop of supporters acting for the entire support of United. There has to be complete openness, democracy, and every fan should have an equal say in what happens. How MUST propose to implement that is as much of a problem as how the RKs are going to fund the bid.

I for one would not like a little clique of "best buddy" United fans holding 25% power in the club. Imagine if our supporters were represented by the likes of Tufty, Tony O Neill and Pete Boyle....

If there isn't a vested interest, and I have seen no evidence of their being any, then surely a public statement from the main players in MUST about their total lack of financial benefit/involvement, actual or potential would kill any such talk dead in the water? Likewise with the unclear relationship between MUST, MUST office holders and the Red Knights. When there is an information vacuum people fill in the gaps themselves as we have seen on here recently.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

wibble, you have hit the exact problem i have with the rk bid.

Firstly, must are telling us the debts are the problem. If the rks are not going to pay them off, then as i see it, they arent solving the problem. If the glazers will struggle, then sorry, unless those debts are gone so will the rks.

Secondly, many people argue that the glazers are getting united on the cheap, and the fans will have to pay for it. Is that so different to the rks coming in, keeping the bonds in place and then getting the fans to pay them off ? Ok the fans get 25% stake in united, but ultimately, they are still getting 75% on the cheap. If they pay £1 billion and the fans get £250million worth of the club, they are still only paying £250million for their £750 million share, and its the supporters that ultimately will pay for them to own the rest.

This is why i want more information about the rk bid before i say whether or not it would be better for united.

If the debts are still there, or the fans are still expected to pay for someone else to own the club, then sorry, theres no difference from where i am standing.

The Who have a song that has lyrics that sum that one up pretty well.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

Presumably how they intended to do this is known? I'm assuming that MUST wouldn't have thrown their weight behind the Red Knights without knowing quite specifically how their ownership was going to be better?

Didn't MUST have a meeting with the RK in which the details were revealed to their hierarchy, and only them, and had to be kept secret from the rest of us for the sake of confidentiality to protect their bid?

Fred, do you know whether this is accurate or not?

 

[fredthered]

If there isn't a vested interest, and I have seen no evidence of their being any, then surely a public statement from the main players in MUST about their total lack of financial benefit/involvement, actual or potential would kill any such talk dead in the water? Likewise with the unclear relationship between MUST, MUST office holders and the Red Knights. When there is an information vacuum people fill in the gaps themselves as we have seen on here recently.

What doesnt help is situations where Duncan Drasdo has a "united supporters business network" which he is owner of.

I am sure he is totally above board and legitimate, but some will see that as him trying to feather his own nest. After all, someone having a United related business is obviously going to be accused of having a vested interest should he be in a position where his business could possibly gain from his position in the club.

There was such a problem at FC UNITED when one of the board members was accused by Tony O Neill of benefitting financially from FC UNITED via his links with a T shirt company that were supporting FC UNITED, and members were using to buy T shirts from. TON basically acused the said member, of lining his own pockets on the backs of other peoples sacrifices.

 

[ciderman9000000]

I think the fact that PeterStorey happened to point out his glaringly obvious mistake of hiding the fact the original £160 million debt was now Uniteds and not the Glazers also had a fair part to play in it.

Once PeterStorey showed he was deliberately "ignoring" certain aspects, then it all collapsed around his ears.

Just like GCHQs famous 10 questions that were going to expose the MUST propoganda as a sham. He got to question 1 and then had to admit he was completely wrong and backtracked completely claiming he was anti Glazer all the way along.

It wasn't a mistake. GCHQ clearly stated that he was outlining actual cash costs in to the club in outgoings over the five year term; his point being that, regardless of any debt, a similar sum as to that of the interest payments and fees etc. that have been paid would have left the club had we have been a PLC with no debt; as such, not including future liabilities or pending payments that fall outside the five financial years in question were omitted intentionaly, and not by mistake. You can question the relevance of his point, and i'm sure he can answer, as it does seem to be relevant when debating our ability to meet any and all similar costs in the future, but you cannot rightly say that he made a mistake in his calculations by not including the full amount of the PIK's as an actual cash expense.

 

[Wibble]

Is this business network Red's In Business?

Nowt wrong with networking in business but to avoid any accusations the sort of statement(s) I suggested before should clear things up if they are definitive enough. We can then decide to back or not back MUST/Red Knights and move on together as United fans all.

 

[Ole'sbodyguard]

What doesnt help is situations where Duncan Drasdo has a "united supporters business network" which he is owner of.

I am sure he is totally above board and legitimate, but some will see that as him trying to feather his own nest. After all, someone having a United related business is obviously going to be accused of having a vested interest should he be in a position where his business could possibly gain from his position in the club.

There was such a problem at FC UNITED when one of the board members was accused by Tony O Neill of benefitting financially from FC UNITED via his links with a T shirt company that were supporting FC UNITED, and members were using to buy T shirts from. TON basically acused the said member, of lining his own pockets on the backs of other peoples sacrifices.

Out of interest, without naming t-shirt providers or websites, is the person TON accused of benefiting financially from FC run another website(very sparsely populated nowadays) and run a fairly popular United only t-shirt business. He used to go by the name of VAS on his forum but I have no idea if it is his real name.

Because if it is who I think it is it would explain one hell of alot.

 

[fredthered]

Is this business network Red's In Business?

Nowt wrong with networking in business but to avoid any accusations the sort of statement(s) I suggested before should clear things up if they are definitive enough. We can then decide to back or not back MUST/Red Knights and move on together as United fans all.

Personally, and again this is my personal opinion, if a person is to become a board member of MUST and ultimately then in a position of power within the club they must openly state all or any business interests they have which could/do benefit from association with United.

I dont want the fans being represented by people who own T shirt companies that sell to United fans, or run coach trips for United supporters, or run busineess networking companies for United executives.

I want United represented by average fans with 9-5 jobs whos only love is United. It should be totally and 100% voluntary with no financial reward attached in any way shape or form.

 

[ciderman9000000]

What doesnt help is situations where Duncan Drasdo has a "united supporters business network" which he is owner of.

I am sure he is totally above board and legitimate, but some will see that as him trying to feather his own nest. After all, someone having a United related business is obviously going to be accused of having a vested interest should he be in a position where his business could possibly gain from his position in the club.

There was such a problem at FC UNITED when one of the board members was accused by Tony O Neill of benefitting financially from FC UNITED via his links with a T shirt company that were supporting FC UNITED, and members were using to buy T shirts from. TON basically acused the said member, of lining his own pockets on the backs of other peoples sacrifices.

Erm... don't mention that.

 

[fredthered]

Out of interest, without naming t-shirt providers or websites, is the person TON accused of benefiting financially from FC run another website(very sparsely populated nowadays) and run a fairly popular United only t-shirt business. He used to go by the name of VAS on his forum but I have no idea if it is his real name.

Because if it is who I think it is it would explain one hell of alot.

Yes, it is the one you are thinking of.

 

[Wibble]

Personally, and again this is my personal opinion, if a person is to become a board member of MUST and ultimately then in a position of power within the club they must openly state all or any business interests they have which could/do benefit from association with United.

I dont want the fans being represented by people who own T shirt companies that sell to United fans, or run coach trips for United supporters, or run busineess networking companies for United executives.

I want United represented by average fans with 9-5 jobs whos only love is United. It should be totally and 100% voluntary with no financial reward attached in any way shape or form.

Hard to disagree with that. No salary either?

 

[fredthered]

Hard to disagree with that. No salary either?

Nope, purely and utterly voluntary unless the position was advertised and they applied because they met all the necssary requirements ie skills, but they then wouldnt be representing supporters, they would be employees of the club.

The fans elected to represent the supporters would be doing it for their love of United and the benefit of the club and supporters.

IF and I use the word IF, the RKs were to take over, I would like to see the ultimate head of the club ( CEO ) being elected by the supporters, but only after the position has been advertised and relevantly qualified applicants have passed a strict interview by the RKs investors. Suitable candidates would then go forward into a ballot and the fans elect the one they feel is suitable.

The RKs would select who they feel was capable of doing the job, and then pass that onto the members to make a final decision.

Neither the supporters nor the RKs would have a total free hand in selecting who ran the club.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Nope, purely and utterly voluntary unless the position was advertised and they applied because they met all the necssary requirements ie skills, but they then wouldnt be representing supporters, they would be employees of the club.

The fans elected to represent the supporters would be doing it for their love of United and the benefit of the club and supporters.

IF and I use the word IF, the RKs were to take over, I would like to see the ultimate head of the club ( CEO ) being elected by the supporters, but only after the position has been advertised and relevantly qualified applicants have passed a strict interview by the RKs investors. Suitable candidates would then go forward into a ballot and the fans elect the one they feel is suitable.

The RKs would select who they feel was capable of doing the job, and then pass that onto the members to make a final decision.

Neither the supporters nor the RKs would have a total free hand in selecting who ran the club.

Wouldn't the vast majority then just vote for the CEO who promised to sign the latest high profile Galactico?

 

[Bearded but no genius]

Wouldn't the vast majority then just vote for the CEO who promised to sign the latest high profile Galactico?

No, because they would see through that pretty quickly.

 

[fredthered]

Wouldn't the vast majority then just vote for the CEO who promised to sign the latest high profile Galactico?

I think you do the fans an injustice. The one thing all this has achieved, is its opened fans up to the world of football finance, and many fans are far more aware of how money moves in football terms.

WIth that knowledge, I dont think you would see the kind of muppetry that you get at other clubs where the people who run the club are judged on who they buy.

The candidates wouldnt just have to prove they understood football finance, they would have to demonstrate how they would implement it whilst maintaining a sustainable club, and keeping within the core values, one of which would be that the club always worked within its means and didnt spend what it couldnt afford.

Likewise, they would have to demonstrate an ability to work alongside the manager. The manager would have 100% control of the playing staff, but only within the budget parameters set, and it would be up to the CEO to ensure that hte manager did that effectively.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Jesus, i think you give the fans too much credit.

 

[fredthered]

Jesus, i think you give the fans too much credit.

Sadly though, thats half the problem, and has been for many years.

People dont trust football fans, and think that they are totally incapable of being astute enough to actually help run football and the clubs taking part.

Just look at the FA. THe fans get little or no say in how the game is ran, likewise the PL.

Its not so much that fans cant help run the game, its that the businessmen dont want the fans getting involved because the two sides more often than not are wholly incompatible.

This could be a very good way of overcoming the imcompatibility and prove that fans can have an input into running football, whilst still allowing for businessmen to invest in the game.

 

[7even]

Wibble, you have hit the EXACT problem I have with the RK bid.

Firstly, MUST are telling us the debts are the problem. If the RKs are not going to pay them off, then as I see it, they arent solving the problem. If the Glazers will struggle, then sorry, unless those debts are gone so will the RKs.

Secondly, many people argue that the Glazers are getting United on the cheap, and the fans will have to pay for it. Is that so different to the RKs coming in, keeping the bonds in place and then getting the fans to pay them off ? OK the fans get 25% stake in United, but ultimately, they are still getting 75% on the cheap. If they pay £1 billion and the fans get £250million worth of the club, they are still only paying £250million for their £750 million share, and its the supporters that ultimately will pay for them to own the rest.

This is why I want more information about the RK bid before I say whether or not it would be better for United.

If the debts are still there, or the fans are still expected to pay for someone else to own the club, then sorry, theres no difference from where I am standing.

This!

The problem in a nutshell. And that is why it's counter-productive to boycott because you don't know the consequence's for United using such an dangerous action.

btw. I must give you lots of cred for posts like this. We see the problem in the same way but have differnet view regarding how to get rid of the original problem. (to much depts forces into the club by gready owners)

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

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.

If you asked them direct questions you didnt get a direct answer, just more "waffle" trying to direct them away from the matter in hand.

Ironically, you yourself have now had to come out and admit that what GCHQ was saying was complete bullshit. The person who claimed that GCHQ was an expert and everyone else should shut up and listen....

Good job no one took any notice of you isnt it.

that's a bit rich coming from the forum loon. For what it's worth his analysis is still more valuable than anything you've contributed. Unfortunately his conclusions are wrong, perhaps clouded by too much preconceived bias. Sound familiar fred?

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

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.

If being opposed to a boycott and not thinking we are "fecked" makes me a gchq disciple then so be it. Otherwise don't be a dick.

 

[GCHQ]

that's a bit rich coming from the forum loon. For what it's worth his analysis is still more valuable than anything you've contributed. Unfortunately his conclusions are wrong, perhaps clouded by too much preconceived bias. Sound familiar fred?

Which conclusion would that be?

The cash outflow analysis that I did was accurate apart from the £17m rolled over tax relief.

 

[Marching]

Does anyone really think Glazer's debt burden is unimportant and not at least potentially a financial house of cards?

The problem as I see it is that whoever eventually buys the club, barring an oil rich Sheik perhaps, will have to carry a debt burden as high or higher. It has still to be explained to me how any normal buyer, Red Knights included were going to buy the club, service the debt, transfer 25% ownership to the fans (was the idea to see this 25% to the fans over a long period or?), do something about ticket prices and transfer funds without having an equally precarious debt load (or probably even worse in terms of gross debt)?

No point getting rid of the Glazers if the alternative is little/no better or worse.

Anyone know how the Red Knights were planning to fund the buy out and run the club? Specifically I mean?

Wibble, you have hit the EXACT problem I have with the RK bid.

Firstly, MUST are telling us the debts are the problem. If the RKs are not going to pay them off, then as I see it, they arent solving the problem. If the Glazers will struggle, then sorry, unless those debts are gone so will the RKs.

Secondly, many people argue that the Glazers are getting United on the cheap, and the fans will have to pay for it. Is that so different to the RKs coming in, keeping the bonds in place and then getting the fans to pay them off ? OK the fans get 25% stake in United, but ultimately, they are still getting 75% on the cheap. If they pay £1 billion and the fans get £250million worth of the club, they are still only paying £250million for their £750 million share, and its the supporters that ultimately will pay for them to own the rest.

This is why I want more information about the RK bid before I say whether or not it would be better for United.

If the debts are still there, or the fans are still expected to pay for someone else to own the club, then sorry, theres no difference from where I am standing.

Giving away 25% of the club? Surely this is a fantasy isn't it?

Some great posts from Wibble and fred overnight that raised many questions that need answers.

Is it right that only 9,000 out of the 160,000 who have signed up to MUST have actually coughed up any money?

The whole idea of 20/30/40 or more owners getting together to run MUFC would be a nightmare and to think anyone is going to buy the club, service the debt, transfer 25% ownership to the fans, do something about ticket prices, transfer funds and not used massive ammounts of borrowed money is even more ridiculous.

 

[datura]

This!

The problem in a nutshell. And that is why it's counter-productive to boycott because you don't know the consequence's for United using such an dangerous action.

btw. I must give you lots of cred for posts like this. We see the problem in the same way but have differnet view regarding how to get rid of the original problem. (to much depts forces into the club by gready owners)

You continue to scaremonger by using words such as 'dangerous' in respect of the boycott for what reason?

People boycotting is a personal decision, and not necessarily linked to the Red Knight bid or anything else yet you appear to be very judgemental of those making that decision and their reasoning.

 

[GCHQ]

I think the fact that PeterStorey happened to point out his glaringly obvious mistake of hiding the fact the original £160 million debt was now Uniteds and not the Glazers also had a fair part to play in it.

Once PeterStorey showed he was deliberately "ignoring" certain aspects, then it all collapsed around his ears.

Just like GCHQs famous 10 questions that were going to expose the MUST propoganda as a sham. He got to question 1 and then had to admit he was completely wrong and backtracked completely claiming he was anti Glazer all the way along.

Ok, time to clear this one up for good because as usual Fred you're talking complete nonsense in an attempt to discredit my opinion.

I made around 500 posts on the RI forum over a two year period. On several occasions over that period I argued that the club wasn't fecked financially due to the Glazers takeover and that the club could quite comfortably continue to service its borrowings whilst at the same time provide the necessary resources to ensure a high level of performance on the pitch.

The comments of mine that you're referring to were made just after the release of the bond prospectus and were made in the context of how I viewed the Glazers as a matchgoing supporter. That included comments about the ticket price rises and the ACS and I have said the same on here with regards to those issues. Just look at my cash outflow analysis for instance. I've never hid the fact that the club has and is generating more revenue than the PLC would have due to the Glazers ticketing policies. I also made reference to the debt and said that I wished it wasn't there, just like I've said on here that I wish the Glazers had never got their hands on the club. I also stated that despite my confidence in the club's ability to service that debt moving forward, I was well aware that the debt does of course pose some degree of risk to the club.

Several weeks after making those comments I made a remark about asking MUST 10 key financial questions, which was meant to be just a little bit of fun after Andersred had asked David Gill 10 key financial questions in an open letter in mid-February. The irony is that during my brief time posting on here I've probably addressed around ten pieces of MUST propaganda which I consider to be BS.

I fundamentally disagree with yourself and others' view of the club's financial situation. And that's all there is to it.

 

[7even]

You continue to scaremonger by using words such as 'dangerous' in respect of the boycott for what reason?

People boycotting is a personal decision, and not necessarily linked to the Red Knight bid or anything else yet you appear to be very judgemental of those making that decision and their reasoning.

Sorry! Not my intention. I will stop using those word...if i remember

 

[Sultan]

Giving away 25% of the club? Surely this is a fantasy isn't it?

Some great posts from Wibble and fred overnight that raised many questions that need answers.

Is it right that only 9,000 out of the 160,000 who have signed up to MUST have actually coughed up any money?

The whole idea of 20/30/40 or more owners getting together to run MUFC would be a nightmare and to think anyone is going to buy the club, service the debt, transfer 25% ownership to the fans, do something about ticket prices, transfer funds and not used massive ammounts of borrowed money is even more ridiculous.

You're right this thread has been great reading. I have learnt a lot, and to be fair, you can't really be dismissive of any sides argument.

I'd say it would be run like a PLC, the difference being it would not be floated on the stock market. I still think investors should get a return for their investment.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Which conclusion would that be?

The cash outflow analysis that I did was accurate apart from the £17m rolled over tax relief.

I was referring to your comparison between actual performance and how you think the plc would have compared.

 

[Commadus]

Ok, time to clear this one up for good because as usual Fred you're talking complete nonsense in an attempt to discredit my opinion.

I made around 500 posts on the RI forum over a two year period. On several occasions over that period I argued that the club wasn't fecked financially due to the Glazers takeover and that the club could quite comfortably continue to service its borrowings whilst at the same time provide the necessary resources to ensure a high level of performance on the pitch.

The comments of mine that you're referring to were made just after the release of the bond prospectus and were made in the context of how I viewed the Glazers as a matchgoing supporter. That included comments about the ticket price rises and the ACS and I have said the same on here with regards to those issues. Just look at my cash outflow analysis for instance. I've never hid the fact that the club has and is generating more revenue than the PLC would have due to the Glazers ticketing policies. I also made reference to the debt and said that I wished it wasn't there, just like I've said on here that I wish the Glazers had never got their hands on the club. I also stated that despite my confidence in the club's ability to service that debt moving forward, I was well aware that the debt does of course pose some degree of risk to the club.

Several weeks after making those comments I made a remark about asking MUST 10 key financial questions, which was meant to be just a little bit of fun after Andersred had asked David Gill 10 key financial questions in an open letter in mid-February. The irony is that during my brief time posting on here I've probably addressed around ten pieces of MUST propaganda which I consider to be BS.

I fundamentally disagree with yourself and others' view of the club's financial situation. And that's all there is to it.

Climbdown.

Still waiting for my answer and as to your cash analysis the assumption its correct is based on your assumptions which you have provided no evidence.

 

[GCHQ]

Giving away 25% of the club? Surely this is a fantasy isn't it?

Some great posts from Wibble and fred overnight that raised many questions that need answers.

Is it right that only 9,000 out of the 160,000 who have signed up to MUST have actually coughed up any money?

The whole idea of 20/30/40 or more owners getting together to run MUFC would be a nightmare and to think anyone is going to buy the club, service the debt, transfer 25% ownership to the fans, do something about ticket prices, transfer funds and not used massive ammounts of borrowed money is even more ridiculous.

Weren't they expecting non-Red Knight Manchester United fans to contribute around £200m of the ''offer'' to the Glazers?

It's just a group of people living in cloud cuckoo land I'm afraid. Complete madness.

 

[Marching]

You're right this thread has been great reading. I have learnt a lot, and to be fair, you can't really be dismissive of any sides argument.

I'd say it would be run like a PLC, the difference being it would not be floated on the stock market. I still think investors should get a return for their investment.

I tend to think it's best to be realistic in life and some of the ideas put forward in this thread are pure fantasy IMO.

There is no doubt investors should get a return on their money...anyone who thinks anyone will risk millions simply for the love of the club must think again.

 

[GCHQ]

I was referring to your comparison between actual performance and how you think the plc would have compared.

So you disagree with the £45m figure (net of reduced corp tax and dividends) relating to how much additonal revenue I estimate the Glazers ownership has contributed to the club when compared to the PLC?

 

[M13]

So you disagree with the £45m figure (net of reduced corp tax and dividends) relating to how much additonal revenue I estimate the Glazers ownership has contributed to the club when compared to the PLC?

Your argument makes me fecking sick when I can see that lots of that 'extra revenue' comes from us (ex) season ticket holders getting scraped to the bone for our disposable income.

 

[GCHQ]

Your argument makes me fecking sick when I can see that lots of that 'extra revenue' comes from us (ex) season ticket holders getting scraped to the bone for our disposable income.

I understand that and I've always been very open about where the vast majority of the extra revenue has come from. It is still at the end of the day additional revenue which is of benefit to the club itself. Manchester United is far from the only club in the Premier League that charges as much as it can get away with.

The club has changed beyond all recognition over the last 20 years and some people have been left behind. That's just life I'm afraid.