Also, if they're all United fans (unlikely i know, seeing as they 'scoured the world' for investors) will they be able to resist messing around in team business? I know i wouldn't, i'd make Rooney captain and put Berba in midfield on day one in charge.
Panorama: Man United - Into the Red, BBC One, Tuesday, 8 June
- Thread starter mickthered
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Yeah, that's about what I thought. Was the purpose of raising the state of First Allied's finances simply to point out that other Glazer-owned companies are struggling rather than to suggest it impacts on United?
The caf can have that effect - I'm looking forward to watching you try anyway!
I thought that was quite clear (and has been repeated in here enough times)?
The point is that the only way they can pay the PIKs is from United's funds - something Gill has denied over and over again.
Also the side-note that the Glazers may not be the business geniuses they'd like us to believe.
Yeah, I think that's where Fred got confused though, he thought that First Allied's finances were being raised by Andy because they impact on United.
The PIK's will, I assume, be paid - at least in part - from the money accounted to RFJV by the club in line with the bond provisions. It would seem pretty crazy if not, otherwise what's the point in taking the money out of the club in the first place?
No - it is just a special rule for that specific postAnd I picked up specifially on your argument that the divisions are cause by those who left, and not the Glazers...
Is that not allowed now? We have to respond to every single point you amke or none at all? It's not how most conversatinos I've had in the caf work.
I made some other general points and comments on the specific issue of who/what caused and is continuing to create divisions between our fanbase - if you want to discuss that issue then I prefer that you address them all.
For the record, if you read what i said I did note that the Glazers arrival was the catalyst.
Greetings Andersred
Good to have you aboard - you are likely to be seeing a lot of me around here - most probably in the 'Bond Issue' thread where you have 75 pages of discussion to catch up on
This certainly seems likely. Does make you wonder why Gill keeps denying it though!
I think Fred has got a bit carried away with what you suggested, but at the same time, he has highlighted a few areas where the sort of restructuring the Glazers carry out certainly doesn't rule out such moves in the future.
There are already a lot of grey areas, and evfery time they refinance they losen things up. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the long run, they had plans to start chanelling funds elsewhere once the PIKs were done.
But you're right that it is far from being the issue at hand.
Welcome. Great to have you contributing in this thread which Im sure will benefit from your superior insight on this very sensitive subject!
a blog's one thing, but bang your head against a solid wall of stubborn caftards enough times and you gonna suffer some serious side-effects; before you know it, your girlfriend's handbag will have been well and truly shat in.I suspect that you are (possibly unkowingly for a change
) misusing the word catalyst. A catalyst can only speed up something that was happening anyway - are you suggesting that the fans would have split anyway?
Ideally we need somebody with AndersRed's knowledge of the club's finances, and Mary Poppins' ability to deal calmly with children.
I know this won't go down well but I've been on RI since it started so I fear nothing.
By the way, did you ever get round to posting anything in the newbies, you lazy git? Surely a nominal "hello" to get the rep points was do-able?
Of course they plan to start channelling funds elsewhere eventually, they own the business and will use the funds as they see fit once any provisions expire. At the end of the day the profit generated by the club is theirs as it's their club.
By the way, has Gill explicitly denied that revenue generated by the club will not go towards the PIK loans or has he simply said 'they're not the responsibility of the club' or something similar? I'm not sure, but when I've heard him speak he says something along the lines of 'I'm not worrying about it, the PIKs are nothing to do with the club', which I take to mean they're not tied to the club. Money generated by the club and then paid to the parent companies according to the bond provisions is then nothing to do with the club - in a similar way to how money paid to me by my employer is then nothing to do with my employer; it's then my money.
I was invited to RI a few years ago, signed up but never posted there. I didn't like the layout.
Anyway, down to important business; do you think GCHQ is employed by JP Morgan or what then?
I assume he's Eaststand375 who's identity I believe I know and if so he doesn't work for JPM, United or anyone connected to them.
Do you have any idea what drives his tireless(/some) defence of the Glazers?
No I wasnt suggesting that - so yes I may have misused the word.I suspect that you are (possibly unkowingly for a change
A catalyst can only speed up something that was happening anyway - are you suggesting that the fans would have split anyway?
I can try my hand at finance discussion but Im no scientist !
Just how near the mark are the above figures in bold, and are they based on worse case scenario or is this figure probably likely?
As I understand it, the interest is definitely rising to 16.25%, and it's indisputable that £220m @ 16.25% = £640m by 2017.
So that is all fact.
This of course doesn't take into account the PIK being paid down, or the interest rate changing, both of which are likely.
Good to have that confirmed, although to be honest I dont see what difference it makes anyway - everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is upto others to challenge it if they disagree.
As we've mentioned, it's not who somebody works for but whether they'd lie about it.
Andersred makes no secret of coming form a position of opposing the Glazers, and doesn't keep playing the "I'm a neutral" card like many on here do. Same for Ralphie and his involvment in MUST.
If somebody who regularly defends the Glazers hid the fact that they had an interest in doing so, it would massively undermine their credibility.
But he hasn't lied about anything, has he?
Who, GCHQ? I don't know - I was just replying to Roodboy's point abuot whether it matters or not.
Btw, irrelevant as it was to the point I was making at the time, I had a look at your link, Ciderman, and was immediately struck by this:
Since being founded in 1999, the Glazer Family Foundation has donated millions in grants, tickets and merchandise to the Tampa Bay area.
Tickets and Merchandise? That's just more no-cost tax avoidance!
Once your stadium / stock of last season's t-shirts hasn't sold out, it doesn't cost you a penny to give it away to charity, but you can write off every single one at "face value" against your tax bill.
Furthermore, the Buccs are facing the possibility of TV black-outs, and the accompanying loss of revenues, due to not selling out the stadium. But oh look - those last thousand seats have been given to local schoolkids!
I don't doubt that there is genuine charitable giving, with no gain to the Glazers, involved. But it astounds me that within as soon as you go anywhere in that site you start coming across the sort of thing above...
You're right, of course, A1dan. Obviously the RedKnights wouldn't dream of doing something as abhorrent as giving away free tickets to kids. Mean old nasty Mister Glazer doesn't think twice though before organising toy-drives for the local orphans and making sure schoolchildren have access to proper eye-care treatments! God, he makes me so mad i wish he'd fecking die!
Glad you've finally seen the light!
Don't you agree that it's brilliant for the Glazers to be doing all this for charity? At $1.9bn in the red, they must be some of the poorest people in the history of civilisation, and yet selflessly they continue to give so much. I for one am proud that our great club is helping feed orphans, it brings a tear to my eye, it really does, and if the only cost is that we might not sign Frank Ribery for £65m, well, then i think we can all agree, that is a small price to pay when the lives of children are at stake.
Okay Cider, now you're just being a knob.
Now?
Cider, don't overdo it, if you haven't done that already.
Remember Ciderman vs MUST was in the General chat forum and that's deleted as well
Remember Ciderman vs MUST was in the General chat forum and that's deleted as well
I'm just excited because i've got a day off work tomorrow and am going to be spending it with my lovely girlfriend trying to convince her to watch Hernandez play in the world cup with me.
MUST is a well organised, honest, fine and upstanding pillar of the United support who, to the best of their ability, provide unity and representation to the fans of our club, and as such have my full and irrevocable backing. This is, and always has been, my truthful opinion.Cider, don't overdo it, if you haven't done that already.
Remember Ciderman vs MUST was in the General chat forum and that's deleted as well
Can we ban him right now, just so that this is his final post?
I'm only playing with ya, A1Dan, you big minkle
Cider, seriously you've become gayer than Elv.
Arsehole!
Arsehole!
That argument is back to Black and White and leaves no room for grey, an area I believe a lot of United fans who are undecided about issues within the club are in.
GCHQ and Roodboy said they came from a position of being neutral and just wanted the figures used to be accurate so that we could make an informed opinion based on fact. I understand this position because I am in that grey area myself. I'm neither pro or anti glazer, all I want is what is best for United, If that turns out to be RK's thats fine by me but I'll need the information to make that decision.
To be fair none of GCHQ's or Roodboys figures here have been proven wrong to date so, yet they have proven some counter arguments wrong, The disucssion surrounding the Ronaldo sale and Uniteds profit that year springs to mind and the Glazers taking £430 million to date another.
I don't care who's supplying the information once its accurate and not spun .I'm sure andersred will challenge any inaccuracies that have been posted once he's up to speed on the discussion that has take place here.
Ok, nevermind all that then, i'll be serious from now on, i promise.
My question yesterday was never answered by anyone...
With UEFA's new rules in 2012 governing transfer expenditure, it being restricted and relative to a club's 'footballing related profit', wont all this talk of the United's debts crippling the club become obsolete? The cost of players will inevitably come down drastically, what with the sugar-daddys' investments being unable to any longer fund transfers and clubs across Europe all having to be far more stringent with what they spend, so wont United once again be the biggest spending force in the Premier League? It has been shown that, even after all interest payments are met, with our massive turnover, global appeal and corporate sponsorship deals we can still turn a healthy profit; far more than City or Chelsea, who consistently operate at a huge loss. The rules would work hugely in our favour, and any talk of us not having enough money to compete at the top level, whether currently accurate or not, will by then be ancient history. Any thoughts?
My question yesterday was never answered by anyone...
With UEFA's new rules in 2012 governing transfer expenditure, it being restricted and relative to a club's 'footballing related profit', wont all this talk of the United's debts crippling the club become obsolete? The cost of players will inevitably come down drastically, what with the sugar-daddys' investments being unable to any longer fund transfers and clubs across Europe all having to be far more stringent with what they spend, so wont United once again be the biggest spending force in the Premier League? It has been shown that, even after all interest payments are met, with our massive turnover, global appeal and corporate sponsorship deals we can still turn a healthy profit; far more than City or Chelsea, who consistently operate at a huge loss. The rules would work hugely in our favour, and any talk of us not having enough money to compete at the top level, whether currently accurate or not, will by then be ancient history. Any thoughts?
It's an interesting point Cider, though I'm not sure the new regulations have been outlined in enough detail for anyone to say exactly how it will effect us and the other clubs. Given that our net transfer spend over the past five years has been relatively low and we've remained competitive throughout, I'm not sure how much difference it will make.
It wont make so much difference to our spending directly, but it will clubs like Chelsea and City; they'll no longer be able to outbid everyone else by £20m and offer players £250,000 a weeks wages because a) their transfer budgets will be severely restricted, and b) paying wages so high would only serve to further restrict their budgets in the future. Having £30m to spend in a summer will once again be a hefty amount.
Read about the measures here...
UEFA's website
UEFA EXCO approves financial fair play on UEFA.COM
Chelsea admitting they'll have to curb spending
Chelsea admit new Uefa rules will change transfer and contract policy | Football | guardian.co.uk