If anything GCHQ has single-handedly brought the MUST campaign back on track. . .
A MUST wind up/cunning plan?
A MUST wind up/cunning plan?
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?
Except that those who, for example, contributed funds under the old SU, appear to no longer have voting rights.
Is this correct?
Would that publicly traded corporations could require you to keep funding them to a certain amount every single year or else you cannot vote.
Or nations required you to pay a certain quantity of tax in a year before allowing you to vote.
Those who were shareholders under SU should always have voting rights.
Any democratic group should be looking to allow voting rights, not to limit them.
But nusing the logic of GCHQ
I'm telling you the June comes after August and it says so in my calender
And I can argue that till you are red in the face
May have something to do with the way I manipulate it by starting at the back of the calender first
Just goes to show how you can bend the truth
June does come after August to be fair.
I just want to know what May had to do with it!You got the same calendar
or you using the August 2009 June 2010 argument
GCHQ made an analysis of actual cash costs of Glazer ownership from June 30th 2005 to June 30th 2010, he was quite clear on this. You can't then tell him that his analysis is wrong because he hasn't included cash costs that will be incurred in August 2010!
Dude you either are being facetious or plain dumb. How many times does it have to be pointed out that looking at the cash side (even accepting his wild assumptions) you miss the rising liabilities on the balance sheet.
He certainly did. In fact, for some reason he has become obsessed with actual cash costs of Glazer ownership from June 30th 2005 to June 30th 2010, it's the only thing he'll talks about - check out his first post on the previosu page.
Never mind the balance sheet, as long as he's found a period with a positive cash-flow, eh?
I took £50 out of a cash machine today. Hurray, I'm £50 richer than I was this morning!
Fortunately everybody's seen through this ridiculous obsession.
You know why. It's because there's a fundamental disagreement about what "cost" actually means. You're insisting on only including the money that has already left the club, while others, rightly in my opinion, believe that a cost is something that you are liable for, particularly if we are looking at the differences between one ownership model and another.
If £500m was leaving the club tomorrow, would it really be honest to insist that nothing has yet been paid, so there's no point in worrying about it or blaming those who are responsible?
The only way that I could see this being even remotely fair is if you were to exclude any natural rises in revenue and even the revenue that has come about because of price rises. Without that, you are necessarily forcing people to accept the rises that are at the very heart of the dispute.
Even if you could show that the Glazers had cost the club nothing in relation to the PLC, with all other things being equal, including transfer spending, for example, if the extra revenue has come from price rises that many fans resent, it's obvious that those people would chose the PLC every time.
Also, as it's not possible to know if or how the PLC would have increased revenue, how can it be fair to include the increase under the Glazers?
Surely, not unless you can actually show that it is a reality and then where it comes from?
Lol
You do know that the first coupon payment is August 1st and that its semi annual. So as the bonds were issued prior to June 30 this interest was being accrued until its payment and if you think as its not been paid before 30th June it does not exist then you are being very deceptive and its why GCHQ bangs on about cash costs.
I think it's just full members (i.e. a tenner a year) who get the right to vote - there's about 9,000 of them I think. I assume the issue of voting rights is set out in the Trust's constitution and is in line with Supporters Direct. I don't think comparing them with for-profit corporations is particularly helpful, but if you've concerns, then I'd advise contacting MUST about it.
But the reason you hounded him so much was because you said you'd caught him out bullshitting. But, he was clear enough in saying that he was comparing actual cash costs, not future liabilities, and clear over the financial timescale he was looking at. GCHQ obviously thinks that direct cashflow is important. The level of debt is well known, what's less known it's effect on our immediate and future finances; i think that what GCHQ is trying to say is that, when looking at cashflow of the past five years, the debt has had, in his opinion,only a negligible effect in comparison to what would have happened under the PLC. If GCHQ thinks this a point worthy of attention then who are you to call a witchhunt over it?
To be fair MUST already has gained outside support. It is under the umbrella of Supporters Direct, which is Government-funded, it was at No.10 a few months back, and it and SD got the principle of supporter ownership into both Tory and Labour election manifestos. If MUST was considered to be anything other than straight with its assessment of the Glazer situation, do you think the likes of David Cameron would have risked being anywhere near it?
You're confusing shareholders / Phoenix fund investors with MUST members.
MUST / SU has always been a subscription based members' organisation, much like most equvalent not-for-profit bodies. You pay annual subs, you're a member, you get to vote. Those funds are used to meet the costs of running the organisation.
Those who have money in the Phoenix fund have not "contributed money" to MUST, it is still their own investment. They no more have voting rights than you do if you have money in a bank account. They are certainly not shareholders in MUST.
So to answer your "Would that publicly traded corporations.." point - any bank operates this way, as does, on the other side of the coin, any members' organisation like the National Trust, or more pertinantly, "supporter-owned" clubs like Barcelona.
I've never called a witch-hunt on anyone but I'm more than within my rights to point it out as bullshit if he thinks that.
Once again, it's the whole point of a forum, and I'm a bit bored of people trying to claim that others are somehow abusing the forum by pointing out when somebody else is talking crap.
To be fair, I doubt Cameron's given it anything like that much consideration, and he would probably ditch all connection to MUST as quickly as he jumped on the bandwagon. But that is a point entirely about David Cameron and similar politicians, not about MUST.
June 30 2010 is the end date of the club's current financial year. That is why I have quite legitimately used that date as the closing point of my cash outflow analysis.
Let's get real here, the reason you don't like me talking about the cash outflow analysis is because it doesn't fit in with your anti-Glazer agenda.
As for the debt on the balance sheet, of course it's relevant. I've never said it isn't relevant. What I have done is show what the cash cost to the club of servicing that debt has been in the five years to June 30 2010 and then deducted from that figure the cash that would have left the club under the PLc structure. That analysis is absolutely relevant if people are actually interested in what has been the annual cash cost to the club of the Glazers ownership.
We know the debt is there on the balance sheet but what matters for the club moving forward is a) can the club service the interest payments on that debt and b) can the club ''manage'' the debt whilst still providing the manager with the necessary resources to maintain a high level of performance on the pitch, a performance level which will in turn help to grow the club's revenue streams.
Would you agree those are the key financial questions facing the club moving forward? Those are the questions that the club's supporters should be concerned with, right?
I believe the answers to those questions to be yes and yes. That is my opinion. The cash outflow comparison to my mind supports that opinion. The net cash profit comparison, far more relevant in terms of the future of the club, also to my mind supports that opinion.
Now clearly yourself, Andersred, MUST, its members and other anti-Glazer factions don't agree that the answers to the above questions are yes and yes.
I don't personally think MUST's track record is too impressive in that respect though. Their prediction that the Glazers would have to sell the club within three years of their takeover due to a failure of their business plan was wrong. Let's not beat around the bush, it was hopelessly wrong.
People can make up their own mind as to which opinion they now wish to believe about the state of the club moving forward.
Thank God for that.
With your ridiculous cash-based arguments thoroughly shot to bits, you can keep on repeating them, as you just have yet again, for as long as you like but everybody has seen through the emporers new clothes, I'm afraid.
If you really do work in any branch of finance or accountancy, I'm glad you don't look after any funds I have an interest in. Your belief that cash makes you rich / stable, regardless of your over-all position is just scary.
So you're not willing to address my other points? Just cheap point scoring then. Do you agree with the questions I posed?
And yes, CASH really is extremely important and relevant to a business. It is my opinion that the club has more than enough cash at its disposal to service the debt and to continue to provide the necessary level of first team investment to ensure a high level of performance on the pitch.
That is what this whole argument about the future financial state of the club comes down to in the end.
I never implied anyone was a shareholder in MUST.
I find the repeated claims that it is completely democratic to be a bit disingenuous, if in fact it is completely democratic provided you "pay to play".
That is fine if that is the way that the group wants to operate, and it makes a lot of sense especially for newcomers.
But it is an important proviso.
They hold the money that I contributed to the only realistic hope of dislodging Uncle Malc.
In order to have any say on what they do moving forward with that money in that account, I have to pay an annual membership fee to vote in order to say how they should move forward on how to run the affairs of the organisation including how to find a way to use my "investment".
Do you not see the difference between having money in a bank and this?
As for comparing this and Barcelona - Barcelona have the football club.
People who contributed to SU bought stock in MUFC only to lose it because of Uncle Malc, and then find out that even to have an ability to have a say in what happens from there, they have to pay an annual fee.
I think its reasonable to take the end of year accounts as a cut off point, the time to look at what happens in August is next June when we will have the complete picture for the trading year.
I also think the abuse GCHQ is taking form people who have had very little input into this discussion is very childish and unnecessary. (I wouldn't include yourself in that group.)
If you gained outside support from David Cameron then MUST have come a long way. That's good. What they need to do is continue this and attract more attention.
I try to keep this internet-discussion separate from MUST/RK actual agenda. To exercise with financial analyse's regarding net-spend, transfers, EBITA a s o is sometime's pure speculation. It don't matter who's right or wrong because the right answer depends on what you want to achive. I can see and I understand the figures and is both good and bad.
What is far more important for me is if United can continue to be competitive under the Glazers or if the depts will force the club to lower future ambitions. Then we definitely need a new owner (said the glory hunter in me
) The other important thing is how to let loyal supporters to have some sort of influence. A club like MU is more than a company, it's a instituion and a way of living. It's vital to find a good solution for the future regarding this question. As far as I now every owner can change the agenda whenever they want. I hope that RK will release their business-plan in public and if it's good it will raise enough money to attract the owner to sell.
I suppose there is an argument for separating the control of the Phoenix Fund from the running of the rest of MUST (lobbying, campaigning etc). Ultimately though you do have control over your money, and can decide whether it is used in any potential Red Knights scenario.
Could we have a cash flow forecast for the next five years?
We all know so far the club is still trading well. As you said GCHQ looking forward is important and I think a cash flow forecast would be more useful to decide if the Glazer business plan is going to succeed.
We all know so far the club is still trading well. As you said GCHQ looking forward is important and I think a cash flow forecast would be more useful to decide if the Glazer business plan is going to succeed.
Are you kidding?
Have you seen the controversy in trying to accurately pin down what has already happened?
Only as long as you want them to hold it. The option remains to either pay for membership or withdraw your funds if you are unhappy with the direction MUST is going.
Seriously, if you've money in the Pheonix Fund and feel unfairly disenfranchised by the current statutes, ask for the issue to be raised at the AGM in the summer.
Well, they gained support from both the resident Government (Labour) and the opposition (the Tories). It's in black and white in the manifestos of both, which is far more important than mere lip-service from Cameron. However, the next step is to ensure that the current government keeps its manifesto promise (not an easy task at the best of times!)
Actually, thinking about it some more, I'm not sure why IMUSA has not played a more prominent role in campaigning compared to MUST. In theory, IMUSA should be the main ones to give the fans a voice.
:lolAre you kidding?
Have you seen the controversy in trying to accurately pin down what has already happened?
Are you kidding?
Have you seen the controversy in trying to accurately pin down what has already happened?
TBF though we have had a 5 year forecast for the PLC company to 2010 that actually ceased to exist in 2005 so its not unrealistic.
So who is included then? pray not me, I kept asking questions to which getting an answer was impossible
In reality what happened is that you got answers but were unable to understand them and described them as waffle.
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.
I go away for 5 days and when I get back everyone is slating GCHQ and saying he's a bullshitting twister of facts.
What happened ?
What happened ?
Eventually everybody realised his financial gymnastic's were a sham, good work there Fred
Having seen him in action on Red Issue, it was only a matter of time.
In fact he got off lightly on here. Over on Red Issue he eventually backed himself so far into a corner, he had to admit that everything he was saying was bullshit and that the Glazers were a real threat to United.
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.
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.