what people fail to understand is that the glazers simply must pay off the debt if they are to generate the type of interest that'll actually sustain there valuation of the club. simply put, a company with healthy profit margins is more attractive to investors than a company with debt, regardless of how sustainable the debt is (assuming they are of the same size of course). the glazers have already outlined in the prospectus what they plan to do with the money, something that is required by law if they are to be given a stock exchange listing. the money will go to paying off the debt. however they cannot guarantee that all the debt will be cleared as its not certain enough capital will be generated or how much control they are willing to relinquish. very crudely put, this is very much a black and white picture.
i also believe there are very little issues with ownership. as long as the glazers own 75% then even if the other 25% are sold to one individual he'll have little power in the grand scheme of things- except of course being in the know as to what the glazers intend to do. the reason it is different to the arsenal situation is that there are 3/4 part owners who now all have around 25% so no one party assumes full control of the club and there is an immense power struggle in the board room. the glazers will be too strong for such a situation.
the issue for me is the dividend payments. the glazers have thus far immorally imo been taking 'loans' from united to service there debt elsewhere. however, if the debt at the club is paid then they can begin to pay themselves dividends. they may pay quite handsomely. this may mean that actually very few extra funds are given to saf for transfers as they may deem the club successful enough already. if this was to happen, although we may not have anymore debt (a situation we should be in anyway), we will not see the direct benefits of such a scheme.
thoughts?
please note im not a financial expert but i do have some knowledge. if anything i said is wrong feel free to correct me.
thoughts on man utd stock exchange listing
posted on 19/8/11
19
Now you are not making sense, was the money there or not? Are you really saying that United are run like this...
...With no real transfer budget, but instead a hypothetical budget that can be used but is not actually put aside as transfer money...really?
What was the 'purpose' of these funds do you think, or do United just have money lying around that can be used as a hypothetical transfer budget even though they are not transfer funds but can be if they want them to be, even though they are not, but they could be, but they're not but could be!
posted on 19/8/11
N-N-N-Nineteen (U7514)
-----------------------
i think what makes the glazers good owners for me is that they know there role within the club. because this is an investment rather than a play toy they're more likely to operate the club with the intention of longterm success and a strategy. arab owners see the club more as a play toy, buying players and sacking managers on a whim with very short sighted goals. this isn't how i'd like man utd to be run
posted on 19/8/11
BillyBobTaunton (U4886)
-----------------
in simple terms- there is £150 million in the bank currently. gill has stated that it can all be used for transfers if need be. this is however not how much saf has been told he can spend. i presume the £150m will only ever be available if the club is in some serious need of injection ie were out of the the top 4.
read the comments earlier and you'll understand why we do have £150 million in the bank but choose not to spend it or pay off the debt, to do very much with liquidity and cash flow.
btw i know a dealer that'll sell you a car at that kind of price
posted on 19/8/11
comment by BillyBobTaunton (U4886)
--------------------------------------------------
If you'd read The Next Special One's earlier post in full you'd know the "purpose" he was suggesting the funds could be for. Unfortunately it does require the rudimenatry skill of being able to read and comprehend. A skill although somewhat basic for the rest of us, clearly seems to be a challenge for you.
You clearly find words a challenge, shouldn't you be doing something less taxing like chasing parked cars?
posted on 19/8/11
comment by the next special one (U6262)
-------------------------------------------------------
Yeh, don't get me wrong the initial idea of having unlimited funds is tempting, but when you consider it further there are long term disadvantages. Another one will be our youth development and the chances (or lack of) in breaking through to the first team as we see at City and Chelsea. As with these clubs, what we may end up with is a boom and bust of short term success followed by periods of constant rebuilding. At the moment our model involves having a blend of experienced players coupled with youth from within the club as well as from outside - all of which provides more consistent long term stability and success.
posted on 19/8/11
19
Isn't Gill the same guy who lied about the level of investment in the club to a commons committee? The same guy who said 'debt was the road to ruin', the same guy who said Ronaldo was not for sale 5 weeks before he was sold?
With this in mind, forgive me for thinking that his transfer budget statement might not be entirely correct! To me it is simple enough, it's either there or its not, to have to conjure up a hypothetical situation that makes his statement correct makes no sense, hence my initial point!
Anyway, I am veering off-topic, unlike you who has managed to stay on-topic whilst also managing to include the phrase 'chasing parked cars' into your post!
posted on 19/8/11
comment by BillyBobTaunton (U4886)
---------------------------------------------------
Ahhh, so the whole reason for you being on this
thread is to question whether Gill was lying. Interesting theory btw, by your logic everything everyone says must be a lie IF they've lied in their lifetime before, which lets face it applies to all of us, even someone like you. You see the problem?
Yes the topic seems to be about something other than whether Gill was lying or whether the money is there or not. Best to stick to the topic in future or start another thread if you want to discuss something else. You know the rules, best to use them.
posted on 19/8/11
19
Nope, the reason why I was on the thread was that I found it non-sensical that a poster would suggest that United's hierarchy would use a hypothetical figure as a transfer budget!
I still don't understand it, but I suppose that is because I am not the one conjuring up hypothetical scenarios to explain what in reality seemed to be a pretty straightforward statement from Gill.
Anyway, to answer your comment about my logic...when did I state or insinuate that 'everything everyone says must be a lie IF they've lied in their lifetime before'?
If you had read what I had actually said (something that you seemed quite insistent on before), you will have found that I said that due to his well-documented previous history of not being truthful, then you have to forgive me for thinking that his statement might not be entirely correct! Where have I said he MUST be lying? Have I used the word MUST in this comment?
I think you will find that the insertion of the phrase 'MIGHT NOT BE entirely correct' into my comment negates your idea that I believe everything is a lie...do you understand the difference between the phrases 'MUST be lying' and 'MIGHT be lying'? One describes your take on what i was saying, the other describes what I actually and literally said...how did you miss this salient piece of information? Surely if you had read my comments properly then you would/could not have come up with your absurd comments!
You see the problem? I can, it is replying before thinking, or possibly just getting it completely wrong...your post appears to fall into both categories!
posted on 19/8/11
And yet you seem to be doing exactly the same Once again talking about a hypothetical figure when nobody (but you) keeps mentioning the figure as hypothetical. I did point this out to you earlier but if "you had read what I'd actually written" you'd realise the hypothetical part is on what the money is for not the amount That was the conversation we were having before you came clunking in making up your own arguments.
Your 4th paragraph made me laugh. I detected a slight degree of tension born out of frustration. Never a good sign on a Friday afternoon. Has it been a long week? Difficulty at work perhaps? Anyway, in answer to your comment - you believe that he might be lying again. Your basis for this is that he may have lied in the past (I use the word 'may because I don't have the time or inclination to check your accusations). I on the other hand believe he is unlikely to be lying. My basis for this was the amount Fergie has spent recently and it seems was willing to spend on another possible signing. Over the last two summers this has already amounted to £80m and could have been more. The truth is neither of us know for sure. The Next Special One and me could have chosen to go with the option he was lying and stopped there OR we could have chosen the option the money was there and carried on with our conversation. We chose the latter. So considering you yourself have admitted he might have been lying but accept he may not have, then does it seem worthwhile wasting both our time constantly banging on about. Take a minute to think about the answer if you need to. Not that I'll be remotely interested anyway
posted on 19/8/11
19
Ok!
It wasn't frustration, i just decided to highlight certain points and repeat myself so that you understood the error of your comments!
And yes, its not worth 'banging on' about Gill, as you say, it is off-topic and it is better to stick to the topic being discussed
Ps...I imagine you have realised that you got it wrong about my 'logic'...that's good!