N-N-N-Nineteen (U7514)
--------------
its not that i skirt around the issue, rather you seem to bring up rather irrelevant points. man utd to the glazers isn't a football club, its an investment and should be treated as such. if you read the article and my comments i have never claimed that the glazers shouldn't take dividends, its well within there rights to do so, or that i want the glazers out, in fact i believe they're very astute business men that are turning united into a commercial powerhouse, which can only be good in the long run. however what i am simply saying is that the £45 million interest repayments wont be added to the transfer fund once the debts are repaid as some fans believe is the case. this is a personal opinion and one which you yourself seem to insinuate when you claim that every owner has the right to dividends which will at least partially replace the interest payments.
please read the article, im merely saying there will be no ADDITIONAL funds made available. this isn't to say i dont think the current level is enough.
if you believe the £150 million pounds was even discussed as a possible means to fund the transfers then you are very naive indeed. the £150 million is there to ensure the club is as liquid as possible ensuring that we're unlikely to default on our debt, and is probably a major factor as to why some analysts say we are in a healthy position. it would be a very silly idea to then take this money and reinvest it risking severe cash flow problems. the money for transfers is likely to have come from sponsorship and tv rights payments and the like that have been received come the end of the season
for the record i support this stake sell off
At the same time you seem to think that the Glazers are the only people that would consider this a business. Can you not see that any other owner might as well? Lets assume (rightly) that any owner of MUFC sees it as a business. You have to admit that you cannot guarantee that any other owner wouldn't do the same as the Glazers. Lets make this clear so that there's no ambiguity. When I say "the same" I don't mean simply taking dividends, I mean creaming off more dividends than they should at the possible expense of the club and it's potential to spend. I used Arsenal's major shareholders as an example to show that it is possible with other owners as well
Regarding the £150m, this was a direct reference by Gill in respect of transfers so I'm only going by his words. I have nothing else other than conjecture to suggest otherwise. However, as I said our spending this summer - and in the previous 5 summers suggests Fergie's had the money to spend. Now even if this came from sponsorships, tv rights etc, this leads me to think, is there a need to argue about additional funds, when the funds given to Fergie appear to be more than sufficient? In fact how do we know that in spending the £80 million he has in the last 2 summers, he hasn't already asked for additional funds and been given them?
I support it too and for the record I'm no fan of Glazers but my beef with them starts and stops with the debt. If they clear that, then I csan't see how they would be worse than anyone else. Tbh without the debt, I think in some ways they're actually better than a lot of other owners.
i don't actually believe the glazers will cream a hell of a lot in dividends. we had just about been able to sustain the £45million interest repayments, so dividends per year will be at that level maximum. otherwise the club would begin to suffer, the value of the shares and revenue will fall and the glazers will lose money, which they would not allow to happen. i just wanted to point out to some of the united fans on these boards that this sell off does not in any way mark the beginning of 'city style' spending (even though if no dividends are taken it could possibly be afforded by the club). please note i am in no way accusing the glazers of plotting to take over the odds dividends, as i have stated previously, they deserve whatever dividends they take provided the club stays successful.
when gill said there was £150 million in the bank available for transfers i think he was hypothetically speaking. suggesting the glazers will not shy away from heavy spending if needs be to maintain the clubs position as this the only way there investment will be profitable. however, success for them is remaining in the top 4 as this is where the big money is generated. can you honestly say a top 4 finish is what you would class as successful season?
in all honesty, that last paragraph sums up my opinion perfectly. at least there is something we've agreed on
"when gill said there was £150 million in the bank available for transfers i think he was hypothetically speaking."
Eh? That makes no sense...
Re: the £45million dividends which at the moment is equivalent to what we make in interest payments. I've said in the past I'm pretty sure we'd be paying that figure to shareholders if we'd remained a Plc. In short, looks like we agree after all because I don't think that money would be available either.
I was assuming we were focusing on the suitability of Glazers as owners. Out of interest, how would you feel about a complete takeover by the Dubai group that was rumoured a while back?
'when gill said there was £150 million in the bank available for transfers i think he was hypothetically speaking. suggesting the glazers will not shy away from heavy spending if needs be to maintain the clubs position as this the only way there investment will be profitable.'
billy bob heres the full quote for your convenience, you don't happen to work in media do you?
N-N-N-Nineteen (U7514)
----------------
I guess it does, seems we were arguing about two different things.
in all honesty, i prefer the glazers to arabian owners, moreso with the ffp rules coming into play. without the debt, the glazers have been very good commercially and have actually made man utd more stable as club (assuming the majority of the debt is actually paid off). the problem with arab owners is that they can be very difficult to handle. they'll have a greater say in the football aspect of things at the club and thats something saf or the fans won't tolerate. i also don't believe they'll be as successful in exploiting the market oppurtunities as the glazers have and united, as such, will be in a weaker position in the long run. what were your thoughts on a possible arab takeover?
If he was being hypothetical then I suppose he could just have easily said, 'there is £800M available for transfers'...or maybe a £billion!
That is why it doesn't make sense! Was there £150M or not? Either there was, and thus it was not a hypothetical statement...or there wasn't, and thus he was lying!
Yeh you've summed up my thoughts as well. I also think that they would interefere more in player purchases and after Fergie could perpetuate instability through a merry-go-round of managers as they seek immediate success. Although it could be argued the Glazers might do the same once Fergie steps down, I think the fact they leave things to Gill and appear to be more hands off might mean they won't be as erratic. Also, if for them a top 4 is a priority, they won't be making knee jerk reactions when we don't win the league or CL. It really is all about the debt when it comes to Glazers.
comment by BillyBobTaunton (U4886)
----------------------------------------------------
The figure of £150m could only be used in the hypothetical statement because that's how much was in the bank. That's not what he was implying was the hypothetical part of the statement. Merely that, that could have been the figure we "in theory" could have spent up to even though the primary purpose of thos funds was not to.
If he'd said £800m or £1b then he would have been lying so a bit of a stupid suggestion I'm afraid.
I just tried to buy a new car for £12k...the dealer said, 'how do you want to pay'...i replied, '£2k up front and £10k hypothetically!'
I never got the car!
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!
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
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
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?
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.
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!
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.
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!
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
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!
Sign in if you want to comment
thoughts on man utd stock exchange listing
Page 2 of 2
posted on 19/8/11
N-N-N-Nineteen (U7514)
--------------
its not that i skirt around the issue, rather you seem to bring up rather irrelevant points. man utd to the glazers isn't a football club, its an investment and should be treated as such. if you read the article and my comments i have never claimed that the glazers shouldn't take dividends, its well within there rights to do so, or that i want the glazers out, in fact i believe they're very astute business men that are turning united into a commercial powerhouse, which can only be good in the long run. however what i am simply saying is that the £45 million interest repayments wont be added to the transfer fund once the debts are repaid as some fans believe is the case. this is a personal opinion and one which you yourself seem to insinuate when you claim that every owner has the right to dividends which will at least partially replace the interest payments.
please read the article, im merely saying there will be no ADDITIONAL funds made available. this isn't to say i dont think the current level is enough.
if you believe the £150 million pounds was even discussed as a possible means to fund the transfers then you are very naive indeed. the £150 million is there to ensure the club is as liquid as possible ensuring that we're unlikely to default on our debt, and is probably a major factor as to why some analysts say we are in a healthy position. it would be a very silly idea to then take this money and reinvest it risking severe cash flow problems. the money for transfers is likely to have come from sponsorship and tv rights payments and the like that have been received come the end of the season
for the record i support this stake sell off
posted on 19/8/11
At the same time you seem to think that the Glazers are the only people that would consider this a business. Can you not see that any other owner might as well? Lets assume (rightly) that any owner of MUFC sees it as a business. You have to admit that you cannot guarantee that any other owner wouldn't do the same as the Glazers. Lets make this clear so that there's no ambiguity. When I say "the same" I don't mean simply taking dividends, I mean creaming off more dividends than they should at the possible expense of the club and it's potential to spend. I used Arsenal's major shareholders as an example to show that it is possible with other owners as well
Regarding the £150m, this was a direct reference by Gill in respect of transfers so I'm only going by his words. I have nothing else other than conjecture to suggest otherwise. However, as I said our spending this summer - and in the previous 5 summers suggests Fergie's had the money to spend. Now even if this came from sponsorships, tv rights etc, this leads me to think, is there a need to argue about additional funds, when the funds given to Fergie appear to be more than sufficient? In fact how do we know that in spending the £80 million he has in the last 2 summers, he hasn't already asked for additional funds and been given them?
I support it too and for the record I'm no fan of Glazers but my beef with them starts and stops with the debt. If they clear that, then I csan't see how they would be worse than anyone else. Tbh without the debt, I think in some ways they're actually better than a lot of other owners.
posted on 19/8/11
i don't actually believe the glazers will cream a hell of a lot in dividends. we had just about been able to sustain the £45million interest repayments, so dividends per year will be at that level maximum. otherwise the club would begin to suffer, the value of the shares and revenue will fall and the glazers will lose money, which they would not allow to happen. i just wanted to point out to some of the united fans on these boards that this sell off does not in any way mark the beginning of 'city style' spending (even though if no dividends are taken it could possibly be afforded by the club). please note i am in no way accusing the glazers of plotting to take over the odds dividends, as i have stated previously, they deserve whatever dividends they take provided the club stays successful.
when gill said there was £150 million in the bank available for transfers i think he was hypothetically speaking. suggesting the glazers will not shy away from heavy spending if needs be to maintain the clubs position as this the only way there investment will be profitable. however, success for them is remaining in the top 4 as this is where the big money is generated. can you honestly say a top 4 finish is what you would class as successful season?
in all honesty, that last paragraph sums up my opinion perfectly. at least there is something we've agreed on
posted on 19/8/11
"when gill said there was £150 million in the bank available for transfers i think he was hypothetically speaking."
Eh? That makes no sense...
posted on 19/8/11
Re: the £45million dividends which at the moment is equivalent to what we make in interest payments. I've said in the past I'm pretty sure we'd be paying that figure to shareholders if we'd remained a Plc. In short, looks like we agree after all because I don't think that money would be available either.
I was assuming we were focusing on the suitability of Glazers as owners. Out of interest, how would you feel about a complete takeover by the Dubai group that was rumoured a while back?
posted on 19/8/11
'when gill said there was £150 million in the bank available for transfers i think he was hypothetically speaking. suggesting the glazers will not shy away from heavy spending if needs be to maintain the clubs position as this the only way there investment will be profitable.'
billy bob heres the full quote for your convenience, you don't happen to work in media do you?
posted on 19/8/11
N-N-N-Nineteen (U7514)
----------------
I guess it does, seems we were arguing about two different things.
in all honesty, i prefer the glazers to arabian owners, moreso with the ffp rules coming into play. without the debt, the glazers have been very good commercially and have actually made man utd more stable as club (assuming the majority of the debt is actually paid off). the problem with arab owners is that they can be very difficult to handle. they'll have a greater say in the football aspect of things at the club and thats something saf or the fans won't tolerate. i also don't believe they'll be as successful in exploiting the market oppurtunities as the glazers have and united, as such, will be in a weaker position in the long run. what were your thoughts on a possible arab takeover?
posted on 19/8/11
If he was being hypothetical then I suppose he could just have easily said, 'there is £800M available for transfers'...or maybe a £billion!
That is why it doesn't make sense! Was there £150M or not? Either there was, and thus it was not a hypothetical statement...or there wasn't, and thus he was lying!
posted on 19/8/11
Yeh you've summed up my thoughts as well. I also think that they would interefere more in player purchases and after Fergie could perpetuate instability through a merry-go-round of managers as they seek immediate success. Although it could be argued the Glazers might do the same once Fergie steps down, I think the fact they leave things to Gill and appear to be more hands off might mean they won't be as erratic. Also, if for them a top 4 is a priority, they won't be making knee jerk reactions when we don't win the league or CL. It really is all about the debt when it comes to Glazers.
posted on 19/8/11
comment by BillyBobTaunton (U4886)
----------------------------------------------------
The figure of £150m could only be used in the hypothetical statement because that's how much was in the bank. That's not what he was implying was the hypothetical part of the statement. Merely that, that could have been the figure we "in theory" could have spent up to even though the primary purpose of thos funds was not to.
If he'd said £800m or £1b then he would have been lying so a bit of a stupid suggestion I'm afraid.
posted on 19/8/11
I just tried to buy a new car for £12k...the dealer said, 'how do you want to pay'...i replied, '£2k up front and £10k hypothetically!'
I never got the car!
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!
Page 2 of 2