The all-new Premier League thread Page 2924

  • Page

    of 5487 First / Last

  • Dougs 14 Nov 2012 15:39:49 67,817 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    And the celebration still makes me want to put my foot through the telly
  • kalel 14 Nov 2012 15:40:36 87,761 posts
    Seen 12 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    President_Weasel wrote:

    Here's a logo with lowercase lettering, that'll be 250,000 quid.
    Heh, this is so what I do for a living.
  • mcmonkeyplc 14 Nov 2012 15:54:16 39,458 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Christ, I remember that :(

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • reddevil93 14 Nov 2012 16:37:04 11,777 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    United's Q1 figures were released today, net debt down to 302m, seems fairly manageable, especially with the new TV deal in place and the increasing commercial deals.

    Main problem facing the club in the future is replacing SAF rather than managing the debt at this stage I reckon. Though if we drop off too much after SAF leaves will affect the ability to pay back the debt of course.

  • kalel 14 Nov 2012 16:44:24 87,761 posts
    Seen 12 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    There was an article I read recently about how the value of the club itself is in danger of dropping below the level of debt, and that's a very bad thing, for some reason. Negative equity or some-such. Financial gabble I didn't really understand.

    I think the biggest danger to the club in the short and long term is City. That's going to erode your fan-base locally and internationally oever time, which will ultimately be the worst thing that could happen to you.
  • dsmx 14 Nov 2012 16:45:49 7,607 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Man United have local fans? I thought almost everyone in Manchester chose city over united.

    "If we hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a a house of cards, checkmate." Zapp Brannigan

  • SolidSCB 14 Nov 2012 16:47:31 6,742 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I'll start worrying when they can actually fill that shitbowl on a Champions League night.
  • Dougs 14 Nov 2012 16:57:47 67,817 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Won't happen over night, but in 10 years time, things could look quite different.

    Anyway, going back to CFC:
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100189587/if-chelsea-have-slandered-mark-clattenburg-as-a-racist-the-club-should-be-relegated-immediately/
  • reddevil93 14 Nov 2012 16:58:56 11,777 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    There was an article I read recently about how the value of the club itself is in danger of dropping below the level of debt, and that's a very bad thing, for some reason. Negative equity or some-such. Financial gabble I didn't really understand.

    I think the biggest danger to the club in the short and long term is City. That's going to erode your fan-base locally and internationally oever time, which will ultimately be the worst thing that could happen to you.
    The two main financial analysts I follow, swissramble and andersred(massive anti-glazer knob and pessimistic fan, the one who accused SAF of profiting from IPO) both seem to think the value of the club doesn't matter in the slightest unless the Glazers are planning on selling up, and people using the stock price of the issued shares seem to forget that they hold next to no voting rights. I think the total voting power of the issued shares is 2% so hardly fair to use them as equal to the other shares when valuing the club.

    I can't see City eroding the International fan base for a long time, don't mean to sound like a knob but there is a romance around the club that can't be bought that stretches all the way back to the Busby Babes and Munich air disaster, which is when a lot of people credit the start of foreign fans keeping tabs on United.

    As for locally, seemingly City have 2 for 1 tickets on their match against Real in the Champions League, don't think United have to worry too much about them surpassing the attendances..

    If there is a top manager brought in to replace SAF and a continued decent level of investment we should remain competitive.

    tldr: Citylols WAS GOAL

    Edited by reddevil93 at 17:00:27 14-11-2012

  • ecureuil 14 Nov 2012 17:02:10 76,829 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    You're looking more at decades when it comes to City eroding our fanbase. And that's only if we're no longer competitive.
  • Dougs 14 Nov 2012 17:03:14 67,817 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    I cant believe, if I read the report right, that you spent 3.1m on advice for the New York stock fiasco.
    Cheap, we spent the same on advice on whether or not to sell shares to someone already on the Board. Baffling.
  • reddevil93 14 Nov 2012 17:05:10 11,777 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    I cant believe, if I read the report right, that you spent 3.1m on advice for the New York stock fiasco.
    Yeah, and that's without considering the amounts spents when weighing up would it be worth floating the club on other stock markets, all came out of the money that was used to pay off the bonds too.

  • kalel 14 Nov 2012 17:22:10 87,761 posts
    Seen 12 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    You're looking more at decades when it comes to City eroding our fanbase. And that's only if we're no longer competitive.
    Not decades. Maybe a decade. That's about how long it took for you to become the biggest club in the world in the first place.

    And it's not really about you being competitive or not. Being second best will enough to make the difference for the majority of new fans.
  • LeoliansBro 14 Nov 2012 17:33:17 44,284 posts
    Seen 28 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    There was an article I read recently about how the value of the club itself is in danger of dropping below the level of debt, and that's a very bad thing, for some reason. Negative equity or some-such. Financial gabble I didn't really understand.

    /responds to Batsignal in sky

    The assets of Man U were used as security for the debt borrowed to finance the Glazer takeover. This is a very questionable accounting practice and the UK is one of the few places it is allowed. Basically, in theory even you could do the same. Step 1: Announce you want to buy an unencumbered club. Step 2: Raise money by borrowing against that club. Step 3: Use this money to buy the club.

    Anyway, it comes with all sorts of entanglements and problems. Bottom line is, the people you borrowed the money from are going to have some pretty strong powers to step in and sell the club if they get cold feet, and are going to want to know that the club is worth enough that they can get their money back. So two things happen if the value of the club drops below the value of the loans. One: Cold feet. Two. The club is fucked as the creditors tear it apart to extract as much value as possible.

    The owners, as high net worth individuals, have it in their power to avert this if they want through bringing more cash to the table. So you have to rely on the owners not being cunts.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 14 Nov 2012 17:33:43 44,284 posts
    Seen 28 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    I cant believe, if I read the report right, that you spent 3.1m on advice for the New York stock fiasco.
    I can :)

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 14 Nov 2012 17:38:33 87,761 posts
    Seen 12 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Cheers LB.

    The thing about the fan-base is just what I reckon btw. I'm not astonished that the Man U fans can't see it happening.
  • SuperCoolEskimo 14 Nov 2012 17:42:10 9,845 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Glazers aren't as rich as they'd have you believe. Quite a few of their American businesses aren't doing too well right now.

    On Utd, seems like they will be fine imo. Got to hand it to the Glazers and their accountants and commercial people.
  • kalel 14 Nov 2012 17:48:30 87,761 posts
    Seen 12 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    No. All credit goes to Fergie. He's been pulling off miracles ever since the Glazers came in. Give the Glazers no credit whatsoever. They are leeches.
  • SuperCoolEskimo 14 Nov 2012 17:50:36 9,845 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    @kalel He has done well but it's not like they've made him sell his best players and given him little to spend.

    Unless you were being sarcastic.

    Edited by SuperCoolEskimo at 17:51:02 14-11-2012
  • kalel 14 Nov 2012 17:52:15 87,761 posts
    Seen 12 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Are you being sarcastic?

    What happened with Ronaldo? And where was the 80m they got from him to spend on players?

    Edited by kalel at 17:52:28 14-11-2012
  • reddevil93 14 Nov 2012 17:54:13 11,777 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    SuperCoolEskimo wrote:
    @kalel He has done well but it's not like they've made him sell his best players and given him little to spend.

    Unless you were being sarcastic.
    Selling the best player in the world and not allowing the funds to be reinvested not count? Don't think any other manager in the world could've kept the club as competitive as it has been with the resources available. Not to say we don't spend quite a lot but in comparison to City and Chelsea(especially the wages), he's doing amazing.

  • reddevil93 14 Nov 2012 17:54:49 11,777 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Well I am slowwww

  • SuperCoolEskimo 14 Nov 2012 17:58:39 9,845 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    /backs slowly out of thread
  • SolidSCB 14 Nov 2012 18:01:28 6,742 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Are you being sarcastic?

    What happened with Ronaldo? And where was the 80m they got from him to spend on players?
    Who needs to spend money when you can get Michael Owen on a free?
  • President_Weasel 14 Nov 2012 19:33:09 9,341 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    President_Weasel wrote:

    Here's a logo with lowercase lettering, that'll be 250,000 quid.
    Heh, this is so what I do for a living.
    I'll give you the i.women thing for a grand; pitch it to 'em - you never know :)
  • mcmonkeyplc 14 Nov 2012 19:49:42 39,458 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Aww I missed the kalel united financial show.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • President_Weasel 14 Nov 2012 19:53:43 9,341 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I am really confused as to who is being sarcastic and who isn't.
    Since the Glazers loaded Man Utd with interest and financial fees on the debt (that the club now has for the privilege of being owned by the Glazers), the club obviously have far less money to spend on players and on wages.

    Every pound that's gone into paying for the debt (not paying off the debt, just paying for its continued existence) is a pound that wasn't available to strengthen the team - and that's a great many pounds.

    By posting the staggeringly obvious here, am I being trolled?
  • oceanmotion 14 Nov 2012 20:05:14 15,958 posts
    Seen 23 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    He bought Ashley Young who is shite and can't even dive well.

    He resigned Scholes who is amazing according to a list.

    Donut stealing man.

    Just one little pea.

    Special needs, The Ring face defender.

    Mr Rape.

    That guy who left a better team to play for a shit one.

    I think the only difference is he won't offer stupid wages which most of the sought after players get unless you are a cunt like Wooney. Also warm in Spain.

    Edited by oceanmotion at 20:06:26 14-11-2012
  • Page

    of 5487 First / Last

Log in or register to reply