Manchester City Forums

This is a discussion forum for Manchester City Football Club fans
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:10 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:25 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:50 pm
Posts: 24256
Location: Australia
Agree with Bastard on this one. They may only have bought one player in the transfer window and they're likely to finish above us. Annoyingly.

Our time will come, and it will be sweet, but until then I'll be piping down.

Also Bastard, it wasn't 'pretty much'. It was most definitely wiped the smile off our faces in all 4.

_________________
KYPU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:54 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 7:03 pm
Posts: 17358
Location: The Hearts and Minds of Millions
Danny's Studs wrote:
Agree with Bastard on this one. They may only have bought one player in the transfer window and they're likely to finish above us. Annoyingly.

Our time will come, and it will be sweet, but until then I'll be piping down.

Also Bastard, it wasn't 'pretty much'. It was most definitely wiped the smile off our faces in all 4.


Even the one we won?

_________________
A double-bed and a stalwart lover, for sure
These are the riches of the poor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:42 am 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:08 pm
Posts: 1155
Fuck off Bastard and fuck off Danny, since when did rationality or fairness or logic ever stand in the way of a football fan?

I don't give a shit what their record is this year, last year or the last fucking hundred years. Even if I only have the colour of the shirt to back my arguement up with I'm never going to concede that the Munichs are better than us.

Fucking plastics!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:53 am 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:08 pm
Posts: 1155
Squidge wrote:
Even the one we won?



Ring-a-ding!
That's a ZING!
:D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:34 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 5:34 pm
Posts: 29213
Location: Limbo
I Heart Lung wrote:
Fuck off Bastard and fuck off Danny, since when did rationality or fairness or logic ever stand in the way of a football fan?

I don't give a shit what their record is this year, last year or the last fucking hundred years. Even if I only have the colour of the shirt to back my arguement up with I'm never going to concede that the Munichs are better than us.

Fucking plastics!


that, and i'll take what i can.

_________________
"It felt like a really pointless version of ketamine: no psychedelic effects, no pleasant slide into rubbery nonsense, just a sudden drop off the cliff of wrongness."
"i'm gonna wreck you so bad we're going to have to change church"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:20 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 12:51 pm
Posts: 14495
Location: Heaven
Danny and Bastard are munich lovers.

_________________
And put on that wig I bought you. No, no, no, no. The reddish-brown one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:27 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:08 pm
Posts: 1155
Bastard's lips are superglued to Taggert's poo shute.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:47 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:08 pm
Posts: 1155
Danny's helmet smells of Rooney fudge.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:51 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:36 pm
Posts: 15892
Location: Swimming with Len Fairclough
:cool:

_________________
I raped myself once. My mind was telling me no but my body, my body was telling me yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:21 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 5:34 pm
Posts: 29213
Location: Limbo
lols

Liverpool deal cast into doubt by possibility of administration• Prospective US owner may walk away
• Chief executive asks Hicks and Gillett to allow sale
Tweet this Owen Gibson guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 October 2010 21.04 BST
Liverpool's future is in doubt over a prospective change of ownership. Photograph: Paul Ellis/AFP/Getty Images
Liverpool's future was thrust into further uncertainty tonight as their prospective new owner said it would walk away if the club is forced into administration by the Royal Bank of Scotland and docked nine points by the Premier League.

New England Sports Ventures, which last week had a £300m deal provisionally accepted by the Liverpool chairman, Martin Broughton, is understood to be seriously concerned at the extent to which the ground has shifted beneath its feet.

Sources close to the negotiations indicated that the position of John W Henry and the rest of the NESV board has hardened further since yesterday, when the Guardian revealed that they may walk away. The news will dismay Liverpool fans, who hoped the ownership of Tom Hicks and George Gillett was nearing an end. RBS is seriously considering administration if a £237m loan to the club is not refinanced by Friday, after its legal advisers warned it could leave itself open to a challenge if it does not do so.

This week's high court case, in which Broughton will attempt to force through the sale against the wishes of Hicks and Gillett, is crucial. If the court sanctions the sale it will leave Hicks and Gillett with a £144m loss and the sale to NESV will proceed. But if Hicks appeals, as he is almost certain to do, it could extend the legal wrangle beyond 15 October and leave RBS in a difficult position.

NESV, which has vowed not to make any further comment until the legal wrangle is settled, is also believed to be unsettled by the fact that an unnamed Asian investor remains in the background, but it hopes that the court case and any appeal can be heard before Friday.

Liverpool's managing director, Christian Purslow, today appealed again for Hicks and Gillett to walk away. "Right now, they do have an opportunity … to allow a sale to complete and that would clear the club of all the acquisition debt and give us a massive lift before [Sunday's] Everton game," he told the BBC. "That's in their gift and [it] would enable them to leave with some peace rather than precipitating a messy dispute. I hope they'll think about that."

_________________
"It felt like a really pointless version of ketamine: no psychedelic effects, no pleasant slide into rubbery nonsense, just a sudden drop off the cliff of wrongness."
"i'm gonna wreck you so bad we're going to have to change church"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:56 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 5:34 pm
Posts: 29213
Location: Limbo
Manchester United fans want answers as Glazers prepare to pay off debt• Glazers find £220m to pay off off punitive 16.25% debt
• Supporters groups want to know how owners found funds

Tweet this Owen Gibson and Daniel Taylor guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 November 2010 22.35 GMT Article history
The Glazer family have declared their intention to clear the £220m debt accruing at 16.25% interest . Photograph: Jason Cairnduff/Action Images
Manchester United supporters' groups tonight challenged the club's American owners to clear up the mystery surrounding a deal to pay off the high-interest hedge-fund debt they have long feared could cripple United's finances.

As the club confirmed that no money had been taken from its coffers to clear the £220m debt, which was accruing interest at an eye-watering 16.25%, analysts speculated that the Glazers may have simply refinanced it at a more beneficial interest rate. But the chief executive, David Gill, again insisted that the PIK loan was not a matter for the club and claimed he did not know how they were financing its repayment. He was effusive in his praise for the Glazers' approach and risked enraging fans further by saying they had run the club in the best traditions of Sir Matt Busby.

Announcing results for the three months to the end of September, as they are obliged to do under the terms of the controversial £526m bond offer that sparked a huge wave of anti-Glazer protest in January, the club said: "The board can confirm that there has been no dividend of club cash."

On a conference call to investors, the chief of staff, Ed Woodward, later went further and promised that the Glazers would not be taking a one-off dividend of up to £127m, as they are permitted to do under the terms of the bond, from the club's accounts in the coming quarter either. "There are no plans make a payment relating to what you may or not be reading in the press," he said.

Gill told the US-based satellite radio station SiriusXM that the issue of a mandatory call notice signalling the Glazers intention to pay back the loans in full next Monday proved his long-held contention that they were nothing to do with the club. "I have been saying for years that they were nothing to do with the club and they weren't," he said. "They were accruing interest at roughly 16.25% so they're being paid down and the only thing I know is that they are not using any of the club cash. We've got over £100m in the bank and they are not using any of the club cash to pay that down so that's all I can say really."

The Manchester United Supporters Trust, MUST, believe it was pressure from the fans that stopped the Glazers taking the money out of the club in one-off dividends and charges to pay down the PIKs, as they were entitled to do under the terms of the bond offer. But as recently as last week, it is believed that the Glazers sought permission from the PIK holders to take £50m from the club's cashflow to buy back that amount of the bond, before their strategy changed and they found a means to clear the PIK debt instead.

It remained unclear tonight where the Glazers had found the money to clear the loans which, had the interest been allowed to continue to "roll over" until they matured in 2017, would have stood at more than £600m – on top of the £526m bond secured on the club itself.

The results showed overall quarterly losses had narrowed compared to the same period last year from £7.7m to £4.9m.

MUST, the group behind the green and gold protests and allied to the group of wealthy investors known as the Red Knights whose takeover bid is lying dormant, challenged the Glazers to explain themselves publicly. A statement said: "Now is the time for the Glazers to finally come clean and tell the truth about what is going on at Manchester United and what their plans are. What have they got to hide? No more secrecy. No more spin. Just tell the fans the truth." MUST's chief executive, Duncan Drasdo, said he hoped the move would embolden fans, believing that their campaign had stopped the Glazers taking the money out of the club and forcing them to find an alternative.

The amount of money the club has sitting in the bank is marginally down on the figure reported in their year-end accounts, which made headlines with a record £79.6m operating loss due to interest payments and one-off charges relating to the bond issue.

Gill backed the club's owners, praising the way in which they have increased commercial revenues – up 24% year on year according to the results – and the flat structure. He said: "The decision making is really quick. It's one phone call and then they say 'yes' so that's all positive but the other side is that when they looked at the club before they bought it, they felt that, though we'd achieved quite a lot from a commercial perspective, there was more to go for and with how the sport was organised those opportunities were there if it was well-organised and well-structured. And they've delivered."

He said that while there was money available for players, United's philosophy had always been to buy young talent and develop it. Fans have claimed that the squad has been starved of funds due to the onerous interest payments and one off charges the club has had to bear, but Gill and Ferguson have continued to insist there is money available.

Gill said: "What Manchester United has been about ever since the 1950s when Sir Matt Busby was there was encouraging youth players, investing in the youth players and that's always been part of how we've structured it. We've never tended to buy world-class players, we've made them into world-class players through Alex Ferguson and his coaches and playing in a great team.."

_________________
"It felt like a really pointless version of ketamine: no psychedelic effects, no pleasant slide into rubbery nonsense, just a sudden drop off the cliff of wrongness."
"i'm gonna wreck you so bad we're going to have to change church"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:30 am 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 4161
Location: God's own county
Fuck me. Those Munich c*nts are unhappy when there is debt, and unhappy when the ginger pixies pay a lump of it off. C*nts.

_________________
Joeyyyyyyyyyyyyyy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:14 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 5:34 pm
Posts: 29213
Location: Limbo
ha!

Cost of Glazers' takeover at Manchester United reaches £500mDespite seven years of success under the Glazers' rule, United have leaked half a billion to service the debt-laden ownership


Share 176 reddit this Comments (293)

Manchester United's American owners, the Glazer family, have been responsible for £500m going out of the club. Photograph: Martin Rickett/PA
For most normal souls outrage can only last so long, and at Manchester United, supporters' fury at the Glazer family's pillage of their club has been tempered by titles won, the glories of Wayne Rooney, Nani and the rest in full flow, as well as the passage of nearly seven years. The Glazers have sat across the Atlantic, not communicating with the club's fans, and ridden it out until battle weariness has consigned green and gold to the fringes. The release of impassive accounts for "MU Finance plc" has become a quarterly ritual, with the world pointed to the growth in the club's income, from TV deals which would have increased anyway, and commercial operations the Glazers have required to be sweated until the brand squeaks.

Yet the latest figures, covering the Glazers' financial machinations with United for the final three months of 2011, document a landmark. From October to December 2011, the cost of the Glazers' "leveraged buyout" of United, when they loaded their own £525m borrowings on to the club itself to repay, was £17.5m. The club paid £12.2m in interest and other financing charges, and £5.3m paying off some actual debt, which nevertheless remains over £400m. As documented with forensic anger by Andy Green in his "Love United, Hate Glazer" Andersred blog, the total drained out of United in interest, bank charges and other payments before these latest figures was £480m. So the total cash taken out of United, to pay for a takeover the fans and then board did not want, was £497.5m by 31 December. In round figures, and anyway now, with two months further interest from December, the Glazer family have been responsible for £500m going out of United.

Most United supporters know this and have never become reconciled to the damage done, only, slowly, to the frustration that there is nothing they can do about it. The Premier League, Football Association and government, after unrolling the red carpet for the Glazers in 2005, have ever since been silent.

There are a few contrary voices in support of the Glazers' record, so the tedious argument does have to be joined with the fact that United have continued to be successful under their rule, winning four Premier League titles since 2005 and one Champions League, in 2008. The three most straightforward answers to that are: United, who were hugely rich, had no debt, a great manager and squad of top players when the Glazers arrived, might have been even more successful, perhaps dominated in Europe as well as the Premier League, had £500m dead money not gone to bankers since.

Secondly, it is arguable that the Glazers' shrewdest move has been effectively to leave Old Trafford well alone, knowing that in Sir Alex Ferguson and David Gill, they had the partnership to maintain success, even given so much less money to play with.

Third, give the Glazers as much credit as you like, decide the playing success really is somehow all due to their absentee and debt-laden ownership, yet still no argument can be advanced for how leaking half a billion pounds out of the club, still to barely chip into the originally imposed debt, has been good for United.

The US owners of two of England's other biggest clubs, Arsenal and Liverpool, both motivated financially by the Premier League's global TV and commercial income, fly in this week. Stan Kroenke will contemplate the crumbling of quality at Arsenal and departure of several top players during his ownership, while ticket prices for fans were increased. John Henry will arrive for a Wembley final after a deeply ignominious episode in the club's history, the Luis Suárez affair, the leadership at Liverpool furiously criticised by a coalition of anti-racism groups.

Henry has always expressed puzzlement with United fans' objections to the Glazers' debt-loading, given United's success. Kroenke, who paid Arsenal's selling English shareholders millions personally but has committed to not putting a cent into the club itself, in his only public address to date, memorably went out of his way to express admiration for what the Glazers have done. MU Finance plc is where those deeds are recorded, and even after so long, the running total should always be observed.

_________________
"It felt like a really pointless version of ketamine: no psychedelic effects, no pleasant slide into rubbery nonsense, just a sudden drop off the cliff of wrongness."
"i'm gonna wreck you so bad we're going to have to change church"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:21 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:36 pm
Posts: 11867
Location: Rural Berks.
So they leveraged £525m on a debt free club to buy it, £500m has gone out in charges and the debt is still £400m ish?

Keep up the good work :clap:

_________________
tbf.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:26 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 5:34 pm
Posts: 29213
Location: Limbo
fucking brilliant isn't it?

_________________
"It felt like a really pointless version of ketamine: no psychedelic effects, no pleasant slide into rubbery nonsense, just a sudden drop off the cliff of wrongness."
"i'm gonna wreck you so bad we're going to have to change church"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:28 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:36 pm
Posts: 11867
Location: Rural Berks.
Thats almost £72m per annum, it would be glorious if that counted in the FFPR calculations.

Strangely though it doesn't :think:

_________________
tbf.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:32 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:49 am
Posts: 19610
Location: Kent
Speaking of bad business, I see Felipe is banging them in for Locomotiv Moscow. €7.5m potentially rising to €10 they paid for him and that could well be a bagain. I really hope we don't do something similarly stupid with Guidetti.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:49 am
Posts: 19610
Location: Kent
:text-offtopic: should really have squeezed this in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:42 am 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 12:56 pm
Posts: 4183
Location: Barcelona
So if my jet lagged brain has this right.

They bought the club with debt.

Pay the debt off bit by bit using the club.

Spend nothing on the squad and sign Scholes and giggs up for another 5 years.

Then sell the club for profit? Clever accounting.

Love it, happy days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:27 am 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:59 am
Posts: 2039
Location: Penzance, Cornwall
Surely anybody could have bought it then? lol. I guess the bank would want certain levels of assets to back up the loans (but surely that's the club?)

Its better for us if the Glazers own United and keep ruining it tbh.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group