Manchester City Forums

This is a discussion forum for Manchester City Football Club fans
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:06 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:33 am 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:08 pm
Posts: 1155
Hard on the heels of a close brush with administration at arch rivals Liverpool FC, Manchester United owners the Glazer family must be viewing the current crisis over prize asset and star striker Wayne Rooney's want away attitude with grave concern.

Nearly £800m of debt means that the £180m of operating profits last year were eaten up by interest and other finance payments leaving a massive overall loss in last years accounts.

So, use of the word "crisis" in the press, on television or even chat on internet forums is the very last thing they need right now.
The more that the word crisis is used the more nervous the financiers behind the Glazers become and the less likely they are to continue to prop up the crumbling empire at Old Trafford.

Please, please as responsible fans, please do not use the word crisis when talking about United on here or elsewhere. It really isn't helpful at all to use the word crisis. Google searches will pick up the use of crisis in relation to Manchester United and this will only serve to fan the flames of any crisis should a crisis in fact exist.

Remember that google seraches are not case sensitive and will pick up crisis used in relation to Manchester United in both lower case as "crisis" or indeed in upper case like this "CRISIS"

They will also find the word crisis even if an unusual font size or style is used as below:
[font="Arial Black"][SIZE="4"]crisis[/SIZE][/font]
[font="Arial Black"][color="black"][SIZE="5"]crisis[/SIZE][/color][/font]
[font="Georgia"][color="black"][SIZE="6"][font="Impact"][color="black"][SIZE="7"]crisis[/SIZE][/color][/font][/SIZE][/color][/font]

To all responsible fans, please heed this warning and do not use the word crisis when talking about Manchester United. This could lead to a crisis at the club which probably isn't really in crisis at all and a crisis at this time of tight credit could cause a genuine financial crisis for Manchester United.

Many thanks.

IHL - responsible fan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:27 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 5:34 pm
Posts: 29213
Location: Limbo
Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color]Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color] Manchester United in [color="DarkRed"]CRISIS[/color]

_________________
"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: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:53 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:50 pm
Posts: 24256
Location: Australia
It's surprising how calm I am.

_________________
KYPU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:03 am 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:48 pm
Posts: 2209
Haha, good work Lung.

_________________
303 power


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:22 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:31 pm
Posts: 11033
Location: Mancunia
i should be doing cartwheels at flicking the v's at any rag i see but i am calm and understanding and sympathetic

it's driving the monkeys wild

_________________
'Fabio, the round thing there is the ball'

Aguero


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:41 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:49 am
Posts: 19610
Location: Kent
Thanks for the head's up IHL, it's time like this you have to remind yourself that we're all fans of FOOTBALL, which must come before any team loyalty.

So just to clarify a few points then, while avoiding the word 'crisis' when talking about Manchester United, can we use words such as catastrophe, collapse, dire straits, disaster, embarrassment, emergency, predicament, quandary, trauma, trouble, calamity, cataclysm, debacle, devastation, disaster, failure, fatality, fiasco, hardship, havoc, meltdown, misery, misfortune, tragedy, or are they also words they would not like to be associated with over the internet?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:10 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:48 pm
Posts: 2209
South East Citizen wrote:
Thanks for the head's up IHL, it's time like this you have to remind yourself that we're all fans of FOOTBALL, which must come before any team loyalty.

So just to clarify a few points then, while avoiding the word 'crisis' when talking about Manchester United, can we use words such as catastrophe, collapse, dire straits, disaster, embarrassment, emergency, predicament, quandary, trauma, trouble, calamity, cataclysm, debacle, devastation, disaster, failure, fatality, fiasco, hardship, havoc, meltdown, misery, misfortune, tragedy, or are they also words they would not like to be associated with over the internet?


Nicely alphabetical but I think you missed panic. I hope quoting you doesn't have any knock on effects.

_________________
303 power


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:24 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:49 am
Posts: 19610
Location: Kent
Markered Man wrote:
Nicely alphabetical but I think you missed panic. I hope quoting you doesn't have any knock on effects.


You're right. I also missed out 'fire sale' when refering to Manchester United too :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:39 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 5:34 pm
Posts: 29213
Location: Limbo
South East Citizen wrote:
Thanks for the head's up IHL, it's time like this you have to remind yourself that we're all fans of FOOTBALL, which must come before any team loyalty.

So just to clarify a few points then, while avoiding the word 'crisis' when talking about Manchester United, can we use words such as catastrophe, collapse, dire straits, disaster, embarrassment, emergency, predicament, quandary, trauma, trouble, calamity, cataclysm, debacle, devastation, disaster, failure, fatality, fiasco, hardship, havoc, meltdown, misery, misfortune, tragedy, or are they also words they would not like to be associated with over the internet?


Markered Man wrote:
Nicely alphabetical but I think you missed panic. I hope quoting you doesn't have any knock on effects.


South East Citizen wrote:
You're right. I also missed out 'fire sale' when refering to Manchester United too :(


and "fucked"

_________________
"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 Oct 20, 2010 6:29 am 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:08 pm
Posts: 1155
Oh dear! It's happening already! :eek:

English football should have heeded Lord Triesman's debt warning
Financial trouble at Liverpool and Manchester United might have been avoided if the former FA chairman had not been ignored

Lord Triesman was characterised as a dolt after warning that clubs were spending beyond their means. Photograph: Paul Childs/Action Images
The shredding of Liverpool's dignity and [color="Red"]Manchester United's sense of looming crisis[/color] both arrived almost exactly two years since Lord Triesman, the now-deposed Football Association chairman, delivered his famously rejected warning about high levels of debt in English football.

In October 2008, the Premier League's chief executive Richard Scudamore dismissed the analysis as naive and ill-informed. The debts of the clubs in the world's richest and most popular league were sustainable, Scudamore said, because they added up to the same, around £2.5bn, as their overall income. "Debt to a degree is healthy," Scudamore said. "What is important is that the level of indebtedness has got to be in proportion to your income."

Given the dragging of Liverpool through courts in London and in Dallas before last Friday's takeover by John W Henry II – who paid Tom Hicks's and George Gillett's £200m "acquisition debt" back to the Royal Bank of Scotland, the £769m debts loaded on to Manchester United by the Glazer family's takeover, last season's insolvent wreckage at Portsmouth and the 2009 bankruptcy of West Ham's then owner and former Icelandic "billionaire" Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson, it is instructive to revisit Triesman's analysis.

"There is one certain fact about debt," he said. "It has to be repaid [which mainly it is not] or re-financed. The debt mountains are owned, and therefore the clubs are owned, by either financial institutions some of which are in terrible health, or very rich owners who are not bound to stay, or not very rich owners who are also not bound to stay. As we all know today and far too painfully, finance institutions have finally become highly risk aware … I tell you, I think this poses very tangible dangers."

Calling on the professional game to work with the FA and introduce regulations to protect the game financially, Triesman said the leagues and FA should be: "Partners in a spirit of common purpose."

What happened instead was the vilification of Triesman, which continued until he was ultimately forced to resign after the Mail on Sunday reproduced extracts of a taped private conversation Triesman had with a friend, Melissa Jacobs.

The Premier League said Triesman had made his speech without warning or consultation, which was his most grievous offence. Triesman said he had consistently tried to raise financial issues since early August 2008, and to begin a joint approach, but the Premier League told him it was none of the FA's business and it would regulate its own financial affairs.

In the aftermath, Triesman was characterised as a dolt who did not understand finance, who could not read a balance sheet. In fact the then FA chairman was, and still is, a visiting professor of economics at Cambridge University, had been a government spokesman in the House of Lords for the Department of Trade and Industry, and had conducted his own investments successfully since the 70s. He may have underestimated the lethal nature of English football's power politics, but he could read a balance sheet. He did have a clue that there was a global economic meltdown coming and the top clubs were more vulnerable than they were prepared to believe.

Six days later, 13 October 2008, with the football media backlash against Triesman gaining momentum, the government announced it was injecting £20bn and taking a 58% stake in Royal Bank of Scotland. Alistair Darling, the chancellor at the time, revealed later that a senior RBS executive had called him and said the bank was two hours from collapse. That experience, Darling said, made him realise: "Even something that looks extremely strong and secure can be extremely fragile."

RBS had made many graver misjudgments than lending Hicks and Gillett the £185m to buy Liverpool in February 2007, repayable in 12 months. But that loan, to fund the needless takeover of a healthy sporting institution 115 years old and so loyally supported, encapsulates something of the banks' irresponsibility, as well as the destructiveness of the leveraged buy-out.

Liverpool's crisis this month was precipitated by RBS, now 84% owned by the taxpaying public, deciding it wanted its £200m back, as Triesman warned banks would. The club's chairman, Martin Broughton, beamed last Friday that Henry's paying of Hicks's and Gillett's "leverage" will transform Liverpool financially, because the club is suddenly almost debt free and not paying £30m interest a year. In effect, a new US owner, who may be well intentioned – not in it to make money for himself, as he claimed at the weekend – but who knows nothing of football, now owns Liverpool because he has put them back to where they should have been had the former chairman David Moores never pocketed £90m of Hicks's and Gillett's borrowed money by selling the club to them.

Throughout the determined campaign which Liverpool supporters ran against the pair, they were stunned by the silence from the Premier League and FA. "The authorities were nowhere," laments James McKenna of the Spirit of Shankly fans' group. "The frightening thing is: this can happen again. There are still no rules to stop somebody borrowing money to buy a club, then making the club pay those borrowings."

The Premier League can point to new rules introduced since Scudamore responded to Triesman by claiming clubs were managing their debts "responsibly". Clubs must now show they can pay their way for a full season, and new owners like Henry must show the league their business plans and source of funds. Most Premier League clubs, besides United, are financially supported by owners, not drained by them, and Uefa's financial fair-play rules, beginning next season, are designed to ensure they live within their means.

"We have taken financial regulation and governance to a place few would have imagined possible even a few years back," a Premier League spokesman said. "The regulations, which the clubs have bought into and willingly submit to, create a framework that encourages responsible and sustainable financial management."

However, there are still no rules to prohibit leveraged buyouts, and nobody in football will say a word about it, even as Broughton was punching the air because Liverpool were liberated from theirs. Manchester United have paid £487m bank interest, charges and fees – around the cost of building the 2012 Olympic stadium – to service the Glazers' 2005 takeover. Despite that, the total owed has grown to that eye-watering £769m.

When United released their accounts for 2009-10, amid the assurances that the debts are not hampering investment – whatever Wayne Rooney's reported grumbles – a telling detail got a little lost. It was that £41m, much more than United spent on players, went out on an interest-rate hedging arrangement. It had to be repaid in full, in cash, when the Glazers refinanced and borrowed £500m via a bond in January.

Throughout all this, from the FA, and its acting chairman Roger Burden, there has been not a peep. Triesman's experience had not led to an emboldened FA. Instead, seeing the fury which broke over him afterwards, the lesson has been that no good will come of warning about "very tangible dangers", and that the financial damage visited on England's greatest clubs is not, after all, any of the governing body's business.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2010/oct/20/english-football-lord-triesman-debt-warning


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:31 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:08 pm
Posts: 1155
The Red Knights group of potential investors believe Wayne Rooney's sale would lower Manchester United's valuation below £1billion and should put pressure on the Glazer family to consider a sale.

The group declared, earlier this year, they would be prepared to pay up to £1billion to buy the Premier League giants but the owners were 'not interested in selling'.

Following manager Sir Alex Ferguson'sremarks that Rooney wants to leave, one Red Knight has told Sky Sports News HD that the group is "happy to watch and let the price come our way" and news of Rooney's possible departure "simply adds to our belief that the value of Manchester United is less than £1billion."

The Red Knight added that the value of Manchester United, without Rooney, could be closer to the £790m the Glazer family paid in May 2005.

The group will not make a further bid to buy Manchester United, unless the Glazers are open to bidders, but they believe Rooney's departure should put pressure on the owners to at least consider any offer to buy the club.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6456729,00.html

Image
"Think they're ready to sell yet?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:33 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 12:41 pm
Posts: 13025
Red Knights.:D

makes me laugh everytime.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:56 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:50 pm
Posts: 24256
Location: Australia
Mancini seems fairly sure he doesn't want him.

Mourinho on the other hand, sounds rather interested.

_________________
KYPU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:02 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:48 pm
Posts: 1926
Location: Dublin
:whistle:A Carlsberg kind of a week so far....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcxYwwIL5zQ&feature=related


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:27 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:16 am
Posts: 567
Location: rovers return
now someone after that tart from kebab shop, will the last one out shut that door.what a time to know a rag
http://www.talksport.co.uk/sports-news/football/premier-league/transfer-rumours/1932/7/manchester-united-bracing-themselves-nani-offers

_________________
do we know our way to wembley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFPRj8jFy3Y


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:35 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:50 pm
Posts: 24256
Location: Australia
interminan wrote:
now someone after that tart from kebab shop, will the last one out shut that door.what a time to know a rag
http://www.talksport.co.uk/sports-news/football/premier-league/transfer-rumours/1932/7/manchester-united-bracing-themselves-nani-offers


Now why the fuck would Sneijder come to united. Actually, why would anyone except outright youngsters or those soon to retire go to united. It was always a matter of time, and we are now witnessing it. The fall of Munchen. We shall enjoy.

_________________
KYPU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:55 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 5:34 pm
Posts: 29213
Location: Limbo
"sit by the river long enough, and the body of your enemy shall come floating by"

_________________
"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 Oct 20, 2010 5:23 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:50 pm
Posts: 24256
Location: Australia
Wouldn't anything less than a win tonight be the icing on the cake?

_________________
KYPU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:42 pm 
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:
Mancini seems fairly sure he doesn't want him.

Mourinho on the other hand, sounds rather interested.


He said nothing of the sort.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:47 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:00 pm
Posts: 185
Location: 1977
Squidge wrote:
He said nothing of the sort.


IIRC, he said 'he's not my problem. I have enough problems with my players'.

He always seems to find the words to make you feel secure that he's completely in control. :rolleyes:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group