Hopefully another moment of clarity for the doomlords

Originally Posted by borsuk

before: we could pay dividends but did not have to; we had no debt. this was bad.
now: we must pay interest - we have no choice; we have debt. this is good.

fantastic. a clear improvement in anyone's books.

This bit of succinct factual info is as undeniable as ronaldo is currently unplayable and completely destroys any argument in favor of the glazers and/or the takeover.

Originally Posted by borsuk

USING CAPITALS DOES NOT TRANSFORM %@#$&!S INTO SENSE, unfortunately......

YES YOU ARE
IT'S BEEN VERY PLAIN FROM THE BEGINNING. I STILL THINK IT'S %@#$&!S.

borsuk why are you using huge letters?

calm down.

Originally Posted by violater

borsuk why are you using huge letters?

calm down.

ask armchair. he seemed to get it.

Originally Posted by tim887

This thread contains details of the interest payments, dividends and taxation figures you requested. Please could you now prove to the stupid amongst us that they are not 'wildly different' as you have repeatedly stated. I'm going for my lunch and will be back in an hour. Hopefully that will give you long enough to invent a new branch of mathematics.

Still waiting.......


Have you noticed how whenever he gets proved wrong or backed into a corner, he simply starts arguing with someone else?

Originally Posted by borsuk

[SIZE="7"]YES YOU ARE
[SIZE="7"]IT'S BEEN VERY PLAIN FROM THE BEGINNING. I STILL THINK IT'S %@#$&!S.

Originally Posted by violater

borsuk why are you using huge letters?

calm down.

No idea where this thread has gone, but it was worth starting it just for this exchange.

Priceless. You should team up

£#%&! off with the soapbox - I'm not interested unless you say something funny like "history will judge me."

It's a forum not the nuremberg trials.

You're full of shit. I ripped you apart on #86 totally and utterly. You carried on with more lunacy at #156 for which I pulled you up on #160. You're banging on about Trebles and trophies and great squads and all that other bullshit; saying we were shit in the Youth Cup and all the rest of it.

You're the single most horribly vainglorious poster on the forum. That's fine and dandy; you argue the toss about the finances all you like, or anything else for that matter. Almost everytime you talk about football you show yourself up anyway, so your best off talking about the world you apparently come from. Why you think you're arguing about that world (of finance) with me on this thread is just something in your little head, though.

the word vainglorious and my dictionary says it's a word used to describe the sort of person who says I totally kicked your arse in post #86.

Get yourself a new one then. And don't forget post #160 as well.

Falling for what? I'm just setting the record straight for any late-comers

This is two threads in one. I imagine quite a few threads celebrating any kind of joy Manchester United's footballers (the entire squad) bring will be hijacked in much the same way between now and the end of the season.



[SIZE="4"]***The End***

is that you are an idiot.

I guess I am an idiot for entertaining you.

however....

you said that you believed gill when he said interest was no more punishing than the dividends and tax paid previously. whether we make 100mio this year is irrelevant. all that is relevant is that you have the historical dividend and tax payments stated earlier in the thread. and those figures are not in the same league as the interest (at that time). and that's even after taking into account that gill was only talking about the jpm debt and that was before the restructuring which significantly increased that debt. united has to service all of the debt (even the debt not on its balance sheet). and, of course, it still has to pay tax and dividends. so not only was the point you (and gill) were making factually incorrect, it was also based on a totally misleading premise.

no one is saying the debt is unsustainable, although it is potentially unsustainable. we can argue about the probabilities (using reasonably certain figures). however, what is unarguable is that the debt itself is utterly pointless (as far as the club is concerned). whether or not it can be serviced, all of the interest and all of the principal would otherwise have been going to invest in players and facilities or keeping prices affordable or... yes, even some dividends and tax. even if you think the club can keep its head above water, the simple point you seem to be missing is that the debt is weighing the club down. for nothing. all that is being is said is that the debt is large enough to represent a risk and it was a risk we didn't need to take.

and, whilst the club has not collapsed and we are, in fact, top of the league and in two semis, you don't have to be able to see very far past the end of your nose to see that the squad is already thin and we will lose a large number of players to age (scholes, giggs, ole, neville g, vds) in the near future. this is the last hurrah (er... maybe), but what comes next?

the figures do not change on a weekly basis. I can't be arsed right now, but I will c&p the breakdown of debt post-acquisition, with interest rates and total interest payable. and the restructuring. and you will see what figures gill was referring to, which represented only a small part of the picture. less charitable souls would suggest he was being disingenuous. whatever, he was £#%&!ing wrong as well. and you'll see where the figures for total debt come from (although we don't know how much debt to add for financing the initial 29% stake, but it would be foolish to assume commerzbank didn't lend glazer any money). if you want to quibble with the figures, which have all been reported in reputable journals, the onus is on you to provide a verifiable alternative. if I have to choose between the ft quoting sources close to the glazers or the times quoting glazer's business plan (or a couple of 60-page documents that were actually handed out by the glazers) or... um.... you..... well, let's just say wummy student monkey will lose out in the credibility stakes.

anyway, instead of bleating on about whether anyone can confirm a figure of 42mio or 62mio for interest (the difference, incidentally, is interest rolling up on the piks), maybe you would like to focus on the fact that you're supposed to be proving the interest is only about 12-15mio.

Originally Posted by jem

however, what is unarguable is that the debt itself is utterly pointless (as far as the club is concerned). whether or not it can be serviced, all of the interest and all of the principal would otherwise have been going to invest in players and facilities or keeping prices affordable or... yes, even some dividends and tax. even if you think the club can keep its head above water, the simple point you seem to be missing is that the debt is weighing the club down. for nothing. .

That being the key issue.

If it's not bad enough that our club was seen as mere chattel in an opportunity for the Glazer family to get richer, it's the fact that they couldn't £#%&!ing afford us.

Five year contract at (probably) 120-130k a week?

Excellent management of the situation by Ferguson since last summer?

A bad week for the doom manifesto.

Great news, and a great week, for all of us.



We are, as I keep saying, all in this together.



It doesn't greatly change the odds on short-term gain giving way to long-term pain. But short-term gain is not to be sniffed at. Here's to it.

Originally Posted by celtbion

Five year contract at (probably) 120-130k a week?

Excellent management of the situation by Ferguson since last summer?

A bad week for the doom manifesto.

all the best players are leaving will be sold off one by one as illustrated in todays events.

first rooney signs a new contract now ronaldo.

hold on a minute

Originally Posted by Tropical

Great news, and a great week, for all of us.



We are, as I keep saying, all in this together.



It doesn't greatly change the odds on short-term gain giving way to long-term pain. But short-term gain is not to be sniffed at. Here's to it.

But more important than your pleas for unity and camaraderie is that the evidence thus far suggests you're wrong.

Na-nah-na-na-nah!

Seriously though, signing on Ronaldo is a good sign. Just because it's a shrewd move in the medium term. It helps me have a little more faith that the owners know what they're doing and aren't as pressed for cash in the short term as we might have feared.

Originally Posted by celtbion

But more important than your pleas for unity and camaraderie is that the evidence thus far suggests you're wrong.

Na-nah-na-na-nah!

the evidence never stops suggesting that.



As for unity and camaraderie, they have no bearing on the fact that we're all in the same boat. Only on how we conduct ourselves while we're in it.

Originally Posted by violater

all the best players are leaving will be sold off one by one as illustrated in todays events.

first rooney signs a new contract now ronaldo.

hold on a minute

gosh. does signing a new contract mean you can't be sold. or does it, in fact, just increase your value?

tell me about how we're going to sign hargreaves in the summer again.

bttt


(ignore the kids bickering for attention; concentrate on the thread - it's about our high quality squad)