The Glazer Reign Is Crumbling

Originally Posted by Drexl

They are already wealthy

united would be fun to own

look at you lot making their minds up for them

In what way?

Originally Posted by Drexl

Even then it wouldn't affect united

small minded multi loggon fred #@&%!heads (not you 92ers)

spend more time with your children lads

Don't get defensive

Same as Ineos, the club will be used as a piggy bank to service their debts to some extent at least. We've got 18 years experience of how these @#%&!s operate ffs. Suggesting anything else is pure delusion.

Originally Posted by dunk

I know, but United is their biggest asset. They’ve not been able to load the Buccs with debt have they?



I didn’t say they were under threat. Just that they’d have other debt secured against United.

If they have and they sell United would they have to them settle any debts where United were the asset they’d secured against or could they just move it to the Buccs, for instance?

This site claims Bucs worth $3.6 Billion
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...rs%20in%201995.

NFL has a debt ceiling of $600 million but I would suspect that debt can only be applied to the Bucs.

Jesus, Drexlers really went on a windmilling session last night.

Who knew company financials could be that triggering?

Originally Posted by shenwen

Jesus, Drexlers really went on a windmilling session last night.

Who knew company financials could be that triggering?

Having been on the receiving end of a windmilling for something I felt was 100% uncontroversial, I do feel for dunk and the other dads out there waking up this morning to this carnage.

The thing that’s so unnerving is not having a clue what the trigger points are. It’s forum landline territory.

And I still don’t really follow drexlers point but there’s absolutely no way I’m going to try and ask for clarification.

Be safe out there….

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

Having been on the receiving end of a windmilling for something I felt was 100% uncontroversial, I do feel for dunk and the other dads out there waking up this morning to this carnage.

The thing that’s so unnerving is not having a clue what the trigger points are. It’s forum landline territory.

And I still don’t really follow drexlers point but there’s absolutely no way I’m going to try and ask for clarification.

Be safe out there….

Forum landline territory eh?

Can see a massive BT v Vigin media debate coming, could be bigger than barm v bap

They will sell. If they stay the protests will get even bigger. They need to spend a lot of money, the offers they will get will be to good to turn down.

Originally Posted by no fun

Forum landline territory eh?

Can see a massive BT v Vigin media debate coming, could be bigger than barm v bap

In a traffic jam pal.

Originally Posted by MUFC One Love

They will sell. If they stay the protests will get even bigger. They need to spend a lot of money, the offers they will get will be to good to turn down.

Originally Posted by Drexl

They own the company you fool

the shares they sold have no voting rights

There was literally nobody to oppose them

yeah let's not (have a clue what we are talking about)

You still need to vote to take out dividends and minute the 'meeting' when taking dividends out whether you have controlling rights or not. Same applies to 'small' businesses with only one or two shareholders.

Originally Posted by Wayne Jenkins

Don't get defensive

Same as Ineos, the club will be used as a piggy bank to service their debts to some extent at least. We've got 18 years experience of how these @#%&!s operate ffs. Suggesting anything else is pure delusion.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

Having been on the receiving end of a windmilling for something I felt was 100% uncontroversial, I do feel for dunk and the other dads out there waking up this morning to this carnage.

The thing that’s so unnerving is not having a clue what the trigger points are. It’s forum landline territory.

And I still don’t really follow drexlers point but there’s absolutely no way I’m going to try and ask for clarification.

Be safe out there….

Called me a fool for pointing out a simple fact

Yeah don't know wtf the point is that he's trying to make. Seems to be on some kind of crusade to keep the Glazer bros in situ which is baffling considering the evidence of the last 18 years.

Did the Chelsea takeover go quiet like this? Maybe I'm misremembering but wasn't it concluded quite quickly?

In summary:

do I want the glazers to stay? No. But I don't want a gas-rich buyout either. And neither do the majority of you it seems

The glazers seem to have learned from their woodard mistakes (he was THE biggest factor in our decline over the past years imo, and should be sued for gross incompetence, again imo)

(Devils advocate) Is the glazers staying the lesser of two weevils? Possibly. Probably. Erik is doing very well under their ownership. But I still want them gone, but only for the right owner. I don't want united to be the plaything of an egotistical playstation tinkering owner. I simply want erik to be supported.

Finally: dividend payments are fundamentally a balance sheet issue and not a cash issue. soz (even though it affects cashflow eventually)

Anyhoo, apologies if I windmilled u specifically. I'll do you all a favour and quit this thread

Peace out brothers xx

Originally Posted by Drexl

Finally: dividend payments are fundamentally a balance sheet issue and not a cash issue. soz (even though it affects cashflow eventually)

if, by eventually, you mean immediately, I agree.

and if, by a balance sheet issue, you mean p&l and cash flow.

Originally Posted by Long tongue phooey

Did the Chelsea takeover go quiet like this? Maybe I'm misremembering but wasn't it concluded quite quickly?

Wasn't that due to the war and his assets being frozen...

Originally Posted by jem

if, by eventually, you mean immediately, I agree.

and if, by a balance sheet issue, you mean p&l and cash flow.

well, no. that's not right

it's the same as when we buy a player for 80 million

our bank account doesn't go down by 80 mil that same day

it's added as a figure on the balance sheet, then bled into the p&l over time

simple really

Originally Posted by Drexl

well, no. that's not right

it's the same as when we buy a player for 80 million

our bank account doesn't go down by 80 mil that same day

it's added as a figure on the balance sheet, then bled into the p&l over time

simple really

much as I love you, I can't even.....

Do we need an accountancy sub-forum?

ACA reds

Originally Posted by jem

much as I love you, I can't even.....

apparently they defer drawing it

ive got a neighbour who works at a printing company who print and bind the sets of accounts lol.

well I say lol, it's actually quite dull. He's deaf as a post

Originally Posted by Sapien

Do we need an accountancy sub-forum?

ACA reds

CIMA reds, we are here, £#%&! your women and get ink on our top pocket where the pen has leaked

Originally Posted by Drexl

apparently they defer drawing it

ive got a neighbour who works at a printing company who print and bind the sets of accounts lol.

well I say lol, it's actually quite dull. He's deaf as a post





CIMA reds, we are here, £#%&! your women and get ink on our top pocket where the pen has leaked