We're Doomed. United make £58m loss

Originally Posted by red red robbo

What did you want to be? Lion Tamer, Lumberjack

I always wanted to be Batman.

Failing that I just wanted to be Chevy Chase.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

What did you want to be? Lion Tamer, Lumberjack

I never really saw the point of wanting to be anything in particular. People work for money. There are very few "careers" where you would carry on after winning the lottery. As a result, I just wanted to do whatever job made me rich. No, it didn't turn out as I'd have wanted before anyone asks. I'm 35 and working 50 hours a week, how did that happen? I should be on a beach with some young fit birds snatch in my face instead.

Originally Posted by Ether

Someone posted this on RI the other day, thought it was an interesting and pretty easy to understand take on things.

Not being an expert in these matters (MASSIVE understatement), but that sounds realistic and accurate.

Remember the debate (re-hashed) on here recently about Fergie being in a position to stop the take-over by refusing to stay?

Ties in nicely with the bit about needing on-field success to keep the income high.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

I never really saw the point of wanting to be anything in particular. People work for money. There are very few "careers" where you would carry on after winning the lottery. As a result, I just wanted to do whatever job made me rich. No, it didn't turn out as I'd have wanted before anyone asks. I'm 35 and working 50 hours a week, how did that happen? I should be on a beach with some young fit birds snatch in my face instead.

Quality film.

Originally Posted by Ed Sullivan

Quality film.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

I never really saw the point of wanting to be anything in particular. People work for money. There are very few "careers" where you would carry on after winning the lottery. As a result, I just wanted to do whatever job made me rich. No, it didn't turn out as I'd have wanted before anyone asks. I'm 35 and working 50 hours a week, how did that happen? I should be on a beach with some young fit birds snatch in my face instead.

I think you missed the point

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XMOmB1q8W4Y

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9NAu3sPJFk

Originally Posted by Spiffy

Snatch

Originally Posted by Ed Sullivan

Snatch

Did my rant sound like a quote from Snatch? It was entirely coincidental if so. Maybe I've got completely the wrong end of the stick - again.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

Did my rant sound like a quote from Snatch? It was entirely coincidental if so. Maybe I've got completely the wrong end of the stick - again.

No, I made a crap joke about you saying Snatch on your face.

That is all.

As you were...

1. There is no "net debt" of £ 666million at 30/6/07.

No. That is correct. The actual wording from page one of the accounts of Red Shareholder Limited is;-

"At 30th June 2007, the Group had net debt of £604.6m."

I wasn't sure if this was to confirm there was no debt, or the debt is actually less than the amount quoted. Still, it's nice to be able to read the Accounts and quote directly from them.

Originally Posted by marlo stansfield

yes it is.

acid test ratio and current ratio.

anyone who used the current ratio to explain the state of a business would need shooting.

and auditors qualify the accounts if they don't represent an accurate picture of the business. the auditors don't write a broker's report.


all you need to know is there is a lot of debt and every bit of it is unnecessary.

goodwill, incidentally, is the difference between the amount paid for united and the balance sheet net worth of united. it has £#%&! all to do with "what someone would be prepared to pay for united" and the goodwill will be in the holding company accounts, not united's. the perception that the assets (such as player values) are underestimated might make someone pay more for united, but acquisitions tend to be based primarily on earnings multiples. goodwill is just an accounting plug. no more and no less. using it to prove you have a "solvent balance sheet" is ridiculous.

I remember acid test ratios from GCSE Business Studies

I wanna know where asda and tesco came into it, do we owe them now too?

I like to ignore the bad news about 'the debt' and The Glazers.


In fact, I'm a Debt Denyer.

Originally Posted by jem

anyone who used the current ratio to explain the state of a business would need shooting.

and auditors qualify the accounts if they don't represent an accurate picture of the business. the auditors don't write a broker's report.


all you need to know is there is a lot of debt and every bit of it is unnecessary.

goodwill, incidentally, is the difference between the amount paid for united and the balance sheet net worth of united. it has £#%&! all to do with "what someone would be prepared to pay for united" and the goodwill will be in the holding company accounts, not united's. the perception that the assets (such as player values) are underestimated might make someone pay more for united, but acquisitions tend to be based primarily on earnings multiples. goodwill is just an accounting plug. no more and no less. using it to prove you have a "solvent balance sheet" is ridiculous.

maybe true, but even so the point is that someone may be prepared to pay quite a bit more for United than the banking industry ... er sorry, than the Glazers did if the team they are assembling, albeit on the never never, continues on its merry way to world domination, no?!

assuming the television companies don't have cause to pull the plug any time soon, of course.

and we dont need some council muppet on an affirmative action job creation scheme to not explain the figures to us.

Facts are - those @#%&!s bought our club for a fiver and will sell it for a tenner - in the meantime they'll pay the interest on the fiver they had to borrow, from corporate profits. the glazers will make about 500 mill on the deal all in.

£#%&! me i wish i bougth the club.