So according to Andersred...

Originally Posted by dunk

Any chance that the £80m cash was indeed required at that time, either to assist in the gaining of further credit or to prevent the requirement of further credit?

yeah that'll be it

Originally Posted by believe

ffs

is that not the equivalent of paying Ferguson a wage as a director? They bought the club, albeit with borrowed money, to make money like any business person would. Is making money asset stripping?

In this form, undoubtedly yes.

Originally Posted by rafabio

he was left with no choice apart from writing more crap on this subject since he was one of the first to go ahead with dooms day scenario. As each season has passed if anything it has looked rosier for glazers (more so with the mammoth deal with Nike coming into picture soon).

Must be a comforting to have one of the forum financial and intellectual gurus in your camp though.

are the forum financial gurus the ones that said united was worth a billion at the most in 2010 ?

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

are the forum financial gurus the ones that said united was worth a billion at the most in 2010 ?

What's your point Jude The Obscure?

The Glazers played Russian Roulette with this takeover - fact. A high risk game that looks like it paid out on the back of Ferguson's genius and people around the world like Deepers who become engorged at the very name of the brand and those bizarre corporate sponsorship deals we all giggle about.

Even Gill hated the idea at first publicly slating their bids until he opted for the big pay days. Same as Neville and Ole who came out against it but were soon put back in their place. Any revisionist trying to claim this was a visionary business deal can only have assumed that if it had bombed we could have been taken over by the Middle East gimps and then pretended the Chelsea/City model was good all along.

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

What's your point Jude The Obscure?

The Glazers played Russian Roulette with this takeover - fact. A high risk game that looks like it paid out on the back of Ferguson's genius and people around the world like Deepers who become engorged at the very name of the brand and those bizarre corporate sponsorship deals we all giggle about.

Even Gill hated the idea at first publicly slating their bids until he opted for the big pay days. Same as Neville and Ole who came out against it but were soon put back in their place. Any revisionist trying to claim this was a visionary business deal can only have assumed that if it had bombed we could have been taken over by the Middle East gimps and then pretended the Chelsea/City model was good all along.

I don't think it is a fact at all, I think that it was never in doubt for one moment that it would work out just fine.

Of course, there were a few doubts when it looked as if the TV money might have peaked before the last round of negotiations but those were quickly dispelled.

You've got to remember that whilst people questioned what would happen if United didn't win trophies the reality was that teh takeover came at a time when we weren't winning any and the model was built around that scenario. The unprecedented success that followed possibly fast-tracked their plans, but the fact that we had brilliant players and a genius manager was hardly a surprise to them, nor should it have been to United's growing number of critics in the early years after the takeover.

Back in 2010 when the intelligentsia were lauding the red knights and mocking the notion that united was even worth a billion there were those of us who were pointing out that in reality it was worth easily double that and more besides.

Whilst the critics accused the 'stooges' of having their heads buried in the sand, the truth was that it was completely the opposite - the glazers and those that bankrolled them were working on global markets and the incredible rise in commercial revenues was as good as guaranteed. Now with BT coming in for a share of some of that as well it's going to become even more obscene over the next half a decade, by which time United will be in prime position for whatever comes next...

Was Believe such an ultra leveraged buyout advocate when he worked in a warehouse in wigan or wherever it was?

Quite apart from the fact that the glazers have turned what was once a football club built on traditions, with strong links to and a mirrored identity of, the community at the root of it's origins into a homogeneous marketing gimmick that happens to enter a team into various football competitions. The fact that it is merely a cash cow for a family who neither know or care for it's history, traditions or position within it's local, regional and national communities, means that it will inevitably falter and fail.

Not only will the glazers kill the goose one day, but they will have had a major hand in the death of the game as a mass participation sport, with a mass active following within the communities that made the game what it is - or was.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

I don't think it is a fact at all, I think that it was never in doubt for one moment that it would work out just fine.

Of course, there were a few doubts when it looked as if the TV money might have peaked before the last round of negotiations but those were quickly dispelled.

Never in doubt but there were a few doubts. Yeah but no but yeah.

So Throb was right all along, again?

Well fancy that...

Originally Posted by TripDownMiseryLane

Was Believe such an ultra leveraged buyout advocate when he worked in a warehouse in wigan or wherever it was?
.

No I was protesting then.

My argument, as it always is, is that there is no argument anymore (there hasn't been one for about three years imo). They bought the club and have made a success of what they intended to do and all the "they closed the staff canteen down" arguments can't disguise that.

All this %@#$&!s about them not giving a £#%&! about the club is embarrassing, the players on the pitch don't give a £#%&! why should they?

Not only will the glazers kill the goose one day, but they will have had a major hand in the death of the game as a mass participation sport, with a mass active following within the communities that made the game what it is - or was.

I'd say it's the fans that have killed/ are killing the game, not the owners.

Originally Posted by believe

No I was protesting then.

My argument, as it always is, is that there is no argument anymore (there hasn't been one for about three years imo). They bought the club and have made a success of what they intended to do and all the "they closed the staff canteen down" arguments can't disguise that.

Just because they've made a success of what they intended to do - i.e profit from a dangerously over leveraged purchase of the club while alienating the core support, doesn't mean that everybody has to like it.

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

Just because they've made a success of what they intended to do - i.e profit from a dangerously over leveraged purchase of the club while alienating the core support, doesn't mean that everybody has to like it.

I certainly don't but then I don't keep whinging about it.

Throb, was it never in doubt in the same way that property and shopping malls was never in doubt and whatever happened to the buccs are they still never in doubt.....

That leveraged buyout was an act of supreme recklessness, carried out by people who didn't give a £#%&! what would to the club if it all went pear and funded by the people who bought the world sub prime mortgage bonds and the last financial meltdown - but it was never in doubt

Originally Posted by believe

I seen this yesterday and thought I'd leave it but thanks for bringing it back to my attention.

Andersred is starting to make himself look pretty stupid, just like the rest of the public eye, anti Glazer protestors tbh.

Originally Posted by believe

I don't know where the 55% comes from because mine certainly hasn't gone up that much. Mine hasn't even gone up 25%.

what will people moan about when we're debt free?

Originally Posted by believe

I certainly don't but then I don't keep whinging about it.

You don't like it - are you mildly schizophrenic pal?

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

Never in doubt but there were a few doubts. Yeah but no but yeah.

the doubts about the TV deal were only that football on TV appeared to have hit saturation point if you recall. as it turns out the broadcast media are being shown to have an even greater appetite for TV football this season than ever before

the fact that united has made positive noises about protecting the collective agreements tells a story as well - it certainly goes against the once popular view that the club couldn't wait to get its own exclusive rights

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

You don't like it - are you mildly schizophrenic pal?

not sure what your point is so i'll leave it now.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

the doubts about the TV deal were only that football on TV appeared to have hit saturation point if you recall. as it turns out the broadcast media are being shown to have an even greater appetite for TV football this season than ever before

the fact that united has made positive noises about protecting the collective agreements tells a story as well - it certainly goes against the once popular view that the club couldn't wait to get its own exclusive rights

Like I said it was a high risk strategy and it's paid off for them - not sure what is about

Originally Posted by believe

not sure what your point is so i'll leave it now.

Let me help you - in some posts you're deriding the anti Glazer mob and in another you're saying you don't like what the Glazers have done.

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

Let me help you - in some posts you're deriding the anti Glazer mob and in another you're saying you don't like what the Glazers have done.

Agreed to both.

Originally Posted by TripDownMiseryLane

Throb, was it never in doubt in the same way that property and shopping malls was never in doubt and whatever happened to the buccs are they still never in doubt.....

That leveraged buyout was an act of supreme recklessness, carried out by people who didn't give a £#%&! what would to the club if it all went pear and funded by the people who bought the world sub prime mortgage bonds and the last financial meltdown - but it was never in doubt

united has continued to increase revenues throughout the sky era - as has sky

imo back in 2005 people saw what could potentially happen and confused that as being what was likely to happen, and the rest of the doom kind of just grew a life of its own from there

people shouldn't mistake this as me being in favour of the model they used - the finance industry is full of the scum of the earth and has over a billion people locked in chains around the world, not to mention having most of the rest of us dancing to its tune. the fact that it has its claws sunk deep into united disgusts me. and even if it must have then it could at least have chosen more sophisticated front men with a bit of personality

Originally Posted by Ethers

So Throb was right all along, again?

Well fancy that...

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

Like I said it was a high risk strategy and it's paid off for them - not sure what is about
.

like i said, it really wasn't, and the loco is about the TV companies buying even more rights and filling even more time - and sponsors and advertisers throwing even more money at them for doing so