United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Manchester United > Love United, Hate Glazer
Reply
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 12:58 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorg
it's funny because it's true, in this case at least
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 01:00 PM
TripDownMiseryLane
 
Default

Believe your just plainly making yourself look like a simpleton......which I know doesn't particularly bother you, whereas as Throb, with his 20/20 hindsight, is massively failing in his efforts to present himself as the visionary he perceives himself to be.
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 01:07 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TripDownMiseryLane
Believe your just plainly making yourself look like a simpleton......which I know doesn't particularly bother you, whereas as Throb, with his 20/20 hindsight, is massively failing in his efforts to present himself as the visionary he perceives himself to be.
no offence pal, but i've said nothing in this thread that i haven't been saying for years - as anyone who's been here long enough will attest
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 01:13 PM
TripDownMiseryLane
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb
no offence pal, but i've said nothing in this thread that i haven't been saying for years - as anyone who's been here long enough will attest
No offence taken, you are free to support the glazers all you like
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 01:20 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TripDownMiseryLane
No offence taken, you are free to support the glazers all you like
meh
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 01:22 PM
atticusgrinch
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TripDownMiseryLane
Believe your just plainly making yourself look like a simpleton......which I know doesn't particularly bother you, whereas as Throb, with his 20/20 hindsight, is massively failing in his efforts to present himself as the visionary he perceives himself to be.
You've done it again ffs!
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 01:55 PM
TripDownMiseryLane
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atticusgrinch
You've done it again ffs!
Shouldn't you be defending people against the grammar police
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 02:05 PM
Charlestown Rouge
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb
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
I'm not sure what you do professionally but more or less every finance professional accepts that this was a high risk, high reward strategy at a very bullish period for majorly indebted buyouts just three years before world wide financial meltdown - as you've acknowledged, the fact it hinged on the health and well being of a man in his late 60s made it even more precarious.
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 02:21 PM
92ToBury
 
Default

The Glazers don't give a £#%&! about the fans or rather they've done an excellent job in managing the risk of a boycott out of their business model.

There will probably be another green and gold away kit soon to give Drasdo a final kick in the %@#$&!s

Bellers, North Stand (G Stand in old money). ST was £551 now £930ish. Even if you're naive enough to think they had nothing to do with the spring 2005 rise you can use £684 as your base figure and get 36%
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 02:38 PM
jem
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb
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.
throbbers, this just isn't true. basically, rougers and misers are right and you are full of hot air.

the glazers lumbered the club with risky debt. not particularly risky for them. they had a plan that only really had an upside. for them.

people who buy clubs like united are expected to put money in. they and their deb extracted funds (from fans), leaving enough for the club to bump along, not shine. the success has been despite them, not because of them. nothing that they did in terms of sponsorship and "maximising revenues" required a leveraged takeover.

they are carpetbagging @#%&!s who don't prioritise football. just look at our midfield.

you're a russian roulette player who got through the first round. everyone else is screaming "put the £#%&!ng gun down".

this is just a metaphor. irl, we'd be chanting "again ... again.... again..... ooooh."
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 02:44 PM
TripDownMiseryLane
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge
I'm not sure what you do professionally but more or less every finance professional accepts that this was a high risk, high reward strategy at a very bullish period for majorly indebted buyouts just three years before world wide financial meltdown - as you've acknowledged, the fact it hinged on the health and well being of a man in his late 60s made it even more precarious.
£#%&! me, every dog in the street knew it. No problem going for the shit or bust for the glazers when the only bust was ever only going to be manchester united if it all down the shitter.

It further precariously hinged on another geriatric swine in the form of Murdoch too. But it was never ever in any doubt don't you know.
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 02:48 PM
jem
 
Default

not forgetting those on both sides of the argument who didn't think the glazers could get away with selling ronaldo and rooney without staring a revolution.
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 04:13 PM
atticusgrinch
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TripDownMiseryLane
Shouldn't you be defending people against the grammar police
I cannot defend the indefensible.
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 04:32 PM
red in cumbria
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atticusgrinch
I cannot defend the indefensible.
Be fair, at least he didn't use "of" in place of "have"
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 04:46 PM
TripDownMiseryLane
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red in cumbria
Be fair, at least he didn't use "of" in place of "have"
Two grammar securitate agents on my case:shakehead:

Defending the indefensible Atticus? thought that was what you do for a living Expect it from the memory man of cumbria, that post was about two years ago.....
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 05:19 PM
jem
 
Default

just as well the typo police didn't spot my staring and deb references.
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 05:37 PM
jem
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb
. i don't defend them, i just never saw any great threat to united from them - no more than any other finance motivated takeover, and the model they chose of continuing to let united people run the club was the right one (and still is).
there was an existential threat simply due to the existence of debt and the possibility of not hitting targets. I would argue that the threat of reduced spending was a reality, rather than a possibility.

whether you think their model is right depends on whether you include expecting other people to pay off the debt for them or any moral position. plus, moyes and his staff represent a massive risk according to your philosophy. glad to have you on board.
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 05:48 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jem
there was an existential threat simply due to the existence of debt and the possibility of not hitting targets. I would argue that the threat of reduced spending was a reality, rather than a possibility.

whether you think their model is right depends on whether you include expecting other people to pay off the debt for them or any moral position. plus, moyes and his staff represent a massive risk according to your philosophy. glad to have you on board.
moyes is a risk, and the people thye've allowed him to bring with him even more so

on the other hand fergie remains, and giggs, neville, butt and scholes are still involved

it's a pity none of hughes, bruce, robson or keane really managed to make a case to take the helm, so presumably they believe moyes is the safest bet to continue the job until one of the 92 lads or maybe ole is ready?
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 06:03 PM
irk
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jem
there was an existential threat simply due to the existence of debt and the possibility of not hitting targets. I would argue that the threat of reduced spending was a reality, rather than a possibility.

whether you think their model is right depends on whether you include expecting other people to pay off the debt for them or any moral position. plus, moyes and his staff represent a massive risk according to your philosophy. glad to have you on board.
 
Unread 19-11-2013, 06:33 PM
jem
 
Default

I would consider robbo and keano "not really making a case for themselves" to be a bit of an understatement.

the m.o.n.-keano dream team
Reply
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: So according to Andersred...
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
that email off andersred Tumescent Throb Love United, Hate Glazer 1 14-03-2014 12:27 PM
http://andersred.blogspot.com/ 19/1/11 Tumescent Throb Football 67 21-01-2011 05:53 PM
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:17 PM.
Copyright ©2006 - 2024 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.