• Update: The issue surrounding 2FA logins using the Google Authenticator should be resolved now. Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused. /Tom
  • We've been getting a growing number of reports from users being unable to log into their accounts using Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) with the Google Authenticator, putting them into an error loop. Rest assured we're trying to fix this asap. Thanks for your patience! /Tom

Manchester United Thread

Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

I think our squad is pretty much sorted apart from that 1 player, I still think we'll sign a creative player. I doubt it's Ozil now as he's so much more high profile than when I first mentioned him.

Is Diouf part of the 25 then and if he was loaned out would that open a slot for a signing?
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Beliel said:
Gullible? :lol: I'm not the one buying into paper talk regarding transfers involing the likes of Ozil. We are not signing anyone not due to the fact we are skint, but the fact that the squad is big enough and balanced in all areas.

And how can direct qoutes which are neither made be considered paper?

How about you back up your foolish statement that there are no funds available and we've made no profit? Go on, prove you're not talking absolute bollocks.
Click to expand...

Sigh! right firstly show me one post where im buying into the paper talk regarding transfers..... the point i was making is that there is no money!!!!

In the accounts for Red Football Joint Venture Ltd 2006-2007 you made a loss of 58.2million 2007-2008 you made a loss of 47m 2008-2009 you made a profit of 6.4m which also showed a 80.7m profit on disposal of players ie ronaldo

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/20/manchester-united-glazers-debt-ronaldo

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8470595.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_united/article6995329.ece

If you would like to educate yourself further the full acounts for last year in full can be seen at companies house or downloaded here:-

http://andersred.googlegroups.com/w...ADBe1Hmw8ajbStKHNoRpBIVg98yaRS05ZvrN292js8LYQ

As for the direct quotes from Fergie its called spin they say what the fans want to hear it doesnt mean its true its just like politics!
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Mack said:
Sigh! right firstly show me one post where im buying into the paper talk regarding transfers..... the point i was making is that there is no money!!!!

In the accounts for Red Football Joint Venture Ltd 2006-2007 you made a loss of 58.2million 2007-2008 you made a loss of 47m 2008-2009 you made a profit of 6.4m which also showed a 80.7m profit on disposal of players ie ronaldo

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/20/manchester-united-glazers-debt-ronaldo

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8470595.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_united/article6995329.ece

If you would like to educate yourself further the full acounts for last year in full can be seen at companies house or downloaded here:-

http://andersred.googlegroups.com/w...ADBe1Hmw8ajbStKHNoRpBIVg98yaRS05ZvrN292js8LYQ

As for the direct quotes from Fergie its called spin they say what the fans want to hear it doesnt mean its true its just like politics!
Click to expand...

I was talking more in regards to United fans. Why would you be interest into it anything positive involving our potential transfer when fans like yourself thrive in the vain hope other clubs will collapse so one day City will eventually win something?

As regards to the finicial situation your talking out of your arse and posting obvious links showing we are 730million in debt which is pure media exaggeration and spin which is exactly the same thing you apparently dont buy into.

The facts aer at the close of the last financial year, 30 June 2009, the senior debt was £501,707,000, drawn out over four loans which attract an interest rate of LIBOR + a variable rate between 2.125% - 5%. As we know, this debt has now been refinanced using the bond issue and will now stand at a fixed rate of around 7%, this is what was advertised in the bond prospectus. Meaning, the interest payments will now remain constant.

As security for the loans, £557million is secured against the assets of Manchester United Limited and Manchester United Football Club Limited.

The PIK notes, despite what MUST would like you to believe, aren't being paid by club debt. Well, at least they weren't last financial year, therefore the increase in interest rate on the doesn't matter to the club as long as it stays as it was last year. Also, it is not the Glazer's personal money that buys players anyway, the club is still run as a business in the same way it was before the Glazer's bought it. Generated turnover is what runs the club, that is why it remains profitable, unlike Chelsea and City who make huge losses.

The other thing the article shows is that £300 odd million of the Glazer's personal debt are mortgages held against their shopping malls, most businessmen would buy properties like this would they not? How many people buy a house outright? They get a mortgage, it's just the way the Glazers choose to finance things.

Since the Glazers actually bought the club, turnover has increased year on year, especially commercial turnover. That is why United will be fine with the new Uefa rules as they will continue to break even at least.

I'm not pro glazer, I don't agree with the exessive management fees etc. they take, however, I also think that any right minded businessman would take similar amounts, including the Red Knights. Do people really think the Edwards family, John Magnier and all the other old shareholders never took any money out of the club for personal gain?

The fact remains that the only way to avoid this is to have some Arab or Russian etc. oil billionnaire take over. But at the same time, I dislike along with many other true supporters d ridicule Chelsea and City for doing this, meanwhile it seems most plastic 'fans' want us to go the same way so we can sign the likes of kakas, hamsiks, ozil,suarez,gourcuff messi,villa. Its short sighted and it comes with all its own problems.

At the end of the day, United is still profitable, they are still successful on the pitch and they still have cash reserves in the bank. It'll also take next years actual accounts being published before I change my views, if they are similar to this years I still believe there is not a serious problem, it's simply the way the Glazers choose to finance things

Your main point here is that there hasn't been any profits since the glazers took over.I doubt we will have to pay any tax this year as I'm sure losses can be carried and offset against future profits (this is the case with private individuals I'm not 100% sure it counts in the corporate world and it's been a while since I took my tax exams). The club still have credit lines where the nature of the credit facility means the Glazers can draw on that facility again should they need it to invest in transfers. If they manage to refinance nad increase revenue again then they still have 30-40M to spend every year on players. They can still even make a loss every year like most all the other football clubs.

The media and recent accounts say the club owes over 700M, even if that was true the club is worth over 1bn.. Thefact is we have plenty of excess cash at the moment but the Glazer are using it to pay off the expensive PIK debts (14%+pa interest) and replacing it with this new cheap debt (something like 4%pa)

Loans under the new revolving credit facility bear interest at a rate per annum equal to LIBOR (or in relation to a loan in euro, EURIBOR) plus the applicable margin and any mandatory cost. The applicable margin means 3.5% per annum." I'm not pro-Glazer however I’m not one to be influenced by hysteric fans and media reports of doom and gloom. I'm encouraged that things are going in a better direction than this time last year.

Here is a more accurate account of the whole story of the takeover and the total debt at the time of the takeover which goes into detal and explains there'll always be funds made avaible,

Pre 2003, Malcolm Glazer was a minority shareholder with Manchester United PLC

26th September 2003 Malcolm Glazer in formed Manchester United that he now owned 3.17% of the club, a statment he was legally bound to make.
Speculation was tife in the media about one or more takeover bids being tabled.

20th October 2003 Glazer has increased his shareholding to 8.93%, by 29th November 2003 it was reported this had almost doubled to 15%. He had by now met David Gill to inform him of his intentions.

12th February 2004 Glazer increases his share to 16.31%, on 13th February 2004 The Financial Times reported that he had made enquiries with Commerz Bank to explore a takeover bid, on the back of that report the cluub shares rose by 5%, which gave the club a value of £741m, In June 2004 Glazer again increased holding to over 19%, over the next few months his holding inthe club increased to nearly 30% by October 2004. If he reached 30% he would have to formally declare a takeover bid.

12th May 2005 It was reported that Glazer had reached an agreement with JP McManus and John Magnier to purchase their combined 28.7% stake in United, which in effect would give him control of the club, however he also secured the shares of the third largest stakholder, Harry Dobson, a Scottish mining entrepeneur, this took his total to 62%, further gains of 9.8% from smaller holders took his ownership to 71.8%.

16th May 2005 His holding now increased too 75%, this was a crucial point, it allowed him to end the clubs PLC status and so de-list it from the stock exchange, which he did on 22nd June.

28th June 2005 He increases his shareholding to 98% by buying out the larger of the small shareholders, this gave him the legal clout for a compulsory buyout, those 2% of shares remaining had to be sold to Glazer, fans holding on to shares had no choice, the could no refuse to sell. The final valuation of the club from shares purchased at the takeover rate waas £800m ($1.5bn).

2006, Malcolm Glazer appoints his other two sons, Kevin and Edward Glazer, along with his daughter, Darcie Glazer, to the Manchester United board as non-executive directors.

July 2006
this statement was issued on the news that several of the loans were being re-financed

The initial debt taken on by the Glazers to finance the club was split between the club and the family, approximately £256 million is secured against Manchester United's assets. The total amount will be £660 million, on which interest payments will be £62 million a year.
The club stated, "The value of Manchester United has increased in the last year, which is why lenders want to invest in the club... 'This move represents good housekeeping and it ensures that Sir Alex Ferguson will be provided with sufficient funds to compete in the transfer market."

The Manchester United Supporters Trust responded, "'The amount of money needed to be repaid overall is huge... 'The interest payment is one thing but what about the actual £660million? It is difficult to see how these sums can be reached without significant increases in ticket prices, which, as we always suspected, means the fans will effectively be paying for someone to borrow money to own their club. It is thought that under the terms of Glazer's financing, in the event that Glazer is unable to repay bondholders, majority control of Manchester United will pass to three New York hedge funds in August 2010. The three hedge funds are Citadel, Och-Ziff Capital Management Group and Perry Capital.

The point out is that there is a difference between not wanting to spend 50 million on 1 player, and not having 50 million to spend. There funds are there avaible its why in the past seasons when we’ve lost profit we still managed to sign players such as , nani,Anderson,Hargreaves, Berbatov, Valencia, Diouf, Hernandez, De silva twins, Smalling, Tosic and Obertan. None of those players came free and were relatively high priced. If the club did not have any money those signings would not have happened.

we are staying true to our roots and nurturing young talent, even if it is overseas talent? United's tradition is built on youth mixed with current experience whether its the babes or the fledglings. Many short sighted ignoramus united fans and jump on board city fans like yourself who get all giddy when they see City signing everyone under the sun forget after next season there’ll be 25 sqaud limit with 8 player homegrown under 21 rule so clubs like city, real who live and buy beyond their means and operate as would playing football manager, cant keep throwing money at every little problem.

The truth is if the market shows huge inflation you don't just carry on spending blindly saying "well everyone else is doing it".

If clubs demand inflated prices, then we do well to look the other way. If we buy a 30 on an up and coming rising star who then flops then it will be much money wasted and his resale will decrease. The same situation we now have our hands with berbatov.

Also, you say fergie is playing politics to appease ''gullible'' united fans, but what is Benzema's motives with coming out comfirming that United made an offer for him? Or is he too playing politics to protect the glazers?
 
Last edited:
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

It was blatantly obvious to me we're in serious trouble when we had just won the league, won the European Cup, and we still needed the £80million sale of Ronaldo to make a £40million profit that financial year.
Lets lie to ourselves and pretend we didnt need the £80million to break even. That still means we need to win the title and the European Cup every year minimum.
And if you look at our squad, who other than Berba can we sell to generate some money for future transfers? Even teams like Barca who are in better financial situations are able to generate cash from sales. I mean, they just made £40million from selling Chygrynskiy and Yaya Toure alone. In that sense, they can justify the decision to pay so much for Villa, especially for the quality of talent that David Villa is. We have no choice but to make signings like Hernandez and then hope to sell for a profit a couple of years down the line.
That's not to say we wouldnt ever sign a world class player again. If a great opportunity came up, we'd take it. But we'd be struggling to afford it. We've reached a point where even signing Messi for £30million would seem like a huge financial gamble.


EDIT
F*ckin' hell. Huge post, mate. I'll read it after the game lol.
 
Last edited:
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

RuneEdge said:
I mean, they just made £40million from selling Chygrynskiy and Yaya Toure alone.
Click to expand...

They made a loss on Chygrynskiy, they got 15m euros back from Shakthar having paid 25m euros last summer. That's like us selling Berbatov for £20m and saying we made £20m, when really we lost £10m.
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Jumbo_ said:
They made a loss on Chygrynskiy, they got 15m euros back from Shakthar having paid 25m euros last summer. That's like us selling Berbatov for £20m and saying we made £20m, when really we lost £10m.
Click to expand...
That's not the point. I meant they had covered the cost of signing David Villa with their own sales. We cant do that cuz we dont have anyone other than Berba that we could make some money off.
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Beliel said:
I was talking more in regards to United fans. Why would you be interest into it anything positive involving our potential transfer when fans like yourself thrive in the vain hope other clubs will collapse so one day City will eventually win something?

As regards to the finicial situation your talking out of your arse and posting obvious links showing we are 730million in debt which is pure media exaggeration and spin which is exactly the same thing you apparently dont buy into.

The facts aer at the close of the last financial year, 30 June 2009, the senior debt was £501,707,000, drawn out over four loans which attract an interest rate of LIBOR + a variable rate between 2.125% - 5%. As we know, this debt has now been refinanced using the bond issue and will now stand at a fixed rate of around 7%, this is what was advertised in the bond prospectus. Meaning, the interest payments will now remain constant.

As security for the loans, £557million is secured against the assets of Manchester United Limited and Manchester United Football Club Limited.

The PIK notes, despite what MUST would like you to believe, aren't being paid by club debt. Well, at least they weren't last financial year, therefore the increase in interest rate on the doesn't matter to the club as long as it stays as it was last year. Also, it is not the Glazer's personal money that buys players anyway, the club is still run as a business in the same way it was before the Glazer's bought it. Generated turnover is what runs the club, that is why it remains profitable, unlike Chelsea and City who make huge losses.

The other thing the article shows is that £300 odd million of the Glazer's personal debt are mortgages held against their shopping malls, most businessmen would buy properties like this would they not? How many people buy a house outright? They get a mortgage, it's just the way the Glazers choose to finance things.

Since the Glazers actually bought the club, turnover has increased year on year, especially commercial turnover. That is why United will be fine with the new Uefa rules as they will continue to break even at least.

I'm not pro glazer, I don't agree with the exessive management fees etc. they take, however, I also think that any right minded businessman would take similar amounts, including the Red Knights. Do people really think the Edwards family, John Magnier and all the other old shareholders never took any money out of the club for personal gain?

The fact remains that the only way to avoid this is to have some Arab or Russian etc. oil billionnaire take over. But at the same time, I dislike along with many other true supporters d ridicule Chelsea and City for doing this, meanwhile it seems most plastic 'fans' want us to go the same way so we can sign the likes of kakas, hamsiks, ozil,suarez,gourcuff messi,villa. Its short sighted and it comes with all its own problems.

At the end of the day, United is still profitable, they are still successful on the pitch and they still have cash reserves in the bank. It'll also take next years actual accounts being published before I change my views, if they are similar to this years I still believe there is not a serious problem, it's simply the way the Glazers choose to finance things

Your main point here is that there hasn't been any profits since the glazers took over.I doubt we will have to pay any tax this year as I'm sure losses can be carried and offset against future profits (this is the case with private individuals I'm not 100% sure it counts in the corporate world and it's been a while since I took my tax exams). The club still have credit lines where the nature of the credit facility means the Glazers can draw on that facility again should they need it to invest in transfers. If they manage to refinance nad increase revenue again then they still have 30-40M to spend every year on players. They can still even make a loss every year like most all the other football clubs.

The media and recent accounts say the club owes over 700M, even if that was true the club is worth over 1bn.. Thefact is we have plenty of excess cash at the moment but the Glazer are using it to pay off the expensive PIK debts (14%+pa interest) and replacing it with this new cheap debt (something like 4%pa)

Loans under the new revolving credit facility bear interest at a rate per annum equal to LIBOR (or in relation to a loan in euro, EURIBOR) plus the applicable margin and any mandatory cost. The applicable margin means 3.5% per annum." I'm not pro-Glazer however I’m not one to be influenced by hysteric fans and media reports of doom and gloom. I'm encouraged that things are going in a better direction than this time last year.

Here is a more accurate account of the whole story of the takeover and the total debt at the time of the takeover which goes into detal and explains there'll always be funds made avaible,

Pre 2003, Malcolm Glazer was a minority shareholder with Manchester United PLC

26th September 2003 Malcolm Glazer in formed Manchester United that he now owned 3.17% of the club, a statment he was legally bound to make.
Speculation was tife in the media about one or more takeover bids being tabled.

20th October 2003 Glazer has increased his shareholding to 8.93%, by 29th November 2003 it was reported this had almost doubled to 15%. He had by now met David Gill to inform him of his intentions.

12th February 2004 Glazer increases his share to 16.31%, on 13th February 2004 The Financial Times reported that he had made enquiries with Commerz Bank to explore a takeover bid, on the back of that report the cluub shares rose by 5%, which gave the club a value of £741m, In June 2004 Glazer again increased holding to over 19%, over the next few months his holding inthe club increased to nearly 30% by October 2004. If he reached 30% he would have to formally declare a takeover bid.

12th May 2005 It was reported that Glazer had reached an agreement with JP McManus and John Magnier to purchase their combined 28.7% stake in United, which in effect would give him control of the club, however he also secured the shares of the third largest stakholder, Harry Dobson, a Scottish mining entrepeneur, this took his total to 62%, further gains of 9.8% from smaller holders took his ownership to 71.8%.

16th May 2005 His holding now increased too 75%, this was a crucial point, it allowed him to end the clubs PLC status and so de-list it from the stock exchange, which he did on 22nd June.

28th June 2005 He increases his shareholding to 98% by buying out the larger of the small shareholders, this gave him the legal clout for a compulsory buyout, those 2% of shares remaining had to be sold to Glazer, fans holding on to shares had no choice, the could no refuse to sell. The final valuation of the club from shares purchased at the takeover rate waas £800m ($1.5bn).

2006, Malcolm Glazer appoints his other two sons, Kevin and Edward Glazer, along with his daughter, Darcie Glazer, to the Manchester United board as non-executive directors.

July 2006
this statement was issued on the news that several of the loans were being re-financed

The initial debt taken on by the Glazers to finance the club was split between the club and the family, approximately £256 million is secured against Manchester United's assets. The total amount will be £660 million, on which interest payments will be £62 million a year.
The club stated, "The value of Manchester United has increased in the last year, which is why lenders want to invest in the club... 'This move represents good housekeeping and it ensures that Sir Alex Ferguson will be provided with sufficient funds to compete in the transfer market."

The Manchester United Supporters Trust responded, "'The amount of money needed to be repaid overall is huge... 'The interest payment is one thing but what about the actual £660million? It is difficult to see how these sums can be reached without significant increases in ticket prices, which, as we always suspected, means the fans will effectively be paying for someone to borrow money to own their club. It is thought that under the terms of Glazer's financing, in the event that Glazer is unable to repay bondholders, majority control of Manchester United will pass to three New York hedge funds in August 2010. The three hedge funds are Citadel, Och-Ziff Capital Management Group and Perry Capital.

The point out is that there is a difference between not wanting to spend 50 million on 1 player, and not having 50 million to spend. There funds are there avaible its why in the past seasons when we’ve lost profit we still managed to sign players such as , nani,Anderson,Hargreaves, Berbatov, Valencia, Diouf, Hernandez, De silva twins, Smalling, Tosic and Obertan. None of those players came free and were relatively high priced. If the club did not have any money those signings would not have happened.

we are staying true to our roots and nurturing young talent, even if it is overseas talent? United's tradition is built on youth mixed with current experience whether its the babes or the fledglings. Many short sighted ignoramus united fans and jump on board city fans like yourself who get all giddy when they see City signing everyone under the sun forget after next season there’ll be 25 sqaud limit with 8 player homegrown under 21 rule so clubs like city, real who live and buy beyond their means and operate as would playing football manager, cant keep throwing money at every little problem.

The truth is if the market shows huge inflation you don't just carry on spending blindly saying "well everyone else is doing it".

If clubs demand inflated prices, then we do well to look the other way. If we buy a 30 on an up and coming rising star who then flops then it will be much money wasted and his resale will decrease. The same situation we now have our hands with berbatov.

Also, you say fergie is playing politics to appease ''gullible'' united fans, but what is Benzema's motives with coming out comfirming that United made an offer for him? Or is he too playing politics to protect the glazers?
Click to expand...

+1 clap clap clap

bottom line is - we're in a worse position now than we were prior to the takeover but no where near as bad as some doom mongers like to make out.

ps. i'm not talking about anyone on this board but i've noticed those who are now so vocal about our debt weren't saying a whole lot when the glaziers took over. I think they've been sucked into this "chicken little" way of thinking due to the recent credit crunch/media coverage and the fact that city and other fans seem to be using it as bait all the more.
 
Last edited:
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

the facts reamian however long your post is, that in the 2007-2008 you reported a loss of 47m in the 2008-2009 your reprted a profit of 6.4m with the inclusion of the 80m Ronaldo sale simpe maths say if you dint sell ronaldo you would have made a loss of 73.6m!!!!!!!

As for me jumping on the bandwagon and getting gidy as were signing players i swear i was doing the same thing when we had Jon Macken playing for us its called banter....

As for the 25 man squad rule you should read my post in the city thread to show we have no problems there...
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Every club makes a loss of profit so that point is redudant. I cant be bothered to go into again as clearly you would like to hold on to the view that United are suddenly broke however many facts there are proving the contrary. I can only come to the conclusion that you must be a shrivelled up bitter old city fan still hanging on to every possible myth that its all doom and glood for United on the wind up or simply its beyond your capacity to look at things objectivly past media headlines.

I bet your one of them that sit outside your house drinking cider spouting off to your mates that United are done for because Fergie is going to retire soon, neville, giggs and scholes is past it. Rio is too injury prone, Berbatov wont score any goals and rooney wont be able to carry the team and the glazers will send them into admistration just like Leeds.
 
Last edited:
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

So now when you cant see the wood for the tress we go onto name calling and they call us bitters..........
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

So i produce a series of facts backed up by evidence including manchester uniteds own accounts, you produce a long post spoutng irrelevant facts and figures with no source and continue to say your a proitable buisness your living in a dream world......
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Football clubs don't tend to make loads of money. I think Barca - despite a pretty good year - posted less than 10m EUR profit. They're actually quite odd that they have huge assets but limited EBIT.

Anyway, agree with the long post above. United would be better off not being owned by someone taking money out of the team for 'consultancy' fees, but we're also not dead and buried.

Personally I strongly believe we have money to spend, but we won't get dragged into stupid territory, where only City, Chelsea, Madrid and Barca can play. To be honest, how can you disagree with that? Two clubs that have access to almost unlimited funds and two clubs that have access to debt that will never be called in or charged at high interest rates because of their corrupt politicians/broken political system.

Ozil at £20m or so would be good, and I can see it happening, but this malarky around Aguerro for £60m...what are people on...
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Now that's what I call a humongous post. And I thought Lio Zio and Trance Allstar post big :P

Good post Beliel.
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Mack said:
So i produce a series of facts backed up by evidence including manchester uniteds own accounts, you produce a long post spoutng irrelevant facts and figures with no source and continue to say your a proitable buisness your living in a dream world......
Click to expand...

Here's my sources son. As you will see we lost profits in previous seasons going back into 2006 however we still had money coming to finance transfers. We get our profits in through tickets sales, merchandises, revenues, sponsers and membership fees, tours and winning titles, qualifying in CL etc(something foriegn to you). The bottom line is the proof is in the pudding. There are now reports United are interested in Sneijder, with Inter president himself confirming it. Is he now playing politics to help Fergie save face to convince the gullible that we're not broke?

Sources:

"US investor ups Man Utd stake". BBC News. 2003-09-26.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3141968.stm
.
"US tycoon ups Man Utd stake". BBC News. 2003-10-20.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3207492.stm
.
"Share deal sparks Man Utd bid talk". BBC News. 2003-11-29.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3246512.stm
.
"US bid talk lifts Man Utd shares". BBC News. 2004-02-13.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3485393.stm
.
"Glazer raises stake in Man United". BBC News. 2004-06-24.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3835575.stm
.
"Glazer stake in Man Utd nears 30%". BBC News. 2004-10-19.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3754598.stm
.
"Glazer gets 98% of Man Utd shares". BBC News. 2005-06-23.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4629401.stm
.
"Glazer Man Utd stake exceeds 75%". BBC News. 2005-05-16.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4550141.stm
. .
Simon Stone (2006-01-24). "Manchester United profits fall by £12.3m". The Scotsman.
http://sport.scotsman.com/malcolmglazer ... 2745101.jp
.
"Man Utd play down fears after £660m refinancing". ESPNsoccernet. 2006-07-18.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... 09&cc=5739
.
Helen Power (2008-08-06). "Credit crisis one year on: Risky debt notes could be a losing game". Telegraph.co.uk.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.j ... tviewedbox
.
 
Last edited:
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Wilkmyster said:
Inter Milan president Massimo Moratti has confirmed that Manchester United are interested in midfielder Wesley Sneijder.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_6250229,00.html
Click to expand...

excellent.jpg
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

So i post a bbc report and its bollocks you do it and its true and more to the point the bottom line is what profit......son? lol

Btw love how you have copied and pasted the majority of your posts from other sites....
 
Last edited:
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Mack said:
So i post a bbc report and its bollocks you do it and its true and more to the point the bottom line is what profit......son? lol

Btw love how you have copied and pasted the majority of your posts from other sites....
Click to expand...

The difference is your findings are inaccurate with no direct qoutes from within the club confirming that we 716 million in debt and have no money.

Why would I need to explain the meaning of what profit is? Are you that simple?

I dont copy and paste from other sites. In the past I've posted the article demonstrating that we not as high in debt as the press released reports before to a doom monger similar to yourself who made a thread spouting similar bollocks. The same with my other thread I started. I'm not just joined to this site thats why you dont see me here much.
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

So the Man Utd accounts i posted were complete twoddle aswell..........

Well thats funny i found virtually word for word your giant post on another site, plus the topic you opened in the football disscusion the same on another site....
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Mack said:
So the Man Utd accounts i posted were complete twoddle aswell..........

Well thats funny i found virtually word for word your giant post on another site, plus the topic you opened in the football disscusion the same on another site....
Click to expand...

As I said I've posted on other united site because I'm a member there. I posted my views on other football forum but they didnt get the response and debate going that I was after.

And yes many of the accounts you provided were completly out of context ignoring the facts and record sheets that glazers themselves have provided. I was simply reinterating the point that regardless of loss profits which clubs lose every season there is money to spend and that the actual debt is closer to 660million rather than the reports of 730 million. Also the club itself worth over 1bm and we have the credit facilities to help reinstate in transfers along with revenue from sponsers, merchandises, tours etc. And no club actually recieves the full sale prit from transfers the exact percentage is subject to the regulations of the relevant governing body so its bound to look as if we lost profit on the sale of Ronaldo.
.
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

If thats the case then fair enough but the rest of the post from the other site comes accross as well not you....

As for my complelty out of contexts accounts they are the ones the glaziers provided to companies house....a tad more reliable than a bbc report or a david gill statement i would think!
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

To be fair, nothing is concrete fact when it comes to our true debt and finances as its always fluctuating and much is based on speculation. However its going into the extreme to assume that we are flat out broke even in the face when we are consistently making signings.

It'd be more realistic to say we are balancing on a much tighter budget than we did have before when United were under the PLC.
 
Last edited:
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

I'm with Mack on this one. It was the brochure that the Glazers circulated that showed exactly how much debt we're in.
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

#mufc have made a bid of around £29m for wesley sneijder and have enquired about his inter team-mate mario balotelli, also a target for#mcfc
Click to expand...

http://twitter.com/DuckerTheTimes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/07/wesley-sneijder-manchester-united-inter

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ster-Uniteds-interest-in-Wesley-Sneijder.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ye-Inter-Milan-team-mate-Mario-Balotelli.html

Being linked everywhere now it seems, Looks like Sneijder is unlikely with Inter not wanting to sell but we'll see how it goes and Balotelli aswell?! :... I would be extremely surprised if this turns out to be true, Sneijder is a fantastic player and has shown that all year long while Balotelli may seem a hot head he has the potential to be one of the best players in the world.

23.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

If we get Sneijder, providing no one leaves, I think we're all set for next season.
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Agreed we need that 1 creative midfielder I think but I wouldn't say no to a talent like Balotelli. Expect it all to be refuted tomorrow morning though
 
Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.

Meh - no value ;)

Any murmurings that he would want to leave Inter? If not I don't see what we can do really. New challenge perhaps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom