Jump to content

The Manchester United thread 2006/2007 - featuring BBB leaving early

foobR

By foobR,
in Football Thread Vault

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
14AlanSmithifb

14AlanSmithifb

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ericcantona7:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 14AlanSmithifb:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ACou2000:

how easy would it be for us to be in real trouble with repayments?

in terms of the (under) performance of the team..? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd take relegation to get rid of the *****. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

whs, it would also get rid of the idiotic 'prawn sandwich' brigade fans we have which is a good thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

problem being that as soon as we have any success they'd all come back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sadly that is true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
McMaster#28

McMaster#28

Posted
Posted

Poor Man Utd and all their money.

And would you really take relegation just to rid of your owners? You're just a bunch of idiots even thinking you would.

You enjoy (and rightly so) Leeds getting relegated to the Championship, but apparently would be very willing for exactly the same to happen to you.

And as Nick said you already have re-financed your loan which results in a smaller intrest payments.

As Jimlad said the way forward is indivudal TV deals, but this was always going to happen long before you ceased to be a PLC.

The way the debt was restructed is that the debt the club/Glazer had is now transfered all to the club, however the club now owes less.

Stop acting all high and mighty about what has happened, yeah it's pretty bad as the chances are much greater now you could end up "doing a Leeds" and risking it all on Champions League qualification for the X # of years and it not happening. That's isn't going to happen, Glazer isn't the devil, and still every team outside the top half of the Premiership would take your financial situation over theirs.

Don't be so patronising towards every other club outside the Premiership icon13.gif

icon_smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick OGS20

Nick OGS20

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Francis Cole:

And as Nick said you already have re-financed your loan which results in a smaller intrest payments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the complete opposite is true, according to that article.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The way the debt was restructed is that the debt the club/Glazer had is now transfered all to the club, however the club now owes less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not true. we now owe more. it's all in the article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick OGS20

Nick OGS20

Posted
Posted

and i'd say you're being really rather patronising yourself fran by telling us we have no right to be annoyed by these things. i'd say ticket price increases every year that wouldn't have happened without the takeover are something we have every right to be angry at, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

this 'stop moaning, you're still better off than most' attitude really annoys me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
McMaster#28

McMaster#28

Posted
Posted

Well that's the complete opposite of what I have heard. Why would you re-finance to increase your annual payments?

Unless of course the length of the loan has been reduced, in which case overall you will still owe less (depending on the terms of the deal)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick OGS20

Nick OGS20

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Francis Cole:

Well that's the complete opposite of what I have heard. Why would you re-finance to increase your annual payments?

Unless of course the length of the loan has been reduced, in which case overall you will still owe less (depending on the terms of the deal) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i don't understand it myself. i thought the whole idea of the refinancing was to reduce annual repayments slightly. maybe the article is wrong. almost certain that the overall debt has gone up markedly though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
McMaster#28

McMaster#28

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and i'd say you're being really rather patronising yourself fran by telling us we have no right to be annoyed by these things </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, as I say you have a complete right to be annoyed. But taking the attitude that you would rather relegation than the situation you are in? That's just melodramatic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick OGS20

Nick OGS20

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Francis Cole:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and i'd say you're being really rather patronising yourself fran by telling us we have no right to be annoyed by these things </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, as I say you have a complete right to be annoyed. But taking the attitude that you would rather relegation than the situation you are in? That's just melodramatic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

perhaps - i think it's a bit idealistic of people to think that if we went down, the glazers would **** off, we'd get new, more acceptable owners and go back to how we were, but i can see where they're coming from. i don't think people are expressing a wish to go down, merely saying they'd take that hit hypothetically if it meant we could get rid of the glazers and the ridiculous debt.

it was more the 'poor man utd and all their money' type comments that i found patronising, btw

Link to post
Share on other sites
McMaster#28

McMaster#28

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

it was more the 'poor man utd and all their money' type comments that i found patronising, btw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok I take that back icon_smile.gif

But still, give most clubs "only" £25m a year transfer funds as they would be happy icon_wink.gif

According to that times artice interest payments have risen from £20m p/y to £40m

The 2006 re-financing deal took payments down from £90m to £62m (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5190508.stm)

So I'm not sure where £40m has come from, or how they think this has increased from £20m.

The £660m is correct, but we always knew that. icon_smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick OGS20

Nick OGS20

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Francis Cole:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

it was more the 'poor man utd and all their money' type comments that i found patronising, btw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok I take that back icon_smile.gif

But still, give most clubs "only" £25m a year transfer funds as they would be happy icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i'll be generous and take the wink as a sign you're as aware as we are that we've had these promises of £25m a year since the takeover happened and so far we've barely seen a penny. i don't think any of us are going to be getting our hopes up after this latest article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
McMaster#28

McMaster#28

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick OGS20:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Francis Cole:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

it was more the 'poor man utd and all their money' type comments that i found patronising, btw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok I take that back icon_smile.gif

But still, give most clubs "only" £25m a year transfer funds as they would be happy icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i'll be generous and take the wink as a sign you're as aware as we are that we've had these promises of £25m a year since the takeover happened and so far we've barely seen a penny. i don't think any of us are going to be getting our hopes up after this latest article. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well they never said that player sales would finance new players. icon_smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
deanb291186

deanb291186

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB:

I'd enjoy it, grounds I've never seen, red army taking over, would be ace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh sounds just like FC icon_biggrin.gif but tbh cant see that happening for a long time, cant see us being relegated under Glazer

Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyPolack

AndyPolack

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They say that tickets at Old Trafford, which were subject to a minimum 12.5 per cent price rise this season, remain “undervalued†and will increase by a further 36 per cent by the start of the 2012-2013 campaign. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wholeheartedly agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mark g

mark g

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick OGS20:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Francis Cole:

Well that's the complete opposite of what I have heard. Why would you re-finance to increase your annual payments?

Unless of course the length of the loan has been reduced, in which case overall you will still owe less (depending on the terms of the deal) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i don't understand it myself. i thought the whole idea of the refinancing was to reduce annual repayments slightly. maybe the article is wrong. almost certain that the overall debt has gone up markedly though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As i understood it, the refinancing was on the hedge funds side of the debt, rather than the straight loans. I think what has happened is that while payments have gone up from last year as the article said, they've gone up significantly less than they would otherwise have done. If i remember correctly, the hedge funds had little or no annual interest payments, but huge penalty clauses if they weren't paid/bought back by a set date (at which point you pay the interest accrued as well).

So the upshot is, the payments haven't dropped, they've gone up less than they otherwise would have done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Scatter

Scatter

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick OGS20:

oi, scatter - the updated fm database thingy is finito \O/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yas \o/

alright, i'll set you up an ftp account so you can upload it.

how big is the file?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Asmodeus

Asmodeus

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick OGS20:

oi, scatter - the updated fm database thingy is finito \O/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mind if I ask what this is all about Nick?

I assume it's your corrections of the Man. Utd data?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Argel

Argel

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Northern Ireland defender Jonny Evans is poised to join Sunderland on loan for the rest of the season.

Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson is reported to have approved the highly-rated 18-year-old's move to join Roy Keane at the Stadium of Light.

Evans recently returned to Old Trafford from a spell with Royal Antwerp who are United's partner club.

The Glengormley lad has played in Northern Ireland's last three matches after an superb debut against Spain.

Ferguson is keen for Evans to get more first team experience before a possible breakthrough to United's senior side.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Link to post
Share on other sites
No Longer Bling

No Longer Bling

Posted
Posted

and that article on the last page is worrying but no doubt doesnt tell the whole story. the bit about the debt/payment/interest increasing can only mean as mark said its related to the hedge fund debt and so isnt as gloomy as they are portraying it. its not good obviously but theyre not purposely doing their best to put us in the championship with leeds i shouldnt imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
gonch19

gonch19

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by James07?:

you're not going on the coach? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nah, no pick up point within about 20 miles of me icon_biggrin.gif

im the only one in essex with a ticket it appears

Link to post
Share on other sites
McMaster#28

McMaster#28

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick OGS20:

i don't really understand where you're coming from with that fran? :/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for the late reply icon_smile.gif

My point was that you are spending nearly £25m a season. Maybe a bit less, but in general close to that.

Last season you had Evra - 5.5m

Park - 4m

Foster - 1m

VDS - 2m?

Vidic - 7m?

That's about 20, nearly 25 icon_wink.gif

(L)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mika

Mika

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> SMITH GOING NOWHERE, INSISTS FERGIE

Sir Alex Ferguson has warned Everton they have no chance of prising Alan Smith away from Manchester United next month.

Smith has been working on a personal fitness programme after failing to re-establish himself in United's senior squad since his recovery from the horrific double leg fracture he suffered at Liverpool last February.

With Ole Gunnar Solskjaer returning to action, Giuseppe Rossi heading back to Old Trafford from a loan spell at Newcastle and Henrik Larsson due to link up with his new team-mates for a 10-week stint with the Red Devils on January 2, there have been suggestions Ferguson might be prepared to let Smith leave.

However, the United boss has dismissed the idea out of hand, revealing Smith is now nearing full fitness again after turning down the opportunity to travel with the first team squad to West Ham last weekend, and Aston Villa on Saturday, to push himself towards first-team duty.

"Yes, that is correct," said Ferguson when asked if United would reject any offer from Everton for Smith.

"Alan is doing really well at the moment.

"We put him on a speed programme, which had an immediate effect and we have seen a tremendous improvement in him over the last month.

"He is certainly not far away now.

"I wanted to take him down to West Ham but he didn't want to go. He just wanted to stay and train on his own. He deserves great credit for that because it is not easy.

"He doesn't want to travel again tomorrow either, so he will be training again."

Earlier this season, the 26-year-old rejected the offer of a loan spell at Cardiff, preferring instead to remain at United and work on his fitness there.

At the time, Ferguson stated his belief the move would have been good for Smith. However, now the Scot accepts his £6million forward made the correct decision.

"He did the right thing," he said.

"He could have gone and played games but not been 100% to play in them, whether it is the Championship or the Premier League.

"Instead we worked out a programme to improve his speed that he has really taken to."

Meanwhile, Ferguson has insisted his annual transfer budget has not been capped at £25million by Manchester United owner Malcolm Glazer.

Documents circulated at the time of United's major refinancing deal last summer indicated the Glazer family had set aside £25million per year for new players, with an additional £25million 'superstar' fund should a star name become available.

Although no-one from the Glazer camp has verified the figures, the reports contain such detail it is difficult to believe they are not true.

Having operated a transfer surplus last summer when he balanced the arrival of Michael Carrick with the exits of Ruud van Nistelrooy and Mikel Jon Obi, Ferguson is yet to put the Glazers' resolve to the test.

However, the Red Devils chief, who has been strongly linked with moves for Owen Hargreaves and young Southampton full-back Gareth Bale, is adamant the internal process for recruitment has not changed since the days when Martin Edwards was chairman.

"It is nonsense," he said.

"There is no figure from the Glazer family. We are operating the same way as we always have done.

"If we are after a player we present the case to David Gill and the Glazers as I would have done in the past with Martin Edwards or the PLC board. The process is exactly the same as it always has been."

It was a rare moment of seriousness from Ferguson in an otherwise light-hearted look forward to tomorrow's trip to Aston Villa.

Although the disappointment of last weekend's defeat at West Ham remained fresh in his mind, the United boss seemed more determined to emphasise his club's hospitality at providing mince pies and wine for the assembled media than worrying about Chelsea reducing the gap at the Premiership summit to two points.

Considering for long periods last weekend Jose Mourinho's side looked set to lose to Everton at Goodison Park, it is little wonder the Chelsea camp claim it was a pivotal weekend in the title battle.

However, Ferguson remains calm under pressure, pointing out the championship is won over a nine-month season, not one weekend.

"We are here for the long haul," he said. "We have youth on our side and we have strength on our side.

"Historically, we do okay in the second half of the season so we should be pleased to get to this point in the position we are.

"You could be over-critical and say we threw three points away against West Ham but that doesn't get you anywhere. What is done is done.

"We have to make sure we get back on target. The next game is an obvious target. But the most important thing is to win the league and we are capable of doing that." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick OGS20

Nick OGS20

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gonch19:

villa park tomorrow. whats the best way to the ground from birmingham new street/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

we got another train last year to a station right near the ground. began with 'w', something like witton i think. i assume that's what we'll do tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick OGS20

Nick OGS20

Posted
Posted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Asmodeus:

A smattering of festive -10s. Very nice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i removed both our -10's. it hurt icon_frown.gif

scatter - it's 42mb when compressed into a rar file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...