Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

The Muppet

RasTa wrote: »

I don't think the Muppet understands the difference between propaganda and a debate.

I see the super fan circle is forming, work ahead.

This thing about the Glazers selling the training ground and it being leased back to the Club, when exactly will that happen?

Liam O

The Muppet wrote: »

I see the super fan circle is forming, work ahead.

This thing about the Glazers selling the training ground and it being leased back to the Club, when exactly will that happen?

They probably just decided to sell Old Trafford instead...

ROCKMAN

The Muppet wrote: »

I see the super fan circle is forming, work ahead.



This thing about the Glazers selling the training ground and it being leased back to the Club, when exactly will that happen?

Super fans , very very good.

Training ground
Fact or just another rumour ,have we any proof.

Headshot

The Muppet wrote: »

It's not my fault you didn't understand what I posted is it?

I read your posts on this thread and mg they are somthing to be hold

your post reek of anti LUHG, im not sure do you mean to but you seem to be, you talk out of ass alot, you ignore posters that prove your points wrong (pro f links, im not even sure did you reply to them yet)

stuff like "yet rubbish comments from David Gill who I assume would be better positioned to have access to all the relevant information" are a prime example of what im talking about

every little chance you get you seem to have a little dig at must etc

I cant get my head around you tbh, im not sure why i even reply to you, I know what your like tbh

edit

also forgot to mention

it has been said to you numerous times but when you talk about the financial side, it comes across as you defending glazers

Vanbis

The Muppet wrote: »

Propaganda : information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc

Is that not what we're seeing?

/waits to be told it means something completely different than the dictionary definition.

Mr Alan wrote: »

The Muppet against propaganda.......interesting.....Liverpool thread should be a much quieter place in future

baz2009 wrote: »

The Muppet, you talk some shíte.

RasTa wrote: »

I don't think the Muppet understands the difference between propaganda and a debate.

Headshot wrote: »

I see some one has been looking at dictionary.reference

btw you talk some lot of **** tbh, as rasta says you dont know what debate means




you can have him back if you want.

Headshot wrote: »

I read your posts on this thread and mg they are somthing to be hold

your post reek of anti LUHG, im not sure do you mean to but you seem to be, you talk out of ass alot, you ignore posters that prove your points wrong (pro f links, im not even sure did you reply to them yet)

stuff like "yet rubbish comments from David Gill who I assume would be better positioned to have access to all the relevant information" are a prime example of what im talking about

every little chance you get you seem to have a little dig at must etc

I cant get my head around you tbh, im not sure why i even reply to you, I know what your like tbh

edit

also forgot to mention

it has been said to you numerous times but when you talk about the financial side, it comes across as you defending glazers

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

Ah lads come on, be nice

Mitch Connor

The Muppet wrote: »

I see the super fan circle is forming, work ahead.

This thing about the Glazers selling the training ground and it being leased back to the Club, when exactly will that happen?

the potential sale of the training ground was specifically noted in the bond prospectus. Gill also confirmed this was either being looked at or considered in some way, for tax reasons, with it being sold to a glazer owned holding company.

So fears regarding the sale of the tra8nig ground are founded in reality. whether it does happen is another matter, but you can be sure that if it was not for the massive debt tge glazers have forced on united it wouldn't be an issue at all.

The Muppet

Mitch Connor wrote: »

the potential sale ofetraibg ground was specifically noted in the bond prospectus. Gill also confirmed this was either being looked at or considered in some way, for tax reasons, with it being sold to a glazer owned holding company.

Being looked at yes, but it appears to be included in the projections in Pro F's link as a definite yet there is no mention of new revenue streams such as streaming live matches which is surely going to be a big earner for clubs down the road.


@Vanbis , it has no effect on me don't let it bother you.

Headshot wrote: »

I read your posts on this thread and mg they are somthing to be hold

your post reek of anti LUHG, im not sure do you mean to but you seem to be, you talk out of ass alot, you ignore posters that prove your points wrong (pro f links, im not even sure did you reply to them yet)

stuff like "yet rubbish comments from David Gill who I assume would be better positioned to have access to all the relevant information" are a prime example of what im talking about

every little chance you get you seem to have a little dig at must etc

I cant get my head around you tbh, im not sure why i even reply to you, I know what your like tbh

edit

also forgot to mention

it has been said to you numerous times but when you talk about the financial side, it comes across as you defending glazers

You obviously didn't read them all as I did reply to pro F

Apologies for suggesting Uniteds Chief Executiive is better positioned to have access to information regarding the clubs financial situation than some dudes(attempted politeness) on an internet forum, How silly of me.

Re Cant get your head around me if you like to take the personal stuff to pm I'll be happy to assist.

Please provide Links to posts that give you the impression that I am defending Glazer . I have made it quite clear I am not pro Glazer.

The Muppet wrote: »

I thanked Des because I agreed with his post.



I am not Pro Glazer nor am I a cynic. I am not pro The green and Gold campaign because it's too vague and has the potential to damamge the club further imo. Green and gold until we're sold doesn't cut it for me, I'd need to know who we are being sold to for a start before I'd support it.



The Red Knights fall into the same catagory, too vague reminds of the Michael Knighton attempted take over.

I also think there is a lot of mis information touted on the issue, none of the figures I have seen quoted take into account the true value of the club or projections of increased revenue streams into the future.

I think of the debt in the same way I do a mortgage, in the first few years you are to the pin of your collar to meet the repayments but as the years pass income increases and teh morgage ceases to be the struggel it was in the begining. I know it's more complex than that but the principle is the same.



.

The Muppet wrote: »

Do you seriously expect me to take a blog of a vested interest as concrete evidence of anything. I have looked at it and I dont trust the figures.



.........................



I,m not pro or anti the glazersThe Red Knights or MUST (though I was a member). I am however massively pro Mancheter United.,



I want facts not fiction, If you can publish the projections I asked for I will look at them and see if they change my current opinion

UnitedIrishman

Thing about the LUHG campaign on BBC1 at the min.. well.. just over.

Mikeyt086

Vanbis wrote: »

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

Ah lads come on, be nice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcbu_kGsFOQ

Totally pointless tbh. The best way is to let the finance die down untill Headshot or Kryogen post an artice or redout post some pics from gettyimages.

starbelgrade

This might not diffuse the argument, but it might cause a temporary distraction!

starbelgrade

Title:

Nani Signs New Contract With Manchester United

Caption:

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND - MARCH 26:

Nani of Manchester United poses with Chief Executive David Gill after signing an extension to his contract at Old Trafford on March 26 2010 in Manchester, England. (Photo by John Peters/Manchester United via Getty Images)

Date created: 26 Mar 2010

starbelgrade

Youths from across the United Arab Emirates train at the Nike Elite School for football in Dubai on March 21, 2010. Some 250 youths started a four-day training, hoping to be one of only five who will be selected to join summer training at the Italian Juventus and English Manchester United clubs.


(Photo credit MARWAN NAAMANI/AFP/Getty Images)
Date created: 22 Mar 2010

The_Kew_Tour

starbelgrade wrote: »

This might not diffuse the argument, but it might cause a temporary distraction!

Phwoar look at that babe and the ti

O ya aaam. Ya I think United will win tomorrow

starbelgrade

adrian280582 wrote: »

Phwoar look at that babe and the ti

O ya aaam. Ya I think United will win tomorrow

Me too - United to win it by a goal. I'm guessing 2-1 to the Reds.

Vanbis

starbelgrade wrote: »

Me too - United to win it by a goal. I'm guessing 2-1 to the Reds.

More nervous about the game against Bolton then i was against L'pool. I can see fergie making a few changes, expect him Berbatov to start with Rooney upfront.

I'll go for a 3-0...........not so nervous predication i know :rolleyes:

ondarack

shouldn't be too hard to get a result vs bolton.....coyle does have them playing football tho. wat ye think of Nani getting a contract??? I def wouldn't be his biggest fan

The_Kew_Tour

I think he go to 4-5-1 myself

starbelgrade

I'm delighted Nani's signed on again - he's not had a bad season so far. There's definitely more to come from him.

Mr.Nice Guy

Have a bad feeling about the Bolton game. I expect some scares. I'll say United to edge it by a goal but I'm concerned...

ondarack

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'm delighted Nani's signed on again - he's not had a bad season so far. There's definitely more to come from him.

i dont doubt his potential for 1 min but i just dont think he is delivering. at the exception of 1 good game this year

Vanbis

ondarack wrote: »

shouldn't be too hard to get a result vs bolton.....coyle does have them playing football tho. wat ye think of Nani getting a contract??? I def wouldn't be his biggest fan

Eveyone knows he has the potential but has only started to show some promises in the last 3 months. I think before that most would have being happy if he was sold in the summer. I'm a bit surprised at the timing of the new contract.

Mars Bar

Isn't Bolton usually one of our bogie teams?!
I don't care what the score line is so long as we are taking 3 points from it.

Pro. F

IrishIrish wrote: »

For every "expert" out there who says one thing, there will be another one contradicting him, showing what an unsure environment it currently is. Everyone in this thread just chooses to believe the negative outlook ones instead of the positive ones. I've been unfortunately reading about it for about 8 months now, you have to sift through all this **** to get to any of the actual football news in this thread. The opinion I expressed was done to try and stop the **** which I stated I found boring and i'm sure plenty of other people do too. I also never stated the outlook was positive

Indeed, you never stated anything about the outlook but in your post you clearly implied that anybody who was arguing that the financial situation was bad news for the club was contradicting all the experts on the subject. Here:

IrishIrish wrote: »

Even funnier that they seem to think they know more than the actual experts who have years of experience behind them and actually trained to be experts in this area.

But i guess its more exciting to predict a gloomy negative future so i'm sure it will continue.

This is a blatant falsehood which you are now rowing back on.
Btw, if you have any links to experts who claim the financial outlook for the club is good, I honestly would be interested to read them.

IrishIrish wrote: »

...or I had superior knowledge.

So I suppose you just mentioned that you studied finance in college as a by-the-by then? And you didn't think it would lend any weight to your argument at all? Come off it.

IrishIrish wrote: »

Everyone is obviously going to have an interest since they support the club. There have been plenty of honest posters coming on and admitting they don't know alot of information about what is happening finanically at the club and asked for more info. But then other posters who are probably just as clueless reply with their opinion (disguised as 100% fact) and a few quotes and statements to "back them up" which starts all the gloomy outlook again.

There are obviously lots of different types of posters on this thread, all of varying levels of honesty and integrity. Can you at least admit that there are some posters who put forward reasoned, evidence based arguments about the club finances? Or, is everybody who discusses the matter and examines the evidence, just full of shìt according to you?

IrishIrish wrote: »

It "pisses me off" when people say this yet they are doing the exact same thing from the opposite perspective and can't see it.

When did I say I was bored with the discussion and didn't want to take part? When did I rubbish anybody's argument on the matter without reasonable evidence?

IrishIrish wrote: »

I couldn't be more bored of it tbh. But I have to go through it to find the football news which this thread should be about. There should be a 2nd thread for your financial **** so you and any one else who wants to discuss it can go to.

If you want there to be a second thread on the finances then petition the mods for one and stop fùckin whining about it.

MIN2511

Why was Nani offered a new contract????? I don't think he deserves one; he hasn't been consistent, his best game is average. He never passes successfully

Why oh why... Teachers pet?

starbelgrade

MIN2511 wrote: »

Why was Nani offered a new contract????? I don't think he deserves one; he hasn't been consistent, his best game is average. He never passes successfully

Why oh why... Teachers pet?

Headshot

MIN2511 wrote: »

Why was Nani offered a new contract????? I don't think he deserves one; he hasn't been consistent, his best game is average. He never passes successfully

Why oh why... Teachers pet?

harsh

yes he hasnt lived up the Arsenal game performance but he's had a good season now plus you dont want him leaving on a free

the consistency isnt quite there yet but I think it may come (he does drive me nuts thou on many occasions but you just have to put up with it )

MagicMarker

MIN2511 wrote: »

Why was Nani offered a new contract????? I don't think he deserves one; he hasn't been consistent, his best game is average. He never passes successfully

Why oh why... Teachers pet?

Que?

Vanbis

Headshot wrote: »

harsh

yes he hasnt lived up the Arsenal game performance but he's had a good season now plus you dont want him leaving on a free

A good second half to the season and in particular the last two months. I thought the same today when i read he got a new contract about him leaving on a free.

I really hope he comes good and proves a few people wrong including myself.

starbelgrade

Headshot wrote: »

harsh

yes he hasnt lived up the Arsenal game performance but he's had a good season now plus you dont want him leaving on a free

the consistency isnt quite there yet but I think it may come (he does drive me nuts thou on many occasions but you just have to put up with it )

Pre-edit, he just drove you nuts, full stop. Snared!

Headshot

starbelgrade wrote: »

Pre-edit, he just drove you nuts, full stop. Snared!

idk what your talking about starblegrade, i just had to correct a spelling mistake

seeing stuff mate

starbelgrade

Headshot wrote: »

idk what your talking about starblegrade, i just had to correct a spelling mistake

seeing stuff mate

Must've been that bath I had earlier. Added some bath salts that a mate gave me & I've been very light headed & giddy ever since.

flahavaj

The Muppet is a brilliant heel and I love when he posts.

starbelgrade

Can't wait for the Bayern game!

MIN2511

Idk; i just get really frustrated when he's playing...

Headshot

flahavaj wrote: »

The Muppet is a brilliant heel and I love when he posts.

carlito would be proud

IrishIrish

Pro. F wrote: »

Indeed, you never stated anything about the outlook but in your post you clearly implied that anybody who was arguing that the financial situation was bad news for the club was contradicting all the experts on the subject. Here:

This is a blatant falsehood which you are now rowing back on.
Btw, if you have any links to experts who claim the financial outlook for the club is good, I honestly would be interested to read them.


So I suppose you just mentioned that you studied finance in college as a by-the-by then? And you didn't think it would lend any weight to your argument at all? Come off it.

There are obviously lots of different types of posters on this thread, all of varying levels of honesty and integrity. Can you at least admit that there are some posters who put forward reasoned, evidence based arguments about the club finances? Or, is everybody who discusses the matter and examines the evidence, just full of shìt according to you?


When did I say I was bored with the discussion and didn't want to take part? When did I rubbish anybody's argument on the matter without reasonable evidence?

If you want there to be a second thread on the finances then petition the mods for one and stop fùckin whining about it.

Can't be bothered going through all the post. But to be brief:

Yes i can admit some posters post useful information with reasoned opinion. But surely once is enough, we dont need the same **** being said every other day.

You've also misinterpretted bits of my post which doesn't help very much. And i mentioned I did finance in college to show that I have an interest in this area yet i'm still finding the constant talking about the topic boring. You seem a bit tetchy for some reason. Must be the stress of trying to save the biggest club in the world from inevitable financial meltdown. Relax. It will be ok

Finally, I couldn't be arsed "petitioning" for a 2nd thread. It seems like it would be common sense to have it.

d22ontour

ondarack wrote: »

i dont doubt his potential for 1 min but i just dont think he is delivering. at the exception of 1 good game this year

I take it you have only seen one of his games this year so ?
He is having to adapt to a position which he isn't suited to and doesn't play consistently.It's a good signing and he has turned in many top/above average/contributing/average/poor performances this year tbh.

Guess peeps only see what they want to see...

d22ontour

Starbelgrade...

FFS fix that fookin photo for the rest of us without 2400x1600* res screens please. :eek:


* or similar...

Pro. F

The Muppet wrote: »

Do you seriously expect me to take a blog of a vested interest as concrete evidence of anything.

The links I provided were to the Financial Times, one of the only two independant newspapers in the UK and one of the most respected sources of financial analysis in the world.

The Muppet wrote: »

I have looked at it and I dont trust the figures.

The figures the article is based on are those published by Manchester United and are even available on the FT website (subscription required though). Are you saying that the FT has used faulty figures when providing their analysis (or to be more precise, strongly endorsing a third parties analysis), even though they also provide a link to the official, published figures on the same page?

The Muppet wrote: »

Are we leasing our training ground to ourselves?

You have taken that quote completely out of context and are missing the entire point of that article. The article outlines the new financial structures that the Glazers have put in place in the club and it's holding companies in order to allow them to use the club's income to pay off the PIKs. It projects the costs to the club if the new structures are used fully. The article states that if the new financial structures are used and, assuming a 5% per annum projected increase in profits, the PIKs will be paid off by 2014. While the club will still be in debt of 500m by 2017 once the bonds have been paid.

The Muppet wrote: »

I have read the second article and nowhere do I see the projections for earnings from existing and new revenue stream into the future that you said it contained. Could you post them here.

I can't copy and paste unfortunately as I'm on my phone at the moment. But you can find the projections about half way down the page - one projection of flat profits and one of 5% increase per annum - both of the projections still leave the club with massive debts by the time the PIKs and bonds are paid off. Note, the author's calculations, which involve all of the possible money siphons from the club (such as the training ground sale and lease back) is, as I understand it, the most cost efficient way of paying back the PIKs as it is the quickest and therefor minimises the effects of the interest rate.

The Muppet wrote: »

I haven't reported or mis reported anything, not one single article or link.

I was referring to your misreporting of the other side of the argument. For example when you claim that the calculations of the financial situation don't include a projection of increased profits or when you claim that people can't have access to the information on club finances.

The Muppet wrote: »

What I have done is given my opinion on the issues surrounding the club. I'm not interested in pushing any agenda, I think everyone should make up their own mind as i have done without hinderance from pressure groups or super fans.

This is simply a debate. If you post an opinion people are within their rights to argue with and question that opinion. That's something that internet forums are about. It is not an issue of pressure or hinderence on what you want to think, it is simply discussing what you say.

The Muppet wrote: »

Apologies for suggesting Uniteds Chief Executiive is better positioned to have access to information regarding the clubs financial situation than some dudes(attempted politeness) on an internet forum, How silly of me.

As has been shown to you previously, on several occasions, the club finances had to be published during the bond issue. Gill - who is an employee of the Glazers so obviously is not going to be objective anyway - has only made statements that actually contradict the evidence published in the club finances.

Pro. F

starbelgrade wrote: »

...Big Pic...
Can't wait for the Bayern game!

Memories
I was about 17 then. I watched the game in a friends house and after the second goal went in I was jumping around celebrating like a total lunatic. Then when it had all calmed down a bit, I stumbled and broke a window - very embarrassing.

ShooterSF

Ah. Picture quoting breaks another page.

Haven't posted here in a while as I get the feeling not being extreme pro-luhg only causes agro.

Anywho anyone know what happened to Evans, is he being rested (hasnt been on the bench)?

Pro. F

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ah. Picture quoting breaks another page

sorry

removed it now

3hn2givr7mx1sc

ShooterSF wrote: »

Haven't posted here in a while as I get the feeling not being extreme pro-luhg only causes agro.

Not if you don't talk complete bollócks to back up your arguements.:)

Anywho anyone know what happened to Evans, is he being rested (hasnt been on the bench)?

He's still injured isn't he?

starbelgrade

Pro. F wrote: »

Memories
I was about 17 then. I watched the game in a friends house and after the second goal went in I was jumping around celebrating like a total lunatic. Then when it had all calmed down a bit, I stumbled and broke a window - very embarrassing.

I was lucky as you could ever get - when United beat Bayern- I was there. I was lucky enough to have a friend of a friend who was from & had a father who was from Barcelona & had a season ticket.

He'd no interest in seeing a German club playing an English club, so he let me have his seat & even left a key out for me so I could sleep on the couch.

Sound man. MAGICAL NIGHT!

ROCKMAN

Wasn't Evans on the bench for the Liverpool game.

The Muppet

Pro. F wrote: »

The links I provided were to the Financial Times, one of the only two independant newspapers in the UK and one of the most respected sources of financial analysis in the world.

Which was reporting on a must Members Blog.

Pro. F wrote: »

The figures the article is based on are those published by Manchester United and are even available on the FT website (subscription required though). Are you saying that the FT has used faulty figures when providing their analysis (or to be more precise, strongly endorsing a third parties analysis), even though they also provide a link to the official, published figures on the same page?.

No , what I'm say is that they do not take into accoun increases in income from existing and new revenue streams that are on the way. Surely you can see that if income increases the debt will not be the major issue it appears to be. Just 20 years ago Manchester united was valued at £20 million today it is valued at over £1 Billion and it is accepted that it is undervalued at that.

Pro. F wrote: »

You have taken that quote completely out of context and are missing the entire point of that article. The article outlines the new financial structures that the Glazers have put in place in the club and it's holding companies in order to allow them to use the club's income to pay off the PIKs. It projects the costs to the club if the new structures are used fully. The article states that if the new financial structures are used and, assuming a 5% per annum projected increase in profits, the PIKs will be paid off by 2014. While the club will still be in debt of 500m by 2017 once the bonds have been paid.


I can't copy and paste unfortunately as I'm on my phone at the moment. But you can find the projections about half way down the page - one projection of flat profits and one of 5% increase per annum - both of the projections still leave the club with massive debts by the time the PIKs and bonds are paid off. Note, the author's calculations, which involve all of the possible money siphons from the club (such as the training ground sale and lease back) is, as I understand it, the most cost efficient way of paying back the PIKs as it is the quickest and therefor minimises the effects of the interest rate.

I asked you if your figures took into account projections for new revenue, you said they did and pointed me to the the article as proof. It contained no such projections.

Pro. F wrote: »

I was referring to your misreporting of the other side of the argument. For example when you claim that the calculations of the financial situation don't include a projection of increased profits or when you claim that people can't have access to the information on club finances.

Again you are slighly missing my point, What I'm really after is projection for new revenue which imo will have huge impact on club income and the debt. I have given the example of selling match streams which is being talked about and is surely going to be introduced at some time.

Pro. F wrote: »

This is simply a debate. If you post an opinion people are within their rights to argue with and question that opinion. That's something that internet forums are about. It is not an issue of pressure or hinderence on what you want to think, it is simply discussing what you say.

I was mocked insulted and ridiculed for posting opinion, for example making the the point that the chief executive of the club would be in a better position that us to know the actual financial situation at the club. That's not debate it's ignorance and stupidity of the highest order.

Another poster was called on stating he has financial training because he was'n towing the LUHG line, Is it not relevant to the debate that he would have training in finances and therfor might just understand the situation better than those of us that don't.

Pro. F wrote: »

As has been shown to you previously, on several occasions, the club finances had to be published during the bond issue. Gill - who is an employee of the Glazers so obviously is not going to be objective anyway - has only made statements that actually contradict the evidence published in the club finances.

It's not obvious to me, People say the same thing about Fergie and I don't believe that for one second. The point I made is factually correct, he is better positioned than us to know the situation.

The Muppet

baz2009 wrote: »

Originally Posted by ShooterSF
Haven't posted here in a while as I get the feeling not being extreme pro-luhg only causes agro.

Not if you don't talk complete bollócks to back up your arguements.:)

Excellent contribution to the debate there Baz, well done.

keane2097

starbelgrade wrote: »

This might not diffuse the argument, but it might cause a temporary distraction!

I wish people who didn't want to talk about Man United would realise boards.ie is fcuking massive - there are probably a million threads out there you could be clogging up with this kind of stuff and even places where people might actually be interested in it.

PHB

The Muppet has frankly decided to keep his head in the sand regarding the PIKs. I've yet to see any serious financial analysis explain why they aren't a major problem. All United do is assert that there's no issue, which isn't really an argument, more a statement. If Gill came out and said, x and x arent a problem because we intend to do y and z, we'd be fine with it. If they could say that, is there any possible reason why they wouldn't, especially considering the potential for disruption in season ticket sales.

If anyone takes the time to look at the financial statements, which are publicly available. from Manchester United from which the andsred blog is based, they will see that those statements are correct. You say that they are from a biased source, yet you in no way want to challenge them beyond that. The documents are there for you to see. Yet you decide not to actually look at them, and keep peddling these lines.

I'm fine if you don't buy them. What's absurd to me is that you consistantly challenge the statements yet dont actually check them out yourself. Just consistantly challenging but never actually explaining beyond "I just don't think". If you want to get into the argument, please do, debates over the figures only help the anti-Glazer campaign, but if you're just going to keep asserting things, it's really very frustrating.

I fully take on board the sceptism surrounding the Red Knights or any potential new owners, and I'm not suggesting people suggest them with blind faith, but in terms of being Anti-Glazer, every single piece of data we have so far suggests that they are ****ing over the club, and absolutely no data suggests otherwise, bar assertive non-fact based statements. It's really an easy choice.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

The Muppet wrote: »

Excellent contribution to the debate there Baz, well done.

I thought you might have liked it, alright.:)