Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread - See Mod Warning in OP, 09/11

Whatsisname

A follow up..

https://twitter.com/Sport_Witness/status/533349097013776385

The Moldy Gowl

Pro. F wrote: »

Good job on steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the existence of the counter argument presented.

Start the conversation off with mocking of those who hold a different opinion to you and then finish it up with an offer of clemency for anybody who admits they were wrong. Well played.

Hey, at least I offered? You don't see that stance around here that often.

madcabbage

Whatsisname wrote: »

A follow up..

https://twitter.com/Sport_Witness/status/533349097013776385

Ouch, that must suck!

Liam O

Rafael had a fairly gammy one a while back if I remember correctly.

Your Airbag

Pro. F wrote: »

I didn't state that you think United are like Sony. I said that you were equating a company product decision (Sony PS3 blu-ray decision) with an LBO strategy (Glazer take-over of United), which you were. Equating the two is nonsense.



The Glazers would have lost their investment of £272m. You can describe that as a "lot" if you want, but it's relatively small in the grand scheme of things. The rest of the money required to buy the club (£560m) was borrowed against the club and their ownership of it (source: Red Football lmt offer for Manchester United PLC & 2006 Refinancing Investment Memorandum (see page 11, The original transaction)). For the equity they put up the Glazers got to work with an £832m investment (the total cost of buying the club). As is the standard practice with LBOs they took on higher risks to maximise the upside while dumping as much of the risk onto the target company (United) as they could.

1. Judging the amount of risk undertaken based on the current - or let's say "final" for the sake of argument - outcome is completely wrong. It's like a poker player who judges his play based on the outcome of the bet rather than the choices he made with his hand in the game. And to call it a roaring success is ridiculous. You do know that the Glazers ended up selling 10% of their stake in the club during their debt refinancing don't you? There's no way that can be described as a roaring success for an investment plan.

2. With regards to evidence that the club was put at risk, I'm not going to go into detail on that with you. It has all been discussed at extreme length on this forum before; see the United Financial Situation thread for that. 3. The bottom line is this: football is unpredictable by design, any financial plan that requires a club to maintain a level of success in order to meet debt repayments means the club is being put at unacceptable risk. It isn't unacceptable risk for the financial investors in this case, they are only putting up a relatively small portion of the money at risk and 4. they don't care about the club, it is unacceptable to any fans who want the club to continue existing in a healthy state in the long term.

1. Thats the point I was making that your missing. You think there wasn't a plan for every eventuallity accounted for. Do you think selling a 10% stake was a suprise move just because thats how it was reported in the papers? You think they hadn't foreseen this? We are talking a long term plan here. We are talking decades. The Glazers are dealing in these terms to leave a legacy behind for their future family. Malcolm Glazer is dead, he would have had plans for the future of UTD financially so his family could continue as he did in life but more succesfully.

Equating an 832m combination of their own money and money borrowed against the club, to a poker style risk is nonsense. We signed a 750m sponsorship deal on top of the other deals we have place. To claim that as a huge success is not stupid. Its accurate.

Just because this news is drip feed to you and us through the media doesn't mean the Glazers got lucky. Its extremely shortsigthed and arrogant to think so. This level of financial recovery and ultimate success is down to very good financial planning and intelligence.

2. It would be hard for you to do so accuratley. Of course there was an element of risk. Like i said there is an element in crossing the road. Given where we are heading there is a massive gap in the level of risk you think you predicted in the early years compared to the planning and success the Glazers planned for and predicted.

3. When UTD had a nightmare season last season and still managed to secure the greatest sponsorship deal in the history of sport shows how obvious the fact that UTD being the most suopported club in the world allows us such suppar on field results and to still grow out of depth. The Glazers knew it. Did you forget this huge point and variable or just not include it because it undermines your entire point?

4. Rubbish. The Glazers have done nothing but support the club and buying players and up grading the training facilities.

kryogen

No, point 4 is just wrong there YA, I haven't actually read the rest, but skimmed and caught that bit. No way, The Glazers do not give one **** about the club other then it being an asset and a cash cow, they have done plenty besides supporting the club (they contribute nothing personally) and buying players, upgrading facilities.

They pay off a debt they levied on the club, using the clubs income
They have taken "loans" from the club
They take their dividends from the club etc

They do plenty besides "support" the club

J. Marston

Whatsisname wrote: »

A follow up..

https://twitter.com/Sport_Witness/status/533349097013776385

No hysteria? Don't tell me what to do.

We're doomed!

Your Airbag

kryogen wrote: »

No, point 4 is just wrong there YA, I haven't actually read the rest, but skimmed and caught that bit. No way, The Glazers do not give one **** about the club other then it being an asset and a cash cow, they have done plenty besides supporting the club (they contribute nothing personally) and buying players, upgrading facilities.

They pay off a debt they levied on the club, using the clubs income
They have taken "loans" from the club
They take their dividends from the club etc

They do plenty besides "support" the club

Of course they do.

Of course they pay off debt using the clubs income. This is a bad thing? What other income are they going to use when we are generating such revenues. We just dropped 160m or so and have broken our club record transfer record twice in succession and the British record once.

The fact we are course so well financially allows them to do this. All the planning, carefull planning allows them to do this.

Every club owner wants his club to make money and withdraws from it. If those points are against the Glazers, if your using loans from the club as an example then almost no club owner cares about there club.

Do you think in our debt free day nobody was getting their fair share? Just becasue we are financially under the microscope in this social media day an age, with everyone painting the crisis story doesn't reflect the reailty.

Whatsisname

My understanding of those financial posts is $$$$$$$

kryogen

Your Airbag wrote: »

Of course they do.

Of course they pay off debt using the clubs income. This is a bad thing? What other income are they going to use when we are generating such revenues. We just dropped 160m or so and have broken our club record transfer record twice in succession and the British record once.

The fact we are course so well financially allows them to do this. All the planning, carefull planning allows them to do this.

Every club owner wants his club to make money and withdraws from it. If those points are against the Glazers, if your using loans from the club as an example then almost no club owner cares about there club.

Do you think in our debt free day nobody was getting their fair share? Just becasue we are financially under the microscope in this social media day an age, with everyone painting the crisis story doesn't reflect the reailty.

I have zero interest in getting in to one of those long drawn out back and forth things with you on this, I thank you for agreeing with me though

The Moldy Gowl

Do any of one of us here actually have any background in these big purchases?

I know we have a few in finance alright, maybe a degree or 2 in economics

Your Airbag

kryogen wrote: »

I have zero interest in getting in to one of those long drawn out back and forth things with you on this, I thank you for agreeing with me though

Lol, that the most blatant strawmannig wind up I've heard in a long time, but done tounge in cheek enough to be passable.

Just for the record, I agree about the fact of what their doing not the intention behind it.

Don't worry I have no interest in a long back on forth on this, considering I proably have one on the way already :pac:

RobbingBandit

Dear Man Utd Board,

Please buy Séamus Coleman asap.

Yours every and all Man Utd fans everywhere.

Backstreet Moyes

We already have a rb who is great going forward but questionable defensively. We need competition for rb not spending a fortune on Coleman when we need central defenders.

RichFTW

Your Airbag wrote: »

Of course they do.

Of course they pay off debt using the clubs income. This is a bad thing? What other income are they going to use when we are generating such revenues. We just dropped 160m or so and have broken our club record transfer record twice in succession and the British record once.

Yes, this is a bad thing. They are using the club's income to pay off the Glazer personal debt that was used to buy the club. What part of leveraged deal do you not get? The Glazer debt is being paid off, not debt used to improve the club. Bar this year, the Glazers spent nowhere near what our rivals did since they took over.

Your Airbag wrote: »

The fact we are course so well financially allows them to do this. All the planning, carefull planning allows them to do this.

You and others seem to think they planned every single scenario and had numerous contingency plans. They took a risk. A risk that was leveraged against the club. They bet that Ferguson would continue to make top 4 and be competitive without spending a lot of money. Thus they would be able to meet interest payments and pay off the debt over a number of years as they could predict a constant income. Also they bet that they could increase revenue given their past experience in sports management.

In hindsight it worked out. If it didn't, the Glazers would have cut their losses, the bank would have taken ownership of the club (as the loan was leveraged against the club) and done a firesale of assets and/or shares in order to get back their money. Club would have been screwed. Even more so than Leeds screwed.

Your Airbag wrote: »

Every club owner wants his club to make money and withdraws from it. If those points are against the Glazers, if your using loans from the club as an example then almost no club owner cares about there club.

I admire them as business people as they did a good job commercially. I'm not sure any other competent CEO wouldn't have done the same though. Someone put up figures here before showing that all the major European clubs had increased their income along the same lines as United in the same period. United isn't some unique financial performance.

Usually a club has loans which are due from investing in training facilities, stadium, players etc. A loan used to buy the club is not the same thing. A loan used to buy the club benefits the Glazers; a loan used to improve the club benefits the club. That is one of the major issues.

Your Airbag wrote: »

Do you think in our debt free day nobody was getting their fair share? Just becasue we are financially under the microscope in this social media day an age, with everyone painting the crisis story doesn't reflect the reailty.

A fair share that most owners take is expected as they made an investment and expect a return. The Glazers didn't make the same investment. They leveraged their investment meaning the club pays the bulk of the investment through interest & loan repayments, thus using money that otherwise would have been used to improve the club.

And for other posters, you don't need first hand experience of corporate takeovers to know what the Glazers were trying to do. Basic-ish common sense of finance would do. It's not that complicated, they took a risk and it paid off. Hindsight is 20:20 so it looks like a great deal originally.

I promised myself I wouldn't get dragged into another finance argument but I feel you are ignoring Pro. F's points based on past arguments/battles. Also this is the internet so nobody listens to anyone really!

Rayne Wooney

Nuts102 wrote: »

We already have a rb who is great going forward but questionable defensively. We need competition for rb not spending a fortune on Coleman when we need central defenders.

A RB who averages 12 apps a season

kryogen

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

A RB who averages 12 apps a season

A joke because of his injury problems or a genuine claim?

Cause you know he doesnt average 12 games a year surely

Rayne Wooney

kryogen wrote: »

A joke because of his injury problems or a genuine claim?

Cause you know he doesnt average 12 games a year surely

A guess that wasn't too far off in the league averages 14 a season

His injuries have to become a worry at some point

IncognitoMan

I just seen De gea dislocated his finger. The injuries will never let up

kryogen

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

A guess that wasn't too far off in the league averages 14 a season

His injuries have to become a worry at some point

Bit harsh to judge him over his first couple of years though isn't it? He was a kid!

His injuries are a feckin nightmare though

Excluding this year he has played in half the league games (roughly) between the 3 seasons of 2011-14 (19.66 league games per season)

He needs to be made of less glass for sure though, no argument there at all. This year is a big one for him, he is 24 now and has all the tools to be the best right back in the world (imho) but his durability will hold him back and ultimately lead to him needing to be replaced if it does not improve.

His injuries are a worry for me at this point, I will be hoping he has a season like he had in 2012/13 when he actually made an impressive (for him) 40 appearances for us in all competitions

Big year ahead

kryogen

IncognitoMan wrote: »

I just seen De gea dislocated his finger. The injuries will never let up

Apparently he does it often enough, and its not thought to be a big issue

Pro. F

Your Airbag wrote: »

1. Thats the point I was making that your missing. You think there wasn't a plan for every eventuallity accounted for. Do you think selling a 10% stake was a suprise move just because thats how it was reported in the papers? You think they hadn't foreseen this? We are talking a long term plan here. We are talking decades. The Glazers are dealing in these terms to leave a legacy behind for their future family. Malcolm Glazer is dead, he would have had plans for the future of UTD financially so his family could continue as he did in life but more succesfully.

Yeah because leveraged buy-outs are commonly viewed as decades long investments. Oh no wait, they're not, in fact it's the opposite of what you think.

I never said that the Glazers wouldn't have planned for these types of eventualities. Once again you are simply arguing against something I haven't said. The fact that the Glazers would have planned for any particular eventuality does not mean that the club was not exposed to serious risk, nor does it mean that the Glazers plans did not envision exposing the club to serious risks.

Your Airbag wrote: »

Equating an 832m combination of their own money and money borrowed against the club, to a poker style risk is nonsense.

Yeah because the game of poker doesn't involve assessing probabilities and balancing risks against potential rewards. Nothing analogous there at all.

Your Airbag wrote: »

We signed a 750m sponsorship deal on top of the other deals we have place. To claim that as a huge success is not stupid. Its accurate.

Just because this news is drip feed to you and us through the media doesn't mean the Glazers got lucky. Its extremely shortsigthed and arrogant to think so. This level of financial recovery and ultimate success is down to very good financial planning and intelligence.

Sure it is. And good financial planning never involves leveraged target companies being exposed to high levels of risk following a take-over. That's how the world of finance works, it's minimum risk for everybody, financiers and target comapanies, all the time. Of course it is.

And you didn't describe the sponsorship deal as a roaring success, you described the Glazer's financial plan overall as a roaring success.

Your Airbag wrote: »

2. It would be hard for you to do so accuratley. Of course there was an element of risk. Like i said there is an element in crossing the road. Given where we are heading there is a massive gap in the level of risk you think you predicted in the early years compared to the planning and success the Glazers planned for and predicted.

You are evaluating the risk based on the outcomes you observed after the fact. That's a rookie mistake, it even has a name to help you remember why it doesn't work - outcome bias.

Your Airbag wrote: »

3. When UTD had a nightmare season last season and still managed to secure the greatest sponsorship deal in the history of sport shows how obvious the fact that UTD being the most suopported club in the world allows us such suppar on field results and to still grow out of depth. The Glazers knew it. Did you forget this huge point and variable or just not include it because it undermines your entire point?

The sponsorship deal which has covenants which state the payout will be decreased any year United finish outside the CL places? That one? Yeah I don't think that undermines my point at all.

I can easily believe the Glazers when they say that at this time they can afford to be out of the CL for a season or two. Since the bond issue, where they sacrificed 10% equity in order to refinance the debts into a more manageable package, the financial situation has been much smoother sailing. If Fergie had retired a few years earlier than he did, in the period leading up to that refinancing, then things could have gotten very ugly.

The Glazers have said themselves that their plan rests on continued on field success. IIRC they define that success as finishing in the top four each season and winning a trophy every few years.

Your Airbag wrote: »

4. Rubbish. The Glazers have done nothing but support the club and buying players and up grading the training facilities.

All player purchases, staff wages and facility upgrades have been financed by the club's revenues, not the Glazers.

They also placed huge debts on the club, the repayment of which required continued on field success, the forfeiting of which would have led to serious problems for the club - i.e. they exposed the club to risk that none of us should be happy about.

The Glazers are financial investors, they care about their money and nothing else. If one day, sound investment of club revenues back into the club is going produce their best returns, then that's what they will do. If the next day the markets or other circumstances turn against them and they would be better served by removing all the money they can grab and letting the club deal with defaulted debts, then that is what they will do. That is how the world of finance works. To think that all financial investment is based on sustainable growth of individual businesses is clueless.

Pro. F

kryogen wrote: »

Question for you lads (Your Airbag and Pro F)

Have you ever actually agreed on anything?

No, never. I've said it a few times, we hold opposing views on pretty much anything football related so we shouldn't bother talking to each other. I try to avoid any discussions with him, but Your Airbag still pops up and quotes/responds to my posts now and again and so I end up having to refute his responses.

Pro. F

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Do any of one of us here actually have any background in these big purchases?

I know we have a few in finance alright, maybe a degree or 2 in economics

I've always had an interest in economics and spent a lot of time reading up on finance over the last four years or so, but have no formal education in it.

How about yourself?

kryogen

Pro. F wrote: »

No, never. I've said it a few times, we hold opposing views on pretty much anything football related so we shouldn't bother talking to each other. I try to avoid any discussions with him, but Your Airbag still pops up and quotes/responds to my posts now and again and so I end up having to refute his responses.

Yeah its weird, like you are polar opposites Arch Nemesis and all that jazz

shadowcomplex

Nuts102 wrote: »

We already have a rb who is great going forward but questionable defensively. We need competition for rb not spending a fortune on Coleman when we need central defenders.

Rafael is dirt

Backstreet Moyes

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Rafael is dirt

Didn't know you were capable of giving an opinion on a player.

Will I Amnt

Nuts102 wrote: »

Didn't know you were capable of giving an opinion on a player.

Who's better, Rafael or Coleman?

Where would we finish in the league with this team?

Dea Gayo
Coleman - Pikachu - Joe 90 - M Bison
Captain Planet
Mozart - Tarzan - Jonny Vegas
Hitler - Ray D'Arcy

Your Airbag

Pro. F wrote: »

Yeah because leveraged buy-outs are commonly viewed as decades long investments. Oh no wait, they're not, in fact it's the opposite of what you think.

I never said that the Glazers wouldn't have planned for these types of eventualities. Once again you are simply arguing against something I haven't said. The fact that the Glazers would have planned for any particular eventuality does not mean that the club was not exposed to serious risk, nor does it mean that the Glazers plans did not envision exposing the club to serious risks.



Yeah because the game of poker doesn't involve assessing probabilities and balancing risks against potential rewards. Nothing analogous there at all.


Sure it is. And good financial planning never involves leveraged target companies being exposed to high levels of risk following a take-over. That's how the world of finance works, it's minimum risk for everybody, financiers and target comapanies, all the time. Of course it is.

And you didn't describe the sponsorship deal as a roaring success, you described the Glazer's financial plan overall as a roaring success.



You are evaluating the risk based on the outcomes you observed after the fact. That's a rookie mistake, it even has a name to help you remember why it doesn't work - outcome bias.



The sponsorship deal which has covenants which state the payout will be decreased any year United finish outside the CL places? That one? Yeah I don't think that undermines my point at all.

I can easily believe the Glazers when they say that at this time they can afford to be out of the CL for a season or two. Since the bond issue, where they sacrificed 10% equity in order to refinance the debts into a more manageable package, the financial situation has been much smoother sailing. If Fergie had retired a few years earlier than he did, in the period leading up to that refinancing, then things could have gotten very ugly.

The Glazers have said themselves that their plan rests on continued on field success. IIRC they define that success as finishing in the top four each season and winning a trophy every few years.



All player purchases, staff wages and facility upgrades have been financed by the club's revenues, not the Glazers.

They also placed huge debts on the club, the repayment of which required continued on field success, the forfeiting of which would have led to serious problems for the club - i.e. they exposed the club to risk that none of us should be happy about.

The Glazers are financial investors, they care about their money and nothing else. If one day, sound investment of club revenues back into the club is going produce their best returns, then that's what they will do. If the next day the markets or other circumstances turn against them and they would be better served by removing all the money they can grab and letting the club deal with defaulted debts, then that is what they will do. That is how the world of finance works. To think that all financial investment is based on sustainable growth of individual businesses is clueless.

Lol you call my assesment a rookie mistake. Where as you admit to having no economic traning but just an interest in reding up on it. It shows in your assesments. Its akin to the tabloid scarmongering that went on.

Focusing on the initial buyout and the early debt laden years is just ignoring the bigger picture to suit your opinion. We recently secured a 750m sponsorship deal after a nightmare season. Thats close to the full valuation of the debt.

As much as you try to talk around it, these things don't happen by accident. Putting the club into debt is a risk if you don't have a plan for this, the Glazers had some plan from what we can see.

You recognise that they had contingencey plans yet your still trying to paint a picture of it being a wreckless move or risk.

Stick to reading the broadsheets and pdf's realesaed by fansites or whoever. You won't get close to an accurate idea of how the Glazers planned to turn the debt around because it goes on behind close doors and they are very smart and don't release these things beforehand.

All those papers and economists screaming crisis for UTD, ruin and a dark future finacially with owners who don't care or realise what they are doing for the club were wrong. 100% wrong, the opposite is true.

You have formed your opionion from this information, which is why its wrong. Keep up with your economy hobby though, the real experts like the Glazers will continue to prove you wrong.

The future is looking good, the big picture for us financially is that we are well on course. This takeover is still early days but you want to focus on the early days of the initial debt, which is illogical when evaluting the entire situation.

Pro. F wrote: »

No, never. I've said it a few times, we hold opposing views on pretty much anything football related so we shouldn't bother talking to each other. I try to avoid any discussions with him, but Your Airbag still pops up and quotes/responds to my posts now and again and so I end up having to refute his responses.

Yes, thats it, try and paint the picture that I jump on all your posts. Albeit lately yes I have responded more but lets not forget your Cleverly days. You replied to me many times when I posted stats and graphs to show how poor he was, calling my and many other peoples opinions stupid without provocation.

So drop the victim act, if your going to insult people band around crazy opions like "Cleverly is world class" "LVG should not be given money to buy CBs in January" plus your latest drivel and then to call other people dumb, well your rudeness is going to obviously get a reply.

KH25

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Who's better, Rafael or Coleman?

Where would we finish in the league with this team?

Dea Gayo
Coleman - Pikachu - Joe 90 - M Bison
Captain Planet
Mozart - Tarzan - Jonny Vegas
Hitler - Ray D'Arcy

You have just won the thread. Congratulations. If you'll excuse me I have to clean up the entire cup of tea o just spat all over the room.

Kerrydude1981

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Who's better, Rafael or Coleman?

Where would we finish in the league with this team?

Dea Gayo
Coleman - Pikachu - Joe 90 - M Bison
Captain Planet
Mozart - Tarzan - Jonny Vegas
Hitler - Ray D'Arcy

:D:D

Your Airbag

I've heard a couple of posters say the Glazers don't give a **** about the club only their money lately.

This seems to follow the sterotype that every top dog in a suit just cares about the bottom line and not the people.

I have worked with a few of business men who deal with high figure sums and hiring and firing and this view that they are all cold and uncaring is just a sterotype. Sure they are some guys like that but in general business men do care and want success for themeselves, the company and employess.

Its a very biased view to think that the Glazers don't care about the club and team and have no emotinal connection to the on pitch success.

They have spent £514m on players since taking over. Fergie said they were always great to go too. Fergie is not one to hold back. They respected his opinion and appointed Moyes on his request even though it turned out to be a mistake and they may have had other options in mind. They respected the managers wishes.

I don't buy this opinion that they don't give a toss aslong as they cash in. Do you honestly think they don't care that the team is doing badly? that they don't get the same buzz from a good preformace or goal? that they have little emotional connection to the club, the club their father took over and steered towards success before he died?

If anything they have a big emotional investment. I don't think for a second that if things were going badly on the pitch and the fans were unhappy but the cash was flowing in that they would'nt care.

shadowcomplex

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Who's better, Rafael or Coleman?

Where would we finish in the league with this team?

Dea Gayo
Coleman - Pikachu - Joe 90 - M Bison
Captain Planet
Mozart - Tarzan - Jonny Vegas
Hitler -

beno619

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Who's better, Rafael or Coleman?

Rafael.

Coleman has done very little in football besides being good in the premier league. Rafa has played in big games against the best in the world.

At international level he looks quite average. If Rafa could stay fit we wouldn't be having this conversation.

We should definitely look at bringing in some competition at RB for less £15M.

shadowcomplex

You must be joking , Rafael is a liability . How many times has he done something stupid or rash in games , he's not a patch on Coleman . Ivanovic and zabaletta are better than both of them though , both animals that take no prisoners, it's not backup we need for Rafael but a replacement , Rafael can be the back up

Will I Amnt

beno619 wrote: »

Rafael.

Coleman has done very little in football besides being good in the premier league. Rafa has played in big games against the best in the world.

At international level he looks quite average. If Rafa could stay fit we wouldn't be having this conversation.

We should definitely look at bringing in some competition at RB for less £15M.

Rafael is hardly a world beater either, good player but for fitness reasons alone I'd swap him for Coleman without a second thought.

You say Coleman has done very little in football besides the PL. He plays for Everton who have done very little in football since he's been there.
He plays for Ireland, where the previous manager was playing everybody and anybody before him and when he finally did pick him he wasn't permitted to get forward at all, that seems to be continuing under current management.
IMO, he would be a perfect fit for United, I'd rate him as equal to or better than Rafael at both ends of the pitch.

beno619

shadowcomplex wrote: »

You must be joking , Rafael is a liability . How many times has he done something stupid or rash in games , he's not a patch on Coleman . Ivanovic and zabaletta are better than both of them though , both animals that take no prisoners, it's not backup we need for Rafael but a replacement , Rafael can be the back up

Zabaleta slightly edged him out a year or two ago, but his form has dropped of a bit. Very close between Zabaleta,Rafa and Ivanovic.

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Rafael is hardly a world beater either, good player but for fitness reasons alone I'd swap him for Coleman without a second thought.

You say Coleman has done very little in football besides the PL. He plays for Everton who have done very little in football since he's been there.
He plays for Ireland, where the previous manager was playing everybody and anybody before him and when he finally did pick him he wasn't permitted to get forward at all, that seems to be continuing under current management.
IMO, he would be a perfect fit for United, I'd rate him as equal to or better than Rafael at both ends of the pitch.

Baines and Jakielka look great in the league for Everton as well but have been found to be way out of their depth when it comes to international level.

Like I said, Rafa has a list of world class performances against the best in the world.

Coleman is slightly overrated because of his nationality, great player but has lots to prove.

adox

Coleman is heavily restricted by the manager when playing for Ireland rather than playing poorly IMO.

Rafael is a class player who has matured in the last couple of seasons and his rashness is now greatly exaggerated. However there really has to be questions about his fitness and injury record at this stage, although the same could be said about all our defenders.

If Rafael could stay fit I'd be delighted to have him as first choice RB for the next few years. Unfortunately that's looking more and more like a pipe dream.

Will I Amnt

beno619 wrote: »

Coleman is slightly overrated because of his nationality, great player but has lots to prove.

Rafael is just as overrated by United fans, he has as many poor performances as he has world class performances under his belt. His crossing has gone to crap too, I like the lad, he's decent but not as good as you make him out to be.

beno619

adox wrote: »

If Rafael could stay fit I'd be delighted to have him as first choice RB for the next few years. Unfortunately that's looking more and more like a pipe dream.

Id go with this, all he has to prove is his fitness.

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Rafael is just as overrated by United fans, he has as many poor performances as he has world class performances under his belt. His crossing has gone to crap too, I like the lad, he's decent but not as good as you make him out to be.

Not really, United fans are split on him and he's not rated at all by opposition fans :rolleyes:

Nope very few poor performances just the odd moment of madness and very few in the past 3 years. Your wildly underrating him and Coleman has done nothing to suggest he's a better player.

Rafa has shut out Ronaldo/Di Maria, Ribery etc.
Bale barely featured in games when he came up against Rafa.

keane2097

Coleman is miles ahead of Rafael in every aspect. Better attacker, better defender, more reliable, bigger, faster, stronger, whatever you're having. If you could only have one or the other in your squad you would be an outright fool to pick Rafael.

J. Marston

Yep, Rafael really is nothing special.

RobertKK

James Rodriguez speaking about Falcao: “I’ve not had the chance to speak with him yet, but he has to stay calm and he’s mentally strong. We all have our critics, but he’s going to get through this, he’ll be fine and will start scoring goals to shut all their mouths.”

Yes James, I really hope he does as you say. Falcao is a player I dreamed of signing for United, would be so disappointing if injury got in the way.

The coach of the Colombia team Jose Pekerman said "He's in a good condition and could be ready for Arsenal. He hasn't even started yet [to show what he can do]."
"Falcao is at one of the best clubs in the world, in one of the best leagues and with one of the best manager."

At Atletico they still regard Falcao as the best player they had over Costa and Aguero.

Pro. F

Your Airbag wrote: »

Lol you call my assesment a rookie mistake. Where as you admit to having no economic traning but just an interest in reding up on it. It shows in your assesments. Its akin to the tabloid scarmongering that went on.

Assessing the risk of an action based on the outcome is a rookie mistake. It's called outcome bias.

I said I have no formal training. I suppose self education counts for nothing and I shouldn't be expressing an opinion on the football club in the football club discussion thead in the public discussion forum.

What formal training in economics, finance, risk evaluation do you have? And if you have any such training how come you are showing so many basic misundertstandings of the topics when you are discussing it?

Your Airbag wrote: »

Focusing on the initial buyout and the early debt laden years is just ignoring the bigger picture to suit your opinion. We recently secured a 750m sponsorship deal after a nightmare season. Thats close to the full valuation of the debt.

Unless I'm misremembering, £750m exceeded the projected total debt at maturity at the time the sponsorship deal was signed. However the total value of the sponsorship deal does not directly equate to new money brought into the club that can be used for the debt. The new sponsorship deal was replacing an old, also big, deal which revenues were already being used in the club. So the money added by the new deal is: (new deal value) - (old deal value). Also, at the time of signing the new sponsorship deal the debt maturity was around 5 years iirc, while the deal length was 10 years. So even such a massive sponsorship deal does not represent a direct solution to the debt.

Having said all that, I have said there has been a good bit of good news in the last few years, and that sponsorship deal definitely represented good news. Like I've said, since the last refinancing of the debt where the Glazers had to give up 10% equity in order to make it all work, the financial situation has been much smoother sailing. I was much more concerned about the chances of it all working out until the Glazers eventually took a step back, sold 10% of the club and finally turned the corner.

Your Airbag wrote: »

As much as you try to talk around it, these things don't happen by accident. Putting the club into debt is a risk if you don't have a plan for this, the Glazers had some plan from what we can see.

You recognise that they had contingencey plans yet your still trying to paint a picture of it being a wreckless move or risk.

Having a plan does not mean somebody is not taking a risk. Not all finance actions are done at low levels of risk. Standard practice in LBOs is to take on higher levels of risk in the target company. Levels of risk that no football fan would ever be happy with their club being exposed to.

Your Airbag wrote: »

Stick to reading the broadsheets and pdf's realesaed by fansites or whoever. You won't get close to an accurate idea of how the Glazers planned to turn the debt around because it goes on behind close doors and they are very smart and don't release these things beforehand.

All those papers and economists screaming crisis for UTD, ruin and a dark future finacially with owners who don't care or realise what they are doing for the club were wrong. 100% wrong, the opposite is true.

You have formed your opionion from this information, which is why its wrong. Keep up with your economy hobby though, the real experts like the Glazers will continue to prove you wrong.

The future is looking good, the big picture for us financially is that we are well on course. This takeover is still early days but you want to focus on the early days of the initial debt, which is illogical when evaluting the entire situation.

The Glazers have been legally obliged to make their plans and projections public since the bond issue. They were also obliged to make other details of their operation public in the earlier debt restructuring, and the make-up of the initial purchase obviously had to be public. I've linked you to some of those documents already and they are easy to find, knock yourself out and don't bother with the newspapers. We all learned to ignore the papers years ago. I also find expert bloggers and posters like Andersred (critic of Glazers) and GCHQ (pro Glazer) are very informative but you have to read both sides to balance the bias.

The highest levels of risk the club was going to be exposed to were the earlier stages of the process, by the nature of the fact that initial financing required for an LBO is expensive and later refinancing requires initial riskier plans to pay off. So of course it is that earlier risk that I have always had an issue with. Just because that risk has lessened when things have worked doesn't mean that it was always going to work out. You are expressing outcome bias.

Your Airbag wrote: »

Yes, thats it, try and paint the picture that I jump on all your posts. Albeit lately yes I have responded more but lets not forget your Cleverly days. You replied to me many times when I posted stats and graphs to show how poor he was, calling my and many other peoples opinions stupid without provocation.

So drop the victim act, if your going to insult people band around crazy opions like "Cleverly is world class" "LVG should not be given money to buy CBs in January" plus your latest drivel and then to call other people dumb, well your rudeness is going to obviously get a reply.

I didn't say that you jump on all my posts, I said that you still pop up and quote/respond to my posts now and again. You say yourself that that is the case.

And of course I'm rude and nobody else is, especially not you. And my opinions are crazy and drivel. That's the issue.

Btw, this particular discussion of the United finances started with Gowlasourus Rex calling critics of the Glazers "stupid and clueless... Pseudo economists and financiers waving their scarfs". You're compelled to reply when you think I'm being rude, but you don't seem to have an issue when people who agree with you are throwing around the insults. Funny that.

Your Airbag wrote: »

I've heard a couple of posters say the Glazers don't give a **** about the club only their money lately.

This seems to follow the sterotype that every top dog in a suit just cares about the bottom line and not the people.

I have worked with a few of business men who deal with high figure sums and hiring and firing and this view that they are all cold and uncaring is just a sterotype. Sure they are some guys like that but in general business men do care and want success for themeselves, the company and employess.

Its a very biased view to think that the Glazers don't care about the club and team and have no emotinal connection to the on pitch success.

They have spent £514m on players since taking over. Fergie said they were always great to go too. Fergie is not one to hold back. They respected his opinion and appointed Moyes on his request even though it turned out to be a mistake and they may have had other options in mind. They respected the managers wishes.

I don't buy this opinion that they don't give a toss aslong as they cash in. Do you honestly think they don't care that the team is doing badly? that they don't get the same buzz from a good preformace or goal? that they have little emotional connection to the club, the club their father took over and steered towards success before he died?

If anything they have a big emotional investment. I don't think for a second that if things were going badly on the pitch and the fans were unhappy but the cash was flowing in that they would'nt care.

You are confusing people who run a business with financiers who takeover a business as an investment opportunity. The Glazers will do what is best for making money for themselves. If that means running a healthy club and paying themselves in fees and dividends, they'll do that; if that means selling the club and moving on, they'll do that; if it means allowing the club to suffer on the pitch or exposing it to financial risk, they'll do that.

Re bold: The Glazers have not spent a penny on players. All player purchases, wages and club investments have been paid for with club revenue.

Pro. F

beno619 wrote: »

Rafael.

Coleman has done very little in football besides being good in the premier league. Rafa has played in big games against the best in the world.

At international level he looks quite average. If Rafa could stay fit we wouldn't be having this conversation.

We should definitely look at bringing in some competition at RB for less £15M.

Doing well in the Premier League means you are playing in big games against the best in the world. Coleman has been excellent against the best the PL has to offer.

Just because Rafael has played a handful of games against other world class opposition that Coleman hasn't had the chance to face doesn't mean that Rafael is more proven.

And stick Rafael in that Ireland team and his game would suffer just as much.

beno619 wrote: »

Baines and Jakielka look great in the league for Everton as well but have been found to be way out of their depth when it comes to international level.

International football is not of a higher standard than the top end of the PL.

You are mixing up poor England performances caused by the management with how good the players are. I suppose Sturridge, Rooney and Sterling were out of their depth when it came to international level as well.

Your Airbag

Pro. F wrote: »

Re bold: The Glazers have not spent a penny on players. All player purchases, wages and club investments have been paid for with club revenue.

Your struggling here and making points by twisting logic.

Its 514m they could have used to serivce there own interests or to line there own pockets. They have taken money out already for their own needs as you already pointed out. Money from UTD revenue, the club they own so yes they are helping us buy players with cash they could refuse us or divert elsewhere.


Trying to say they had no claim or ownership on the 514m biased against them of the highest order. Its their club, their debt, their revenue to use as they want. You are quick to point out when they take money out of the clun revenue for their own use but try to say them taking club revenue and using it on transfers is as good as them not spending their own cash when it could easily be just for that.

They used 514m to buy us players that won us titles. Trying to spin it as if they had nothing invested in that chunk of cash is bs.


You'll say and old thing contradicting yourself to make a point. Thats laughable.

shadowcomplex

Any of you reckon there's any truth to the following rumours doing the rounds

• De Gea rejects new contract and wants Real Madrid switch
• Vidic could return to United
• Herrera could be sold in January
• Real Madrid prepared to let Bale join ManUtd but want Di Maria and Cash in Return

The Moldy Gowl

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Any of you reckon there's any truth to the following rumours doing the rounds

• De Gea rejects new contract and wants Real Madrid switch
• Vidic could return to United
• Herrera could be sold in January
• Real Madrid prepared to let Bale join ManUtd but want Di Maria and Cash in Return

Why?
I'm not sure if I should lol for you or not?

beno619

Pro. F wrote: »

Just because Rafael has played a handful of games against other world class opposition that Coleman hasn't had the chance to face doesn't mean that Rafael is more proven.

No im fairly sure it does in fact mean he's proven, whether Coleman has had a chance or not. Im not sure how anyone could argue that at Rafael is not more proven and has more top level experience

International football is not of a higher standard than the top end of the PL.

You are mixing up poor England performances caused by the management with how good the players are. I suppose Sturridge, Rooney and Sterling were out of their depth when it came to international level as well.

I dont disagree about poor management but these players were found out badly at the World Cup, making poor individual mistake.

Rooney has had good periods and poor periods for England, Sterling has mostly been good. Id put Sturridge in the second tier of top forwards in world football with Benzema & Higuain ect like Coleman, still have a bit to prove.

shadowcomplex

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Why?
I'm not sure if I should lol for you or not?

your a dope