|
Bacon of the Sea posted:I don't know what to think anymore, part of me thinks it must have been building for a fair while, but part of me wonders how they'd have convinced anyone to buy the club if the books said "Owe a bajingo million quid, losing millions a month, no real assets as we haven't paid for any of the players we've brought in yet, short term prospects = need mo money" Welp time for a bake sale or a raffle. 5 quid winner of the raffle gets Pompey...
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Why didn't Portsmouth simply consolidate their debts into one easily affordable monthly payment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/03/red-knights-manchester-united-david-gill Apparently, the Red Knights are going nowhere and the Glazers will dig in. Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Mar 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
For me a big part of the worry is that the only thing that stopped the debt from rising in the last year was the Ronaldo sale, and it wouldn't be sustainable to sell our best player each season to keep the club running. There's a lot of figures that keep getting bandied about in the wake of the bond issue but as I understand turnover has increased for this season so we should see the debt begin to fall. If the Glazers can cut a decent chuck out of the debt each year without leaving the squad uncompetitive and are planning to keep the club for a long time then there isn't really a problem. What I, and I suspect most United fans, want is something to convince me that in five years time we aren't going to look like Liverpool or Leeds, and also that if the Glazers do get rid of all the debt they don't sell the club to another LBO and start the process over again. Ideally of course I'd like the Glazers gone totally but that's not a realistic expectation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
Craiglen posted:Why didn't Portsmouth simply consolidate their debts into one easily affordable monthly payment? they don't own their own home 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
TyChan posted:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/03/red-knights-manchester-united-david-gill This is massively unsurprising. In all honesty, I think the Red Knights thing was for no other purpose than to promote MUST and to keep the issue of the ownership in the news. And if it was, then it appears to have worked, if MUST are being genuine about getting 20,000 new members off the back of it. I also don't think it's a coincidence it came to prominence directly after MUST rolled out the Green & Gold campaign. In order for the Glazers to leave now, one of two things needs to happen. Either the fans would have to boycott the club en masse, causing a massive Portsmouth-esque implosion; or you'd have to start an active campaign of terrorist violence against the Glazers, their holdings and their loved ones. But people are apparently not keen on that idea. Most people are boring and miserable bastards when you cut to the chase. There is something of an elephant in the room here, though, in that the assumption has been pretty much a priori, all the way through, that the Glazers could not service the debt and keep United in a successful position. It was only a matter of time before the debts would be defaulted on, players would have to be sold, Old Trafford would be licensed off, and Colleen Rooney would have to turn tricks in the car park. It would be at that point that any takeover bid would come in, with the Glazers taking a nominal payoff to be free of the debt and from hearing the fail trumpet that you get if you lose at any one of a number of PC versions of Monopoly. You'd probably still have £600m+ worth of debt involved, of course, but that's a reasonable price to pay for a club like United. The MUST plan was always based around the idea of United going into administration and then being available to buy for around £100m, which I don't think is likely or practical at all. As it is, they have £3m, which is a huge amount for a supporters' trust, and would save a number of clubs, but is essentially nothing in this instance. It would mainly have to have relied on these 'Red Knights' types, and from the noises that came out of there, possibly that was always the intention. Whether or not the Red Knights would be happy to see us build Barcelona here on England's green and pleasant land, I don't know who knows. I doubt it, though. But I have a sneaking suspicion now, that by hook or crook, the Glazers may pull it off. If they can actually keep United on an even keel whilst paying down the debt, it's going to be extremely difficult to dislodge them without resorting to aforementioned tactics cribbed from Steven Segal movies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 02:20
|
|
|
I dislike United but I'd be up for terrorist action against the Glazers or any rich person really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 02:26
|
|
|
Scikar posted:For me a big part of the worry is that the only thing that stopped the debt from rising in the last year was the Ronaldo sale, and it wouldn't be sustainable to sell our best player each season to keep the club running. There's a lot of figures that keep getting bandied about in the wake of the bond issue but as I understand turnover has increased for this season so we should see the debt begin to fall. If the Glazers can cut a decent chuck out of the debt each year without leaving the squad uncompetitive and are planning to keep the club for a long time then there isn't really a problem. How in the world are you putting liverpool in the same conversation as Leeds? United has much more debt than Liverpool as well, it's not like you'd have to sink further to get to liverpool's level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
apart from loss of Beer sales, how much would a boycott actually hurt the bottom line? Most of these tickets have been long sold as season tickets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 02:56
|
|
|
Adnar posted:apart from loss of Beer sales, how much would a boycott actually hurt the bottom line? Most of these tickets have been long sold as season tickets. Well, obviously, it'd have to involve non-renewal of season tickets. It's not the US, so people aren't signed up to 10-year tickets or anything like that. If you assume the average price for a ticket is £25, though, factoring in season tickets and concessions, that means you've got a matchday gate of £2m. You've then got the extras on top of that, plus all your corporate functions. So it could well be over £3m. But if you say the stadium is half-full, that's a loss of around a million pounds a game. Thirty or so home games, £30m loss a year. So it wouldn't be crippling in and of itself. But if you couple it with a cutback in merchandising then it could be a fair bit more than that. But 5,000 people staying away has little chance of being effective. In fact, from a purely business perspective, it would make more sense for the Glazers to increase prices until there were empty seats visible. 50,000 paying £60 makes more money than 75,000 paying £35.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
Truth posted:How in the world are you putting liverpool in the same conversation as Leeds? United has much more debt than Liverpool as well, it's not like you'd have to sink further to get to liverpool's level. I mean in the sense of having owners that refuse to spend any money because they're desperate to sell the club while still asking more than the club's worth, not that the Liverpool situation is the same as Leeds. There are basically three possible outcomes as long as the Glazers stay: 1) they successfully get rid of the debt and the club more or less goes back to the way it was before they bought it, 2) we end up in Liverpool's situation and slowly deteriorate until either they accept the loss or someone with big pockets shows up, or 3) we end up in Leeds' situation. Case 3 is unlikely but I want something to show we're headed towards 1 rather than 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
I would think that getting banners on TV might be more effective than a boycott purely because with a team like united there are more than enough plastics to fill the gaps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 03:18
|
|
|
Byolante posted:I would think that getting banners on TV might be more effective than a boycott purely because with a team like united there are more than enough plastics to fill the gaps. Exactly why a boycott won't work. Getting tickets for a United game is insane, because the demand is so huge. If Johnny Real Fan won't pay his money because he wants to stick it to the Glazers, Bob Plastic won't mind popping over from Ireland / London / Singapore to pay his money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 05:12
|
|
|
Rhgr posted:Exactly why a boycott won't work. Getting tickets for a United game is insane, because the demand is so huge. If Johnny Real Fan won't pay his money because he wants to stick it to the Glazers, Bob Plastic won't mind popping over from Ireland / London / Singapore to pay his money. True, but if the owners have a reputation for loving over their local fans they won't get nearly as many fans worldwide. When you can hand pick who to support, who wants to join in with a team that has douchebags for owners?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 14:24
|
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:True, but if the owners have a reputation for loving over their local fans they won't get nearly as many fans worldwide. When you can hand pick who to support, who wants to join in with a team that has douchebags for owners? Erm you pick the team that wins stuff. Who gives a poo poo what the owners are like?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 14:25
|
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:True, but if the owners have a reputation for loving over their local fans they won't get nearly as many fans worldwide. When you can hand pick who to support, who wants to join in with a team that has douchebags for owners? Most people who choose won't give a gently caress as long as the team are successful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 14:25
|
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:True, but if the owners have a reputation for loving over their local fans they won't get nearly as many fans worldwide. When you can hand pick who to support, who wants to join in with a team that has douchebags for owners? real madrid do ok
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 14:26
|
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:True, but if the owners have a reputation for loving over their local fans they won't get nearly as many fans worldwide. When you can hand pick who to support, who wants to join in with a team that has douchebags for owners? Doesn't stop American sports teams from being successful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 14:29
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Doesn't stop American sports teams from being successful. It's a closed market, there is no competition from outside the country. In football, footballers just gently caress off to Spain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 14:45
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:real madrid do ok Could you argue that Madrid have ever had any ambitions other than to win to league recently? Their local fans loving love them. Mickolution posted:Most people who choose won't give a gently caress as long as the team are successful. Lots of teams are successful, but at the end of the day if I'm a glory hunter I still have a choice to make, there's not one team that wins everything all the time its spread out between a few clubs. Big Black Sock fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Mar 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:Lots of teams are successful, but at the end of the day if I'm a glory hunter I still have a choice to make, there's not one team that wins everything all the time its spread out between a few clubs. I don't know what your argument is here. My point was that gloryhunting fans couldn't give a gently caress about the ownership of a club, they just care about success. Especially as a lot of them get into said club as kids. Chelsea have one of the most despicable owners around, but it didn't stop them gaining a legion of fans shortly after he took over because they started winning things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Chelsea have one of the most despicable owners around, but it didn't stop them gaining a legion of fans shortly after he took over because they started winning things. I would take Roman any day over the Americans at Liverpool or Man U.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:05
|
|
|
He also owns a boat that fires lazers that stop the paps taking photos. c'mon how cool is that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:13
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:I would take Roman any day over the Americans at Liverpool or Man U. That's exactly my point. Plastics don't care about anything except success.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:17
|
|
|
quote:Portsmouth's administrator has placed a valuation on the club for the first time and insists the Premier League outfit are an attractive investment. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8548666.stm That's an optimistic valuation if you ask me...
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:That's exactly my point. I meant in terms of morality and general likeability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:I meant in terms of morality and general likeability. Still proving my point, really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:28
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:I don't know what your argument is here. My point was that gloryhunting fans couldn't give a gently caress about the ownership of a club, they just care about success. Especially as a lot of them get into said club as kids. My point is that even if success is the biggest factor, clubs who are successful and treat their local fans well are more appealing to most international fans than clubs who are successful but have their fans protesting in the stands every game. Either way I'm not exactly sure when Roman has abused his local fanbase. All he's done is bought them trophies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:My point is that even if success is the biggest factor, clubs who are successful and treat their local fans well are more appealing to most international fans than clubs who are successful but have their fans protesting in the stands every game. Either way I'm not exactly sure when Roman has abused his local fanbase. All he's done is bought them trophies. Fair enough, I take your point and yeah, he hasn't done anything to the fans as such. But I really thing you're overestimating how much a lot of fans in Malaysia or the US care about "the club".
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:58
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Fair enough, I take your point and yeah, he hasn't done anything to the fans as such. But I really thing you're overestimating how much a lot of fans in Malaysia or the US care about "the club". Oh most of us don't give a gently caress about the club but we definitely want people(especially the local) to think we do. It's all a part of the experience for some people. Get the jersey and the scarf, watch the team on tv, talk about the teams performance on a forum, see the club in person when the club go on their world tour, get pissed at the owners who are loving up financials. It's all part of the fun, and in the event the club you chose pulls a pompey, you can always pick again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 19:12
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:I meant in terms of morality and general likeability. Stealing billions of dollars of your own impoverished countrymen is ok?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:I would take Roman any day over the Americans at Liverpool or Man U. So from what I remember reading, Chelsea really owe Abramovich a ton of money in the form of low interest loans which he has made to the club, correct? I guess if anyone else wanted to buy Chelsea from him, depending on the state of his own finances, he could just take a bath on those loans he has made? I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't know that much about Chelsea's financial situation except that they haven't quite made a profit yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
Adnar posted:Stealing billions of dollars of your own impoverished countrymen is ok? He stole it from his countrymen, not mine. It would be like if the Queen bought a club =P And is Roman's rise any worse than Hicks who did it via leveraged buyouts and destroying Corinthians, or than the Glazers who did it by getting public money through their NFL franchise?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 19:43
|
|
|
TyChan posted:So from what I remember reading, Chelsea really owe Abramovich a ton of money in the form of low interest loans which he has made to the club, correct? I guess if anyone else wanted to buy Chelsea from him, depending on the state of his own finances, he could just take a bath on those loans he has made? I think they are actually no interest loans. Then they come out and say, "WE DON'T OWE ANY MONEY to outside creditors."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 19:45
|
|
|
TyChan posted:So from what I remember reading, Chelsea really owe Abramovich a ton of money in the form of low interest loans which he has made to the club, correct? I guess if anyone else wanted to buy Chelsea from him, depending on the state of his own finances, he could just take a bath on those loans he has made? Roman converted all of it into equity in the club I believe. Mickolution is partially right. I couldn't care less about how nice a person Roman might be, but its not the success people focus on, its his actions. Nick Griffin could be the nicest person ever but it wouldn't matter, it's his actions that matter. Hicks and Gillett and the Glazers could be the nicest people ever who made their money by saving drowning puppies, but their leveraged buyouts make them into awful owners.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 19:56
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:
are you serious?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 20:03
|
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:Oh most of us don't give a gently caress about the club but we definitely want people(especially the local) to think we do. It's all a part of the experience for some people. Get the jersey and the scarf, watch the team on tv, talk about the teams performance on a forum, see the club in I can't speak for foreign fans really (technically one myself, but that's slightly different), but I think we get a fairly skewed view of them on here. Most of the non-European fans on here seem to really love their clubs, at least enough to learn about them and discuss them at length. However, I don't think this is what the majority of, say, far east fans are like, who are the ones spending the money. Also, Adnar posted:are you serious?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:And is Roman's rise any worse than Hicks who did it via leveraged buyouts and destroying Corinthians, or than the Glazers who did it by getting public money through their NFL franchise? Yeah. Abramovic got ownership of previously government-owned services worth many billions for a couple of hundred million through government corruption, essentially draining all that money from the state and therefore it's taxpayers. Those other guys damaged sporting clubs's short-term success. Noxville fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Mar 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
In this very thread willKill4Food proves Big Black Sock wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:I can't speak for foreign fans really (technically one myself, but that's slightly different), but I think we get a fairly skewed view of them on here. Most of the non-European fans on here seem to really love their clubs, at least enough to learn about them and discuss them at length. However, I don't think this is what the majority of, say, far east fans are like, who are the ones spending the money. I went to a bar to catch Liverpool/Fulham. There were a good number of expats and people who got into the game after living abroad as students. Despite all the news about the club's financial shape and the monetary incentives for various things, the club's problems were all tremendous news to them. They all seemed like pretty serious fans who had been following the EPL for a while to me (at least compared to the people I only see when the World Cup is on). I think most people aren't that curious about the way their team works if it's not purely related to what's happening on the pitch while they're watching. If I wasn't an anorak who didn't mind taking breaks from work (or whatever) to read the Times or the Guardian, I'm not sure if I'd care that much either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 21:18
|
|