United Thread 2015/16

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue Hefner said:
Amongst yet more inaccuracies(at best), no one is betting in oil prices. Do a bit a reading, really it's not hard to find, that City''s owners have invested money all over the world in a variety of areas to protect against the price of oil and for when it runs out

Not by any measurable way van the Glazer's be described as 'good owners', one more defeat and the green and yellow scarfs will be out - you'll be able to spot them on the telly
Click to expand...

Disclaimer:
1. I have never lived in any part of the Arab world and my knowledge is solely on the basis of what I have read in financial newspapers/magazines or what people from there have told me.
2. I am not saying that your owners are bad.
My understanding is that their investments have led to a lot of jobs in the Manchester area and for that they should be applauded. They have also been good for football by making it more competitive.
I am only commenting on risk and sustainability.

Investments can be divided into 2 parts: high risk and low-medium risk.
The world will continue to gobble up oil. Owning Oil Assets should be a low-medium risk asset.
However, due to a questionable public policy, Arab countries utilize a lot of oil money to subsidize utilities/infrastructure/goods consumed by the local population.
Not only that, the bureaucracy is inflated as funds from high oil prices have been utilized to give people jobs even though there is no need for it.
There is also a population boom across the Arab world: better nutrition, affordable healthcare, etc.
A drop in oil prices will seriously affect their ability to subsidize products for the population and may lead to an even greater amount of dissatisfaction.

Investments can also be divided into 2 other parts: low and high liquidity.
The other investments you talk about:
Corporate/Public Debt: low liquidity but sustainable cash.
Property: low liquidity.
Stocks: should be highly liquid but in reality when you have taken a significant stake in a company (say bank stocks after 2008-crash), you can't just sell without causing a market panic.
If the owner of a significant portion of a company starts to cash out, the stock prices tend to tumble.
This leads me to believe that City' owners can't immediately remove cash when required.
TBF I don't think any other owner can either but that's my point ... the financial risk for Utd at the moment is lower than City.

Also I think that the scarf people love the club but their views are misguided.
 
oakiecokie said:
OIL PRICES !!!!
You need to look at their portfolio if you believe for one moment that oil is their saviour.Another Rag jumping on the ever trending assumption that HH is only using City as his toy/plaything.
Tell me please "what has your club ever done for this wonderful city,financially" ?
Taxi for Raggies.
Click to expand...


Disclaimer:
1. I have never lived in any part of the Arab world and my knowledge is solely on the basis of what I have read in financial newspapers/magazines or what people from there have told me.
2. I am not saying that your owners are bad.
My understanding is that their investments have led to a lot of jobs in the Manchester area and for that they should be applauded. They have also been good for football by making it more competitive.
I am only commenting on risk and sustainability.

Investments can be divided into 2 parts: high risk and low-medium risk.
The world will continue to gobble up oil. Owning Oil Assets should be a low-medium risk asset.
However, due to a questionable public policy, Arab countries utilize a lot of oil money to subsidize utilities/infrastructure/goods consumed by the local population.
Not only that, the bureaucracy is inflated as funds from high oil prices have been utilized to give people jobs even though there is no need for it.
There is also a population boom across the Arab world: better nutrition, affordable healthcare, etc.
A drop in oil prices will seriously affect their ability to subsidize products for the population and may lead to an even greater amount of dissatisfaction.

Investments can also be divided into 2 other parts: low and high liquidity.
The other investments you talk about:
Corporate/Public Debt: low liquidity but sustainable cash.
Property: low liquidity.
Stocks: should be highly liquid but in reality when you have taken a significant stake in a company (say bank stocks after 2008-crash), you can't just sell without causing a market panic.
If the owner of a significant portion of a company starts to cash out, the stock prices tend to tumble.
This leads me to believe that City' owners can't immediately remove cash when required.
TBF I don't think any other owner can either but that's my point ... the financial risk for Utd at the moment is lower than City.

Also I think that the scarf people love the club but their views are misguided.
 
karen7 said:
You should be banned for calling our owner The Arabs
Click to expand...

I didn't mean it as an offensive thing.
Here's what I have posted elsewhere:



Disclaimer:
1. I have never lived in any part of the Arab world and my knowledge is solely on the basis of what I have read in financial newspapers/magazines or what people from there have told me.
2. I am not saying that your owners are bad.
My understanding is that their investments have led to a lot of jobs in the Manchester area and for that they should be applauded. They have also been good for football by making it more competitive.
I am only commenting on risk and sustainability.

Investments can be divided into 2 parts: high risk and low-medium risk.
The world will continue to gobble up oil. Owning Oil Assets should be a low-medium risk asset.
However, due to a questionable public policy, Arab countries utilize a lot of oil money to subsidize utilities/infrastructure/goods consumed by the local population.
Not only that, the bureaucracy is inflated as funds from high oil prices have been utilized to give people jobs even though there is no need for it.
There is also a population boom across the Arab world: better nutrition, affordable healthcare, etc.
A drop in oil prices will seriously affect their ability to subsidize products for the population and may lead to an even greater amount of dissatisfaction.

Investments can also be divided into 2 other parts: low and high liquidity.
The other investments you talk about:
Corporate/Public Debt: low liquidity but sustainable cash.
Property: low liquidity.
Stocks: should be highly liquid but in reality when you have taken a significant stake in a company (say bank stocks after 2008-crash), you can't just sell without causing a market panic.
If the owner of a significant portion of a company starts to cash out, the stock prices tend to tumble.
This leads me to believe that City' owners can't immediately remove cash when required.
TBF I don't think any other owner can either but that's my point ... the financial risk for Utd at the moment is lower than City.

Also I think that the scarf people love the club but their views are misguided.
 
DiscoSteve said:
Just watched the 3 question news conference - he's like a bully whose just been found out and is having to explain his actions - short of a trembling bottom lip to match his embarassed red cheeks that was perfect. I think.

I think he's gone before the years out - Save our Louis!!!!
Click to expand...
Rag.

:p

He was telling the journos off for shit stirring.
 
lloydie said:
It was because we're not a bunch of hypocritical cunts like you lot.
We have garnered supporters worldwide over many years despite our lack of success and because we have a character that is beyond mere success, ..and yes, many just because we are not united.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think you are exaggerating.
Your 'global' supporters prior to current success were probably British expats whose children may have followed the tradition.
The vast amount of your new fan base has come because of its success.

Why are you in denial about it?
Its perfectly fine to gain fans that way.
 
mat said:
Rag.

:p
Click to expand...
Danny-Ocean-Gif.gif
 
silverback said:
Did you not stop to consider that your mob are in hock to the banks. Due to the financial whims of those institutions what would you say if they suddenly called in the monies due. Furthermore they might even be Arab run banks so given your scenario of an Arab Spring they might need to monetise the outstanding debt, where would that leave your well run club?
Click to expand...

Once a loan is given out. There is a certain pre-agreed upon schedule that needs to be followed.
In fact there are penalties for early-repayment of debt because banks earn their profits through the interest rates they charge.
Less outstanding debt implies less interest rate for the banks.
You can't call in the money unless there has been an agreement of some sort.

Your tone makes me believe that you think I am against your owners.
Here is what I posted some time back in response to another thread:


Disclaimer:
1. I have never lived in any part of the Arab world and my knowledge is solely on the basis of what I have read in financial newspapers/magazines or what people from there have told me.
2. I am not saying that your owners are bad.
My understanding is that their investments have led to a lot of jobs in the Manchester area and for that they should be applauded. They have also been good for football by making it more competitive.
I am only commenting on risk and sustainability.

Investments can be divided into 2 parts: high risk and low-medium risk.
The world will continue to gobble up oil. Owning Oil Assets should be a low-medium risk asset.
However, due to a questionable public policy, Arab countries utilize a lot of oil money to subsidize utilities/infrastructure/goods consumed by the local population.
Not only that, the bureaucracy is inflated as funds from high oil prices have been utilized to give people jobs even though there is no need for it.
There is also a population boom across the Arab world: better nutrition, affordable healthcare, etc.
A drop in oil prices will seriously affect their ability to subsidize products for the population and may lead to an even greater amount of dissatisfaction.

Investments can also be divided into 2 other parts: low and high liquidity.
The other investments you talk about:
Corporate/Public Debt: low liquidity but sustainable cash.
Property: low liquidity.
Stocks: should be highly liquid but in reality when you have taken a significant stake in a company (say bank stocks after 2008-crash), you can't just sell without causing a market panic.
If the owner of a significant portion of a company starts to cash out, the stock prices tend to tumble.
This leads me to believe that City' owners can't immediately remove cash when required.
TBF I don't think any other owner can either but that's my point ... the financial risk for Utd at the moment is lower than City.

Also I think that the scarf people love the club but their views are misguided.
 
pudge said:
Click to expand...


Fair dos to the TT.

As much as I detest him and everything associated with the Trafford shithole, I have to give him credit for coming out and telling them to fuck off, at least metaphorically.

And when he asked if any of them would like to apologise, none of them was man enough to do so.
 
mufc1988 said:
Disclaimer:
1. I have never lived in any part of the Arab world and my knowledge is solely on the basis of what I have read in financial newspapers/magazines or what people from there have told me.
2. I am not saying that your owners are bad.
My understanding is that their investments have led to a lot of jobs in the Manchester area and for that they should be applauded. They have also been good for football by making it more competitive.
I am only commenting on risk and sustainability.

Investments can be divided into 2 parts: high risk and low-medium risk.
The world will continue to gobble up oil. Owning Oil Assets should be a low-medium risk asset.
However, due to a questionable public policy, Arab countries utilize a lot of oil money to subsidize utilities/infrastructure/goods consumed by the local population.
Not only that, the bureaucracy is inflated as funds from high oil prices have been utilized to give people jobs even though there is no need for it.
There is also a population boom across the Arab world: better nutrition, affordable healthcare, etc.
A drop in oil prices will seriously affect their ability to subsidize products for the population and may lead to an even greater amount of dissatisfaction.

Investments can also be divided into 2 other parts: low and high liquidity.
The other investments you talk about:
Corporate/Public Debt: low liquidity but sustainable cash.
Property: low liquidity.
Stocks: should be highly liquid but in reality when you have taken a significant stake in a company (say bank stocks after 2008-crash), you can't just sell without causing a market panic.
If the owner of a significant portion of a company starts to cash out, the stock prices tend to tumble.
This leads me to believe that City' owners can't immediately remove cash when required.
TBF I don't think any other owner can either but that's my point ... the financial risk for Utd at the moment is lower than City.

Also I think that the scarf people love the club but their views are misguided.
Click to expand...

How many times do you have to be told?

Manchester City is sustainable and in profit and therefore not reliant on the price of oil.

Now please try to get that into your thick skull!
 
Dear Forum,

I apologize if I unwittingly made you believe that I am against your owners. I'm not - in fact I have praised them in the past.
I'm really interested in the financial aspects of running a club and hence why I spoke about financial risks.
I'm open to changing my views just as I hope you are too.

City's rise from a regional club to a global club has interested me.
There have been implications on competition, wages, transfer fees, agents, how investments are made, etc.

Feel free to ban me if you think otherwise.
 
mufc1988 said:
This leads me to believe that City' owners can't immediately remove cash when required.
TBF I don't think any other owner can either but that's my point ... the financial risk for Utd at the moment is lower than City.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why they would suddenly need a few hundred million. Drop in the oilwell for them. If ever it was needed, I would expect them to sell the business as a whole.

Lower/higher risk will depend on perspective. I wouldn't think there's any risk in either right now - one is sellable, one has no need to be sold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top