Prestwich_Blue said:Yes you are missing something. He's a clueless dickhead spouting the usual cliches and who clearly has no idea about finance.schfc6 said:Arguing with a rag. Am I missing something? Are deep discount bonds not the polar opposite of what he's suggesting? Obviously the 'when he gets bored' will be ignored.
@CityFans Please do not waste your time talking about finances. if your teams' finances were to be said, i'd say your club is nothing but a Deep Discount Bond, there are no coupons attached(,no commercial revenue or no other real income) and the face value (in this case) is unlikely to be received. (Hypothetically), Let's see you guys commenting on this website when the sheikh pulls out on the club & who buys it next.
Hope that helps.
Tell him to go fuck himself.schfc6 said:Prestwich_Blue said:Yes you are missing something. He's a clueless dickhead spouting the usual cliches and who clearly has no idea about finance.schfc6 said:Arguing with a rag. Am I missing something? Are deep discount bonds not the polar opposite of what he's suggesting? Obviously the 'when he gets bored' will be ignored.
@CityFans Please do not waste your time talking about finances. if your teams' finances were to be said, i'd say your club is nothing but a Deep Discount Bond, there are no coupons attached(,no commercial revenue or no other real income) and the face value (in this case) is unlikely to be received. (Hypothetically), Let's see you guys commenting on this website when the sheikh pulls out on the club & who buys it next.
Hope that helps.
Reading several hundred of your previous posts in the past I'm sure you will be able to give me a quick couple of lines to perfectly pop him in his place. I can argue the normal points all day, just not the clued up in finance or financial terms and I appreciate that you are.
Sound financial advicegordondaviesmoustache said:Tell him to go fuck himself.schfc6 said:Prestwich_Blue said:Yes you are missing something. He's a clueless dickhead spouting the usual cliches and who clearly has no idea about finance.
Hope that helps.
Reading several hundred of your previous posts in the past I'm sure you will be able to give me a quick couple of lines to perfectly pop him in his place. I can argue the normal points all day, just not the clued up in finance or financial terms and I appreciate that you are.
Not sure why people seek approval from these pin-dicks.squirtyflower said:Sound financial advicegordondaviesmoustache said:Tell him to go fuck himself.schfc6 said:Reading several hundred of your previous posts in the past I'm sure you will be able to give me a quick couple of lines to perfectly pop him in his place. I can argue the normal points all day, just not the clued up in finance or financial terms and I appreciate that you are.
Not sure why people seek approval from these pin-dicks.gordondaviesmoustache said:squirtyflower said:Sound financial advicegordondaviesmoustache said:Tell him to go fuck himself.
Not sure why people seek approval from these pin-dicks.squirtyflower said:Sound financial advicegordondaviesmoustache said:Tell him to go fuck himself.schfc6 said:Reading several hundred of your previous posts in the past I'm sure you will be able to give me a quick couple of lines to perfectly pop him in his place. I can argue the normal points all day, just not the clued up in finance or financial terms and I appreciate that you are.
He's talking a load of shite. Let me explain why. A bond is a financial instrument that pays interest. So you buy £1000-worth of bonds that pay 8% interest (called the coupon rate) and you get £80 per annum return. At some point, the £1000 is repaid to the bond-holder so the price of the bond reflects the rate paid and how close it is to redemption.schfc6 said:Prestwich_Blue said:Yes you are missing something. He's a clueless dickhead spouting the usual cliches and who clearly has no idea about finance.schfc6 said:Arguing with a rag. Am I missing something? Are deep discount bonds not the polar opposite of what he's suggesting? Obviously the 'when he gets bored' will be ignored.
@CityFans Please do not waste your time talking about finances. if your teams' finances were to be said, i'd say your club is nothing but a Deep Discount Bond, there are no coupons attached(,no commercial revenue or no other real income) and the face value (in this case) is unlikely to be received. (Hypothetically), Let's see you guys commenting on this website when the sheikh pulls out on the club & who buys it next.
Hope that helps.
Reading several hundred of your previous posts in the past I'm sure you will be able to give me a quick couple of lines to perfectly pop him in his place. I can argue the normal points all day, just not the clued up in finance or financial terms and I appreciate that you are.
gordondaviesmoustache said:Tell him to go fuck himself.schfc6 said:Prestwich_Blue said:Yes you are missing something. He's a clueless dickhead spouting the usual cliches and who clearly has no idea about finance.
Hope that helps.
Reading several hundred of your previous posts in the past I'm sure you will be able to give me a quick couple of lines to perfectly pop him in his place. I can argue the normal points all day, just not the clued up in finance or financial terms and I appreciate that you are.
All true (presumably, I'm no financial guru), however I do prefer your first post TBH. And given the indication of the said rags intelligence from his post I'd hazard a guess that he wouldn't understand your second post anyway.Prestwich_Blue said:He's talking a load of shite. Let me explain why. A bond is a financial instrument that pays interest. So you buy £1000-worth of bonds that pay 8% interest (called the coupon rate) and you get £80 per annum return. At some point, the £1000 is repaid to the bond-holder so the price of the bond reflects the rate paid and how close it is to redemption.schfc6 said:Prestwich_Blue said:Yes you are missing something. He's a clueless dickhead spouting the usual cliches and who clearly has no idea about finance.
Hope that helps.
Reading several hundred of your previous posts in the past I'm sure you will be able to give me a quick couple of lines to perfectly pop him in his place. I can argue the normal points all day, just not the clued up in finance or financial terms and I appreciate that you are.
If you can only get 4% return in the market without risk then a bond paying 8% will be more valuable but also more expensive to buy. All things being equal, you'll pay double the face value as you're getting double the return. A deep discount bond will be one where the coupon rate is low, so you'll pay less for it. Also it's a long way off redemption, so has little capital value. In essence, what he's saying is that we offer little financial return, are propped up by the Sheikh and will disappear when he sells up. This is clearly nonsense.
We have three income streams - matchday, media & commercial - in ascending order of value. The first two will be going up significantly over the next 2 years as the ground extension, new BT CL deal and then the new Sky PL deal kick in. The third one is already one of the biggest in Europe, albeit a lot of which (c40%?) comes from Abu Dhabi based companies. But even if you took that out, commercial revenue would still be significant (and some or all of it would get replaced).
Back in 2007, our total income was around £60m. Now it's nearly 6 times that. Two years ago, we didn't generate an operating profit whereas now we're showing an operating profit around the £75m mark. In 2 years time, that'll be £170m, with a net profit probably in the region of £100m. Free cash flow will be somewhere in the region of £150m per annum. Also point out that our owner has invested £1bn whereas theirs has taken that amount out of their club.
When Shinawatra bought the club, it was valued at £80m. Now it's valued at nearly £1bn. Hardly an investment whose value is decreasing.
And if he wants some genuine illustrations of discounted bond issues then point him in this direction:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c1f9e98-102d-11df-841f-00144feab49a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c1f9e98-102d ... ab49a.html</a> ("Manchester United bond issue falls flat")
Prestwich_Blue said:He's talking a load of shite. Let me explain why. A bond is a financial instrument that pays interest. So you buy £1000-worth of bonds that pay 8% interest (called the coupon rate) and you get £80 per annum return. At some point, the £1000 is repaid to the bond-holder so the price of the bond reflects the rate paid and how close it is to redemption.schfc6 said:Prestwich_Blue said:Yes you are missing something. He's a clueless dickhead spouting the usual cliches and who clearly has no idea about finance.
Hope that helps.
Reading several hundred of your previous posts in the past I'm sure you will be able to give me a quick couple of lines to perfectly pop him in his place. I can argue the normal points all day, just not the clued up in finance or financial terms and I appreciate that you are.
If you can only get 4% return in the market without risk then a bond paying 8% will be more valuable but also more expensive to buy. All things being equal, you'll pay double the face value as you're getting double the return. A deep discount bond will be one where the coupon rate is low, so you'll pay less for it. Also it's a long way off redemption, so has little capital value. In essence, what he's saying is that we offer little financial return, are propped up by the Sheikh and will disappear when he sells up. This is clearly nonsense.
We have three income streams - matchday, media & commercial - in ascending order of value. The first two will be going up significantly over the next 2 years as the ground extension, new BT CL deal and then the new Sky PL deal kick in. The third one is already one of the biggest in Europe, albeit a lot of which (c40%?) comes from Abu Dhabi based companies. But even if you took that out, commercial revenue would still be significant (and some or all of it would get replaced).
Back in 2007, our total income was around £60m. Now it's nearly 6 times that. Two years ago, we didn't generate an operating profit whereas now we're showing an operating profit around the £75m mark. In 2 years time, that'll be £170m, with a net profit probably in the region of £100m. Free cash flow will be somewhere in the region of £150m per annum. Also point out that our owner has invested £1bn whereas theirs has taken that amount out of their club.
When Shinawatra bought the club, it was valued at £80m. Now it's valued at nearly £1bn. Hardly an investment whose value is decreasing.
And if he wants some genuine illustrations of discounted bond issues then point him in this direction:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c1f9e98-102d-11df-841f-00144feab49a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c1f9e98-102d ... ab49a.html</a> ("Manchester United bond issue falls flat")
jrb said:Prestwich_Blue said:He's talking a load of shite. Let me explain why. A bond is a financial instrument that pays interest. So you buy £1000-worth of bonds that pay 8% interest (called the coupon rate) and you get £80 per annum return. At some point, the £1000 is repaid to the bond-holder so the price of the bond reflects the rate paid and how close it is to redemption.schfc6 said:Reading several hundred of your previous posts in the past I'm sure you will be able to give me a quick couple of lines to perfectly pop him in his place. I can argue the normal points all day, just not the clued up in finance or financial terms and I appreciate that you are.
If you can only get 4% return in the market without risk then a bond paying 8% will be more valuable but also more expensive to buy. All things being equal, you'll pay double the face value as you're getting double the return. A deep discount bond will be one where the coupon rate is low, so you'll pay less for it. Also it's a long way off redemption, so has little capital value. In essence, what he's saying is that we offer little financial return, are propped up by the Sheikh and will disappear when he sells up. This is clearly nonsense.
We have three income streams - matchday, media & commercial - in ascending order of value. The first two will be going up significantly over the next 2 years as the ground extension, new BT CL deal and then the new Sky PL deal kick in. The third one is already one of the biggest in Europe, albeit a lot of which (c40%?) comes from Abu Dhabi based companies. But even if you took that out, commercial revenue would still be significant (and some or all of it would get replaced).
Back in 2007, our total income was around £60m. Now it's nearly 6 times that. Two years ago, we didn't generate an operating profit whereas now we're showing an operating profit around the £75m mark. In 2 years time, that'll be £170m, with a net profit probably in the region of £100m. Free cash flow will be somewhere in the region of £150m per annum. Also point out that our owner has invested £1bn whereas theirs has taken that amount out of their club.
When Shinawatra bought the club, it was valued at £80m. Now it's valued at nearly £1bn. Hardly an investment whose value is decreasing.
And if he wants some genuine illustrations of discounted bond issues then point him in this direction:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c1f9e98-102d-11df-841f-00144feab49a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c1f9e98-102d ... ab49a.html</a> ("Manchester United bond issue falls flat")
You've got to hand it it to PB, he knows his s***!
Love that post(already saved in favs) and many of his previous ones. Very insightful. :-)
Thanks.
jrb said:Prestwich_Blue said:He's talking a load of shite. Let me explain why. A bond is a financial instrument that pays interest. So you buy £1000-worth of bonds that pay 8% interest (called the coupon rate) and you get £80 per annum return. At some point, the £1000 is repaid to the bond-holder so the price of the bond reflects the rate paid and how close it is to redemption.schfc6 said:Reading several hundred of your previous posts in the past I'm sure you will be able to give me a quick couple of lines to perfectly pop him in his place. I can argue the normal points all day, just not the clued up in finance or financial terms and I appreciate that you are.
If you can only get 4% return in the market without risk then a bond paying 8% will be more valuable but also more expensive to buy. All things being equal, you'll pay double the face value as you're getting double the return. A deep discount bond will be one where the coupon rate is low, so you'll pay less for it. Also it's a long way off redemption, so has little capital value. In essence, what he's saying is that we offer little financial return, are propped up by the Sheikh and will disappear when he sells up. This is clearly nonsense.
We have three income streams - matchday, media & commercial - in ascending order of value. The first two will be going up significantly over the next 2 years as the ground extension, new BT CL deal and then the new Sky PL deal kick in. The third one is already one of the biggest in Europe, albeit a lot of which (c40%?) comes from Abu Dhabi based companies. But even if you took that out, commercial revenue would still be significant (and some or all of it would get replaced).
Back in 2007, our total income was around £60m. Now it's nearly 6 times that. Two years ago, we didn't generate an operating profit whereas now we're showing an operating profit around the £75m mark. In 2 years time, that'll be £170m, with a net profit probably in the region of £100m. Free cash flow will be somewhere in the region of £150m per annum. Also point out that our owner has invested £1bn whereas theirs has taken that amount out of their club.
When Shinawatra bought the club, it was valued at £80m. Now it's valued at nearly £1bn. Hardly an investment whose value is decreasing.
And if he wants some genuine illustrations of discounted bond issues then point him in this direction:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c1f9e98-102d-11df-841f-00144feab49a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c1f9e98-102d ... ab49a.html</a> ("Manchester United bond issue falls flat")
You've got to hand it it to PB, he knows his s***!
Love that post(already saved in favs) and many of his previous ones. Very insightful. :-)
Thanks.
We are all eager to be challenging at a higher level. Whilst the popular view may be to spend money in excess of earnings or find a philanthropic investor to fund transfers, those scenarios are simply not possible under the new world of Financial Fair Play rules whereby clubs can only spend revenues generated through operations.
Levy wouldn't spend even if he could. Joe Lewis could have long ago turned Spurs into a top four team but chose not to do so. Sod all to do with FFP.ManCityX said:Spurs making the turn against FFP. Quote taken from Levy's end of season review notes on Spurs OS.
We are all eager to be challenging at a higher level. Whilst the popular view may be to spend money in excess of earnings or find a philanthropic investor to fund transfers, those scenarios are simply not possible under the new world of Financial Fair Play rules whereby clubs can only spend revenues generated through operations.
ManCityX said:Spurs making the turn against FFP. Quote taken from Levy's end of season review notes on Spurs OS.
We are all eager to be challenging at a higher level. Whilst the popular view may be to spend money in excess of earnings or find a philanthropic investor to fund transfers, those scenarios are simply not possible under the new world of Financial Fair Play rules whereby clubs can only spend revenues generated through operations.
ManCityX said:Spurs making the turn against FFP. Quote taken from Levy's end of season review notes on Spurs OS.
We are all eager to be challenging at a higher level. Whilst the popular view may be to spend money in excess of earnings or find a philanthropic investor to fund transfers, those scenarios are simply not possible under the new world of Financial Fair Play rules whereby clubs can only spend revenues generated through operations.
halfcenturyup said:That's not turning against, that's using it as a convenient excuse not to put your hand in your pocket.
As it were ......
ManCityX said:Spurs making the turn against FFP. Quote taken from Levy's end of season review notes on Spurs OS.
We are all eager to be challenging at a higher level. Whilst the popular view may be to spend money in excess of earnings or find a philanthropic investor to fund transfers, those scenarios are simply not possible under the new world of Financial Fair Play rules whereby clubs can only spend revenues generated through operations.
stony said:halfcenturyup said:That's not turning against, that's using it as a convenient excuse not to put your hand in your pocket.
As it were ......
ManCityX said:Spurs making the turn against FFP. Quote taken from Levy's end of season review notes on Spurs OS.
Exactly the same reason the likes of Kenwright ad Whelan voted in favour of FFP in the PL.
Spot on. Spurs have go exactly what they wanted, an excuse not to spend any money.
I must remember to laugh at the next Spurs fan I see.