Rags Debt - Daily Mail & Panorama [Merged]

[The Pink Panther]

This programme was full of shit, presented the facts in a totally uneven way, and lacked even the smallest amount of credibility.

It may as well have being a press release from the GAY brigade.

I was going to I player it, but after the last few posts I'll give it a miss.

 

[Dubai Blue]

I think it's going back pre Glazers, the PLC was a great thing, fans had shares in the club, to bad it got exploited.

With respect, this is sentimental dewy-eyed pap. United were owned by a selection of large institutional investors and very wealthy individuals. Let's not rewrite history and pretend that you followed some sort of Barcelona model where the people on the terraces all owned a share of their club. I'm sure I don't need to point out to you that had this actually been the case, we wouldn't currently even be having this discussion as the Glazers would have got nowhere near your club.

You played the PLC game and got your fingers very badly burned. Now let that be a lesson in greed for you.

 

[bumbles]

That programme was typical BBC
That about sums it up. Happy to greedily borrow money from the City to allow them to dominate the game for decades as a result of their new found financial strength. Then get all upset when through their own mismanagement as a club they completely fuck it up at a time when others have found decent owners who allow them to compete without indebting their club to the max.

Then wail and cry that it aint fair and can we have our ball back please missus.

Those GAYs are laughable. The horse has already bolted lads. Get over it.

just to correct you there hector...when United was floated in 1991..it raised £11M ..£3.3m went to the Edwards family..the rest went to pay for the Streford end to be rebuilt and for seating in the main stand...hardly a bastion of financial strength eh?

 

[stonerblue]

That programme was typical BBC bollocks...show some nob head running around Prenton Park pretending to be a "fan of a little club" so the punters know he's "real..."...his goal "celebration" when Tranmere scored,in a so-called "huge" game was laughable.....
Cue a visit to the swamp-the first clown they interview outside in a Norwich scarf is a Cockney....cue a few "nawty" boys waving anti-Glazer banners outside the mugastore and suddenly it's the "biggest mass protest at any football club,ever."

Throw a few totally predicatble "worlds biggest club" comments in,interview the obligatory Cockney rag season ticket economist who's been clever enough to realise that there's a recession on in the US (no shit Sherlock)...the "hilarious" garden gnomes.....no quotes whatsoever from anyone connected to either the rags or the Glazers other than some "former lawyer"...do a bit of loitering outside a house "where two of the Glazer family live" trying to prove they'er skint...by showing their speedboat with "Red football" on the front.....

What a pile of shit.
Could've been made by some sixth form crew at Salford Uni instead of wasting my license fee paying for the fucker to stand at the swamp with the other Cockney wankers, wearing exactly the same expression as he was at his "beloved" Tranmere.....then flying the entire crew to the US look at a few empty shops and case the Glazer house.....

The whole thing was aimed at mass rag appeasement-"we're on your side against the big bad yanks,guys.Green and gold all the way"

Totally forgetting that it was rag greed for City investment in order to dominate the transfer market that helped cause all this in the first place.

Wankers BBC.

That will do for me. Top critiquein'

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

just to correct you there hector...when United was floated in 1991..it raised £11M ..£3.3m went to the Edwards family..the rest went to pay for the Streford end to be rebuilt and for seating in the main stand...hardly a bastion of financial strength eh?

from the MUST website:

The 1991 prospectus for the floating of Manchester United as a plc actually set out 4 reasons for the floatation; (a) to raise 6.7 million pounds for the redevelopment of the Stretford End; (b) to widen the ownership of Manchester United; (c) to provide “increased liquidity” to Shareholders; (d) to give employees and supporters of Manchester United greater opportunity to invest in the club. Maurice Watkins talking a few years later about the flotation stressed only the third reason; “one of the primary purposes for the flotation was that it released cash for the shareholders.” There you have it, the main beneficiaries from such a bold move were Edwards, Watkins, and the rest of the United board at that time. It’s my honest opinion that this was the main reason for taking Manchester United public.

When the flotation took place, Manchester United plc was floated initially in 10 pence shares priced at 3 pounds and 85 pence each; It effectively valued the club at 47 million pounds. Immediately upon the flotation Martin Edwards offloaded 1.7 million shares immediately making himself 6 million pounds! He still held over 3 million shares. It was indeed a new era which was taking place at the beginning of new successful era on the playing field, and not too many fans were interested in what was going on in the boardroom. The flotation was treated with apathy by the large majority of fans who obviously could not see what lay ahead for them in future years.

It may well be that on-the-field successes blinded them to the off-the-field shenanigans in the boardroom.

History does repeat itself it would seem.

 

[bumbles]

So in summary , you agree with me ...aside form making the shareholders who made apretty penny ..the funds avaialble for transfers was very limited...and certanly NOT a platform to dominate the market as some of your misguided poster claim.

 

[happy]

When it all blows up and they get evicted I hope we don't lend them our ground again!

Having said that if they do get chucked out of Trafford they'd want to go a little closer to their fan base so it'll probably be a groundshare with MK Dons.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

So in summary , you agree with me ...aside form making the shareholders who made apretty penny ..the funds avaialble for transfers was very limited...and certanly NOT a platform to dominate the market as some of your misguided poster claim.

I've no idea where the money actually went apart from what was said in that piece. It was actually Michael Knighton who realised the commercial possibilities of the football brand and it was his input that started the cash inflows that allowed Ferguson to out-spend the rest of the teams.

 

[bumbles]

When it all blows up and they get evicted I hope we don't lend them our ground again!

Having said that if they do get chucked out of Trafford they'd want to go a little closer to their fan base so it'll probably be a groundshare with MK Dons.

is there anything original or witty in your post, or is regugitated untruths the norm on here?

 

[Didsbury Dave]

just to correct you there hector...when United was floated in 1991..it raised £11M ..£3.3m went to the Edwards family..the rest went to pay for the Streford end to be rebuilt and for seating in the main stand...hardly a bastion of financial strength eh?

Another dewy-eyed myth.

The money went into the revenue pot,pure and simple, and the revenue pot funds transfers.

Eery other club in those days had to spend millions on upgrading their grounds after the Taylor report.

United got an £8m leg up the ladder, in the days when £8m bought four top class internationals.

Man United sucked the devils cock but now, unfortunately, they have to swallow.