Mort: I’m in charge

[Guest BooBoo]

I'm still wiating for NE5 to show this list of £2million- £3million players we supposedly bought pre 1992.

 

To quote the man himself,  mackems.gif

[Taylor Swift]

There are clubs in the top 4 with far greater fianancial risks at the moment.

 

Arsenal don't. And the other 3 can afford those risks. All their owners are rich fuckers. Who could have paid off our debt if Freddie was still here? The Halls? Fred himself?

[ChezGiven]

I presume you are talking about Leeds? They acted like a CL club financially so once the CL revenue didnt arrive they were f*****.

 

Our debts were / are large but were set against stadium revenues etc. We also have 52k seats (so thats an extra £12m per year than Leeds) and we shift a lot of merchandise. Hence we appear high up the list of rich clubs and Leeds never did. We were 9th highest at one point.

 

That points to a sound underlying business performance. There are risks, as ever, in this model but fundamentally we have not raised capital on the basis of future revenues that are unsecured like CL TV money.

 

I suggest you read this:

 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2007/09/25/without-takeover-united-could-well-have-folded-72703-19844203/

 

I already have. The only thing of note in the whole article is this

 

“We prefer to invest as the cash comes in, not before it does."

 

As most people would. Its an article in the journal by a journalist. In that sense i couldnt care less what the angle is, the quotes from Mort say that if the club had not re-financed by the end of May, it would have folded. In my eyes, thats unlikely. Also, he doesnt say which debt. £50m could not be re-financed as this was stadium debt and secure. So, is this the debt that couldnt be found by Macbeth? A £25m debt means the company is going to fold? Quick someone ring the Glazers and warn them!!!

 

I dont actually believe Mort at all in this case and the reason i dont is because he does not mention the £30m increase in revenue from TV money due to the club's this season, nor the fact that the top 4 carry significantly more debt than we do (because they can and because debt is not a bad thing)

 

He also, quite funnily, states very clearly that his role at the club is a PR based one, which was basically the purpose of the article.

 

I'm not criticising Mort here, i would have used the same lines myself.

 

 

[ChezGiven]

There are clubs in the top 4 with far greater fianancial risks at the moment.

 

Arsenal don't. And the other 3 can afford those risks. All their owners are rich fuckers. Who could have paid off our debt if Freddie was still here? The Halls? Fred himself?

 

What? The Emirates will be paid off by 2035 or something. Dont they have a £500m worth of debt? What on earth are you talking about?

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Chez, do you work in finance like?

[Parky]

I presume you are talking about Leeds? They acted like a CL club financially so once the CL revenue didnt arrive they were f*****.

 

Our debts were / are large but were set against stadium revenues etc. We also have 52k seats (so thats an extra £12m per year than Leeds) and we shift a lot of merchandise. Hence we appear high up the list of rich clubs and Leeds never did. We were 9th highest at one point.

 

That points to a sound underlying business performance. There are risks, as ever, in this model but fundamentally we have not raised capital on the basis of future revenues that are unsecured like CL TV money.

 

I suggest you read this:

 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2007/09/25/without-takeover-united-could-well-have-folded-72703-19844203/

 

I already have. The only thing of note in the whole article is this

 

“We prefer to invest as the cash comes in, not before it does."

 

As most people would. Its an article in the journal by a journalist. In that sense i couldnt care less what the angle is, the quotes from Mort say that if the club had not re-financed by the end of May, it would have folded. In my eyes, thats unlikely. Also, he doesnt say which debt. £50m could not be re-financed as this was stadium debt and secure. So, is this the debt that couldnt be found by Macbeth? A £25m debt means the company is going to fold? Quick someone ring the Glazers and warn them!!!

 

I dont actually believe Mort at all in this case and the reason i dont is because he does not mention the £30m increase in revenue from TV money due to the club's this season, nor the fact that the top 4 carry significantly more debt than we do (because they can and because debt is not a bad thing)

 

He also, quite funnily, states very clearly that his role at the club is a PR based one, which was basically the purpose of the article.

 

I'm not criticising Mort here, i would have used the same lines myself.

 

 

 

 

Well said Chez.

 

It's a wonderment to me that people on the board aren't reading Mort correctly even though he comes out with his little quotes almost every other week now. Mort is beavering away managing expectations and he is beginning to realise it may be tougher in Rome than him and beerbelly anticipated.

[Parky]

There are clubs in the top 4 with far greater fianancial risks at the moment.

 

Arsenal don't. And the other 3 can afford those risks. All their owners are rich fuckers. Who could have paid off our debt if Freddie was still here? The Halls? Fred himself?

 

What? The Emirates will be paid off by 2035 or something. Dont they have a £500m worth of debt? What on earth are you talking about?

 

 

 

[ChezGiven]

Chez, do you work in finance like?

Just out of interest or do you want my credentials? Happy to supply them.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Chez, do you work in finance like?

Just out of interest or do you want my credentials? Happy to supply them.

 

Just out of interest really, no more than that.

[Mick]

 

I already have. The only thing of note in the whole article is this

 

“We prefer to invest as the cash comes in, not before it does."

 

As most people would. Its an article in the journal by a journalist. In that sense i couldnt care less what the angle is, the quotes from Mort say that if the club had not re-financed by the end of May, it would have folded. In my eyes, thats unlikely. Also, he doesnt say which debt. £50m could not be re-financed as this was stadium debt and secure. So, is this the debt that couldnt be found by Macbeth? A £25m debt means the company is going to fold? Quick someone ring the Glazers and warn them!!!

 

I dont actually believe Mort at all in this case and the reason i dont is because he does not mention the £30m increase in revenue from TV money due to the club's this season, nor the fact that the top 4 carry significantly more debt than we do (because they can and because debt is not a bad thing)

 

He also, quite funnily, states very clearly that his role at the club is a PR based one, which was basically the purpose of the article.

 

I'm not criticising Mort here, i would have used the same lines myself.

 

 

 

I'm surprised that you didn't pick up on this "If the old board had not been successful in re-financing the club by the end of the financial year it would have folded like a pack of cards."

 

I'm not trying to have a go at you but I'd be inclined to think that somebody who was closer to the problem might just have a better knowledge about the state of the club than somebody who is on the outside, would you agree? 

 

The Adidas money wasn't even spent early, we borrowed against it so what you were saying about spending early being better goes out of the window if we're actually paying interest on a loan which enabled us to spend it.

 

As for the top 4 carrying more debt, you're right but we're not top 4, we were closer to the bottom than the top.  I also agree about debt not being automatically a bad thing if it's manageable, you must admit that the state of our debt was in some doubt.

[ChezGiven]

Chez, do you work in finance like?

Just out of interest or do you want my credentials? Happy to supply them.

 

Just out of interest really, no more than that.

 

No, i'm an economist though, have been for 10 years.

[Mick]

 

 

Well said Chez.

 

It's a wonderment to me that people on the board aren't reading Mort correctly even though he comes out with his little quotes almost every other week now. Mort is beavering away managing expectations and he is beginning to realise it may be tougher in Rome than him and beerbelly anticipated.

 

How do you know who is reading him correctly?

[ChezGiven]

 

I already have. The only thing of note in the whole article is this

 

“We prefer to invest as the cash comes in, not before it does."

 

As most people would. Its an article in the journal by a journalist. In that sense i couldnt care less what the angle is, the quotes from Mort say that if the club had not re-financed by the end of May, it would have folded. In my eyes, thats unlikely. Also, he doesnt say which debt. £50m could not be re-financed as this was stadium debt and secure. So, is this the debt that couldnt be found by Macbeth? A £25m debt means the company is going to fold? Quick someone ring the Glazers and warn them!!!

 

I dont actually believe Mort at all in this case and the reason i dont is because he does not mention the £30m increase in revenue from TV money due to the club's this season, nor the fact that the top 4 carry significantly more debt than we do (because they can and because debt is not a bad thing)

 

He also, quite funnily, states very clearly that his role at the club is a PR based one, which was basically the purpose of the article.

 

I'm not criticising Mort here, i would have used the same lines myself.

 

 

 

I'm surprised that you didn't pick up on this "If the old board had not been successful in re-financing the club by the end of the financial year it would have folded like a pack of cards."

 

I'm not trying to have a go at you but I'd be inclined to think that somebody who was closer to the problem might just have a better knowledge about the state of the club than somebody who is on the outside, would you agree? 

 

The Adidas money wasn't even spent early, we borrowed against it so what you were saying about spending early being better goes out of the window if we're actually paying interest on a loan which enabled us to spend it.

 

As for the top 4 carrying more debt, you're right but we're not top 4, we were closer to the bottom than the top.  I also agree about debt not being automatically a bad thing if it's manageable, you must admit that the state of our debt was in some doubt.

 

I agree that the club's finances were not the best but i dont agree with Mort's statement the club would have folded.

 

I also see companies borrowing against future income all the time. Lots of club's spent big last summer, among the reasons for this was the increase in TV revenue for this season.

 

We are in a far better position now, no one can argue against that. However, as i've already said, the next 6 months of the Mort regime will be telling.

 

Is he going to back the manager? Does he want us to qualify for europe next season or this season? These are my questions for the chairman and my most pressing concern for the club at this moment in its history.

 

If the answer is 'no' to the first question (we will know a little bit by the end of Jan but not really until the summer) then i want to know who he plans to recruit for the post.

 

I believe we will be better off under this new board but i have no evidence to back that up yet.

[Guest Sniffer]

Because porky is the smartest bloke on this board. Didn't you know that?

 

He knows what mort thinks before he even thinks it.

[NE5]

I'm still wiating for NE5 to show this list of £2million- £3million players we supposedly bought pre 1992.

 

To quote the man himself,  mackems.gif

 

the meaning of the post was to explain we bought sub standard ones. I didn't expect you to understand, and I was right.

 

We sold all our players that cost that amount prior to 1992, as that particular figure was of British record transfer proportions.

 

I trust you can now attempt to make some constructive posts yourself, or continue to tell us how you laugh at our own players.

 

 

[Guest BooBoo]

I'm still wiating for NE5 to show this list of £2million- £3million players we supposedly bought pre 1992.

 

To quote the man himself,  mackems.gif

 

the meaning of the post was to explain we bought sub standard ones. I didn't expect you to understand, and I was right.

 

We sold all our players that cost that amount prior to 1992, as that particular figure was of British record transfer proportions.

 

I trust you can now attempt to make some constructive posts yourself, or continue to tell us how you laugh at our own players.

 

 

 

Yet another chomp from the boy blunder! All too easy.

 

Anyway, happy christmas ye daft sod.

 

:-)

[NE5]

I'm still wiating for NE5 to show this list of £2million- £3million players we supposedly bought pre 1992.

 

To quote the man himself,  mackems.gif

 

the meaning of the post was to explain we bought sub standard ones. I didn't expect you to understand, and I was right.

 

We sold all our players that cost that amount prior to 1992, as that particular figure was of British record transfer proportions.

 

I trust you can now attempt to make some constructive posts yourself, or continue to tell us how you laugh at our own players.

 

 

 

Yet another chomp from the boy blunder! All too easy.

 

Anyway, happy christmas ye daft sod.

 

:-)

 

chomp eh.

 

An easy get out, knowing you are out of your depth trying to discuss anything with me

 

 

[Taylor Swift]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

[Liam Liam Liam O]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

Not really.  When was the last time Arsenal didn't qualify for the Champions League?

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

[fredbob]

Past 2 pages have been the most interesting out of this entire thread. I wouldnt dream of even posting about the financial staes of the club to such an extent, i guess i was one of those "idiots" that Chez mentions, but if the financial debt was secured against the season ticket sales and gate revenues 10 years ago when we were in a very good positions, when things turned sour, werent the Publicity stunts pre renewal dates (Rooney, Owen, Luque etc) signs of potential desperation?

 

Having racked up an apparent £100m debt, and spent £50m Northern Rocks money, where was the next lot of signinifcant invesment gonna come from without European qualification?

[Taylor Swift]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

 

And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

 

And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible.

 

???

 

And in 5 years time Wenger may have let and Arsenal may be struggling to get 8th place in the Premier league.

 

You've said exactly what I was getting at, the Emirates looks sound now, SJP look sound 5 years ago

[Howaythelads]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

 

And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible.

 

???

 

And in 5 years time Wenger may have let and Arsenal may be struggling to get 8th place in the Premier league.

 

You've said exactly what I was getting at, the Emirates looks sound now, SJP look sound 5 years ago

 

Aye, the MANAGER makes a massive difference, which is where we went wrong with the appointment of Souness, obviously.

[Howaythelads]

I'm still wiating for NE5 to show this list of £2million- £3million players we supposedly bought pre 1992.

 

To quote the man himself,  mackems.gif

 

the meaning of the post was to explain we bought sub standard ones. I didn't expect you to understand, and I was right.

 

We sold all our players that cost that amount prior to 1992, as that particular figure was of British record transfer proportions.

 

I trust you can now attempt to make some constructive posts yourself, or continue to tell us how you laugh at our own players.

 

 

 

Yet another chomp from the boy blunder! All too easy.

 

Anyway, happy christmas ye daft sod.

 

:-)

 

You're dafter than I thought if you don't realise how transparent you are.

 

I'll tell you what's daft. You and your stupid mates thinking that supporting the club = laughing and booing of our own players.