Manchester City's £930 million spending spree.......

[Lazie]

Typical Lazie response...make an accusation with nothing but conjecture to back it up. Manure's primary debt source is a bond offering which is held by institutional investors (and some individuals); City has no such situation nor does Chelsea. Prove me wrong and I'll stand corrected.

And of course, you'll come back with some quip and nothing demonstrating any form of critical thinking or indication of any financial knowledge whatsoever. I will have to hijack HL' s "why the 'ell do I bother" slogan when dealing with you...but wait...me figet seh hijacking is your specialty. Sarry.

And to educate your dim self further - here's a copy of Manure's Prospectus...careful not to bend your brain. They use some BIG words...like "prospectus" ... careful now. Note that they say:

The Notes will be secured by a first-ranking lien over all
of the shares in, and a first-ranking lien over substantially
all of the property and assets of, the Issuer and the
Guarantors (excluding our training ground). See

‘‘Description of the Notes—Security’’.

In short...DEBT. Secured debt to be precise. And of course, it goes without saying that they didn't put together this 322 page document for your grandaddy to throw him mattress money into...ergo...institutional investors. http//i.dailymail.co.uk/pdf/ManUtdProspectus.pdf

Try as you may, you won't find one of these for City or Chelsea, but you will for Arsenal. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.

Incidentally, this is how big men make arguments Lazie with facts, not fiction or incongruent drivel...keep your school boy quips for Jangle. :still_a_joker_smilie:

Paul thats how you operate ... like a merry go round. You start at one point and hop skip and jump all over the place.

"..... they have deep pocketed investors who may elect to fund the club into "forever" if they want to. That's sustainable until they bail or sell it on to someone else who is willing to eat the debt or keep it going. They are doing nothing different from what Manure did for the past 15-20 years or so."

Your words ... in case you forgot. Now yuh realize that yuh start throwing up smokescreens.

Another difference you tip toe around is that most of MU's debt is due to the Glazer's takeover .... not to buy players and pay enormous salaries.

Continue with the act.

[Paul Marin]

Paul thats how you operate ... like a merry go round. You start at one point and hop skip and jump all over the place.

"..... they have deep pocketed investors who may elect to fund the club into "forever" if they want to. That's sustainable until they bail or sell it on to someone else who is willing to eat the debt or keep it going. They are doing nothing different from what Manure did for the past 15-20 years or so."

Your words ... in case you forgot. Now yuh realize that yuh start throwing up smokescreens.

Another difference you tip toe around is that most of MU's debt is due to the Glazer's takeover .... not to buy players and pay enormous salaries.

Continue with the act.

Lazie - what is your point? I said that all clubs are funded by debt. Yours is by institutional debt. Chelsea and City's is by individual investor debt. Yours cannot be walked away from as easily as Chelsea's or City's. In other words, the owners owe themselves. And where does the Glazer takeover or any other use of funds come into play? It is obvious that the dialogue is over your head. You might want to start educating yourself because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. This might be a good place to start:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0470246006/...hvptwo=&hvqmt=

[Peter R]

Paul, You are are more patient man than I give you credit for...

the problem is that when the average joe who does not have a basic understanding of accounting reads these articles, they will grasp at what tickles their fancy and run with it.

Reminds me of the fledgling accounting student who will say depreciation means a loss in value, or that a credit means an increase... I am reminded of the old saying :

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child. Teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Wake him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows, is a leader. Follow him.

Your problem Paul is you are thinking line 2 when it's really line 1 you dealing wid...

[Paul Marin]

Paul, You are are more patient man than I give you credit for...

the problem is that when the average joe who does not have a basic understanding of accounting reads these articles, they will grasp at what tickles their fancy and run with it.

Reminds me of the fledgling accounting student who will say depreciation means a loss in value, or that a credit means an increase... I am reminded of the old saying :

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child. Teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Wake him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows, is a leader. Follow him.

Your problem Paul is you are thinking line 2 when it's really line 1 you dealing wid...

No joke. Geezan peez. So I guess my last post on this subject was a waste of time (see below) seeing that he is "unteachable". Lazie problem is that him in over him head and don't want just shut him mouth and admit it. :kissteeth: The man cyan differentiate between cash flow, balance sheet and income statements and him a run him mouth like it name Usain Bolt. LOL!!!

http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...605#post355605