Paul Marin, hopefully after this you will

[Lazie]

admit you were wrong all along. Start at 1:25, yeah mi know Lazie was right all the time.

http://www.skysports.com/video/inlin...867781,00.html

[Paul Marin]

admit you were wrong all along. Start at 1:25, yeah mi know Lazie was right all the time.

http://www.skysports.com/video/inlin...867781,00.html

What was I wrong about "all along"? Everything this interview states supports my position on the debt situation at your club. So remind me exactly what it is I was "wrong" on.

[Lazie]

What was I wrong about "all along"? Everything this interview states supports my position on the debt situation at your club. So remind me exactly what it is I was "wrong" on.

Really? Convenient amnesia kicking in now? Your words ..

"but 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."

When the oracle attempted to correct your misinformation, "Paul ... which deep pocket investor was pumping money into Manchester United?"

You went on and on .... now the financial analyst has stated something different from what you've been pushing. The Glazers have not pumped ANY MONEY in MU.

You may choose not to accept that you were wrong ... mi just a put it pon record fi the next time you make the mistake again.

You're welcome.

[Jangle]

In the words of a wise man...."What did the five fingers say to the face....SLAP!!!!" Now sheddup and don't mention the Empire again for another....2 weeks.


Thanks in advance.

[Paul Marin]

Really? Convenient amnesia kicking in now? Your words ..

"but 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."

When the oracle attempted to correct your misinformation, "Paul ... which deep pocket investor was pumping money into Manchester United?"

You went on and on .... now the financial analyst has stated something different from what you've been pushing. The Glazers have not pumped ANY MONEY in MU.

You may choose not to accept that you were wrong ... mi just a put it pon record fi the next time you make the mistake again.

You're welcome.

Lazie, you are out of your depth. When did I say that the Glazer's pumped any money into Manure? The extent of your accounting-deficit-disorder is flatly embarrassing. You need to understand some accounting basics as you have you do not have the tools necessary to engage in a rudimentary financial discussion much less a sophisticated one. To be blunt - it is clear that you indeed are an oracle after all, but not the kind you think you are.

So here's a bit of education. When I said that City and Chelsea were doing nothing different from what your club has done for years - I am talking about debt financing. First of all, investment into any business entity can principally come from debt or equity. From what I understand, debt funding is the primary vehicle used by manure, chelsea and city. Manure is now trying to raise $100m through equity financing by floating the company on the NYSE. There is a big difference between the two as debt typically has to be repaid and equity doesn't.

As I know you don't know anything about financial accounting, you first have to understand that the club stands alone as its own entity and its' assets cannot be commingled with the assets of any other entity or individual, so you can't say that because Chelsea owes 100m to Barclays that RA owes 100m to Barclays (unless he is a guarantor).

How a club accounts for cash infusion is dependent on the terms of the deal with the person/entity putting up the money to fund the operation. If it comes in the form of a loan (debt), then there are usually terms of repayment. If it comes in the form of equity(shares), there is typically no repayment requirement.

In Chelsea's case, RA bought the club (i.e. he exchanged money for 100% of outstanding equity in the company) then proceeded to lend the company money to finance operations. Because the club is its own entity (i.e. its fortunes are not commingled with assets of any other person or entity), Chelsea (the club) is now "burdened" with a liability offset by the asset: cash.

In the Glazer's case, they did the exact same thing to the club as RA did to Chelsea - borrow money to finance operations! They also borrowed money to buy the club, but instead of making that obligation their own personal obligation, they made it an obligation of the club - this is what really ********ed off your supporters.

In Chelsea's case, they borrowed operating capital from RA, in Manure's case, they borrowed it primarily from institutions in the form of bonds (a fancy word for debt). To the average punter, this seems like a wash in RA's case because he essentially owes himself money, however, to the club (remember it's a stand alone entity and not commingled with RA's other assets) and its accounts, debt is debt - PERIOD. This is important for tax and other financial purposes including raising equity and other forms of capitalization.

So that's the point behind my statement above that Chelsea is doing what your club has done for years (even before the Glazers). Both are funded by debt. Secondly I told you of the difference before when I said "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".

So if you and Jangle started two separate patty shops; you borrowed money from your mother to start and he borrowed money from the the bank, both are still recorded as debt on your respective books. The fact that your mother may be more forgiving to you defaulting than the bank would be to Jangle's roach infested patty shop, would be fortuitous, but immaterial from an accounting point of view.

Manure are now raising 100m in EQUITY funding to repay part of their DEBT burden; in exchange for cash [stupid] "investors" get equity (i.e. shares in the company). So on the balance sheet, the first transaction (equity for cash) would show a cash increase offset by a commensurate adjustment in equity. The second transaction would be a reduction in cash and an offsetting reduction in debt as the company uses the cash raised to pay the bond holders off.

This new move to float part of the company on the NYSE supports my point that "[debt funding] is sustainable until they bail or sell it on to someone else who is willing to eat the debt or keep it going" as they are selling the $100m in shares to people who "willing to eat the debt" as their money is going to pay down the debt in return for shares in the company. In City and Chelsea's case, they are choosing to keep it going.

I hope this explains it. I told you before to go buy this book - clearly you have not done so: http://www.amazon.com/Accounting-For...ng+for+dummies Go read it and stop making an oracle of yourself.

[Lazie]

Yeah ... I always out of my depth. I've posted your comment. No need for the merry go round ...You've insisted that MU owners were pumping money into the club. Doan bother wid the twists and turns Paul .... there is a time when one affi simply say ... yeah checkmate.

[Paul Marin]

Lazie - go back to your ignorance. It's comfortable for you. Not one argument on the accounting front eh? LOL!!! Didn't think so...again...out of your depth. I'm sure you've read the Manure offering memo from back to front!! LOL!!! :joker:

For those with a bit more nous...again...manu** and chelsea used the same form of financing - debt. Manure got theirs from institutional investors and chelsea got theirs from RA. Very simple. It is all still debt.

[Jangle]

slap!!!!!slap!!!!!

[Lazie]

""but 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."


Those few lines are telling PM. Yet you claim I'm wrong? As the man pointed out the Glazers borrowed all the money to buy the club. They don't have 2 shilling fi give fi buy players. Bout MU doing it fi the pass 15-20 years?

[Jangle]

"Jangle's roach infested patty shop"

Yuh lick yuh 10 stubs last week when yuh myam off the dozen patties tho.....

[Paul Marin]

slap!!!!!slap!!!!!

He he he he...all I can do is laugh. The two you remind me of a youth we used to call Chumly in second form. He used the world "embarazada" in Spanish class to translate the English word "embarrassed". The sentence read something like: "The man was very embarrased".

As Willi will tell you..."embarazada" translates to the word "pregnant".

It took about six weeks for him to understand that he was wrong repeatedly saying "How can embarrass and embarazada not be the same word?". At least he eventually came around. LOL!!! Dumb and dumberer. LOL!!!

[Paul Marin]

""but 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."


Those few lines are telling PM. Yet you claim I'm wrong? As the man pointed out the Glazers borrowed all the money to buy the club. They don't have 2 shilling fi give fi buy players. Bout MU doing it fi the pass 15-20 years?

As I said, to have a financial discussion with you is pointless. You don't understand accounting so you will never get it. Run go buy your manu** shares - good investment!

[Lazie]

As I said, to have a financial discussion with you is pointless. You don't understand accounting so you will never get it. Run go buy your manu** shares - good investment!

There is no need for any discussion. The financial expert has poked holes into your claim. If yuh have a problem with what he said .... tek him on. When I pointed out that it was the Glazers that saddled the club with the enormous debt you claimed I was out of my depth. No worry ... next time you go down the wrong path I'll simply karrek yuh.

Now ... back to regular programming.

[Paul Marin]

There is no need for any discussion. The financial expert has poked holes into your claim. If yuh have a problem with what he said .... tek him on. When I pointed out that it was the Glazers that saddled the club with the enormous debt you claimed I was out of my depth. No worry ... next time you go down the wrong path I'll simply karrek yuh.

Now ... back to regular programming.

Like I said, stop being such an "oracle"...you're embarrassing yourself. Seriously. Stop. You have not refuted any substantive claim with any argument other than your silly simpleminded interpretation of a statement that is beyond your ability to comprehend. You don't know anything about accounting and are unwilling to admit it. To teach a man to fish, he first has to understand that there is a difference between a cow and a fish. You sir, are not yet at that point. When you learn the basics, we can continue.

[Lazie]

Like I said, stop being such an "oracle"...you're embarrassing yourself. Seriously. Stop. You have not refuted any substantive claim with any argument other than your silly simpleminded interpretation of a statement that is beyond your ability to comprehend. You don't know anything about accounting and are unwilling to admit it. To teach a man to fish, he first has to understand that there is a difference between a cow and a fish. You sir, are not yet at that point. When you learn the basics, we can continue.

LOL ...Yuh corn get mashed bredren. Doan tek it to heart ... I've posted your own words ... no matter how you twist and turn .. THEY ARE YOUR WORDS. When challenged back then ... you defended it ... now your folly has been exposed you're trying to twist the facts. Again ... Your words.


"but 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."

"Sitting here in limbo....:"