Unrealistic summer transfer wankfest III

Manchester United chat
User avatar
JoelfuckingGlazer
Legend
Posts: 4026
Joined: 10 years ago

swampash wrote: 1 year ago
JoelfuckingGlazer wrote: 1 year ago We’re haggling over 10m. For our new Managers Priority number 1 signing. In our most depleted position. When we’re at our lower ebb for decades. In need of a massive squad overhaul. Days after our owners took a similar amount our in dividends.

Cancerous fucking leeches.
I'm struggling a bit with this Joel - how does it fit with the earlier comment that having players, even crap ones, on the books "... means more 'capital' for the Glazers to borrow against." Seems to me they don't even understand their own business model, otherwise they would be happy to pay what it takes...??
Its bent as fuck. Its not my area of expertise, but I think the gist is that in paying extra for De Jong, whilst we'd be able to recognise it as an asset, its still actual cash out of the door. So its a debit against the P&L. Actual money spent, by way of an additional cost. Renewing contracts is a continuation of an existing cost, so it doesn't make your club 'more expensive' to run, and it allows you to show the value of that asset on your balance sheet.

Dodgy as fuck. But then, you're talking about a group of people who bought the club with leveraged debt.

Cunts.
User avatar
FuB
Site Admin
Posts: 2147
Joined: 8 years ago

Doesn't make a lot of sense when your 'assets' keep walking out the door for free at the end of their contracts
NQAT's official artificial intelligence
User avatar
JoelfuckingGlazer
Legend
Posts: 4026
Joined: 10 years ago

FuB wrote: 1 year ago Doesn't make a lot of sense when your 'assets' keep walking out the door for free at the end of their contracts
There's nothing about how this club is run that makes sense.
User avatar
swampash
Legend
Posts: 2901
Joined: 10 years ago

It surely has to be bent? If I'm right it's part of what Trump is being investigated for - overvalued assets on the balance sheet, against which loans can be taken out, even though the real asset value is much lower.
Eventually the lenders will seek to call in debt, which can't be paid, because the overvalued assets can't find a buyer.
User avatar
bman2
Legend
Posts: 4592
Joined: 10 years ago

I’ve always had the sense that whatever the Glazers do is shit for the club, but legal. When the laws and regulations make it perfectly legitimate to be a parasite, you don’t need to be crooked.
fat maradona
Legend
Posts: 1388
Joined: 10 years ago

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... e-transfer

2 signings this week, wtf is going on.......
User avatar
dozer
Legend
Posts: 3922
Joined: 10 years ago

JoelfuckingGlazer wrote: 1 year ago
dozer wrote: 1 year ago
JoelfuckingGlazer wrote: 1 year ago We’re haggling over 10m. For our new Managers Priority number 1 signing. In our most depleted position. When we’re at our lower ebb for decades. In need of a massive squad overhaul. Days after our owners took a similar amount our in dividends.

Cancerous fucking leeches.
That's ok. Your next complaint will be that we overpaid for him, which is a common issue for United anyway.
The problem is we've not moved on to other targets.
We shouldn't pay anything above 50m.
You're right. I mean he's good, but he's no Fellaini.
Maybe but my point still stands. Don't overpay.
Fuck the Glazers
Legend
Posts: 9900
Joined: 10 years ago

swampash wrote: 1 year ago It surely has to be bent? If I'm right it's part of what Trump is being investigated for - overvalued assets on the balance sheet, against which loans can be taken out, even though the real asset value is much lower.
Eventually the lenders will seek to call in debt, which can't be paid, because the overvalued assets can't find a buyer.
Which is basically this

Manchester United owner Glazer takes out loan using club shares as collateral

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... s-16481111
Fuck the Glazers
Legend
Posts: 9900
Joined: 10 years ago

I've found an article that talks about Eds batshit asset value approach, that's based on the main one written by Laurie Whitwell (which is behind the Athletics paywall)

"One such example is Woodward having been responsible for the bloated squad that United now possess, his ‘misguided belief’ of handing new contracts to fringe players in order to protect their value."

https://thefootballfaithful.com/woodwar ... nt-unrest/

So handing Jones, Mata, Lingard new deals "protects their value" and that of the club. That's a really fucking dumb way of seeing value in football. Value is based on what a player does on the pitch; goals, assists, age etc not what you're stupid enough to offer them.
User avatar
Jason
Star Man
Posts: 824
Joined: 10 years ago

Sid wrote: 1 year ago I've found an article that talks about Eds batshit asset value approach, that's based on the main one written by Laurie Whitwell (which is behind the Athletics paywall)

"One such example is Woodward having been responsible for the bloated squad that United now possess, his ‘misguided belief’ of handing new contracts to fringe players in order to protect their value."

https://thefootballfaithful.com/woodwar ... nt-unrest/

So handing Jones, Mata, Lingard new deals "protects their value" and that of the club. That's a really fucking dumb way of seeing value in football. Value is based on what a player does on the pitch; goals, assists, age etc not what you're stupid enough to offer them.
You can just envision Woodward is his office coming up with this idea, with his lovely spreadsheet showing all the asset values, and thinking he was a bloody genius, and heading off to tampa to present it to the glazer clan.

At no point did he think, I wonder why no one has thought of this before. Maybe as its a brain dead theory that has no actual reference to a football team. So so flawed, and this was the fucker running the club for 9 years, and sticking his pie hole into all affairs.
Post Reply