Or maybe your "humour" is just as old as our "past glories" so has fermented into tedious #bitterness We have gone through an entire cycle of success, decline, rebuilding and now are back on the rise with a young manager/team, supportive owners, stadium development, European football, and massively increased commercial revenue with sensible wages for financial sustainability. Only the combined might of multiple billionaire-bankrolled clubs stopped us walking the league last season. For you to characterise our current state as living in the past is ****ing ******ed. Every one of us is desperately counting the hours until we get to see LFC play again Stopped reading after this part.
hehe I was only farking about to be honest. I wont comment on Dave's value to be honest, because it will get me banned. Suffice to say he is one of two people on here who grind my gears. The rest of you Kopites are sound
Roll On Sonny, you clearly have little to no understanding of corporate analysis and that is clearly identified in your short-term oriented analysis. So let's look a little more closely at what you actually said: United posted a record turnover in the last full financial year of £363m. Their commerical revenues increased nearly 30%, their sponsorship revenue increased by 44% and this resulted in a net profit of £146m. They had £94m cash at hand and they'd reduced their debt by nearly £50m in the fiscal year. When were the major elements of that financial stream put in place? Think you'll find that it was under the Gill administartion. Just as Ferguson no longer commands the on-pitch activity the 'real' damage was done when Gill left. So the financial returns look OK today but the ability to maintain and/or increase those returns have been severely compromised. Now there's a FACT for you to contemplate. I also note that you make no reference to the ownership situation. Well here again I point to the many questions being asked in the US about the Glazer family holdings - a simple Google search will provide you with enough evidence. The future is not as clear cut as it appeared to be as to what will happen to the ownership now that the unifying force of the Head of the Household is no longer here. If the fissures open up there is no way of knowing what the outcome for United will be and there is no need for the major Glazer players to even consider the shareholders or do you not understand the shareholding position? As for your point about long term corporate sustainability in the wider context of business, there are numerous blue chip organisations that have maintained their place in the upper echelons over decades, in numerous different fields. OK, name them and then define why the sought to be Number 1 and what happened when they lost that position. The aim of being number one is a dedicated central plank of the corporate strategy - it does not happen by accident. Achieving that position brings with it clear strategic advantages and the loss or potential loss of that position also brings with it strategic consequences. That effect is well documented and very far from being based upon a concoction of magic beans. Now I suppose I could retort that the same effect can be achieved by just relying upon inflation and merely concentrating upon the numbers (as you have done above) without even attempting to understand what they represent.
Yet more waffle and supposition with nothing but your own ill conceived assumptions to back it up. Gill leaving United was a blow to them, because he did a fine job, but is his leaving going to result in a collapse of the deck of cards? Don't be a fool, Gill was the figurehead of the organisation who had a close working relationship with Ferguson on the football side of the operation, but to suggest his departure signals a corporate disaster in terms of their long term commercial strategy, just shows how little you know about the workings of large organisation. As you're a complete fraud imo, who's knowledge is limited to textbooks and theory, you're the sort of prize bullshitter that I wouldn't give the time of day to. As the commercial operation that sat behind Gill is still there and still doing a fine job, hence the massive hike in revenues from those streams post his leaving. Their brand is now well established within its market and to suggest that one man would denote its success and market value is beyond clueless. As for the Glazers, if you'd bothered to research yet another of you bullshit comments, you'd have seen that they've committed their future to the club for the next 5 years minimum as of today. However, their ownership matters not a jot, as they've ridden the club for cash for years you total melt and a sale to to an owner who doesn't require £40-50m per annum of the clubs revenue to repay his purchase costs and who takes £10's of millions in 'fees' might just prove to be a benefit to the company As for large corporations who've maintained their status in the upper echelons (not no.1 constantly, as that's both impossible and inconsequential to long term sustainability - and not what I ****ing said) you surely don't need me to list the corporations who've stood the term of time at the peak of their sector do you? Call yourself a corporate expert? Don't make me ****ing laugh. Now pipe down, as I've trousered you here, and any more would embarrass us both.........
Another excellent post. This Foreskin guy seems to post a lot of nonsense, quite correct to set him right.
He's just backing a winner here like, you call it arse licking, I call it common sense. But I'm pissed constantly apparently, lol.
By the way, if you're upset about anyone criticising the Foreskin guy's comments then you might want to check whether your head is up an arse (or a foreskin). It's mostly jibberish but I think you know that!
