I think United are either set to renegotiate terms with nike next year and its widely expected to be the biggest deal ever. There was a topic on here ages ago about it. I think United for the most part have pushed their revenue streams to the limit and are now looking for new ones or to renegotiate new terms on existing deals. We should have no problem doing either as the one thing nobody can accuse the glazers of is finding a great deal. I think Arsenal will also get far better terms from nike. Their stadium however.......a little bit daft to accept such a low amount but......60000 ever single home game and the prices they charge......more than makes up for it I reckon.
They already did to the tune of 105M......http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/threads/303969-FSG-takeover-H-amp-G-sale-in-focus
It is quite clear from your reply that you have absolutely no understanding of the corporate issues surrounding Arsenal. YES in global terms you are a small club no matter what your valuation is. Great, you can fill a 60k ground (you should note that you do not do that every week). Great that your stadium and training ground exist within the price inflated Greater London area. However when negotiating commercial contracts that counts for nothing. The key for such contracts lies in market possibilities and that only comes about from the level of awareness of potential customers in a global market. Now, as it stands, all the reports demonstrate that Arsenal are 4th ranked of the English clubs and 10th ranked of the European clubs. As an example for you the United - Liverpool matches generate the largest global tv audiences of any club matches. Which match do Arsenal play in that can be ranked and how much lower was the audience? Now that is the kind of reference point that any commercial organisation will use.
Henry has revealed that Martin Broughton, Liverpool's chairman, and Christian Purslow, the club's former managing director, did not ask New England Sports Ventures for a "contractual commitment" not to load their own costs on to the club. A spokesman for Broughton and Purslow said they did not believe such a commitment would be legally enforceable, and were reassured because NESV was paying off the £200m "acquisition debt" with which Hicks and Gillett saddled Liverpool. Henry, in a detailed email to the Guardian answering questions about the takeover, emphasised that he has paid off that debt, leaving the club with only £37m owed to Royal Bank of Scotland for development work on a proposed new stadium in Stanley Park, which NESV is now reviewing. "The simplest thing to say is that we removed all debt but the stadium debt," Henry wrote. "LFC is not servicing debt other than stadium debt." RBS confirmed to the Guardian that the £200m has been paid off – £150m of it was owed to RBS, £50m to Wachovia – and NESV has not saddled Liverpool with any new debt to replace it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/nov/02/liverpool-john-w-henry-nesv
You really are a very silly boy. The reference you gave is a speculative discussion which suggests that there are some discrepancies in the money flows at the time of the takeover. The IMPORTANT thing is that FSG (NESV then) did not do a Glazers and land the club with massive debts.
The alleged official document in the link was posted on a football forumand referred to evidence from a company owned by H&G(Kop Holdings)who were trying to manipulate the sale of the club away from NESV,this 'document' was probably one of the many thousands that were thrown out of court when Stadler&Waldorf got their greedy arses kicked out of Liverpool FC
From a fans prospective, Liverpool 18 months ago was a mess. The owners were bleeding the club dry, selling the better players and dragging the club to its knee's. NESV DID NOT borrow to buy the club, the work behind the scene's to improve commercial revenue has been fantastic. Recently returned from a holiday in the far east. They all wear either United or Liverpool shirts, the market opportunity for that region is astonshing. We need to address the stadium issue, sooner rather than later. Our match day revenue falls miles behind the likes of Arsenal and United. The important thing though is Liverpool are moving forward slowly but surely.
Yeah, not like we're talking the sqeaky clean Glaziers eh who borrowed a **** load of dodgy money from abu dhabi dudes involved with Barca and PSG
With the scrutiny our owners have been under since arriving I think anything that was dodgy would be front page news by now. Infact it has been. Strangely enough most of it was bullshit, the rest was more bullshit and its become clear that anything written about the finances of United thats not by a financial expert is quite simply bullshit. Unlike your last lot.
Who's a touchy little boy today? B Bf is perfectly correct to turn the spotlight on to the activities of your owners as there are still 2 federal investigations on-going into their financial dealings in the US. Now I strongly doubt that MUFC will figure in those but they do bring your owners' activities into the realm of debate. Now you may not like others commenting upon United's debt situation but you have no sanction upon what may or may not be forecasted or speculated - informed or ill-informed. If you have learnt anything since the Credit Crunch it should have been that the financial experts are far from being such in reality.
Unless you are a financial advisor for either the Glazer family or Manchester United then any comments on Uniteds finances are to be taken as guesswork and nothing more. Our debts going down, our profits are rising. There isnt really anything else to discuss. If the situation changes and its not some idiot like Andersred or some rag needing a story for the day then I am sure it will be discussed. Since H&G I would think owners are under more scrutiny than ever and since H&G there hasnt been a peep about the Glazers. I like it, the less discussion about behind the scenes the better. I think you would agree with me on that for Liverpool aswell. If its football making the headlines then its all good.
Nope but I dont know how most people pay off their debts. If there was something to untoward about it all I am sure there would be information about but just now its all quiet on the Glazer hating front. Probably because we are doing well and people are looking for something else to moan at.
UIR. The people who are really making the vital decisions do not work for either the Glazers or United but are advising those organisations to whom the debts are actually owed. They are making their decisions based not only on THEIR interpretation of financial data emanating from both within and without of the club and/or the owners. Now as a student of organisations, I find the United situation quite interesting. From my stance the financial position is only one part of that analysis. However, it is an essential element of it. Therefore should the topic arise I, for one, will feel free to comment - as I would about LFC or any other team. I feel sure that FPA will be discussed ad nauseum.
You are right about success keeping detractors quiet but but you also see my whole point about the PIK debts, nobody knows exactly how because they funded them thus raising peoples suspicisions.
The problem with Liverpool is that we sat in the 90s and 00s content with what we had whilst United, Arsenal and so on expanded. We're finally getting the shirt deals, stadiums plans etc now. We're only going up on and off the pitch.
There is 105M of unaccounted for money that was used to pay off the bank. That money is now clearly a loan from UKSV to Liverpool FC. It is not speculation it is in the financial reports. The author is an accountant and moderator of the OFFICIAL Liverpool FC Forum boards. If you know better than him I suggest you sign up and let him know.
Thanks for the offer but I am already signed-up! I suggest that you re-read what the Community moderator wrote and the further comments before you start making an accounting fool of yourself.
Then you know he has a reputation for knowing what he's talking about. If you'd like to tell me what I have gotten wrong I will be more than happy to discuss it with you but you can't because that 105M is a loan from UKSV and the only question to be answered is what rate of interest they are charging you for it.
