An Epic Swindle by Brian Reade

[RedReet]

And who on here has any respect for Gray or Keys? ****in no-one. If it had been Gray and Keys that had broken the story about Gary Glitter being a paedo, most reasonable people would have invited him round to their next children's birthday party*.

You didn't believe their **** and I'd say most on here didn't either. You really should go back to some of the match threads last season and see the totally reasonable Rafa-supporting posters tearing their hair out in frustration at our ****, uninspired play. So many posters saying "I love Rafa but he has to go" etc...

If Rafa came to us now, he'd probably do brilliantly given the chance to buy his first choices etc (and assuming he'd work with Commolli) but personally I feel he was the right man in the right place at the wrong time.













*not really obviously

Ha ha, what about all the idiots calling for 442 all the time even though it didn’t suit our team at all and saying there is no need for 2 defensive midfielders because A Gray said so. What about all the crap when Rafa had Gerrard or Torres on the bench and Sky would give it the ‘if he’s fit enough for the bench, he’s fit enough to play’ crap which people often regurgitated.

They are just a few examples off the top of my head, people on this site followed Sky like sheep whether they or you want to admit it or not.

[Craig_H]

It's not impossible for people to just think those things, regardless of what Sky say.

[RedReet]

It is, but they didn't. The year we came second, you'd have thought we were fighting for relegation reading some of the posts/threads on here. Why was that I wonder?

There was also the whole Nett spend argument people bought, and there was even a lot of people complaining about Rafa not celebrating a goal FFS.

[Craig_H]

I think you're making a slightly sweeping statement with the 'but they didnt' remark. Some did, some didnt. Some people followed Sky like sheep and some just held those views anyway, regardless of whether or not Gray/Keys were expressing them.

[RedReet]

I think you're making a slightly sweeping statement with the 'but they didnt' remark. Some did, some didnt. Some people followed Sky like sheep and some just held those views anyway, regardless of whether or not Gray/Keys were expressing them.

THat's probably worse to be honest.

[Craig_H]

Worse or not, they're entitled to their opinions.

[Rudo]

This thread's gone a bit bonkers and the Rudo is nowhere to be seen

[Fredo]

It's almost as epic as the swindle Hicks and Gillett brought onto themselves.

[CJ]

one little thing from the book.

Its interesting how Morgan took the money on offer and ran and then criticised moores for doing the same thing.

[RichC]

half way through this and you realise that we had not only some seriously inept people running the club prior to H&G in Parry and Moores who also came across as pretty greedy but there were also a large number of other share holders who were equally as greedy and as inept as those two.

Just reading how H&G had made their money should have been enough to have put off a deal with these guys - I mean just a multitude of LBO's throughout their working lives and on top of that a loan that was only for 1 year why the **** weren't the alarm bells ringing; greed plain and simple and from a large number of people as well.

[dom9]

half way through this and you realise that we had not only some seriously inept people running the club prior to H&G in Parry and Moores who also came across as pretty greedy but there were also a large number of other share holders who were equally as greedy and as inept as those two.

Just reading how H&G had made their money should have been enough to have put off a deal with these guys - I mean just a multitude of LBO's throughout their working lives and on top of that a loan that was only for 1 year why the **** weren't the alarm bells ringing; greed plain and simple and from a large number of people as well.

Because until the global economy went tits up, LBOs were a license to print money.

They were extremely common, and not in the slightest bit unusual.

The worst recession for 80 years put an end to that.

[RichC]

Because until the global economy went tits up, LBOs were a license to print money.

They were extremely common, and not in the slightest bit unusual.

The worst recession for 80 years put an end to that.

They were indeed common but it doesn't fit sports where unless you invest and invest regularly to guarantee success which will pay for the loans etc...

and LBO's are not generally based on a loan to be repaid in a year, generally done over several years to give time to grow the asset to make your profit.

[dom9]

They were indeed common but it doesn't fit sports where unless you invest and invest regularly to guarantee success which will pay for the loans etc...

and LBO's are not generally based on a loan to be repaid in a year, generally done over several years to give time to grow the asset to make your profit.

It's easy to say that in hindsight.

It's also worked for the Glazers. How many trophies have the club won since they took over, despite not really spending much in the way of net spend the past 3 years.

The money markets completely dried up overnight one day. H&G were doomed from that moment onwards.

[RichC]

It's easy to say that in hindsight.

It's also worked for the Glazers. How many trophies have the club won since they took over, despite not really spending much in the way of net spend the past 3 years.

The money markets completely dried up overnight one day. H&G were doomed from that moment onwards.

Has it worked for the Glazers? They are still there granted but I wouldn't think the value of Man Utd has increased greatly since their takeover, also the squad was pretty much in place prior to the financial meltdown.

Effectively they hedged that LFC would be successful and cover the loan they took out, the financial melt down did screw them over in terms of not being able to re-negotiate at favourable rates but why were they initally only granted this loan over a 1 year period? It appears that the banks realised the risk and volatility of this LBO was well above acceptable levels and very speculative to say the least hence the shortness of the loan

[dom9]

Has it worked for the Glazers? They are still there granted but I wouldn't think the value of Man Utd has increased greatly since their takeover, also the squad was pretty much in place prior to the financial meltdown.

Effectively they hedged that LFC would be successful and cover the loan they took out, the financial melt down did screw them over in terms of not being able to re-negotiate at favourable rates but why were they initally only granted this loan over a 1 year period? It appears that the banks realised the risk and volatility of this LBO was well above acceptable levels and very speculative to say the least hence the shortness of the loan

Yes, I would say it is working for the Glaziers.

I don't have the inside knowledge to say whether a 1 year loan was requested by the borrowers, or imposed by the banks. Is it in the book?

In fact, I thought the initial loan term was longer than 1 year, but the loans subsequent to the money markets ceasing up were for shorter terms. I don't have any proof to hand either way.