If Pompey go bust who stands to lose points ?
in [Manchester United]
|
From: SteveH on 19 Feb 2010 16:16 Pakistan Meteorological Department <PMD(a)SIBU.HQ> wrote: > > I don't think you really understand how these things work. If > > Arsenal's loans were called in they would be in exactly the same > > situation as Liverpool and Manchester United excepting those two clubs > > have already paid for their stadiums so they would be in a better > > position than Arsenal. As far as the "fit and proper test" Arsenal > > have done no such thing and will be owned by whoever decided to buy > > them. > > > > > Incorrect as usual. You do realise that Arsenal have the highest debt to market value ratio of all the big clubs, don't you? - with their debts being a staggering 107% of their value. That's around double the ratio at United (54% debt:value) on 50% of the operating income for the financial year ending April '09. So much for the 'responsible borrowing' spin they've put on things. -- SteveH
From: DC on 19 Feb 2010 16:18 Pakistan Meteorological Department wrote: > REDDEVIL6(a)nospam.net wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:33:10 -0800 (PST), Mike Hall <tarrow(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>> I wonder if there will be a ripple effect if Portsmouth go under, >>> seeing as how all the EPL club's credit ratings will suddenly drop >>> like a stone. >>> If all the loans are cancelled then the likes of Liverpool and >>> Manchester United would immediately be forced into administration, >>> even though there is zero chance of either being wound up. I don't >>> think Arsenal would have a problem, seeing as how the board are >>> currently blocking millions of pounds of investment to avoid >>> foreigners (who have not passed the Arsenal fit-and-proper test) >>> getting their paws on the club. The other EPL clubs with debts (like >>> Hull City) would suddenly find themselves in Portsmouth-like trouble. >>> >>> >>> Mike Hall >> >> >> I don't think you really understand how these things work. If >> Arsenal's loans were called in they would be in exactly the same >> situation as Liverpool and Manchester United excepting those two clubs >> have already paid for their stadiums so they would be in a better >> position than Arsenal. As far as the "fit and proper test" Arsenal >> have done no such thing and will be owned by whoever decided to buy >> them. >> > > > Incorrect as usual. > > The FA/Prem conduct a veto process or 'fit and proper' test on owners. > However, how did Shinawatra pass this assesment? > > Think RD was referring to Mike Hall comment that Arsenal did the Fit and proper person test. Where in fact it is as you point out conducted by the FA, and not that RD believed no test is done. As for Shinawatra he sold his share in city before the charges were brought. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: nigel on 19 Feb 2010 17:14 DC wrote: > Pakistan Meteorological Department wrote: > >> REDDEVIL6(a)nospam.net wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:33:10 -0800 (PST), Mike Hall <tarrow(a)yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I wonder if there will be a ripple effect if Portsmouth go under, >>>> seeing as how all the EPL club's credit ratings will suddenly drop >>>> like a stone. >>>> If all the loans are cancelled then the likes of Liverpool and >>>> Manchester United would immediately be forced into administration, >>>> even though there is zero chance of either being wound up. I don't >>>> think Arsenal would have a problem, seeing as how the board are >>>> currently blocking millions of pounds of investment to avoid >>>> foreigners (who have not passed the Arsenal fit-and-proper test) >>>> getting their paws on the club. The other EPL clubs with debts (like >>>> Hull City) would suddenly find themselves in Portsmouth-like trouble. >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Hall >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't think you really understand how these things work. If >>> Arsenal's loans were called in they would be in exactly the same >>> situation as Liverpool and Manchester United excepting those two clubs >>> have already paid for their stadiums so they would be in a better >>> position than Arsenal. As far as the "fit and proper test" Arsenal >>> have done no such thing and will be owned by whoever decided to buy >>> them. >>> >> >> >> Incorrect as usual. >> >> The FA/Prem conduct a veto process or 'fit and proper' test on owners. >> However, how did Shinawatra pass this assesment? >> >> > > Think RD was referring to Mike Hall comment that Arsenal did the Fit and > proper person test. Where in fact it is as you point out conducted by > the FA, and not that RD believed no test is done. > > As for Shinawatra he sold his share in city before the charges were > brought. > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- Am I the only person who read Mike Hall's post and understood it? The Prem have a 'fit and proper' test which is just a cypher. Arsenal shares are tightly held and are dominated by three or four major shareholders, some of whom collude to keep out investors they don't like the look of.
From: REDDEVIL6 on 19 Feb 2010 18:05 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:14:22 +0000, nigel <useweb(a)nospam.com> wrote: >DC wrote: > >> Pakistan Meteorological Department wrote: >> >>> REDDEVIL6(a)nospam.net wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:33:10 -0800 (PST), Mike Hall <tarrow(a)yahoo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I wonder if there will be a ripple effect if Portsmouth go under, >>>>> seeing as how all the EPL club's credit ratings will suddenly drop >>>>> like a stone. >>>>> If all the loans are cancelled then the likes of Liverpool and >>>>> Manchester United would immediately be forced into administration, >>>>> even though there is zero chance of either being wound up. I don't >>>>> think Arsenal would have a problem, seeing as how the board are >>>>> currently blocking millions of pounds of investment to avoid >>>>> foreigners (who have not passed the Arsenal fit-and-proper test) >>>>> getting their paws on the club. The other EPL clubs with debts (like >>>>> Hull City) would suddenly find themselves in Portsmouth-like trouble. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Hall >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think you really understand how these things work. If >>>> Arsenal's loans were called in they would be in exactly the same >>>> situation as Liverpool and Manchester United excepting those two clubs >>>> have already paid for their stadiums so they would be in a better >>>> position than Arsenal. As far as the "fit and proper test" Arsenal >>>> have done no such thing and will be owned by whoever decided to buy >>>> them. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Incorrect as usual. >>> >>> The FA/Prem conduct a veto process or 'fit and proper' test on owners. >>> However, how did Shinawatra pass this assesment? >>> >>> >> >> Think RD was referring to Mike Hall comment that Arsenal did the Fit and >> proper person test. Where in fact it is as you point out conducted by >> the FA, and not that RD believed no test is done. >> >> As for Shinawatra he sold his share in city before the charges were >> brought. >> >> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- > >Am I the only person who read Mike Hall's post and understood it? > >The Prem have a 'fit and proper' test which is just a cypher. > >Arsenal shares are tightly held and are dominated by three or four major >shareholders, some of whom collude to keep out investors they don't like >the look of. > Mark my words, the day is fastly approaching when Arsenal will have a new owner
From: REDDEVIL6 on 19 Feb 2010 18:08
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:18:40 +0000, DC <a(a)a.com> wrote: >Pakistan Meteorological Department wrote: >> REDDEVIL6(a)nospam.net wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:33:10 -0800 (PST), Mike Hall <tarrow(a)yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I wonder if there will be a ripple effect if Portsmouth go under, >>>> seeing as how all the EPL club's credit ratings will suddenly drop >>>> like a stone. >>>> If all the loans are cancelled then the likes of Liverpool and >>>> Manchester United would immediately be forced into administration, >>>> even though there is zero chance of either being wound up. I don't >>>> think Arsenal would have a problem, seeing as how the board are >>>> currently blocking millions of pounds of investment to avoid >>>> foreigners (who have not passed the Arsenal fit-and-proper test) >>>> getting their paws on the club. The other EPL clubs with debts (like >>>> Hull City) would suddenly find themselves in Portsmouth-like trouble. >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Hall >>> >>> >>> I don't think you really understand how these things work. If >>> Arsenal's loans were called in they would be in exactly the same >>> situation as Liverpool and Manchester United excepting those two clubs >>> have already paid for their stadiums so they would be in a better >>> position than Arsenal. As far as the "fit and proper test" Arsenal >>> have done no such thing and will be owned by whoever decided to buy >>> them. >>> >> >> >> Incorrect as usual. >> >> The FA/Prem conduct a veto process or 'fit and proper' test on owners. >> However, how did Shinawatra pass this assesment? >> >> > >Think RD was referring to Mike Hall comment that Arsenal did the Fit and >proper person test. Where in fact it is as you point out conducted by >the FA, and not that RD believed no test is done. > >As for Shinawatra he sold his share in city before the charges were brought. > >--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- That is indeed what I meant. The so called "fit and proper test" is carried out by the FA but it's a pile of BS, if you doubt that then tell me how Liverpool and Manchester United ended up with their current owners? |