While I still feel like it ...
in [Chelsea]
|
Prev: 2014 World Cup in Brazil
Next: Parking the bus
From: Red Rackham on 25 Apr 2010 09:08 "JAB" <nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message news:g8XAn.93347$1%7.74289(a)newsfe07.ams2... > On 25/04/2010 10:37 AM, Red Rackham wrote: >> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >> news:dl2An.35847$c71.1922(a)newsfe24.ams2... >>> On 22/04/2010 7:57 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>> news:RV0An.30542$TL1.6656(a)newsfe06.ams2... >>>>> On 22/04/2010 8:33 AM, Diablos Rojos wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The debt only becomes a worry when it is above the value of the club, >>>>>> but >>>>>> yet again that stock has risen. Forbes only yesterday announcing >>>>>> that >>>>>> MUFC >>>>>> is the most valuable sports club on the planet with a worth in excess >>>>>> of >>>>>> $1.8billion dollars, so it looks like the Red Knights might need to >>>>>> cough >>>>>> up at least �1.2billion to get their hands on the club. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well I think the dotcom boom showed that isn't overly true! >>>> >>>> >>>> You cannot compare a dotcom company, often with no tangible value at >>>> all, >>>> with a football club that has again been declared the most valuable >>>> sports >>>> franchise in the world at �1.2billion. >>>> >>>> >>>> The more >>>>> important aspect is do Man U have the cash flow to pay off the debt >>>>> while >>>>> at the same time keep the club running ... to which the answer is yes >>>>> at >>>>> the moment. The worst case scenario is having to sell players to >>>>> balance >>>>> the books leading to a downward spiral in popularity and therefore >>>>> income >>>>> to service such a large debt. >>>> >>>> >>>> Which is why players won't be sold to service the debt. >>>> >>>> >>>> Will it happen ... >>>>> probably not. I expect Man U to be sold in the next five years or so >>>>> and >>>>> the Glazers to go away with a large smile on their faces. >>>> >>>> >>>> More worrying is the prospect of Roman leaving after deciding half a >>>> billion >>>> quid for 2 premierships isn't good value. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> <yawns> >> >> >> Damn, and your post was so interesting. >> >> > > Interesting enough for you to reply to it I see Le Dieu ... funny that. Snap.
From: JAB on 25 Apr 2010 09:43 On 25/04/2010 2:08 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >> Interesting enough for you to reply to it I see Le Dieu ... funny that. <yawns>
From: Red Rackham on 25 Apr 2010 10:01 "JAB" <nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message news:NFXAn.93349$1%7.39680(a)newsfe07.ams2... > On 25/04/2010 2:08 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>> Interesting enough for you to reply to it I see Le Dieu ... funny that. > > <yawns> Can't all be as entertaining as you JAB.
From: JAB on 25 Apr 2010 10:08 On 25/04/2010 3:01 PM, Red Rackham wrote: > "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message > news:NFXAn.93349$1%7.39680(a)newsfe07.ams2... >> On 25/04/2010 2:08 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>> Interesting enough for you to reply to it I see Le Dieu ... funny that. >> >> <yawns> > > > Can't all be as entertaining as you JAB. > > Any more interesting "facts" that you've forgotten to post Le Dieu ... now I always find them a laugh especially the bit where you squirm around trying to show that you were right even though it's obvious to all that you're totally and utterly wrong yet again. One thing I did wonder, do you know that your "facts" are complete bollocks when you post them or is it only when it's pointed out to you that you realise?
From: Red Rackham on 25 Apr 2010 10:16
"JAB" <nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message news:H1YAn.93350$1%7.35767(a)newsfe07.ams2... > On 25/04/2010 3:01 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >> news:NFXAn.93349$1%7.39680(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>> On 25/04/2010 2:08 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>> Interesting enough for you to reply to it I see Le Dieu ... funny >>>>> that. >>> >>> <yawns> >> >> >> Can't all be as entertaining as you JAB. >> >> > > Any more interesting "facts" that you've forgotten to post Le Dieu ... now > I always find them a laugh especially the bit where you squirm around > trying to show that you were right even though it's obvious to all that > you're totally and utterly wrong yet again. > > One thing I did wonder, do you know that your "facts" are complete > bollocks when you post them or is it only when it's pointed out to you > that you realise? Yawn. Shouldn't you be at Stamford Bridge? PMSL |