Football 2010-2011

[Steve P]

But there's one angle that says perhaps not. I saw on some TV programme in the last couple of weeks that on 7 of the 8 occasions where Arsenal have been 2nd in the league at xmas under Wenger they've ended up winning (I'm presuming what I saw said was correct, tho I've not checked it).

[The Nal]

On another matter, I'm wondering what commitments were given to Rooney to make him re-sign

[eFestivals]

Given that we've only won the league 3 times under Wenger it's very safe to say that the stat is wrong. We've certainly got a real chance but then so have City as no doubt they'll spend a fortune in the coming transfer window, to add to what is probably already the best squad. Interesting to see how much more positive their play has been in recent games. I'm sure Tevez's transfer request has brought this about.

ahhh .... perhaps I added in the Wenger part of that myself, due to dodgy memory of what I heard said.

Would it perhaps be right if the Wenger part of what I said was taken out, and it applied to Arsenal over the whole Prem era?

(I wouldn't be too surprised if that's wrong too - I was rather surprised to hear what I did hear, given the popular idea that Arsenal tend to fade in the 2nd half of the season. I wish I could remember where I heard it said now).

[ralph250]

Team in first place at Christmas during Wenger years. Arsenal's christmas position in parentheses.

Man Utd 2010 (2)

chelsea 2009 (3) Chelsea

Liverpool 2008 (5) Man Utd

arsenal 2007 (1) Man Utd

man utd 2006 (4) Man Utd

chelsea 2005 (Chelsea

chelsea 2004 (2) Chelsea

Man Utd 2003 (2) Arsenal

Arsenal 2002 (1) Man Utd

Newcastle 2001 (2) Arsenal

Man Utd 2000 (2) Man Utd

Leeds 1999 (4) Man Utd

Villa 1998 (6) Man Utd

Man Utd 1997 (6) Arsenal

Liverpool 1996 (2) Man Utd

Prem pre-wenger

Newcastle 1995 (7) Man Utd

Blackburn 1994 (11) Blackburn

Man Utd 1993 (5) Man Utd

Norwich 1992 (7) Man Utd

http://www.statto.com/football/teams/arsenal/2010-2011/table

(Can check through the years, and drop down box for the any date)

Edited January 4, 2011 by ralph250

[eFestivals]

Nal, I reckon you might manage to sign some kack, but I doubt you'll get Kaka.

[The Nal]

Nal, I reckon you might manage to sign some kack, but I doubt you'll get Kaka.

[eFestivals]

You could be right there. Only thing is that he won’t be playing much at Madrid I reckon. Its only a Daily Mail rumour anyway I think but you can always dream!

Any of that only becomes relevant if it starts raining fifties over OT.

[The Nal]

Any of that only becomes relevant if it starts raining fifties over OT.

Edited January 4, 2011 by The Nal

[ralph250]

given the popular idea that Arsenal tend to fade in the 2nd half of the season.

[ralph250]

He could go for cheap, relatively anyway. He hasn’t been playing great, is 28, won’t be getting Ozils place in the team at Madrid any time soon and won’t be happy on the bench. He won’t cost the 65m or whatever Madrid paid for him. Apparently his knee is pretty knackered though.

[TheGayTent]

If I were a drunk sweaty i'd sell Rooney. He's hardly special.

[The Nal]

Steve - You'll be happy to see this. Toure and Adebayor beating the piss out of each other at training today.

[eFestivals]

As an aside in case anyone missed it, source still unknown but PIK repayment looks to have been done without 3rd party investment/sale of equity.

they must be magic-ing money out of the air then.

They don't have the money themselves, so they MUST have borrowed it. They must have found an accounting fiddle way of hiding it somehow - which I'd take as a huge worry, and not something good. People who are hiding one debt they shouldn't be hiding are very likely to be hiding an awful lot more along with it.

[ralph250]

they must be magic-ing money out of the air then.

They don't have the money themselves, so they MUST have borrowed it. They must have found an accounting fiddle way of hiding it somehow - which I'd take as a huge worry, and not something good. People who are hiding one debt they shouldn't be hiding are very likely to be hiding an awful lot more along with it.

[eFestivals]

Where've you got that they're fiddling?

As andersred says, possibility they've procured bank loan or refinancing in the US secured on assets elsewhere in their portfolio in the US, which is their prerogative really if take on face value Gill always maintaining it was their personal debt. No reason they should seek refinancing in the UK. The inference seems to be that as it's in America, no way for Andersred to find out, as unlikely to have access to their statutory accounts I guess. In America, do they need to submit stat accounts to their equivalent companies house like they do in UK under companies act. I'd guess not or at least that he won't have access to it.

All I'm saying, and the article is that by the looks of it, it hasn't been in exchange for equity, which is a possibility that was forwarded. eg. investor (Qatar rumours) put up £250m for x percent.

To be fair, said it before, but I doubt anyone knows fully the extent of Glazers portfolio anyways; what they've sold or been able to secure financing against.

Just last week one of the son's spent £5.6m on a luxury Chicago apartment aswell.

we all know that they don't have the cash themselves. So they must have borrowed it in some manner.

If they're hiding the fact that they've borrowed it - and it appears that they are - then that's a VERY strong indicator of some sort of fiddle. Borrowings come with a liability to repay, and when someone is hiding their liabilities it's normally because if people knew of it they wouldn't lend to them; and if they're hiding one liability, they're very likely to be hiding others.

At best - going from the assumptions you've laid out above - they're robbing peter to pay paul, which is another indicator of dodgy dealings. It might not be quite as much as fiddle, but any straight businessman does not have need to hide their liabilities.

And while you say "it hasn't been in exchange for equity" - which appears to be true on a straightforwards look at things - people don't tend to lend hundreds of millions of pounds without feeling that there's a way of getting it back. So it's quite possibly a debt against their whole ownership of the club ultimately.

To me, these sorts of dealings make the likes of Hicks & Gillet look honest and trustworthy in comparison.

[ralph250]

we all know that they don't have the cash themselves. So they must have borrowed it in some manner.

If they're hiding the fact that they've borrowed it - and it appears that they are - then that's a VERY strong indicator of some sort of fiddle. Borrowings come with a liability to repay, and when someone is hiding their liabilities it's normally because if people knew of it they wouldn't lend to them; and if they're hiding one liability, they're very likely to be hiding others.

At best - going from the assumptions you've laid out above - they're robbing peter to pay paul, which is another indicator of dodgy dealings. It might not be quite as much as fiddle, but any straight businessman does not have need to hide their liabilities.

And while you say "it hasn't been in exchange for equity" - which appears to be true on a straightforwards look at things - people don't tend to lend hundreds of millions of pounds without feeling that there's a way of getting it back. So it's quite possibly a debt against their whole ownership of the club ultimately.

To me, these sorts of dealings make the likes of Hicks & Gillet look honest and trustworthy in comparison.

[sifi]

Slight possibility that Macheda could be sold aswell. Off to Sampdoria on loan as Cassano's gone to Milan. Don't think Fergie would want to let him go yet, but if he impresses then we could get offered a decent amount for him and Fergie may deem Welbeck ahead of him now.

[ralph250]

Gutted Cassano has gone to Milan. Understand that Samp have an option to loan him for another 12 months if all goes to plan. Big step back for Samp, I'd say.

[Steve P]

[The Nal]

Gutted Cassano has gone to Milan. Understand that Samp have an option to loan him for another 12 months if all goes to plan. Big step back for Samp, I'd say.

[eFestivals]

and hide the fact they've borrowed it from whom though? your making the assumption that they're fiddling because they haven't made it public, but what duty of disclosure do they actually have to the public/media/fans for what the club have always maintained was a personal debt. If I asked someone on here what, for example, their mortgage on their house was, they'd rightfully tell me it was none of my business. Yes, everyone would like to know but it's not really any of our business if it is personal debt.

Lenders of all types want to know what they're getting themselves into. If there's no way of anyone knowing what a person owes, then the risk of default is greater.

Using a mortgage as an example, would a mortgage lender be happy loaning money to someone who had hidden their liabilities from the mortgage co? Nope. They want to know everything, so they can make a proper consideration of the risk of default of the loan.

It's precisely for these reasons that (in the UK at least) that info around these things - both for individuals and for companies - is accessible to those who need to know. If we take Fayed as an example (a good one cos he was hocked up to the eyeballs in the exact same way as the Glazers are), he did his best to hide his liabilities via a load of different legal entities, but it could all be unpicked by anyone who put the effort in, and once it had been then his ability to borrow became severely limited, and resulted in the end in him having to sell up as the only possible way for him to remain solvent. He walked away with a few quid at the end of it, but more by the luck of the stupidly high offer he received than good judgement on his part. While the Glazers might get saved by a similarly high and stupid offer, I reckon the chance of that went with the sale of Liverpool at what was a remarkably low price (far lower than just about everyone outside of the finance world had thought possible).

It's long been public knowledge that credit lines to the Glazers had dried up - it's because of that that they had to go the bond route a year ago (and scooped up a load of mug punters who liked the name but have largely ignored the risks). The further that the Glazers move away from transparent and straightforwards borrowings the deeper in the mire they clearly are.

Because of the above the chances are high that the PIK loans have been replaced by more expensive loans, but with the appeal of that to the Glazers being the secrecy. The secrecy only makes any sense if the ability to settle the loans on any day isn't there - in other words, they're technically insolvent (something which has long been publicly known anyway). All that's keeping the wolves at bay is the terms of their loans (the settlement dates) along with a hope that the economy will pick up enough by the due dates so that capital growth in the next few years will save them .... but if the west is going to suffer similar to Japan in the 90s of a static economy (which is a long way from impossible) then they're f**ked.

Given Gill's comments after it'd been cleared about how he said it was their personal debt etc, I'd be surprised if he opened himself up to the PR backlash if it had been secured on the club as would guess they'd look to shut off proximity of this *possible* debt to the club. Personally I'd guess they would've secured it against other assets in their portfolio in the US, and will look to pay it off with their future dividend entitlements, which I think is c. £25m per annum and hope to capitalise if pound strengthens relative to the dollar.

You've misunderstood what I was getting at. Ultimately, what the Glazers 'own' (tho 'own' with borrowed money) and what they owe is all personal.

So while the new borrowings might not be directly against the club and can be considered 'personal loans', they're likely to be against their (ultimately) personal ownership of their companies - meaning that default on those personal loans will see them lose one or more of those companies. In theory that has no impact on Man Utd Ltd (or whatever the company(s) are called) because it means that the ownership of that company merely changes hands, but the reality of the impact of a change of ownership caused by a default on those 'personal loans' ultimately depends on who it is that ends up with ownership.

[ampersand]

i know it's your site and all, but remember there's the finances thread.

[The Nal]

Predictions for Arsenal vs Citeh later?

Ill go with 2-1 Arsenal.

[eFestivals]

Predictions for Arsenal vs Citeh later?

Ill go with 2-1 Arsenal.

Shitty are so hard to predict - you never know which team is going to turn up, a bunch of slackers or a team of near-world-class players.

I guess Arsenal have got lucky with the timing of tonight's match tho, while other teams that'll play them this season will, I reckon, face a tougher challenge if the likes of Adebayor goes and Dzeko comes in.

[ampersand]

Predictions for Arsenal vs Citeh later?

Ill go with 2-1 Arsenal.