GraemePaynesSocks Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 It's easy to ask questions, the more inane the better it seems. Your last question's particularly inane. Well done. Apologies, my response sounded arsey too...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, (._.) said: Oh, I thought the £1.6m 'soft loan' over Tannadice at which you're repaying £370,000 p/a meant he currently held the deeds to the stadium. My bad. Do you have a mortgage, and if so, who has the deeds to your house - you or the bank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 1 minute ago, (._.) said: I won't own the house until my debt has been cleared. Not the question, was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumigoo Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 A small, but vocal, section of our support is really beginning to get to me. They seem intent on slamming every little thing the club does and the Fed statement (and follow up release from United) has them in overdrive. EVERYTHING is terrible, EVERYTHING is a conspiracy and EVERYONE is lying about what is going on at United. Why in the fuck would Stephen Thompson want to meet with half of the utter fannies in our support anyway? So they can verbally abuse him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Just now, stumigoo said: A small, but vocal, section of our support is really beginning to get to me. They seem intent on slamming every little thing the club does and the Fed statement (and follow up release from United) has them in overdrive. EVERYTHING is terrible, EVERYTHING is a conspiracy and EVERYONE is lying about what is going on at United. Why in the fuck would Stephen Thompson want to meet with half of the utter fannies in our support anyway? So they can verbally abuse him? Shite post. You're a disgrace. Resign immediately. Or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, stumigoo said: A small, but vocal, section of our support is really beginning to get to me. They seem intent on slamming every little thing the club does and the Fed statement (and follow up release from United) has them in overdrive. EVERYTHING is terrible, EVERYTHING is a conspiracy and EVERYONE is lying about what is going on at United. Why in the fuck would Stephen Thompson want to meet with half of the utter fannies in our support anyway? So they can verbally abuse him? Don't get upset son, there's really no need. I'll buy you a pie at Tannadice tomorrow to cheer you up. No one really knows the financial situation at Tannadice because, like any other business, the financial statements are always behind and by the time they are published are historical anyway. I tend to agree with PMS, on the limited information that is available the club is in a relatively sound position and probably running about a break even position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemePaynesSocks Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 A small, but vocal, section of our support is really beginning to get to me. They seem intent on slamming every little thing the club does and the Fed statement (and follow up release from United) has them in overdrive. EVERYTHING is terrible, EVERYTHING is a conspiracy and EVERYONE is lying about what is going on at United. Why in the fuck would Stephen Thompson want to meet with half of the utter fannies in our support anyway? So they can verbally abuse him? BOOOOOOOOO...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 16 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Don't get upset son, there's really no need. I'll buy you a pie at Tannadice tomorrow to cheer you up. No one really knows the financial situation at Tannadice because, like any other business, the financial statements are always behind and by the time they are published are historical anyway. I tend to agree with PMS, on the limited information that is available the club is in a relatively sound position and probably running about a break even position. I'd probably be in agreement with this too - the reality is that there is no need for the Club to give a full financial breakdown every time a fuckwit from the Fed or some other group asks for one. My opinion of Supporters Groups generally tallies with Groucho Marx's opinion of clubs. I would like something more than the crumbs we do get though - even if it's just a "Money is tight, but the club is secure"-type thing. ETA: PS Granny, TBS kindly asks if you would buy everyone at Tannadice a pie tomorrow to help the ongoing financial situation. Maybe the odd cup of tea too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumigoo Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 The "his dad would be ashamed" type patter is the most tedious. "He was a real man, a real football man, a true supporter". That might be the case but he also took us to the brink of oblivion in doing so. People have short memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 1 minute ago, stumigoo said: The "his dad would be ashamed" type patter is the most tedious. "He was a real man, a real football man, a true supporter". That might be the case but he also took us to the brink of oblivion in doing so. People have short memories. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinkle Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Wait, do we have a Dundee supporter trying to lecture people on a football clubs finances? Thats like Ian Huntley giving out advice on how to bath your kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarto Mutiny Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 37 minutes ago, stumigoo said: A small, but vocal, section of our support is really beginning to get to me. They seem intent on slamming every little thing the club does and the Fed statement (and follow up release from United) has them in overdrive. EVERYTHING is terrible, EVERYTHING is a conspiracy and EVERYONE is lying about what is going on at United. Why in the fuck would Stephen Thompson want to meet with half of the utter fannies in our support anyway? So they can verbally abuse him? SPLITTER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundee Hibernian Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 What gets me is the inaccurate idea that the Federation represents United supporters. They don't. They represent a section of our support, maybe around 20% (for the sake of argument). And I'd argue they don't even represent their members: people I know in affiliated supports clubs are never consulted before the Federation makes the latest pronouncement. What makes the 'Federation' think they should be given financial details about the club, which in reality could cause problems when seeking out new investment, or even for a buyer who could take over from Thompson? And why would anyone want to take over at Tannadice anyway, when you would have to deal with these individuals who have a huge sense of self entitlement, but little suggestion as to progress the perceived problems. In any case, some of these the financial experts who have this inside information think Thompson is milking the club. There are individuals on the board who would lose professional credibility if they turned a blind eye to money being siphoned off. "Thompson Out?" Who comes in? They've not thought that part through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemePaynesSocks Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 The "his dad would be ashamed" type patter is the most tedious. "He was a real man, a real football man, a true supporter". That might be the case but he also took us to the brink of oblivion in doing so. People have short memories. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the money that ET "gave" United in the form of loans? Thereby worsening our situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 2 hours ago, (._.) said: You borrowed money from "fans who have said they'd help out". I was under the impression these debts were not through the books and were used to clear the debt. If they are through the books, how could you have been £6m (?) in debt, sell about £10m worth of players and still need to borrow money to pay off the bank debt? Well, yes, 'took'. I've no idea why you're getting in such a tizzy at the wording. Actually, I do. You're PMS, overreacting is what you do. Oh, I thought the £1.6m 'soft loan' over Tannadice at which you're repaying £370,000 p/a meant he currently held the deeds to the stadium. My bad. Your impression is nonsense. It's all relative to the degree of pish I have to read but I'd say, on balance, that I under-react to most of it. Because underneath my cunty sneering exterior beats a slightly less cunty, sneering heart. See, like this pish. "Held the deeds". You don't have a fucking clue. I doubt you even know what a deed is. To clarify, the practice of borrowers granting ex facie absolute dispositions in favour of a security holder disappeared in 1970. The owner of a house owns that house. The security holder has a right to make a claim against the secured property (Tannadice in this instance) in the event of a default on the underlying loan. United own Tannadice. I own my house. 2 hours ago, (._.) said: I won't own the house until my debt has been cleared. Nonsense. 2 hours ago, (._.) said: I was informed that you do own Tannadice. My wording on the follow up was incorrect. You got me. United do own Tannadice. Absolutely. You can check the title sheet, it's registered with Registers of Scotland. Under the proprietorship section it says "Dundee United Football Club Limited". There is a security over the property in favour of Hugh Drummond Duncan. Hugh Drummond Duncan does not own Tannadice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 1 minute ago, (._.) said: We will just chalk up the £1.6m debt you took on last August into your 'debt free' pile you were talking of. Are we just moving on now from all the shit about not owning Tannadice? Let's just pretend you never said that. You were joshing. It was for the lulz. You ken the score really. Two further points now arise: I didn't suggest we were debt free and who did we borrow £1.6M from last August? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 I owe the bank 50K on a 150k house. My name is on the "deeds", I have enjoyment of the property, can charge people to stay in it, make further borrowing against it and can ultimately dispose of it at a time of my choosing. According to Thomas Guthrie above I don't own it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedLoon63 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 1 minute ago, (._.) said: Ok, "just about out of debt". Despite making 1 (one) repayment on a £1.6m loan. Again, apologies. It was then that the story broke. You'd actually taken the loan (along with others from Deuchars et al) before then. I'll ask again, why would your club need to be taking loans despite posting profits on player sales eclipsing any alleged level of debt? No, it wasn't for the lulz. You believe that you own something despite not using your own money to pay for it. I don't. It's a simple as that, be it a car, a suite or a house. You do not completely own it until you have completely paid for it. Let's be honest now, you've had a little dance around the garden, tried it on a couple of times and ultimately disappointed everyone. Can't we just all agree that you're talking out of your arse and move on. I don't recall you asking previously about the player sales eclipsing debt levels but I'm happy to answer it. Player sales are often over-reported. There are costs associated with player sales. Fees aren't paid upfront and so a £2.85M fee for player A from Summer 2014 is unlikely to have been in full yet. There will be still be payments ongoing. A club running at an operating loss of £500k pa (for example) and a debt of £2M isn't going to clear it's debt by simply selling a player for £2M (you can extrapolate from that using whatever reported figures you choose). An idiot, would look at this and declare that there must be hidden "off the books" debts, or allege theft from shareholders (by Thompson and cronies etc) but there's really no reason to infer such fevered imaginings. The facts, as officially reported to Companies House, are that United have gone from being in debt of more than £6M to just over £1M as at the last reported accounts. For a company with a turnover in excess of £5M pa that is a very favourable position. Let's like you, on an annual salary of £12k having a mortgage of about £2.5k, you'd be over the moon at that. And, for the sake of completeness, just so you can't pretend that something has gone unanswered - the reason that you borrow from one lender rather than another is because you are seeking more favourable terms. The fact that I might be borrow from one mortgage lender doesn't increase my overall indebtedness if I'm repaying my previous lender. And, yes, I do believe that I own my house because, as a matter of fact and law, I do. No-one with the slightest understanding of the law on the matter would disagree. It's not the same as your Brighthouse sofa and HP car. I actually own my house. I also may owe money to my mortgage lender (or not, I may just not have got round to discharging the security). This isn't you being old fashioned - neither a borrower nor a lender shtick - you simply don't understand how mortgages and securities work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 32 minutes ago, (._.) said: I've deleted my reply as I can't be arsed with this anymore. You've said you were 'just about out of debt' despite borrowing £1.6m and making one repayment to date. I apologise, that's when the story broke, not when the loan was taken. Finally, if you want to believe that you own a property despite being massively in debt to be it a person or bank, then you do that. You own something when it's paid for. This will be my last reply, Elixir of Tannadice. Yes, you do. When you pay the person you bought it from. You don't pay for fuel on a credit card and then run around the scheme telling your pals that Barclaycard own the petrol in your clapped out Vauxhall Corsa. And thank fuck for that. Move on, find another subject you're more comfortable with. 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.