Yeah, almost mad me laugh to be fair.buzzby wrote:I'm sure I read that one of the Glazers still managed to pay himself £10m las year though.
To be honest I still don't understand how that can be legal. It sounds like fraud to me.TheMaraudingDog wrote:They were dumped on big time by the Glazer family who bought United all on credit and then lumped the credit against the club.
Not really. Just shifting the security. It's like getting a loan for a house on security of your other property, and then mortgaging the house itself. Property developers do that a lot.Deadlock wrote:To be honest I still don't understand how that can be legal. It sounds like fraud to me.TheMaraudingDog wrote:They were dumped on big time by the Glazer family who bought United all on credit and then lumped the credit against the club.
It's how the Al Fayeds acquired Harrods, Tiny Rowland took it to court and lost.Deadlock wrote:To be honest I still don't understand how that can be legal. It sounds like fraud to me.TheMaraudingDog wrote:They were dumped on big time by the Glazer family who bought United all on credit and then lumped the credit against the club.
they're fine - when the Glazers came in there was much more investigation from the NFL over the deeal than there was from the FA and the Premier League, and the Glazers had to make comittments that the Man Utd purchase wouldn't damage their ability to run Tampa.Wax Jacket wrote:I don't want to see this happen at all really, but if it's happening to Utd then it sends out a pretty hefty warning signal to all the other clubs.
How are the Tampa Bay Bucs finances?
Think of it as buying a flat on a 100% mortgage for use as a buy-to-let. Essentially it's the same here, except that it only works if rents keep going up, and the Glazers have found that they don't.Deadlock wrote:To be honest I still don't understand how that can be legal. It sounds like fraud to me.TheMaraudingDog wrote:They were dumped on big time by the Glazer family who bought United all on credit and then lumped the credit against the club.
by John Madejski's Wallet » 15 Jan 2010 00:50
15 Jan 2010 00:50I thought Lerner simply bought Villa outright. That family is incredibly rich.John Madejski's Wallet wrote:Hasn't Villa's owner mortgaged Villa against his NFL team and then mortgaged the NFL team against Villa?
He owns 89.69% of Aston Villa, and has a personal estimated wealth of $1.5b. No mention anywhere that he mortgaged the club against his NFL club. The controlling 60 something % he bought in Villa in 2006 was worth about £65m.papereyes wrote:I thought Lerner simply bought Villa outright. That family is incredibly rich.John Madejski's Wallet wrote:Hasn't Villa's owner mortgaged Villa against his NFL team and then mortgaged the NFL team against Villa?
TheMaraudingDog wrote:Yeah, almost mad me laugh to be fair.buzzby wrote:I'm sure I read that one of the Glazers still managed to pay himself £10m las year though.
If I'd have know you could buy United with no money I'd have bought them myself.

by John Madejski's Wallet » 16 Jan 2010 12:09
16 Jan 2010 12:09Fair enough..... I only heard that from a mate who's a big fan of his NFL teamComfortably Numb wrote:He owns 89.69% of Aston Villa, and has a personal estimated wealth of $1.5b. No mention anywhere that he mortgaged the club against his NFL club. The controlling 60 something % he bought in Villa in 2006 was worth about £65m.papereyes wrote:I thought Lerner simply bought Villa outright. That family is incredibly rich.John Madejski's Wallet wrote:Hasn't Villa's owner mortgaged Villa against his NFL team and then mortgaged the NFL team against Villa?
He's not capable of that.TheMaraudingDog wrote:
I'd be interested to know what ReadingBedding's thoughts are.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests