avonrep wrote:

blackandtangerine wrote:

avonrep wrote:

 Should the fans booing not also be allowed to voice their opinions, I think you'll find they where booing the protesters not backing the board.

 
Read what HH said avon .

"This is exactly how those at the Club saw it as well mate"
"I think you'll find they where booing the protesters not backing the board."

Those at the club thought the booing was backing
 

 
I'll let you try and work it out for yourself.

HeggyHandshake wrote:

avonrep wrote:

blackandtangerine wrote:

 
Read what HH said avon .

"This is exactly how those at the Club saw it as well mate"
"I think you'll find they where booing the protesters not backing the board."

Those at the club thought the booing was backing
 

 
I'll let you try and work it out for yourself.

Can you gie me a skiffy
 

Would it be helpful to fans if the club produced a simple financial statement covering the last few years, including income and outgoings itemised in general categories?

blackandtangerine wrote:

avonrep wrote:

blackandtangerine wrote:

Backing thonpson. Yes
 

Make your mind up your last post said..... "The board would have loved folk booing the protest." 

Are you really that thick?

The board at utd would have thought the folk booing the protest were pro thompson. Thats whats getting said here. We know that the boo boys are not all for thompson but just didnt want to see a protest.
 

"The board at utd would have thought the folk booing the protest were pro thompson"
You canny believe that 

 

blackandtangerine wrote:

avonrep wrote:

blackandtangerine wrote:

Are you really that thick?

The board at utd would have thought the folk booing the protest were pro thompson. Thats whats getting said here. We know that the boo boys are not all for thompson but just didnt want to see a protest.
 

"The board at utd would have thought the folk booing the protest were pro thompson"
You canny believe that 

 

Yep , cos thats the way the daft buggers think.
 

Does anybody still believe he's filtered money out of the club??

Tangy wrote:

Does anybody still believe he's filtered money out of the club??

Genuinely surprised by your question. My question would be does anyone think that he or his dad

"put any dosh into the club that hasn't been taken back out or
that they have taken out more than they put in when you take into account - salaries, directors remuneration, consultancy/agency fees, loan repayments, interest on loans, etc"

If it is the case that the Thompsons have in fact been benevolent benefactors, then the level of mis-management must be exceptional.

To answer your question - its a yes from me 

Tangy wrote:

Does anybody still believe he's filtered money out of the club??

Hes paid back 'family loans' thats whats happened. its not stealing money or anything shady hes just chose to pay pack interest free loans rather than the ones that cost us. 

annanarab wrote:

Affshore wrote:

Tangy wrote:

Does anybody still believe he's filtered money out of the club??

Hes paid back 'family loans' thats whats happened. its not stealing money or anything shady hes just chose to pay pack interest free loans rather than the ones that cost us. 

The family loans were in respect of Eddies excessive expenditure on players like Crawford, Miller Brebner and several management teams which the Thompsons chose to allow people to think that Eddie had financed from his own pocket. In his early days there was no mention of the "family loans" in the context of United's debt. These only emerged when United started selling off their assets and the cynics among us might suggest that the main reason for the fire-sale and the appointment of Jackie the sales rep was solely to return to the family the money that Eddie wasted. ST thought he was being clever and financially astute but his greed has de-stabilised the club and led us to the mess we are in.

He could have been more transparent with supporters at the outset about his desire to get the money back (might have destroyed his fathers image with supporters in doing so) and sought repayment in a sensible way e.g. 1/4 or 1/2 million per season and kept us in the top 6 with perhaps some further cup success and retaining our ability to attract decent players and youngsters instead of creating the current toxic environment that nobody in their right mind would want to touch .

Of course it was shady, his whole tenure reeks of being shady

While I agree that the repayment of loans should have been over a longer period we need to get one thing straight.

The "family" loans emerged in every set of accounts, they were not hidden.

Loans were taken out - loans were repaid - there is nothing shady obout this.

Player salaries were excessive - at every Scottish top flight club

One of the loans kept us afloat after Setanta TV deal collapsed - was that "shady" do you think 
 

Last edited by scarpia (31/3/2017 7:11 am)

scarpia wrote:

annanarab wrote:

Affshore wrote:

Hes paid back 'family loans' thats whats happened. its not stealing money or anything shady hes just chose to pay pack interest free loans rather than the ones that cost us. 

The family loans were in respect of Eddies excessive expenditure on players like Crawford, Miller Brebner and several management teams which the Thompsons chose to allow people to think that Eddie had financed from his own pocket. In his early days there was no mention of the "family loans" in the context of United's debt. These only emerged when United started selling off their assets and the cynics among us might suggest that the main reason for the fire-sale and the appointment of Jackie the sales rep was solely to return to the family the money that Eddie wasted. ST thought he was being clever and financially astute but his greed has de-stabilised the club and led us to the mess we are in.

He could have been more transparent with supporters at the outset about his desire to get the money back (might have destroyed his fathers image with supporters in doing so) and sought repayment in a sensible way e.g. 1/4 or 1/2 million per season and kept us in the top 6 with perhaps some further cup success and retaining our ability to attract decent players and youngsters instead of creating the current toxic environment that nobody in their right mind would want to touch .

Of course it was shady, his whole tenure reeks of being shady

While I agree that the repayment of loans should have been over a longer period we need to get one thing straight.

The "family" loans emerged in every set of accounts, they were not hidden.

Loans were taken out - loans were repaid - there is nothing shady obout this.

Player salaries were excessive - at every Scottish top flight club

One of the loans kept us afloat after Setanta TV deal collapsed - was that "shady" do you think
 

ST didn't initially include to family loans in his public utterances when speaking about the "Debt" These only became a factor after players were sold, the external or real debt reduced and after he claimed that United didn't need to sell any more and carried on selling.

I woudn't have as big a problem with this process had he been honest and transparent about it. The shady part is not admitting Eddie hadn't invested in the club but simply loaned the club money to finance his own reckless spending and that he appointed Jackie for non football reasons specifically to sell players to get Eddies money back. Had he done so he might have found that fans might not have been as willing to buy season tickets, hospitality, shirts, etc. His biggest mistake was appointing a numptie like Jackie - if he had got a decent manager who was capable of winning games, playing attacking football and entertaining fans, then he might have got away with his sleazy, shady tactics.

He's done a big con job on the fans for years and it is continuing with his latest utterance re United's finances are ok even if they don't go up this year - funny how he only makes a public appearance at this (season ticket) time of the year with the ludicrous notion that he is willing to talk to fans. Presumably our fate depends on the sale of Andy Robertson - lets hope he doesn't get a serious injury like Coleman 

Canadian Arab wrote:

Affshore wrote:

Canadian Arab wrote:

Really? Does that include me? Because 5 minutes ago, it didn't.
 

 I should have said except canada as he thinks all is well 

I gather you're originally from "United Mad".
How apt.
I give lectures on psychiatric drugs. Maybe I can recommend something that might help you.
 

 
Yep that's me, mad as a box of frogs 🐸

No, you can ram your drugs!

HeggyHandshake wrote:

scarpia wrote:

annanarab wrote:

ST didn't initially include to family loans in his public utterances when speaking about the "Debt" These only became a factor after players were sold, the external or real debt reduced and after he claimed that United didn't need to sell any more and carried on selling.

I woudn't have as big a problem with this process had he been honest and transparent about it. The shady part is not admitting Eddie hadn't invested in the club but simply loaned the club money to finance his own reckless spending and that he appointed Jackie for non football reasons specifically to sell players to get Eddies money back. Had he done so he might have found that fans might not have been as willing to buy season tickets, hospitality, shirts, etc. His biggest mistake was appointing a numptie like Jackie - if he had got a decent manager who was capable of winning games, playing attacking football and entertaining fans, then he might have got away with his sleazy, shady tactics.

He's done a big con job on the fans for years and it is continuing with his latest utterance re United's finances are ok even if they don't go up this year - funny how he only makes a public appearance at this (season ticket) time of the year with the ludicrous notion that he is willing to talk to fans. Presumably our fate depends on the sale of Andy Robertson - lets hope he doesn't get a serious injury like Coleman 

 
Actually Eddie did invest - IIRC by purchasing unissued shares.

To be fair ST has been guilty of conflating this with the earlier purchase of wee Jums and Gibby Haggart's shares to give too high a figure but, to reiterate Eddie did invest.

Of course Eddie could have gone down the same road as Brown at the fermirs and not overspent  and spent years in div 1 - I'm sure our fans would have understood and supported that...

BREAKING NEWS: We are in Division 1. Even though we are the 6th best supported team in the country, unlike the fermirs.
 

I had noticed - my point being, seeing as you appear to have missed it,  is that while it's all very well criticising Eddie for overspending the effect of running at break even at that time would have probably been relegation and at best a good few years in div one - better in hindsight? - maybe but I doubt many would have seen it that way at the time.

I'm simply asking people to look at the context in which decisions were made at that time
 

blackandtangerine wrote:

scarpia wrote:

HeggyHandshake wrote:

BREAKING NEWS: We are in Division 1. Even though we are the 6th best supported team in the country, unlike the fermirs.
 

I had noticed - my point being, seeing as you appear to have missed it, is that while it's all very well criticising Eddie for overspending the effect of running at break even at that time would have probably been relegation and at best a good few years in div one - better in hindsight? - maybe but I doubt many would have seen it that way at the time.

I'm simply asking people to look at the context in which decisions were made at that time
 

Id say , imo, the thompsons are the worst thing thats happened to DUFC.