The Eggman

Oct 16 2011, 06:31 PM

Ivan

Oct 16 2011, 06:17 PM

Actually, I'd say United are almost certainly worse off. The innocent creditors who would have been shafted are better off and United don't have the stigma of administration (yet) but the club would now be better off if Thompson had simply paid down the debts with his cash, or kept his cash and brought the administrators in. That's just my opinion though, you're entitled to yours albeit I'm not convinced you've done your sums.

In any event, it's not that I wish to decry the man I'm just not convinced he's the hero some people would have you believe.

I haven't done any sums.

Thompson took over in 2002 when he was healthy. Most likely he didn't plan to spend his fortune indefinitely and intended to get United on an even keel at some point. He was part fan, part businessman. So it's not very realistic to suggest that the owner come in, pay off all the debt straight off, and relinquish ownership or something else idealistic.

My concerns about administration aren't anything to do with a stigma. They're about how United would certainly have been far worse off in a squad sense (with possible/probable relegation), and the struggle to come back from that. It's indisputable, surely, that United wouldn't have had last year's Scottish Cup win, and as a fan, that Scottish Cup win meant a lot. Costs have been trimmed, and the debt decreased. The playing side has suffered, but not unreasonably so, and I would much rather have another decade or so of austerity to get straight, rather than getting straight immediately by going into adminstration, and probably being relegated.

I fail to see how, since taking over in 2002, United have finished 5th (2004), 5th (2008, 2009) and 3rd (2010) edit: and 4th (2011) with a Scottish Cup win, haven't been relegated, and put together a quite good team, compared to - without Thompson taking over - going into adminstration, probably getting relegated, and perhaps not even getting an SPL finish since 2003 (with certainly no top 6 finish or a Scottish Cup win), is worse off. Sure, United still have a debt of £4 million. What debt do Dundee have, and where are they? Unless you're thinking that in 2015, United will be trailing in Dundee's debt-free wake.

Ivan

Oct 16 2011, 06:42 PM

Suffice to say that I disagree that the worst case scenario you paint is most likely but even if it was I'd rather be debt free in the First than this awful lingering death in the SPL.

The facts, as I understand them, are that we were £4M in debt in 2002; nine years later we're £5M in debt (thanks only to the sale of Goodwille). If he'd paid down the debt or gone into administration I suggest that we'd be less than £5M in debt. Much less. Indeed, we meet even be operating at a sustainable level without the crippling debt repayments.

Incidentally, I haven't suggested that he should have paid off the debt and f*cked off. What a peculiar spin to put on my comments.

Anyway, I'm sure we've done this thread before so I'll leave it at that.

whatsthatonyourback

Oct 16 2011, 06:47 PM

Just in case a glaze of facts helps the discussion, here are the DUFC turnover and profit(loss) figures to 30-Jun each year:

2000: 4,127,635, -1,267,264
2001: 3,868,917, -2,369,715
2002: 4,027,647, -2,309,614
- ET takes over September 2002
2003: 3,086,440, -2,876,434
2004: 3,811,769, -1,888,871
2005: 5,374,350, -1,176,920
2006: 4,151,033, -784,786
2007: 4,010,758, -989,210
2008: 5,844,857, 833,598
2009: 5,791,917, -136,748
2010: 6,052,434, 66,137

That's £13m lost in 10 years, with £7m incurred after ET took over, which seems, roughly speaking, to be the debt we currently have as the club had negligible long term debt before ET took over.

Make of that what you will. It's just numbers.