Usmanov

[gwladysnight]

I love contradictions on here. We must be owned by someone really wealthy because we are being so badly run and wasting money left, right and centre.

Which in the next breadth is Moshiri and Usmanov must be geniuses because they are so wealthy. They are so wealthy because they basically got handed their money by Putin.

Then we get the idea that we must be getting bankrolled to success because Moshiri has pumped money in. Well Ellis Short pumped £200m in to Sunderland, Shahid has pumped £186m into Fulham. How successful have they been.

To me Moshiri looks far more like those two than Chelsea or Citys owners who have taken their clubs forward and who have generated success and above all huge legitimate rises in commercial revenue. We could be owned by Usmanov and things may come good. Equally, Moshiri might just be a gambler, throwing good money after bad trying to chase his losses.

 

[Toffeelover]

I love contradictions on here. We must be owned by someone really wealthy because we are being so badly run and wasting money left, right and centre.

Which in the next breadth is Moshiri and Usmanov must be geniuses because they are so wealthy. They are so wealthy because they basically got handed their money by Putin.

Then we get the idea that we must be getting bankrolled to success because Moshiri has pumped money in. Well Ellis Short pumped £200m in to Sunderland, Shahid has pumped £186m into Fulham. How successful have they been.

To me Moshiri looks far more like those two than Chelsea or Citys owners who have taken their clubs forward and who have generated success and above all huge legitimate rises in commercial revenue. We could be owned by Usmanov and things may come good. Equally, Moshiri might just be a gambler, throwing good money after bad trying to chase his losses.

I think you ned to look at who the managers were and the DoF, it is they who wasted the money not Moshiri.

 

[gwladysnight]

I think you ned to look at who the managers were and the DoF, it is they who wasted the money not Moshiri.

Which genius appointed those managers and DoF ?

 

[Toffeelover]

Which genius appointed those managers and DoF ?

But they should have performed, it all points a terrible finger at how they have managed. Moshiri hired them in good faith that they could take the club forward.

 

[Kurt.]

Which genius appointed those managers and DoF ?

Be concerned about your own owners ..

 

[catcherintherye]

You get worse Catcher.

Amazon is borrowing $23.6 billion of more cash it doesn’t need

Amazon.com is selling bonds to refinance debt and buy back stock, as cheap borrowing costs prove too tempting to resist even for a company with tens of billions of dollars in cash.

www.smh.com.au

Amazon.com is selling bonds to refinance debt and buy back stock, as cheap borrowing costs prove too tempting to resist even for a company with tens of billions of dollars in cash.

The online retail giant is issuing $US18.5 billion ($23.6 billion) of debt in eight parts, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The longest portion, a 40-year security, will yield 95 basis points over Treasuries, after initially discussing around 115 basis points, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the details are private.

Ok.

Amazon's WACC rate is over 8%. Thats the rate it borrows money. Jeff Bezos could find it, but he's comfortable with that rate.

 

[gwladysnight]

But they should have performed, it all points a terrible finger at how they have managed. Moshiri hired them in good faith that they could take the club forward.

That illustrates perfectly the problem at Everton zero accountability at all levels of the Club. Moshiri doesn't get called to account for bringing in a succession of managers and a DoF that haven't taken us forward.

Then the managers don't get held to account because the blame is then shifted on to the players. Then as fans we decide which players we like and which ones we don't.

No amount is going to improve us until we start holding those in charge to account.

 

[mahermi1]

Which genius appointed those managers and DoF ?

Most owners make managerial errors, liverpool, employed Hodgson for example.

 

[gwladysnight]

Ok.

Amazon's WACC rate is over 8%. Thats the rate it borrows money. Jeff Bezos could find it, but he's comfortable with that rate.

Wow you really haven't got the slightest idea of what you are talking about have you.

 

[catcherintherye]

I love contradictions on here. We must be owned by someone really wealthy because we are being so badly run and wasting money left, right and centre.

Which in the next breadth is Moshiri and Usmanov must be geniuses because they are so wealthy. They are so wealthy because they basically got handed their money by Putin.

Then we get the idea that we must be getting bankrolled to success because Moshiri has pumped money in. Well Ellis Short pumped £200m in to Sunderland, Shahid has pumped £186m into Fulham. How successful have they been.

To me Moshiri looks far more like those two than Chelsea or Citys owners who have taken their clubs forward and who have generated success and above all huge legitimate rises in commercial revenue. We could be owned by Usmanov and things may come good. Equally, Moshiri might just be a gambler, throwing good money after bad trying to chase his losses.

I think thats a bit of a crude generalisation of what is being said,

It's more that the money being invested into the club has a lot of similarities with what Abramovich and Mansour did early on. There are a number of key differences too, inflation and FFP have each in their own way limited the effect of the spending but the process looks similar. It's also not to say runnign a business badly means you have someone wealthy backing you, but more that sometimes investors see the long term picture, and aren't too concerned with the more short-medium term.Forget Short, forget Shahid, neither have made the financial commitment Moshiri has and to be honest they are hundreds of millions behind.

I'll be honest, it's not really my own philosophical approach and I wouldn't recommend it at all- give me the good old fashioned basics anyday- but I am also open minded enough to appreciate people see it differently to me.

As for handed the money by Putin, I mean this seems a bit of a wild, and frankly libellous statement. Have you any evidence that Putin handed both men multi-billion pounds worth of liquidity to account for their net wealth? I'm afraid this is just idiocy. It kind of underpins your entire conspiratorial world view too. Assertion after assertion that have no basis in evidence.

 

[catcherintherye]

Wow you really haven't got the slightest idea of what you are talking about have you.

You obviously don't understand what the WACC rate is.

I'll simplify it for you, it's the rate you can access capital at. Amazon pay over 8%. 7% is not seen as a major obstacle for businesses. It's a very odd hill to die on to try and claim otherwise.

 

[catcherintherye]

Most owners make managerial errors, liverpool, employed Hodgson for example.

They have also, in wages and transfers spent probably more than any team in world football in the last 3 years to win the same number of leagues as Blackburn. They've got the 3rd highest wage bill in world football and have won zip again. Astounding financial mismanagement.

 

[gwladysnight]

You obviously don't understand what the WACC rate is.

I'll simplify it for you, it's the rate you can access capital at. Amazon pay over 8%. 7% is not seen as a major obstacle for businesses. It's a very odd hill to die on to try and claim otherwise.

As I said, Wow.

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Nothing new there though. Weighted Average Cost of Capital is not the cost of borrowing from a financial institution, though that is part of it. It is a calculation of a firm's cost of capital in which each category of capital is proportionately weighted. All sources of capital, including common stock, preferred stock, bonds, and any other long-term debt, are included in a WACC calculation.

The exact reason Amazon is borrowing money it doesn't need is so it can lower it's WACC. Borrowing money so cheaply reduces it's WACC, makes it more attractive to investors and allows it to expand more quickly.

I told you what rate Amazon are borrowing money at 1% over treasuries.

Pretending you are a master investor and borrowing money at 8% and being able to spot investments that will make you see a profit in 3-6 months. Then not understanding something as basic as WACC. Deary Me.

 

[jazzy]

As I said, Wow.

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Nothing new there though. Weighted Average Cost of Capital is not the cost of borrowing from a financial institution, though that is part of it. It is a calculation of a firm's cost of capital in which each category of capital is proportionately weighted. All sources of capital, including common stock, preferred stock, bonds, and any other long-term debt, are included in a WACC calculation.

The exact reason Amazon is borrowing money it doesn't need is so it can lower it's WACC. Borrowing money so cheaply reduces it's WACC, makes it more attractive to investors and allows it to expand more quickly.

I told you what rate Amazon are borrowing money at 1% over treasuries.

Pretending you are a master investor and borrowing money at 8% and being able to spot investments that will make you see a profit in 3-6 months. Then not understanding something as basic as WACC. Deary Me.

To be fair it doesn't sound that "basic". Glad I chose law over finance though the failure to get maths O level might have had something to do with it. lol

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

As I said, Wow.

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Nothing new there though. Weighted Average Cost of Capital is not the cost of borrowing from a financial institution, though that is part of it. It is a calculation of a firm's cost of capital in which each category of capital is proportionately weighted. All sources of capital, including common stock, preferred stock, bonds, and any other long-term debt, are included in a WACC calculation.

The exact reason Amazon is borrowing money it doesn't need is so it can lower it's WACC. Borrowing money so cheaply reduces it's WACC, makes it more attractive to investors and allows it to expand more quickly.

I told you what rate Amazon are borrowing money at 1% over treasuries.

Pretending you are a master investor and borrowing money at 8% and being able to spot investments that will make you see a profit in 3-6 months. Then not understanding something as basic as WACC. Deary Me.

What happened to you to make you waste two years of your life pretending to be an Everton fan? And now pretending to be a financial genius.