[Vision2020] Manchester United

Wed Sep 24 21:14:34 PDT 2008

Actually, we "owe" for the advertising contract.  If we pay the bill, 
we get to have the AIG logo on the shirts.

Most Man U fans are rather uncomfortable with an American owning the 
club and they are further irritated that AIG has the largest 
advertising contract.

At 08:40 PM 9/24/2008, you wrote:
>Thanks for the info, Jeff. I was looking forward to watching my 1/300
>millionth of a soccer team. It does appear, however, that we own their
>$100m* advertising contract.
>
>Perhaps we can get them to put the American flag on their jerseys.
>
>-- ACS
>
>* Incidentally, I must've misread the article. It struck me as amazing
>that any advertising contract could be worth $100m. It must be the
>whole team, I thought. Sadly, no.
>
>On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> > I will work through your comments about the "bail-out" and comment as
> > warranted. However, I must offer the following to correct the record.
> >
> > AIG is a sponsor of Manchester United, not an owner. In fact, it has been
> > reported that AIG is the largest sponsor of a sports team in the world.
> >  Thus, you will note that Man U jerseys carry the AIG logo.  Man U is owned
> > by Michael Glazer (an American) and the Glazer family.
> > [http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/21/business/AD22.php]
> >
> >
> > At 06:24 PM 9/21/2008, you wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom --
> >>
> >> I'm going to have to (probably) agree with Jeff on this one. FDIC only
> >> insures consumer banks, and SIPC provides a very limited amount of
> >> protection -- it only insures investors against assets endangered by
> >> the failure of a brokerage, rather than against the assets themselves
> >> dropping in value. Neither has a lot to do with the utter market
> >> collapse that's going on around us right now. Some of it could've been
> >> prevented by re-regulating the financial markets; other elements have
> >> always been poorly regulated.
> >>
> >> The first problem was the explosion in subprime and exotic mortgages.
> >> Here, part of the problem was the incentive structure for mortgage
> >> brokers: individually, they received a commission on the mortgage;
> >> however, since the mortgage frequently no longer belonged to the
> >> original broker when the borrower defaulted, they didn't care. So long
> >> as the housing boom was moving fast enough to get the mortgage off the
> >> balance sheet by the time it came due, no one cared*.
> >>
> >> The second problem was the explosion in the sale of mortgage-backed
> >> securities. This, essentially, was a trillion-dollar attempt to spin
> >> straw into gold. Large banks packaged high-risk mortgages together in
> >> such a way as to -- supposedly -- balance the various risks against
> >> each other in such a way as to make the investments safe. They then
> >> leaned on the ratings agencies to rate these securities either AA or
> >> AAA (essentially, as safe debt to purchase), which they did.  One
> >> would think that the financial geniuses that run Wall Street would
> >> know that there's no honest way to make 2 + 2 = 5. But there you have
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Third, leverage. The debt to asset ratio being carried by Wall Street
> >> was ludicrous. The SEC had granted exemptions for the big five
> >> investment banks, allowing them to take out loans at anywhere from
> >> 30:1 to 40:1. Of the five companies granted that exemption, only one
> >> -- Goldman Sachs -- is still in anything resembling a decent state.
> >> The higher your leverage, the more you depend on outsmarting the
> >> market to outrun your debts. Worse, *your* debts are in someone else's
> >> accounts receivable column. If you drop into bankruptcy,
> >> congratulations: your creditors can all take the number in their
> >> accounts receivable and divide it by the amount to which you're
> >> leveraged. This causes ripple effects across the entire financial
> >> sector.
> >>
> >> I've got no problem with the government spending taxpayer money to
> >> bail out Wall Street. The CDOs (mortgage-backed securities) that the
> >> government is thinking of purchasing probably do have some underlying
> >> value. But if we're going to be buying a ton of bad debt, we should be
> >> canny consumers: we don't take on $700 billion worth of debt without
> >> getting something in return. An equity stake in every company from
> >> whom we buy CDOs should be fine. The US taxpayer having a seat on the
> >> board of directors of every major Wall Street firm would also provide
> >> an elegant solution to the regulation problem: each firm is regulated
> >> (by a federal trustee) to the extent it couldn't keep its own house in
> >> order*.
> >>
> >> -- ACS
> >>
> >> * Incidentally, despite what John McCain's commercials might be
> >> telling you, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had very little to do with
> >> this business. The definition of a 'subprime mortgage' is a mortgage
> >> which neither Fannie nor Freddie would take. Fannie and Freddie's
> >> problems were largely caused by (a) investor panic, (b) their
> >> attempts, while wearing their 'private corporation' hats, to compete
> >> at a level of risk higher than they ought to've, and (c) a massive
> >> liquidity crisis caused by everyone wanting to sell mortgages and no
> >> one willing to buy.
> >>
> >> ** Also incidentally, as a US taxpayer, you might be happy to know
> >> that since the AIG bailout, you now own a one-three-hundred-millionth
> >> stake in Manchester United, which I am told is a soccer team. They
> >> used to be a property of AIG: now they're yours. They're quite good.\
> >>
> >> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Tom Hansen <idahotom at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Paul -
> >> >
> >> > It is my impression that this economic crapshoot was instigated by
> >> > deregulation of the industry under both Reagan and Bush Sr..
> >> >
> >> > It used to be that it was difficult (stringent requirements and constant
> >> > federal monitoring) for banks, S&Ls, and other financial institutions to
> >> > qualify for FDIC/FSLIC "protection".  Once Reagan removed these
> >> > requirements
> >> > and Bush Sr. drastically limited (if not eliminated) federal
> >> > monitoring, banks approved loans to people/businesses that possessed no
> >> > viable capability of ever repaying the loans and investment firms made
> >> > investments that would make third-world countries cringe.  These
> >> > financial
> >> > institutions were not concerned about going "out of business", not as
> >> > long
> >> > as they had that FDIC/FSLIC sticker on their doors.
> >> >
> >> > So, as Bush Jr. tries to pass himself and potentially McCain (who
> >> > coincidentally has been in the Senate since Nixon left the White House)
> >> > as
> >> > heroes to the American people, remember who made this all possible.
> >> >  Hint:
> >> > It wasn't Obama.
> >> >
> >> > Tom Hansen
> >> > Moscow, Idaho
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> >> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:59:05 -0700
> >> >> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> >> >> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> >> Subject: [Vision2020] Why are we bailing out all these large
> >> >> corporations?
> >> >>
> >> >> If a large corporation is about to go bankrupt because they loaned
> >> >> money
> >> >> without proper collateral behind it and without a determination that
> >> >> the
> >> >> person taking out the loan could reasonably pay it back, shouldn't we
> >> >> let it crash and burn? Isn't that what is so casually referred to as a
> >> >> "market correction"?
> >> >>
> >> >> I've heard it stated that there is something different about this
> >> >> situation - it's more dire and it could have a snowball effect on the
> >> >> rest of the economy or even the globe. Does anyone here know enough
> >> >> about this to explain that?
> >> >>
> >> >> What is so important about this situation that would result in the
> >> >> necessity for an Iraq War-sized expenditure?
> >> >>
> >> >> Or is it a case of the rich looking out for the rich, which I'm
> >> >> half-tempted to believe is the case.
> >> >>
> >> >> Paul
> >> >>
> >> >> =======================================================
> >> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> >> http://www.fsr.net
> >> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> >> =======================================================
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > =======================================================
> >> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> > =======================================================
> >> >
> >>
> >> =======================================================
> >>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>               http://www.fsr.net
> >>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> =======================================================
> >
> >