The Business of Football

Bearded but no genius

The feedback you get?

What, on bradcafe.net?

We see (and get frequent complaints about) the constant Three Ring "Look At Me" Barnum and Bradley Circus, where you look for trouble, and you look to bend rules until they break, and have done for years.

You then show an amazing amount of disrepect and vitriol to anyone who ever calls you up on it.

BAMSOLA

Agenda posters!!!

All of you!!!

B Cantona

Sure, ok

What rules have I bent? I must be such an outlaw!

I haven't looked for any trouble here, I simply posted an article (a very good one which has been quite overlooked) as requested, which has gone down well with those who have read it, and has revived the flagging blog section. You and Wibble wanted to stir up nonsense in public, and as ever I'm accused of doing this, that and the other. You'll change the record at some point

bazalini

Brad - What so good about the Article?

Its basically a Dummies Guide to United's Ownership

For anyone who knows the club it tells you little in my opinion. No Meat on the bone. I see no reason why you took it off that Blog. In fact some other Blog Posts are much better (Including Shane's one)

B Cantona

Rood asked me to post it on here too

Think you're being a bit harsh on the article personally. People are always quick to be critical, I'd have more time for your views if you gave positive feedback on other articles you've liked, or even tried your hand at writing one yourself. But you're entitled to your opinion of course, posters give up their time to contribute to these blogs - they're not quick to write - and it's a shame sometimes there aren't more comments and debate stemming from them

bazalini

You'll find I said there were better articles on that site and indeed I cann't think of any more positive feedback then me saying Shane's Blog post was good....

So wise up you cock.

The post is basically a watered down copy of wikipedia with some added extras with a fancy pic of a football stolen from google images. Fine for new kids following the club, but certainly I didn't learn anything from it and does not represent the "Business of Football"

bazalini

In one hand you ask for a comment and then because you don't like what I say - You say I shouldn't comment on the "Article" because I have not wrote one....


In Ireland we'd call you a "spanner"

B Cantona

You bored Baz?

bazalini

No, I'm actually reading some good blogs off that site. Some are very good. Credit to the site.

B Cantona

Much appreciated. Feel free to comment on the site itself. I'm sure Shane will love it if you comment on his work!

bazalini

I havn't read a post of his in over 3 years as he's on my ignore... Pass on my comments in relation to his blog post. Tell him he is getting soapy with the old age

B Cantona

He's not on ignore on that site you daft sod, tell him yourself!

Rood

Yes - that is exactly what it is meant to be!
In fact if one of the Mods can change the title of this thread then I would like it to be changed to 'The Dummies Guide To United's Ownership'

It was just supposed to be a quick history lesson for those who dont know much of the background of who/what came before the Glazers. A timeline of the progression from member owned Newton Heath FC to Manchester United, the world's biggest sporting brand.
I reckon the majority of United fans know very little about the business history of the club, only relatively recently has it become a topic of discussion.

I did actually want to post up the share price history from the period that we were listed to show how the price was affected by various events on and off the field at the time. But I couldnt find a chart anywhere online unfortunately.

Feel free to add any information!

adexkola

I think everyone who derailed the thread brought agendas in and should be banned

bazalini

Its a starting point fo something much bigger Rood - No offense towards you. I certainly would be interested in stuff like share price on relection of events. Agreed Thread title does not do it justice

topper

tsk simples

Rood

You will have to try a lot harder than that to offend me!

I'm quite happy for it to be a starting point for further discussion - I think if people look at the ownership history they will realise that our club has been run as a business to make profit for shareholders for a long time before the current owners ever turned up.
In fact it was really the Edwards family who should take most of the credit/blame for moving the club away from being a sports club to a business - the decision to list on the stock market in 1991 was the undoubtedly the point where business matters began to take centre stage at Old Trafford, there was no going back after that.

Also noticed this relevant quote from Fergie the other day:
"When Manchester United Football Club went plc without doubt it was always going to be bought. Somebody was going to buy it. It was inevitable..."

peterstorey

That's just what happened there was nothing inevitable about it. If he hadn't fucked off M&M I reckon you'd still be a plc.

bazalini

No Probs then....

Your bassic use of grammer was poor, the structure of your blog had no start, middle or end, your choice of image was pathetic, your title could not have been worse, your sources were out-dated and your font size was too big....

Rood

I'll accept the crap title - you can fuck off with the rest !

B Cantona

Quoted for authenticity

bazalini

You'll never understand humour - Will you Brad?

B Cantona

Not shite unoriginal humour, no

Rood

Nah - if he hadn't fucked off M&M then they would probably have taken over, or if not them then someone else (dont forget that Murdoch had already tried as well). There was so much potential not being exploited by the PLC, which made us a prime takeover target.

afrocentricity

Yeah but for how long?

decorativeed

One major error in that article: Newton Heath were a limited company long before the change to Manchester United. They were at first run by the Lancashire and Yorkshire railway and then in 1892 they became a limited company. They were never truly "fan owned".

Also, it was £1000 that saved the club. Five men put in £200 each.

I think you are too kind to Louis Edwards too, as it was he who divided all the large shares up into smaller £1 shares so he could pay more dividends to himself in the late 70s.

Rood

What are your sources for that info?
I'm quite happy to be corrected as I did find conflicting info from different sources when looking for the historical detail.

I did mention the Louis Edward rights issue which opened up the club to paying big dividends to shareholders for the first time.
I'm probably harsher on Martin than Louis because from all I have read Louis was at least a proper United fan, whereas I'm not sure Martin ever had much interest in the football at all.

decorativeed

I think you are correct about Louis. His involvement was initially because he was a fan, it was only later that he realised the club could become a source of income for himself.

The 1892 share issue is covered in practically every United history book. There's a transcribed newspaper article from the Manchester Evening News of 9th January 1902 that mentions the fact that Newton Heath were a limited company and the share issue on my blog here.

It's copied from a reprint in Back Page United. On the next page of that book there's an article from the MEN of 19th March 1902 that says:

peterstorey

Have you bastards always been in debt then?

robertsoncrusoe

They are exhibiting thread envy as usual.

fredthered

United did indeed become a Limited company before the name change to MUFC. It was in fact the shareholders that elected to take the name Manchester United as opposed to Manchester Celtic, as this was deemed to be too catholic in appearance, and could alienate the protestant support in the club.

The rights issue by Louis Edwards wasnt to allow shareholders to take a dividend though. this was always permissable. What it did was put more shares into existence so Edwards cuold take more dividends as he had more shares.

Louis was indeed a supporter, and only got onto the board of directors at United due to the Munich air crash. His main dream was to turn Old Trafford into a fully cantilevered stadium. This dream was carried on by Martin Edwards, who as you rightly say, was never a supporter of the club in the way his father was. He saw it purely as a business and a means to make money.

Rood

Fair enough - seems like a good source. I had found other sources which said each person paid £500 and then a few which said £500 in total. I just went with the lowest figure!

I did read about the share issue but was under the impression that all the shares were owned by fans/members (so the club was essentially a cooperative) until being saved by JH Davies et al - not sure if that is strictly true or not though.


Yes I know, I said exactly that in the article - you could at least read it before commenting next time


Well Manchester United only came about because Newton Heath were going bankrupt due to excessive debt!
Seems to be other reoccuring themes in our history as well - came across this:

"Despite switching permanently to the present day colours of red and white, 1927 was a bad year for United. John H Davies - their first benefactor - died that October. The club had only just decided to buy the ground at Old Trafford rather than rent it as they had been doing, hoping that with Mr Davies behind them they would have more security for the deal. The bills began to increase. Things on the pitch deteriorated too - by 1930 United were struggling just to win a match. On October 1930, 3,000 supporters met to try and stage a revolution and attempted to boycott the match against Arsenal the following day. In the end the boycott failed and 30,000 supporters watched the match."

These boycotters never learn eh?

decorativeed

The 1892 share issue meant that anyone who was able to could buy a part of the business. We have no records of who did buy them though, but we know that they were not as popular as they had hoped - this meant the club was floated in insufficient capital, which was one of the reasons for their later financial problems.

The rest of that 1902 Evening News article actually includes quotes by someone at the club blaming the worst of the Manchester weather coinciding with the biggest fixtures as a reason they'd not made as much from the gates as they would usually have expected.

As for the "deciding to buy rather than rent Old Trafford" - I'm not sure how true that is. Davies essentially gifted the ground to the club as he already owned the land. The FA thought it too advantageous to United and renegotiated the deal - basically forcing the club to pay rent on it. It was not until 1951 that they finally paid it off and the extra money they had to pay out (on top of the disruption caused to their finances by the first World War) was what had the club on the brink (again) in the early 30s. Before Gibson, Davies' widow had actually still been putting money into the club.

Rood

^^^ Some good info there mate, feel free to add any other detail about our business history - Im interested even if no one else is !