If the Glazers put the club up for sale...

[glazed]

No owner will buy a club 700m and buy players. Also the Glazers aren't rich enough to do that, the people who are actually rich enough to do that are also smart enough to not do it.

The fact remains that the Glazers are a net negative on the club's bottom line. They might be going through a period of investment right now but it's a recent development borne of necessity and I don't expect it to last. Financially we'd be much better off with a Russian gangster or Arab dictator as a sugar daddy, but that's not what we're about. We'd also be better off without any external ownership full stop.

 

[simonhch]

A few points:

- While debt reduces tax burden by being written off against profits, we could just use the money we spend to finance it, on increased player wages, transfer fees or infrastructure. The net effect is the same, and only one of the two produces real value.

- The debt is not a constructive debt. It does not build value. It's a self acquisition debt. A new owner could pay it off, and replace it with a new loan of $340M to donmassive upgrades to OT, improve facilities, build a youth ground etc. Same debt burden, but actual value created.

 

[simonhch]

100M profit means 50M tax Netting 50M

20 M debt repayment meant no profit = no tax.

Do the math

Just spend 20m more on players or infrastructure. Net effect is the same.

 

[manc exile]

What money they take out?

The debt? We're close to debt free nowdays, we bought pogba for a record fee.

Besides they dont take divident during the debt takeover. They service the debt with their divident technically.

how is £338 in debt close to debt free?

The debt was put on United by the glazers, so even if they are servicing the debt, they are taking money out.
And as they have taken out over a billion, thats double the original debt and only about half of it paid off in 10 years. Unless the loans were at 10% interest or more the numbers dont stack up for them only servicing the debt with the money they take out.

and yes we bought Pogba for a record fee and I am very pleased (not sure Pogba was worth that much). But doing some good things does not counter the negatives

its dividend not divident.

 

[manc exile]

The good thing about glazer is that they can feck off anytime and we're pretty much intact.

Can't say the same with roman, when he fecks off chelsea will be in grave danger.

Any other cash injecting sugar daddies would also pose the same problem, when they pull out the clubs can't sustain the wage bill

depend what they do with their cash injection.
As you say chelsea would be in danger, as would QPR .

However Manchester City (sadly) and Leicester City appear to now be turning a profit.

 

[Scholesy]

100M profit means 50M tax Netting 50M

20 M debt repayment meant no profit = no tax.

Do the math

So you'd prefer no profit over £50m net profit?

 

[STaphouse]

depend what they do with their cash injection.
As you say chelsea would be in danger, as would QPR .

However Manchester City (sadly) and Leicester City appear to now be turning a profit.

Yes because of their 'sponsorship' deals. If there owners go, so do a large amount of their sponsorships.

 

[Ødegaard]

I think they have been bad for the club, but also good once their debt has mostly been paid off. Pure speculation of how we'd be with other owners, so can't say if it would be a positive or negative until it happened.

I think the club Is looking good outside the pitch, and they do invest a lot of the clubs money back into it, so better the devil I know than the one I don't would probably be my stance.

 

[TakeMeHome]

I was concerned when they took over in 2005. All the scaremongering from the 'experts' and later Fergie's no value in the market nonsense was concerning. However, they've been better than most of the yanks that owned football clubs (Randy Lerner/Liverpools previous owners for example). They dont interfere with the football side of things and have backed all of our managers financially. In Woody they have a man who knows exacly what he's doing with the money side of things and is getting better with the football side of things.

 

[Scholesy]

Yes because of their 'sponsorship' deals. If there owners go, so do a large amount of their sponsorships.

I think it's 4 of 5 city's biggest sponsors are owned by the same sheiks who own city.

 

[Red_toad]

Right. Out of all the owners of football club in the world, who do you rate better than the glazer? Do enlighten me

Look at our neighbours. Invested heavily in the local community, in their club, youth academy & look like they actually have long term planning in place.
Don't really have to look far.

 

[Pexbo]

Look at our neighbours. Invested heavily in the local community, in their club, youth academy & look like they actually have long term planning in place.
Don't really have to look far.

The whole thing is a power tool for them, by investing so much money, employing so many people and putting so much into the local community they are creating leverage with the government. Football is an afterthought.

 

[Red_toad]

The whole thing is a power tool for them, by investing so much money, employing so many people and putting so much into the local community they are creating leverage with the government. Football is an afterthought.

Are they beneficial to the club they own is the answer I'm giving. Wider social/ political implications are for another thread...

 

[Rado_N]

100M profit means 50M tax Netting 50M

20 M debt repayment meant no profit = no tax.

Do the math

The tax rate isn't 50%, and in what world does £20m in debt payments reduce a £100m profit to nil?

You might want to do some math.

 

[Skills]

Why do we have to pay back the debt? In 10 years we have knocked the interest payments down from 50m a year down to 25m. With the clubs financial strength, when it's time to renogiate the debt we'll again knock it down to an even more negligible amount.

 

[manc exile]

Yes because of their 'sponsorship' deals. If there owners go, so do a large amount of their sponsorships.

You really shouldnt do this to me, I have to look up their sponsors now to see if thats likely to be true.
I am wasting my life but cant help it.
At least I am at work so not really my time I am wasting.

 

[The_Order]

sell the club

knock the stadium down

turn it into a pub,

The Old Trafford

Truth is, their hand-off style of ownership is preferable to the Autocracy of Abramovich.

 

[Oscie]

The Red Knights would have been an absolute disaster. A large bunch of disparate businessmen with otherwise no connection or even history of working together trying to run a football club would have been an absolute disaster. There would have been ego clashes within months, crippling the club's ability to do anything. Make the row over the horse look like nothing. Those like Drasdo, MUST and Green who encouraged fans to support that proposed ownership model should be viewed in the same light as people who encourage people to buy timeshares or invest in a Robert Maxwell pension scheme.

 

[daniel9988]

I'll be nervous if they sold the club. The Glazers have actually been great owners, they know their shit.

 

[JustAFan]

Klopp and Hazard for starters

Klopp was not ready to move at the time and we did try to sign Hazard but he picked Chelsea instead.

 

[Jaxdan]

Klopp was not ready to move at the time and we did try to sign Hazard but he picked Chelsea instead.

Yep. And 4 years ago who had the crystal ball knowing Klopp would succeed in English football? After Moyes, didn't most of us believe LvG was the 'right' answer? I did. I was wrong apparently, as were many of us. Again, hind sight is perfect vision.

 

[Full bodied red]

I'll be nervous if they sold the club. The Glazers have actually been great owners, they know their shit.

THIS

 

[Infra-red]

Better the devil you know. The next owners may well be in tow with an LBO that would make the debt the Glazers saddled the club with look like peanuts. Lots of uncertainty and very little upside to new ownership.

 

[MrPooni]

High tax on high income is better than low tax on low income.

FFS.

I feel like I've said this about million times already but I might as well say it again: can we stop pretending pre-Glazer United was some utopian era where our manager was free to spend what he wanted, whenever he wanted and every last ounce of our profit was being reinvested in the club? Compared to how we're run now the plc was an absolutely shameful period for Manchester United as outlined by @Pexbo here:

Let's not forget "the Beckham Dividend", his transfer saw profits rise up to £44m which added £5m to the £9m dividend of the previous year.

30% of out profits going to dividends every year while shareholders veto signings and moan about wage structure?

Our marketing arm at the time consisted of two blokes in a dusty office in Manchester and our board routinely "lined their pockets" with what was left of our wasted potential via the aforementioned dividends and yet people have the audacity to call the Glazers leeches. Here's a little sample of the kind of shite SAF was dealing with in 2003:

Sir Alex Ferguson will not be allowed to expand his squad this summer, even though he believes it is too weak to compete in Europe.

Last month, the Manchester United manager complained that he had only 18 outfield players to choose from, leaving him at a disadvantage compared to the likes of Real Madrid and Juventus. However, despite the club yesterday announcing a 32 per cent increase in profits before player disposals in the six months to 31 January, the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, said he will not sanction any transfers unless the squad size is kept at current levels.

"It is fair to say that if Sir Alex wants to buy someone, he will have to sell someone else," Kenyon said. "You can only field 11 players at one time and we have 24 in our squad, which, when it is supplemented with some of our younger players, we feel is the right number to get through 70-plus games a year."

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...on-told-to-sell-before-he-can-buy-113315.html

Can you understand why Sir Alex Ferguson may have preferred the Glazers to the plc now Imagine the pandemonium that would break out here if Ed Woodward publicly stepped out against our manager and declared Mourinho should be happy with the squad that he's got. On the back of Kenyon's statement we finished 3rd two seasons in a row.

Now compare that to 2007 where we spunked millions on Nani, Tevez, Anderson and Hargreaves on the back of a successful league campaign and went on to one of our most successful periods in our history. Then there's the following season where we spunked millions on Berbatov despite having one of the most potent attacks in the league too but keep crying about how the Glazer's forced SAF Michael Owen. There's also the small matter of Sir Alex Ferguson balking at Hazard and Lucas Moura's agent fees, which again has absolutely nothing to do with the Glazers who have repeatedly displayed a willingness to back their managers at every turn, not only in terms of transfers but in regards to infrastructure too:


The Glazers have backed David Moyes to rebuild ageing United (all hail Dave's transfer bunker)
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/26/david-moyes-glazer-rebuild-manchester-united


Louis van Gaal's Manchester United revolution sees sleep pods installed at Carrington HQ
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-uniteds-louis-van-gaal-4255541

Manchester United's Louis van Gaal has exercise bikes sent to players' hotel rooms for pre-warmup warmups
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-uniteds-louis-van-gaal-4255541

Manchester United to rip up Carrington training pitches after demand from Louis van Gaal
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...pitches-after-demand-from-Louis-van-Gaal.html

Man United get permission to install floodlights at Carrington
http://www.espnfc.co.uk/manchester-...rmission-to-install-floodlights-at-carrington

Those were just a few stories I'd archived in a previous thread, there are dozens more examples available to anyone who actually cares about the infrastructure of our club as opposed to winning points in an argument about the Glazers.

The Glazers are leaches, sucking away at something they didn't even buy with their own money

So who paid off the £220 million PIKs that MUST spent the go 5 years cry wanking over?

The academy is not solved, recent investment does not make up for years of underinvestment.

"Years of underinvestment"

Manchester United seek permission for £25m neon sign at Carrington training ground
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...chester-united-seek-permission-for-25m-874596

Man United building £25m private hospital to prevent injury leaks
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/man-united-building-25m-private-1702695

United Purchase £8.2m worth of land around OT
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/united-purchase-£8-2m-worth-of-land-around-ot.341358/

Manchester United 'in talks' to buy 12 acres of land in Trafford Park
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...news/manchester-united-in-talks-to-buy-685324

Manchester United plan to make amends for missed opportunity by buying Gary Neville-owned Hotel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ville-owned-Hotel-Football.html#ixzz3zsiu6zIX


United draft in audio experts to improve Old Trafford atmosphere
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...-news/cant-hear-you-manchester-united-2519900


Manchester United reveal plans for new stadium next to Old Trafford
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/foot...fford-Youth-Stadium-Plans-Premier-League-News

The Glazers haven't been perfect, the lack of input or any sort of voice for fans is a bugbear of mine, although the militant approach adopted by MUST hasn't helped on that front either. The way they financed the takeover still grates but from the minute the club was floated it was always a possibility that that would happen.

That's another issue that's being actively worked on to be fair.

MUST Executive team meet with United’s Ed Woodward
http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-executive-team-meet-with-uniteds-ed-woodward/

IMUSA news
IMUSA Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary attended a meeting today (28th October 2013) with the club’s Executive Vice-Chairman Ed Woodward and Director of Communications, Phil Townsend.
http://www.imusa.org/newsarticle.php?id=437

Debt down, fan communications restored - where next for MUFC?
http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/debt-down-fan-communications-restored.html

 

[Sparky10Legend]

FFS.

I feel like I've said this about million times already but I might as well say it again: can we stop pretending pre-Glazer United was some utopian era where our manager was free to spend what he wanted, whenever he wanted and every last ounce of our profit was being reinvested in the club? Compared to how we're run now the plc was an absolutely shameful period for Manchester United as outlined by @Pexbo here:



Our marketing arm at the time consisted of two blokes in a dusty office in Manchester and our board routinely "lined their pockets" with what was left of our wasted potential via the aforementioned dividends and yet people have the audacity to call the Glazers leeches. Here's a little sample of the kind of shite SAF was dealing with in 2003:



Can you understand why Sir Alex Ferguson may have preferred the Glazers to the plc now Imagine the pandemonium that would break out here if Ed Woodward publicly stepped out against our manager and declared Mourinho should be happy with the squad that he's got. On the back of Kenyon's statement we finished 3rd two seasons in a row.

Now compare that to 2007 where we spunked millions on Nani, Tevez, Anderson and Hargreaves on the back of a successful league campaign and went on to one of our most successful periods in our history. Then there's the following season where we spunked millions on Berbatov despite having one of the most potent attacks in the league too but keep crying about how the Glazer's forced SAF Michael Owen. There's also the small matter of Sir Alex Ferguson balking at Hazard and Lucas Moura's agent fees, which again has absolutely nothing to do with the Glazers who have repeatedly displayed a willingness to back their managers at every turn, not only in terms of transfers but in regards to infrastructure too:


The Glazers have backed David Moyes to rebuild ageing United (all hail Dave's transfer bunker)
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/26/david-moyes-glazer-rebuild-manchester-united


Louis van Gaal's Manchester United revolution sees sleep pods installed at Carrington HQ
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-uniteds-louis-van-gaal-4255541

Manchester United's Louis van Gaal has exercise bikes sent to players' hotel rooms for pre-warmup warmups
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-uniteds-louis-van-gaal-4255541

Manchester United to rip up Carrington training pitches after demand from Louis van Gaal
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...pitches-after-demand-from-Louis-van-Gaal.html

Man United get permission to install floodlights at Carrington
http://www.espnfc.co.uk/manchester-...rmission-to-install-floodlights-at-carrington

Those were just a few stories I'd archived in a previous thread, there are dozens more examples available to anyone who actually cares about the infrastructure of our club as opposed to winning points in an argument about the Glazers.


So who paid off the £220 million PIKs that MUST spent the go 5 years cry wanking over?


"Years of underinvestment"

Manchester United seek permission for £25m neon sign at Carrington training ground
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...chester-united-seek-permission-for-25m-874596

Man United building £25m private hospital to prevent injury leaks
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/man-united-building-25m-private-1702695

United Purchase £8.2m worth of land around OT
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/united-purchase-£8-2m-worth-of-land-around-ot.341358/

Manchester United 'in talks' to buy 12 acres of land in Trafford Park
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...news/manchester-united-in-talks-to-buy-685324

Manchester United plan to make amends for missed opportunity by buying Gary Neville-owned Hotel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ville-owned-Hotel-Football.html#ixzz3zsiu6zIX


United draft in audio experts to improve Old Trafford atmosphere
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...-news/cant-hear-you-manchester-united-2519900


Manchester United reveal plans for new stadium next to Old Trafford
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/foot...fford-Youth-Stadium-Plans-Premier-League-News


That's another issue that's being actively worked on to be fair.

MUST Executive team meet with United’s Ed Woodward
http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-executive-team-meet-with-uniteds-ed-woodward/

IMUSA news
IMUSA Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary attended a meeting today (28th October 2013) with the club’s Executive Vice-Chairman Ed Woodward and Director of Communications, Phil Townsend.
http://www.imusa.org/newsarticle.php?id=437

Debt down, fan communications restored - where next for MUFC?
http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/debt-down-fan-communications-restored.html

There is so much wrong with this post.

FACT - Glazers paid for club with our money. The PIKS - who took them out, who paid the interest?

 

[Jaxdan]

There is so much wrong with this post.

FACT - Glazers paid for club with our money. The PIKS - who took them out, who paid the interest?

"Our money."? Explain please.

 

[Sparky10Legend]

"Our money."? Explain please.

The clubs? Not rocket science, is it now. If you cant comprehend that the takeover was heavily leveraged then there is no hope for you. All those interest payments that "could" have bought talent.

The club has no money without fans. Grasp that Joel?

 

[Jaxdan]

The clubs? Not rocket science, is it now. If you cant comprehend that the takeover was heavily leveraged then there is no hope for you. All those interest payments that "could" have bought talent.

The club has no money without fans. Grasp that Joel?

No reason to be a dick. Perhaps that's why you are still 'New' after 6 years. The Club would still exist if you never spent a dime on it. You don't own any of it. You are merely a consumer of a product, your choice to spend or not. Somebody else will take your place. Grasp that Sparky?

 

[Eyepopper]

That's another issue that's being actively worked on to be fair

Those articles are 3 years old. That's doesn't exactly scream "actively".

Be interested to know if anything has happened on it since.

 

[MrPooni]

Those articles are 3 years old. That's doesn't exactly scream "actively".

Be interested to know if anything has happened on it since.

As I mentioned earlier, the links in question came from an older post of mine but there are plenty of other examples for anyone who cares. MUST for example were represented at the Manchester United Fans' Forum for the first time in over a decade this year and a lot of the concerns raised during said meeting are being directly addressed by the club, including safe standing, away ticket allocation and the general safety of away fans. When I say the club have been actively liaising with fan groups recently, I genuinely mean it.

There is so much wrong with this post.

Some specific examples would be grand.

FACT - Glazers paid for club with our money. The PIKS - who took them out, who paid the interest?

I specifically mentioned the PIKs because they were one of the biggest pain points for the folks behind FC United, MUST and andersred before, during and after the takeover. In regards to how we managed to pay the interest, a lot of it has to do with the Glazer's revolutionary approach towards marketing, their foresight re: international broadcasting revenue (remember when everyone assumed they wanted to break up the Premier League's collective bargaining power?) and their overall shrewdness i.e. the fact that they managed to take over a billion dollar business for a fraction of its true value and helped them realise that value through an unforeseen global economic crisis. These are some of the many reasons why I'd rather have them in charge of us ahead of an oligarch or bored Saudi prince.

 

[Eyepopper]

As I mentioned earlier, the links in question came from an older post of mine but there are plenty of other examples for anyone who cares. MUST for example were represented at the Manchester United Fans' Forum for the first time in over a decade this year and a lot of the concerns raised during said meeting are being directly addressed by the club, including safe standing, away ticket allocation and the general safety of away fans. When I say the club have been actively liaising with fan groups recently, I genuinely mean it.

Good to know, and I hope MUST have softened their stance a bit.

TBF the fact that the club are even prepared to talk to them, given the behavior of Drasdo over the years, is further testament to the Glazers actually being good owners. Few could blame them if they refused to engage with them at all.

 

[donkeyfish]

I'm glad we have rational owners. From the outside, it looks like they want an efficiently run club that maximise profits.

The risk of volatile ownerships is significant. Which club was it that tanked because the owner got divorced? I would prefer to stay away from sheikh-type owners, who do this for fun (maybe some Sheikhs are more serious idk). They need to be in it for the money.

Difficult to say what will happen if everything goes public though, there is a chance of that in the future. United is becoming valuable enough to make it difficult to sit as sole or majority owners.

 

[JustAFan]

The clubs? Not rocket science, is it now. If you cant comprehend that the takeover was heavily leveraged then there is no hope for you. All those interest payments that "could" have bought talent.

The club has no money without fans. Grasp that Joel?

All those interest payments would be dividend payments instead. Of course who knows if our revenue would match what it does today also.

 

[Sparky10Legend]

All those interest payments would be dividend payments instead. Of course who knows if our revenue would match what it does today also.

Growth, it's also guesswork to say the Glazers have grown the brand more than anyone else.

They shouldn't get the credit for what Ed Woodward has done.

Ref dividends , the Piks were at 20odd % , far higher than any divi would have been.

 

[JustAFan]

Growth, it's also guesswork to say the Glazers have grown the brand more than anyone else.

They shouldn't get the credit for what Ed Woodward has done.

Ref dividends , the Piks were at 20odd % , far higher than any divi would have been.

Who hired Ed Woodward? Would he even be here without them? Highly unlikely.

Plus there's the unknown of who would be our owners if not the glazers maybe some other leveraged buyout.

 

[wolvored]

I'd say I'd feel somewhere between indifferent to mildly happy. They've siphoned a lot of money out of the club and new owners would most likely be an improvement but we're functioning fantastically as things are despite the Glazers so I'm pleased either way.

Im not a glazer fan by any means but any owner would syphon off money thats why these rich men buy clubs. The Jack Heywoods and Jack Walkers have long gone.

 

[wolvored]

High tax on high income is better than low tax on low income.

Not necessarily. A lot of big companies carry some debt that they could easily pay off, so there must be something in it.

 

[wolvored]

Surely an owner that put money in rather than took it out would be preferable?

Who would logically do that? Even the lot down the road are building for the day the oil runs out.

 

[wolvored]

Growth, it's also guesswork to say the Glazers have grown the brand more than anyone else.

They shouldn't get the credit for what Ed Woodward has done.

Ref dividends , the Piks were at 20odd % , far higher than any divi would have been.

They employed him to grow the 'brand' I hate that term for a football club, along with 'franchise'. I also thought woody was going to put football club back on the badge

 

[kbbear]

You have to admit that what the Glazer's (and those they have employed) have done commercially is fantastic. You would hope that any new owner would embrace that. Personally I'm happy as we are. We are breaking transfer records again and have arguably the best manager in the world who I trust will build a team to be just as successful as we are off the pitch.