Why are the Glazers/Woody running the club so badly?

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
6,834
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
Highest level of net debt? In the world?
I am not sure what the rules are in the forum about posting links, however, see here - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...all-landscape-qpr-glazer-family-a7523761.html

Basically, the article states that, as of Jan 2017,

- United's debt is going UP not down
- United have the highest levels of debt in Europe
- United have nearly £200m more debt than the next-highest, Benfica

So whichever way you spin it, your assertion that the debt has been paid off is just totally and completely wrong I am afraid

As an aside, I wonder how many millions we have paid in wages/dividends to the Glazer family since the takeover?
 

Vedder

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
13
Location
England
The Glazer mafioso will be cashing in very soon. The cash cow has been milked dry and alas the udders are barren.
 

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
4,101
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
I am not sure what the rules are in the forum about posting links, however, see here - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...all-landscape-qpr-glazer-family-a7523761.html

Basically, the article states that, as of Jan 2017,

- United's debt is going UP not down
- United have the highest levels of debt in Europe
- United have nearly £200m more debt than the next-highest, Benfica

So whichever way you spin it, your assertion that the debt has been paid off is just totally and completely wrong I am afraid

As an aside, I wonder how many millions we have paid in wages/dividends to the Glazer family since the takeover?
And we already owe a considerable amount on the transfers made in the past, since the club prefers to pay using credit...

How bad would it need to get, financially, before the Glazers are seriously considering offers that others than Saudis and some state funds can afford?
 

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
6,834
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
And we already owe a considerable amount on the transfers made in the past, since the club prefers to pay using credit...

How bad would it need to get, financially, before the Glazers are seriously considering offers that others than Saudis and some state funds can afford?
Well from the Glazers point of view, things aren't bad financially are they....they get to keep taking their salaries and dividends and all the time the value of the club is (broadly) increasing.

I think at the point where we are no longer able to realistically achieve regular Champions League football and the long-term value of the club is in danger, they will probably sell-up. As I've said elsewhere, parasites drain their host but never take quite enough to kill since they know that's the end of them too!

This is why, much as it pains me to say it, I didn't want us to qualify for CL this year.....because every time we manage to snatch that 4th spot it guarantees us a few more years of the Glazers
 

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
4,101
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
Well from the Glazers point of view, things aren't bad financially are they....they get to keep taking their salaries and dividends and all the time the value of the club is (broadly) increasing.

I think at the point where we are no longer able to realistically achieve regular Champions League football and the long-term value of the club is in danger, they will probably sell-up. As I've said elsewhere, parasites drain their host but never take quite enough to kill since they know that's the end of them too!

This is why, much as it pains me to say it, I didn't want us to qualify for CL this year.....because every time we manage to snatch that 4th spot it guarantees us a few more years of the Glazers
True.

Looking at the potential revenue next season:
Next season:
1. Broadcasting will go down:
  • No CL football: £50 million less in income as a minimum from TV(dependent on how far we are going in the EL).
  • Marginally decrease in income from EPL.
2. Commercial revenue will not increase, despite football as a business becoming more and more valuable:
  • No CL.
  • More and more brands see the way this club is going.
  • Could sell namingrights to OT, but fans would revolt.
  • Revenue from merchandise will go down.
3. Matchday revenue will go down:
  • Fewer attractive matches.
  • Fans less willing to spend money.
So, the revenue will go down by 15%-20%, despite the club operating in market that is growing and becoming more valueable by the day.

Given that the wages automatically becomes 25% less because no CL will make things easier, but with the amount of investment needed, sums already owed to clubs, some of the bad contracts etc, we are not going to turn a profit if we spend £ on transfers(even if we pay on credit)...

If we do not qualify for CL next season, then things might become interesting. Revenue will continue to go down, and if we are going to deliver financially, the wageexpenditure needs to be reduced which in turn is difficult with some of the wages the players are on and the investments that must take place if the owners wants us to get CL football again...

And if the new EPL-TV deal that would be negotiated around summer 2020 does not increase in value, then i think they will be actively looking to sell.
 

zonaldefending

Liverpool Fan
Newbie
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
143
After reading the post above I did a quick google search and this was the first result I clicked on. Sorry to say guys, but the Glazers aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190214005343/en/Manchester-United-plc-2019-Quarter-Results

Manchester United plc 2019 Second Quarter Results
  • Q2 RECORD REVENUES OF £208.6 MILLION
  • Q2 RECORD ADJUSTED EBITDA OF £104.3 MILLION
  • Q2 OPERATING PROFIT OF £44.0 MILLION
MANCHESTER, England--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Manchester United (NYSE: Man Utd; the “Company” and the “Group”) – one of the most popular and successful sports teams in the world - today announced financial results for the 2019 fiscal second quarter ended 31 December 2018

Ed Woodward, Executive Vice Chairman, commented, "The appointment of Ole and Mike as caretaker manager and assistant manager, working with Kieran, Michael and Emilio, has had a positive impact throughout the club. We are delighted with the improvement in the team’s performances since December and we look forward to a strong finish to the 18/19 season."

For fiscal 2019, Manchester United continues to expect:

  • Revenue to be £615m to £630m.
  • Adjusted EBITDA to be £175m to £190m.
Net debt 317.7
 

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
4,101
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
After reading the post above I did a quick google search and this was the first result I clicked on. Sorry to say guys, but the Glazers aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190214005343/en/Manchester-United-plc-2019-Quarter-Results

Manchester United plc 2019 Second Quarter Results
  • Q2 RECORD REVENUES OF £208.6 MILLION
  • Q2 RECORD ADJUSTED EBITDA OF £104.3 MILLION
  • Q2 OPERATING PROFIT OF £44.0 MILLION
MANCHESTER, England--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Manchester United (NYSE: Man Utd; the “Company” and the “Group”) – one of the most popular and successful sports teams in the world - today announced financial results for the 2019 fiscal second quarter ended 31 December 2018

Ed Woodward, Executive Vice Chairman, commented, "The appointment of Ole and Mike as caretaker manager and assistant manager, working with Kieran, Michael and Emilio, has had a positive impact throughout the club. We are delighted with the improvement in the team’s performances since December and we look forward to a strong finish to the 18/19 season."

For fiscal 2019, Manchester United continues to expect:

  • Revenue to be £615m to £630m.
  • Adjusted EBITDA to be £175m to £190m.
Net debt 317.7
We will so how 2 years without CL impacts this.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,880
Location
Somewhere out there
I am not sure what the rules are in the forum about posting links, however, see here - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...all-landscape-qpr-glazer-family-a7523761.html

Basically, the article states that, as of Jan 2017,

- United's debt is going UP not down
- United have the highest levels of debt in Europe
- United have nearly £200m more debt than the next-highest, Benfica

So whichever way you spin it, your assertion that the debt has been paid off is just totally and completely wrong I am afraid

As an aside, I wonder how many millions we have paid in wages/dividends to the Glazer family since the takeover?
The rule should be, don’t post outdated stuff from 2.5 years ago to try and prove a point @Lentwood
The debt is going down all the time and is now at a level in which it can even be considered a “good thing” for tax reasons.

Everything about your post is incorrect, in January our debt was down -18% YoY and as the post above shows, is about to go down again. The next highest debt is Inter & Atletico (much much closer to us than the 200m mentioned in your post) and if the post results above are correct, they are about to overtake us as we reduce ours once again.
Most other clubs in the top 20 debt clubs had a + YoY in Jan, United had a massive -18%, only Liverpool came close with -17% due largely to Coutinho.
 
Last edited:

zonaldefending

Liverpool Fan
Newbie
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
143
We will so how 2 years without CL impacts this.
You are right, according to Swiss Ramble Utd will be earning the following from CL participation this year.

#MUFC Champions League revenue is €93m for reaching the quarter-finals, up from €40m last season. Includes: participation €15m, prize money €30m, UEFA coefficient €31m and TV pool €17m.

That is a large amount of revenue that they will be losing next year but will be offset a little due to what they get from participation in the Europa league.

Even still, if you look at it from the point of view of the Glazers, there is no reason for them to sell. Manchester United is one of the most profitable clubs in the world and the Glazers will still be able to take out their regular dividends and pay down the debt even without CL football for a couple of years while the club continues to rise in value. The club itself could potentially suffer from less transfer funds but from the Glazers won't suffer at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ødegaard

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
4,101
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
You are right, according to Swiss Ramble Utd will be earning the following from CL participation this year.

#MUFC Champions League revenue is €93m for reaching the quarter-finals, up from €40m last season. Includes: participation €15m, prize money €30m, UEFA coefficient €31m and TV pool €17m.

That is a large amount of revenue that they will be losing next year but will be offset a little due to what they get from participation in the Europa league.

Even still, if you look at it from the point of view of the Glazers, there is no reason for them to sell. Manchester United is one of the most profitable clubs in the world and the Glazers will still be able to take out their regular dividends and pay down the debt even without CL football for a couple of years while the club continues to rise in value. The club itself could potentially suffer from less transfer funds but from the Glazers won't suffer at all.
Thanks for quantifying the financial impact CL has.

Our most likely hope of getting rid of the Glazers are two bad seasons, and hoping that the new PL-deal does not increase. (And hope that a "big club" european league does not happen to soon)
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,625
Location
London
Defended Ed/Glazers for years, but there comes some point where you cannot defend the undefendable. The total lack of long-term strategy, and every decision they have made looking to be wrong with the benefit of hindsight (while looking a good decision at the time it was made), makes me believe that they really are not good at their job.

The sacking of Mourinho should have served as an opportunity to totally revamp and change the structure of the club. Instead, it looks that he was just another fall guy and no improvement seems to come in the horizon.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Real investment in the football club stopped to any significant degree in 2005. All we are seeing now is the chickens coming home to roost. The natural end result of treating one of the worlds greatest sporting institutions as an ATM for its owners.
This is not even remotely true. Glazers didn't start taking dividend payments until 2015. You are grossly misinformed

Unpopular opinion:
The majority of our demise was caused by managers and their bad signings. Glazers/Woody provided PLENTY of transfer funds.
This 100%. Woodward/Glazers are nothing more that scapegoats.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,880
Location
Somewhere out there
Defended Ed/Glazers for years, but there comes some point where you cannot defend the undefendable. The total lack of long-term strategy, and every decision they have made looking to be wrong with the benefit of hindsight (while looking a good decision at the time it was made), makes me believe that they really are not good at their job.

The sacking of Mourinho should have served as an opportunity to totally revamp and change the structure of the club. Instead, it looks that he was just another fall guy and no improvement seems to come in the horizon.
I get you Revan, but so many of our decisions post SAF still stink of SAF's influence rather than Glazer's/Woodward.

• SAF, Charlton, Gill and co. were 100% behind the Moyes move.
• SAF, Charlton, Gill and co. are certainly behind the Solksjaer/Phelan return
• SAF, Charlton, Gill and co. are certainly behind the idea of Darren Fletcher as a DoF.

So yes, the Glazers are not very good at the job of football, so they try leaving it to the ones who know football, and they have gotten it wrong also. No doubt Mourinho was a Glazer/Woodward choice so it means everyone's had a go and got it wrong.

What we need now is what Liverpool and Spurs have had, we simply need the right manager, who should pick that? feck knows, Liverpool for example made a right mess of it before getting Klopp in, hell even our greatest ever manager made a mess of choosing us a manager.
 
Last edited:

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
6,834
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
The rule should be, don’t post outdated stuff from 2.5 years ago to try and prove a point @Lentwood
The debt is going down all the time and is now at a level in which it can even be considered a “good thing” for tax reasons.

Everything about your post is incorrect, in January our debt was down -18% YoY and as the post above shows, is about to go down again. The next highest debt is Inter & Atletico (much much closer to us than the 200m mentioned in your post) and if the post results above are correct, they are about to overtake us as we reduce ours once again.
Most other clubs in the top 20 debt clubs had a + YoY in Jan, United had a massive -18%, only Liverpool came close with -17% due largely to Coutinho.
Oh good so we're only £400m in debt now then for the 'privilege' of having these parasites on-board?

EVERYTHING about my post is correct....you've just come in and said 'actually the debt's gone down a bit recently'
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,880
Location
Somewhere out there
EVERYTHING about my post is correct....you've just come in and said 'actually the debt's gone down a bit recently'
Hmmmmm....

- United's debt is going UP not down - WRONG, it’s down 18% this year and decreasing more according to projections.
- United have the highest levels of debt in Europe - CORRECT for about 6 more months when we’re looking likely to be number 3 according to forecasts for this year.
- United have nearly £200m more debt than the next-highest, Benfica - WRONG BY AN ENORMOUS MARGIN
Was everything about your post correct? What a strange World we live in then.
 
Last edited:

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
6,834
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
Hmmmmm.. @Lentwood

Was everything about your post correct? What a strange World we live in then.
Yes but as I clearly say, those were the most recent figures I could find in response to a poster who said categorically that the debt had been paid. I outlined what that link said in case mods were not happy with it being posted or the poster couldn't be arsed to follow it. You've come in with some more recent figures...good....I welcome that...but we've still got a huge amount of debt

What I find strange is that people still defend the Glazers. Why?

Is it a good thing we have been saddled with a huge debt?
Is it a good thing we had a positive net spend for a period of 5yrs whilst the club were saddled with PIK loans?
Is it a good thing that we have a totally unqualified accountant making footballing decisions?
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,880
Location
Somewhere out there
Yes but as I clearly say, those were the most recent figures I could find in response to a poster who said categorically that the debt had been paid. I outlined what that link said in case mods were not happy with it being posted or the poster couldn't be arsed to follow it. You've come in with some more recent figures...good....I welcome that...but we've still got a huge amount of debt

What I find strange is that people still defend the Glazers. Why?

Is it a good thing we have been saddled with a huge debt? NO - it's taken too much money out of the club.
Is it a good thing we had a positive net spend for a period of 5yrs whilst the club were saddled with PIK loans? - NO - as above
Is it a good thing that we have a totally unqualified accountant making footballing decisions? - Fairly certain that's bollocks as Moyes, Ole, Phelan, Darren Fletcher stink of SAF & Gill's influence
Most recent 2.5 years ago though and a poster just after you got the following up to date figures from a simple google: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190214005343/en/Manchester-United-plc-2019-Quarter-Results
so it was a post used to make a point, and as I stated, the point was completely out of date and is not true today. The debt is going down, -18% is an absolutely massive amount.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,880
Location
Somewhere out there
He’s trying to suggest to me that the owners don’t treat United as a cash cow. Of course they do. Anyone denying that is deluded.
Well it might be true now, but it wasn’t an ATM for them as suggested until very recently. For 10 years it was Wall street treating the club as a cash cow, and still are.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,880
Location
Somewhere out there
True. But the owners had the club in that position all along.
True, but someone was always going to do it sadly, that’s the World we live in, where Wall street will do anything to milk money from an organization.
Fans should have been smarter and got together sooner to buy the club when it was “affordable”.
 

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
6,834
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
I get you Revan, but so many of our decisions post SAF still stink of SAF's influence rather than Glazer's/Woodward.

• SAF, Charlton, Gill and co. were 100% behind the Moyes move.
• SAF, Charlton, Gill and co. are certainly behind the Solksjaer/Phelan return
• SAF, Charlton, Gill and co. are certainly behind the idea of Darren Fletcher as a DoF.

So yes, the Glazers are not very good at the job of football, so they try leaving it to the ones who know football, and they have gotten it wrong also. No doubt Mourinho was a Glazer/Woodward choice so it means everyone's had a go and got it wrong.

What we need now is what Liverpool and Spurs have had, we simply need the right manager, who should pick that? feck knows, Liverpool for example made a right mess of it before getting Klopp in, hell even our greatest ever manager made a mess of choosing us a manager.
Have to disagree with this as well....it's not about finding the right manager, it's about finding the right team to run the footballing side and THEN it's about finding the right manager. It's all very well and good going on about Klopp and Guardiola but they wouldn't have been able to do half the job they have done without Michael Edwards and Txiki Bergiristain

IF as you believe SAF, Charlton and Gill are making footballing decisions then that doesn't fill me with much more confidence either. We need Data Scientists, Analysts, Statisticians....not old school 'gut feelings' and sentimental choices based on vague notions of 'Unitedness'
 

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
4,101
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
People argueing about dividends and what not: Reason they did not take out dividends before was due to the fact that the club had a certain debt to handle, and also needed investments in the squad to stay relevant.

The debt taken on by the Glazers to finance the takeover was split between the club and the family; between £265 million and £275 million was secured against Manchester United's assets,[49] putting the club into debt for the first time since James Gibson saved them in 1931. This loan was provided by three New York hedge funds: Citadel, Och-Ziff Capital Management and Perry Capital.[50] The total amount was £660 million, on which interest payments came to £62 million a year. The club stated, "The value of Manchester United has increased in the last year, which is why lenders want to invest in the club ... This move represents good housekeeping and it ensures that Sir Alex Ferguson will be provided with sufficient funds to compete in the transfer market." The Manchester United Supporters Trust responded, "'The amount of money needed to be repaid overall is huge ... The interest payment is one thing but what about the actual £660 million? It is difficult to see how these sums can be reached without significant increases in ticket prices, which, as we always suspected, means the fans will effectively be paying for someone to borrow money to own their club."[51][52] Under the terms of the Glazers' refinancing, as they were unable to repay bondholders by 16 August 2010, the overall interest rate on the loans rose from 14.25% to 16.25%, resulting in annual payments of around £38 million.[50]

On 11 January 2010, shortly before an announcement that Red Football's debt had increased to £716.5 million ($1.17 billion),[53] Manchester United announced their intention to refinance the debt through a bond issue worth approximately £500 million.[54] They managed to raise £504 million in just under two weeks, meaning that they were able to pay off almost all of the £509 million owed to international banks. The bonds were issued in two tranches, one with a coupon rate of 8.75% worth £250 million, and the other with a coupon rate of 8.375% worth $425 million. The annual interest payable on the bond came to approximately £45 million per annum, with the bond due to mature on 1 February 2017.[55] Contained within the bond prospectus were covenants that would allow the Glazers to filter large sums of money out of the club to repay the PIKs by 2015. These include the carving out of £95 million in cash, the sale and lease-back of the Trafford Training Centre at Carrington, and the ability of the Glazers to pay themselves 50% of the Consolidated Net Income of the club every year.[1]

On 16 November 2010, it was revealed that the Glazers were to pay off the remaining £220 million contained within the PIK loans by 22 November 2010.[56] The loans were by then accruing interest at a rate of 16.25%, as the club's overall debt had exceeded its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) by more than five times.[57] However, the club claimed that none of its own money had been put towards the repayment, raising questions as to how the Glazer family had raised the funds; suggested methods include the sale of a minority stake in the club to a third party, the sale of some or all of the family's other businesses, and – the most likely option – the refinancing of the PIKs with another loan at a lower interest rate.[58]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glazer_ownership_of_Manchester_United
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
I think you will find you are, dividend payments since 2015 is only part of the story

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/oct/04/glazers-manchester-united
Oh of course that propaganda-filled David Conn article gets brought up, but tell me where they are using the club as a cash cow.
  • Raising capital to service debts is not taking money out of the club.
  • By all accounts the debt is beyond managable b/c the value of the club has increased so much and they have been able to refinance
  • Of course David Conn won't tell you the Glazers also used their family holding company as collateral
I'm not going over this again b/c I've done it way too many times. That article is a hit piece and I've asked the author for clarification of his figures but of course why would he do that...

He’s not wrong about dividends but debt restructuring pre-2015 also comes into this debate
The money made off of refinancing events is used to pay down the debt. You do know the Glazers are personally on the hook for a portion of that debt, right? Of course you didn't.

What I find strange is that people still defend the Glazers. Why?
I can only speak for myself, but I have no interest in defending any banker just for the sake of it. But I abhor rhetoric based on misinformation and half-truths. I understand why everyone was upset at the time of the leveraged buyout. It could have been disastrous for the club, but by all accounts it worked out. If you are still upset with them over this then fine, but lets not regurgitate these nonsense stories such as "they took 1B out of the club" and "they used United as a cash cow". It's simply not true

Well it might be true now, but it wasn’t an ATM for them as suggested until very recently. For 10 years it was Wall street treating the club as a cash cow, and still are.
He is almost correct prior to 2016 there is only one year where dividends have been paid it's 10m in 2012.
I agree with all of this. One dividend payment in 10 years hardly constitutes milking the club. The Glazers maybe shitty at a lot of things with regards to running sports franchises, but financially the club is doing fine.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
People argueing about dividends and what not: Reason they did not take out dividends before was due to the fact that the club had a certain debt to handle, and also needed investments in the squad to stay relevant.

The debt taken on by the Glazers to finance the takeover was split between the club and the family; between £265 million and £275 million was secured against Manchester United's assets,[49] putting the club into debt for the first time since James Gibson saved them in 1931. This loan was provided by three New York hedge funds: Citadel, Och-Ziff Capital Management and Perry Capital.[50] The total amount was £660 million, on which interest payments came to £62 million a year. The club stated, "The value of Manchester United has increased in the last year, which is why lenders want to invest in the club ... This move represents good housekeeping and it ensures that Sir Alex Ferguson will be provided with sufficient funds to compete in the transfer market." The Manchester United Supporters Trust responded, "'The amount of money needed to be repaid overall is huge ... The interest payment is one thing but what about the actual £660 million? It is difficult to see how these sums can be reached without significant increases in ticket prices, which, as we always suspected, means the fans will effectively be paying for someone to borrow money to own their club."[51][52] Under the terms of the Glazers' refinancing, as they were unable to repay bondholders by 16 August 2010, the overall interest rate on the loans rose from 14.25% to 16.25%, resulting in annual payments of around £38 million.[50]

On 11 January 2010, shortly before an announcement that Red Football's debt had increased to £716.5 million ($1.17 billion),[53] Manchester United announced their intention to refinance the debt through a bond issue worth approximately £500 million.[54] They managed to raise £504 million in just under two weeks, meaning that they were able to pay off almost all of the £509 million owed to international banks. The bonds were issued in two tranches, one with a coupon rate of 8.75% worth £250 million, and the other with a coupon rate of 8.375% worth $425 million. The annual interest payable on the bond came to approximately £45 million per annum, with the bond due to mature on 1 February 2017.[55] Contained within the bond prospectus were covenants that would allow the Glazers to filter large sums of money out of the club to repay the PIKs by 2015. These include the carving out of £95 million in cash, the sale and lease-back of the Trafford Training Centre at Carrington, and the ability of the Glazers to pay themselves 50% of the Consolidated Net Income of the club every year.[1]

On 16 November 2010, it was revealed that the Glazers were to pay off the remaining £220 million contained within the PIK loans by 22 November 2010.[56] The loans were by then accruing interest at a rate of 16.25%, as the club's overall debt had exceeded its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) by more than five times.[57] However, the club claimed that none of its own money had been put towards the repayment, raising questions as to how the Glazer family had raised the funds; suggested methods include the sale of a minority stake in the club to a third party, the sale of some or all of the family's other businesses, and – the most likely option – the refinancing of the PIKs with another loan at a lower interest rate.[58]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glazer_ownership_of_Manchester_United
Well duh. No sane business owner would distribute dividends a) when they have a have a lot of debt to service b) if they believe the asset will appreciate by a significant amount in the short-medium term.
 

dev1l

Full Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
9,598
Biggest problem with Woodward is that he bases his decisions on two aspects:
- commercial money making - trying to please his masters
- populists decision aiming to please fans
Big name signings usually fulfil both criteria.

However his strategy seems to be sacrificing success on the pitch.
 

Minimalist

New Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
15,091
Have to disagree with this as well....it's not about finding the right manager, it's about finding the right team to run the footballing side and THEN it's about finding the right manager. It's all very well and good going on about Klopp and Guardiola but they wouldn't have been able to do half the job they have done without Michael Edwards and Txiki Bergiristain

IF as you believe SAF, Charlton and Gill are making footballing decisions then that doesn't fill me with much more confidence either. We need Data Scientists, Analysts, Statisticians....not old school 'gut feelings' and sentimental choices based on vague notions of 'Unitedness'
All the same thing. I'd be shocked if we don't have those already - even external on contract.
 

Redjazz

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
455
Location
Scattered
People argueing about dividends and what not: Reason they did not take out dividends before was due to the fact that the club had a certain debt to handle, and also needed investments in the squad to stay relevant.

The debt taken on by the Glazers to finance the takeover was split between the club and the family; between £265 million and £275 million was secured against Manchester United's assets,[49] putting the club into debt for the first time since James Gibson saved them in 1931. This loan was provided by three New York hedge funds: Citadel, Och-Ziff Capital Management and Perry Capital.[50] The total amount was £660 million, on which interest payments came to £62 million a year. The club stated, "The value of Manchester United has increased in the last year, which is why lenders want to invest in the club ... This move represents good housekeeping and it ensures that Sir Alex Ferguson will be provided with sufficient funds to compete in the transfer market." The Manchester United Supporters Trust responded, "'The amount of money needed to be repaid overall is huge ... The interest payment is one thing but what about the actual £660 million? It is difficult to see how these sums can be reached without significant increases in ticket prices, which, as we always suspected, means the fans will effectively be paying for someone to borrow money to own their club."[51][52] Under the terms of the Glazers' refinancing, as they were unable to repay bondholders by 16 August 2010, the overall interest rate on the loans rose from 14.25% to 16.25%, resulting in annual payments of around £38 million.[50]

On 11 January 2010, shortly before an announcement that Red Football's debt had increased to £716.5 million ($1.17 billion),[53] Manchester United announced their intention to refinance the debt through a bond issue worth approximately £500 million.[54] They managed to raise £504 million in just under two weeks, meaning that they were able to pay off almost all of the £509 million owed to international banks. The bonds were issued in two tranches, one with a coupon rate of 8.75% worth £250 million, and the other with a coupon rate of 8.375% worth $425 million. The annual interest payable on the bond came to approximately £45 million per annum, with the bond due to mature on 1 February 2017.[55] Contained within the bond prospectus were covenants that would allow the Glazers to filter large sums of money out of the club to repay the PIKs by 2015. These include the carving out of £95 million in cash, the sale and lease-back of the Trafford Training Centre at Carrington, and the ability of the Glazers to pay themselves 50% of the Consolidated Net Income of the club every year.[1]

On 16 November 2010, it was revealed that the Glazers were to pay off the remaining £220 million contained within the PIK loans by 22 November 2010.[56] The loans were by then accruing interest at a rate of 16.25%, as the club's overall debt had exceeded its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) by more than five times.[57] However, the club claimed that none of its own money had been put towards the rehepayment, raising questions as to how the Glazer family had raised the funds; suggested methods include the sale of a minority stake in the club to a third party, the sale of some or all of the family's other businesses, and – the most likely option – the refinancing of the PIKs with another loan at a lower interest rate.[58]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glazer_ownership_of_Manchester_United
In any event, the Bank Loans (pre 2010) would have covenants restricting dividends (to protect the lender). The bond issue (2010) had its own but relaxed restrictions somewhat.
 

Will Singh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
5,675
Location
Theatre of dreams
The Glazers are business men and as a business we to them are cash cows and they are milking every last drop out of us. We are a massive brand and that's all that matters to them so the football side of things is 2nd in the list. We was being carried by SAF and it goes to show how good a manager he really was.

We need a sugar daddy to come in and use us to boost his ego by winning everything, sad thing I know but at least we will get investment rather then being milked.

On a serious note, if we can get Woody to leave alone the football side of things and a get a new director to run that side we should be fine BUT it will never happen as Woody has got he's tongue in Avram's backside....!