#GlazersOut

[DoomSlayer]

All your pro-Glazer b.s. is clearly falling on deaf ears so why not like others suggested, create your own 'Glazers in' thread?

You seem to think you have some above average insight into the finances of the club. You don't. A lot of us here just cant be bothered to engage you in debate because its clearly just a waste of time and energy. Make it sound like it's just an everyday thing to saddle a club with hundreds of millions in debt, then tell us all we just dont understand finance. Feck off It's really odd whatever it is you get out of it, but surely it must have dawned on you it's not going down too well.

Mate, they peddle the same stuff every time someone tries to reason with them, not to mention constantly implying and straight out calling people to be idiots.

As if they are the only ones that understand how businesses work, how loans are payed out, what effect interest payments and bank costs have on our financial and investment potential, etc. I've done my fair share of studying business practices and economics, it just seems these sort of posters are ultra-capitalists and find no problem with what the owners do because it aligns with their personal ideology.

Personally, I could never understand how a fan of any football club can be on the side of such corporate-styled owners, whatever view you have on how a social system should work. I didn't become a supporter because of the Glazers and couldn't give a single feck if they make money from us. All I want is for them to create an environment that should have used the legacy created by legends like Sir Alex and further build on that. Why should we suddenly become less ambitious, why did we never bother to create the right infrastructure and footballing organisation within the club to compete at the highest level domestically and in the European competitions?

One thing I've always though about why a lot of world class players didn't come to play for us, even in our best times during Sir Alex, is that we lacked proper success in the CL. Look at Liverpool - even with their very long period of no trophies, they still somehow were able to get international players with ease, without overpaying much in fees or wages. They always used to get talked about in a nice way all around the world. Why? Because they are successful in Europe and that gave them some ground to step one. I bet if we had 6 CLs by now, every top player would want to come here and continue building on that hypothetical incredible legacy. But we never showed the ambition to get better players, even in SAF's years when we dominated the league. For the Glazers it was more than enough that we were winning in England as it was fast becoming the most famous football division in the world. They put all their bets on the fact that United will get incredible amounts of money from the exposure the league was getting and it worked.

Whilst the other top teams were building strong foundations and structures behind the scenes, that would ensure the future of their clubs, no matter who the manager is or what players are in the squad. Sir Alex left, Gill left and we crumbled. We should have appointed any top or modern-thinking manager then, given them £200-£300 million in the first 2 years to add exciting new players, use the old guard to make sure the culture of the club is passed down and keep City, Liverpool, Chelsea and the rest of our rivals in check. Currently we have to play catch-up, everyone knows how incompetent and visionless our board is and take us to the cleaners for any sort of deal. Most players don't want to come here, unless we offer insane wages, signing bonuses and agent fees. This is the reality and has nothing to do with cycles. We were the top dogs and we fecked it up. Now it's a long and hard way to get up there, regardless of the amount of money we make, have or whatever other bullshit someone will use as an excuse.

 

[Dec9003]

I was suggesting that you were so funny you should be on a stage. But then you knew that.

Yeah because i'd be wasting my time on here with the commoners and underclass if I was Avram, or any of the Glazers for that matter, nah i'd just pay people to do it for me.

Well that's just the kind of excuse you'd come up with if you were Avram, Avram.

 

[InspiRED]

The debt figures have been refuted countless times (and what you posted isn't from a reputable source). It's your choice to ignore them. Selling shares do not count as taking money out of the club, since you are giving up equity. This is common knowledge. Here is a video explaining why the debt isn't an issue in the long term. Here is an article from the BBC explaining that proceeds from the share sales were used to pay off some of the debt. All this stuff is extremely easy to fact check, but of course nobody cares to.

For the record, I couldn't care less about the Glazers. I just find it remarkable that some of you would rather peddle half-truths and lies just to push an agenda. It's quite sad that a person is called a Glazer supporter b/c they fact check. Carry on with your crusade though.

You seem to be another one who has a hard time wrapping your head around the fact that selling shares to pay off debt is just anpther way of servixing debt. If I sell my car to pay off a loan, am I richer? Or am I still in the same position as before but minus a car? So taking money out of the club is exactly what it is. It's not being used to invest in the business, in the stadium, in players. It's paying off debt and the interest accrued on that debt. is It really that hard to understand? As for your little video why the debts not a problem, nah I'm alright ta. Debt is debt, I understand the leveraged nature of finance today, but I'd rather we didn't play hedge fund style finance with the football club I love, so that a few wankers can sweat it as an asset for all it's worth ta very much. No I doubt the club's gonna be bought by mother Theresa, but the idea there aren't preferable owners is fecking ludicrous. No amount of videos explaining 'why the debt is not a problem' are gonna convince me, so sling yer hook.

Think ignore button is the way forward. I always thought shills were a myth but I'm starting to doubt that.

Edit: An example from 2012's share offering. See under 'use of proceeds', I quote:

"
In this offering, we are selling 8,333,334 Class A ordinary shares and the selling shareholder named in this prospectus is selling 8,333,333 Class A ordinary shares. In connection with the sale by us, our net proceeds from the sale of our Class A ordinary shares in this offering at the initial public offering price of $14.00 per share will be approximately $110.3 million, after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions. Expenses of this offering will be paid by us with existing cash on hand.

We will use all of our net proceeds from this offering to reduce our indebtedness by exercising our option to redeem and retire $101.7 million (£63.6 million) in aggregate principal amount of our 83/8% US dollar senior secured notes due 2017 at a redemption price equal to 108.375% of the principal amount of such notes plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of such redemption. In addition, our senior secured notes previously purchased by us in open market transactions have been contributed to MU Finance plc and retired."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/...61/a2210672z424b4.htm#cm71301_use_of_proceeds

 

[AlexUTD]

How the feck can anyone defend the Glazers taking out £1 Billion of the club into their own pockets. And give the club debt and all they have done is paying interest.

Without debt this club could buy Mbappe every transfer window without getting into trouble with FFP.

I hate the Glazers, they are parasites and Manchester United is nothing else than a ATM or a piggy bank to them.

I am done buying shirts, tickets or anything that the Glazers can earn money on.

I logged into the manutd.com website so remove my credit card details and opt out for auto renewal for official membership and they removed it.. Well i sent them a email, you can opt out through mail until 12th of june, they probably hoping that people dont bother sending emails and just forget about stopping the renewal next year also.


#Glazersout / LUHG

 

[MackRobinson]

You seem to be another one who has a hard time wrapping your head around the fact that selling shares to pay off debt is just anpther way of servixing debt.

This wasn't disputed so I'm unsure of what point you're trying to make.

If I sell my car to pay off a loan, am I richer? Or am I still in the same position as before but minus a car? So taking money out of the club is exactly what it is.

The bolded is what's happening so that's a terrible example. If a private company sells 20% equity in exchange for £1m and they are worth £5, are they poorer?

It's not being used to invest in the business, in the stadium, in players. It's paying off debt and the interest accrued on that debt. is It really that hard to understand? As for your little video why the debts not a problem, nah I'm alright ta. Debt is debt, I understand the leveraged nature of finance today, but I'd rather we didn't play hedge fund style finance with the football club I love, so that a few wankers can sweat it as an asset for all it's worth ta very much. No I doubt the club's gonna be bought by mother Theresa, but the idea there aren't preferable owners is fecking ludicrous. No amount of videos explaining 'why the debt is not a problem' are gonna convince me, so sling yer hook.

Of course it's being used to invest in players. You think the money for buying players just appears out of thin air? The debt is also being used to fund transfers.

For the record, I think leveraged buyouts are an extremely risky, and more often-than-not horrible business practice and if SAF didn't keep banging out trophies who knows what would have happened (see Liverpool before FSG). But 7-8 years of winning, in addition to the Glazers ability to exploit the commercial side of the business, pretty removed the fears mismanaging the debt. As an aside, the Glazers/Woodward are terrible at hiring managers, but I don't know how much of skill that is. If Poch or Klopp were managers we wouldn't even be talking about it. Playing performance is down to the managers.

Think ignore button is the way forward.

That's probably a good idea.

 

[InspiRED]

This wasn't disputed so I'm unsure of what point you're trying to make

You said it wasn't taking money out of the club. Selling equity in the club to service debt is about as clear an example of 'taking money out of the club' as it's possible to get.

The bolded is what's happening so that's a terrible example. If a private company sells 20% equity in exchange for £1m and they are worth £5, are they poorer?

*If a private company sells 20% equity in exchange for £1m and the £1m goes towards servicing debt. are they poorer? Well they have less debt, but they also have 20% less company. If it was an unnecessary debt in the first place. Are they poorer? Of course they fecking are. * i'll ignore the worth £5 bit as that's a ludicrous exaggeration, shareholders aren't that dumb.

Of course it's being used to invest in players. You think the money for buying players just appears out of thin air? The debt is also being used to fund transfers.

i added an edit to the post I made with quotes from the prospectus for the 2012 share offering. Under 'use of proceeds' it says: "We will use all of our net proceeds from this offering to reduce our indebtedness by exercising our option to redeem and retire $101.7 million (£63.6 million) in aggregate principal amount of our 83/8% US dollar senior secured notes due 2017 at a redemption price equal to 108.375% of the principal amount of such notes plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of such redemption. In addition, our senior secured notes previously purchased by us in open market transactions have been contributed to MU Finance plc and retired."

exactly which part of that sounds like the proceeds are being used to invest in players to you? No I don't believe the money appears out of thin air. I think it comes from the usual sources, matchday revenue, TV/licensing rights, sponsorship packages. If they are using any debt money to service players, that's scandalous seeing as we are one of the most profitable clubs in the world, and shouldn't need to go anywhere near debt to finance transfers.

For the record, I think leveraged buyouts are an extremely risky, and more often-than-not horrible business practice and if SAF didn't keep banging out trophies who knows what would have happened (see Liverpool before FSG). But 7-8 years of winning, in addition to the Glazers ability to exploit the commercial side of the business, pretty removed the fears mismanaging the debt. As an aside, the Glazers/Woodward are terrible at hiring managers, but I don't know how much of skill that is. If Poch or Klopp were managers we wouldn't even be talking about it. Playing performance is down to the managers.

Well I agree with most of that. Though the Glazers ability to exploit the commercial side of the business is on borrowed time. They are milking the success of the SAF era. The bottom line is, people apart from truly loyal fans are not interested in an unsuccessful football club and eventually those Man Utd noodle deals are going to dry up unless our owners manage to buck their historical trends and actually deliver a successful team. Doesn't seem very likely at the moment. They are terrible owners as evidence by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, as fans we got every right to feel aggrieved at this ownership, it has cost the club financially and in terms of success.

 

[Sky1981]

You said it wasn't taking money out of the club. Selling equity in the club to service debt is about as clear an example of 'taking money out of the club' as it's possible to get.



*If a private company sells 20% equity in exchange for £1m and the £1m goes towards servicing debt. are they poorer? Well they have less debt, but they also have 20% less company. If it was an unnecessary debt in the first place. Are they poorer? Of course they fecking are. * i'll ignore the worth £5 bit as that's a ludicrous exaggeration, shareholders aren't that dumb.




i added an edit to the post I made with quotes from the prospectus for the 2012 share offering. Under 'use of proceeds' it says: "We will use all of our net proceeds from this offering to reduce our indebtedness by exercising our option to redeem and retire $101.7 million (£63.6 million) in aggregate principal amount of our 83/8% US dollar senior secured notes due 2017 at a redemption price equal to 108.375% of the principal amount of such notes plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of such redemption. In addition, our senior secured notes previously purchased by us in open market transactions have been contributed to MU Finance plc and retired."

exactly which part of that sounds like the proceeds are being used to invest in players to you? No I don't believe the money appears out of thin air. I think it comes from the usual sources, matchday revenue, TV/licensing rights, sponsorship packages. If they are using any debt money to service players, that's scandalous seeing as we are one of the most profitable clubs in the world, and shouldn't need to go anywhere near debt to finance transfers.



Well I agree with most of that. Though the Glazers ability to exploit the commercial side of the business is on borrowed time. They are milking the success of the SAF era. The bottom line is, people apart from truly loyal fans are not interested in an unsuccessful football club and eventually those Man Utd noodle deals are going to dry up unless our owners manage to buck their historical trends and actually deliver a successful team. Doesn't seem very likely at the moment. They are terrible owners as evidence by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, as fans we got every right to feel aggrieved at this ownership, it has cost the club financially and in terms of success.

We finished 6th. Now changing into another direction (again i admit) to another fresh and new direction with ole. Give it time.

We didnt win the league 6 years for a variety of reasons, not only bad planning. Everyone involved shared a portion of the blame. Fergie for appointing moyes, moyes for being moyes, didnt give enough time for lvg, rooney staying too long, mourinho wasnt backed in his 3rd year, deadwoods, etc.

The club is trying to fix it, give them time. They have tried hard by splashing cash, moaning that it's the cash we generated is petulant. When your net income is less than your transfer kitty it means injections were being made.

I get why people hate the glazers, and times arent looking good making them an easy scapegoat for everything that went wrong. But it really isnt fair when we start using inflated and imaginary debt as a stick to beat them. They borrowed once during the LBO and that's that, 15 years ago.

Restructure, vision, direction is just fairy tail we conjure in denial, just like we conjure the "young modern attacking manager and we'll be fine", or the "mourinho will deliver titles and feck off", or the "imagine what pogba and martial can do when they're unshackled under attacking manager", or the "all we need is a dof", and many other practical punch line thinking that's all it takes. When all the above didnt turns out to be right we create the next punchline, now its "glazer out". I shudder to think who we'll blame after. I guess it's comforting for some fans that they can hide behind the glazers while refusing to accept that we're indeed in transition after 26 years of fergie, it's gonna take a decade of trial and error before we find the right combination and the right manager.

 

[The Last Jedaiiii]

We finished 6th. Now changing into another direction (again i admit) to another fresh and new direction with ole. Give it time.

We didnt win the league 6 years for a variety of reasons, not only bad planning. Everyone involved shared a portion of the blame. Fergie for appointing moyes, moyes for being moyes, didnt give enough time for lvg, rooney staying too long, mourinho wasnt backed in his 3rd year, deadwoods, etc.

The club is trying to fix it, give them time. They have tried hard by splashing cash, moaning that it's the cash we generated is petulant. When your net income is less than your transfer kitty it means injections were being made.

I get why people hate the glazers, and times arent looking good making them an easy scapegoat for everything that went wrong. But it really isnt fair when we start using inflated and imaginary debt as a stick to beat them. They borrowed once during the LBO and that's that, 15 years ago.

Restructure, vision, direction is just fairy tail we conjure in denial, just like we conjure the "young modern attacking manager and we'll be fine", or the "mourinho will deliver titles and feck off", or the "imagine what pogba and martial can do when they're unshackled under attacking manager", or the "all we need is a dof", and many other practical punch line thinking that's all it takes. When all the above didnt turns out to be right we create the next punchline, now its "glazer out". I shudder to think who we'll blame after. I guess it's comforting for some fans that they can hide behind the glazers while refusing to accept that we're indeed in transition after 26 years of fergie, it's gonna take a decade of trial and error before we find the right combination and the right manager.

Easy Scapegoat? No- they've had it way too easy. We didn't win the League because of them, and ANY success we had since them taking over has been in spite of their best efforts. With "fans" like you, who needs enemies?

 

[Tincanalley]

#GlazerFansOnIgnore. All five of them.

 

[Marcelinho87]

#GlazerFansOnIgnore. All five of them.

Maybe if we all followed suit this could be like a place where all 5 of them meet up and discuss and nobody else could see their tripe.

 

[Rusholme Ruffian]

What part of the UK are you from?

I don't actually care. I just thought I'd answer a pointless question with a pointless question.

North Staffs.

In my spare time I like to bombard Tampa Bay Buccaneers forums with messages telling their fans what morons they are for being unhappy with their owners.

 

[Sky1981]

Maybe if we all followed suit this could be like a place where all 5 of them meet up and discuss and nobody else could see their tripe.

Or the 20 people protesting on the ground.

 

[Igor Drefljak]

I'm fully in the get the Glazers out corner.
Not gone to a game in a few years, refused to renew my membership (getting letters and emails constantly) and don't buy any merch at all.

I hate that clubs are being used like toys these days.
Even with the heavier investment over the last 6 or so years, the damage was done way before that. Even now, with the money we make, we under invest.
We've been terrible on the pitch for years, but Ed has stayed in the exact same position throughout....
He brings money into the club, so they're happy, they don't care about the footballing side of this club at all.

They'll bleed us for as long as they can before moving on.

 

[Andersonson]

#GlazerFansOnIgnore. All five of them.

Why are you on a forum? If people disagree with you, you ignore them? Seems like you should be on a facebook-group, not a forum mate

 

[Saffron]

Why are you on a forum? If people disagree with you, you ignore them? Seems like you should be on a facebook-group, not a forum mate

Because it’s like arguing with someone with a world view so fundamentally opposed to your own there’s no hope of ever achieving anything but animosity by engaging them in discussion. It’s like arguing with a libertarian neckbeard who thinks corporations are exempt from criticism because what they’re doing is techically legal. Or arguing with a RAWK member. Speaking of RAWK, here are a few recent posts by them:

This is the same, bent over the barrel, financial slavery model Hicks + Gillett had planned. Who cares about results as long as the tv revenue keeps coming in and the debts are serviced? Not like its the owners' own money. All you need is a money man like Woodward (Purslow) to keep the money train rolling and a "yes man" manager like Ole (Hodgson) to "steady the ship" and keep the average fan interested. Arsenal is being done over on a similar, albeit smaller scale, imo. I have some sympathy.

Shame on the powers that be that allowed these leveraged takeovers to happen at the expense of fans.

If you were a United fan, if that doesn't stick a rocket up your arse to do something about it - then nothing will..... they are being taken for a right ride by the Glazers. That's before you even address the apathy of actually implementing any sort of strategy on the footballing side to create a structure that will allow them to be competitive.... Stadium needs some attention too so i hear.

Torn between laughing at how that club and its fans are being dry-bummed by the Glazers, and my automatic hatred for parasitic greedy corporate shithouses like the Glazers.

Laughed your fecking arses off at us for protesting, marching, walking out on games and becoming internet warriors, stalking every move our 2 twats made to make sure the thieving feckers didn't take us down, well now you might get to know how it feels.

So if you want the same for United that RAWK wants for United (shitty owners), then go right ahead and spew more pathetic excuses for the Glazers.

 

[Tincanalley]

Because it’s like arguing with someone with a world view so fundamentally opposed to your own there’s no hope of ever achieving anything but animosity by engaging them in discussion. It’s like arguing with a libertarian neckbeard who thinks corporations are exempt from criticism because what they’re doing is techically legal. Or arguing with a RAWK member. Speaking of RAWK, here are a few recent posts by them:











So if you want the same for United that RAWK wants for United (shitty owners), then go right ahead and spew more pathetic excuses for the Glazers.

Could not have put it better myself. For a start, who but a shill could argue the merits of the scum. No one wanted them in the first place. They kicked out the fan involvement. It was hostile from day one. They have ridden the club into the ground. Their support can only be craven- someone who sees advantage in kow towing to the fox in the chicken coop. But kow towing won’t save you. (Excuse the mixed metaphor, but....) Ignore though will save the rest of us from listening to the slurpy sound of ass licking

 

[Wumminator]

Could not have put it better myself. For a start, who but a shill could argue the merits of the scum. No one wanted them in the first place. They kicked out the fan involvement. It was hostile from day one. They have ridden the club into the ground. Their support can only be craven- someone who sees advantage in kow towing to the fox in the chicken coop. But kow towing won’t save you. (Excuse the mixed metaphor, but....) Ignore though will save the rest of us from listening to the slurpy sound of ass licking

A cursory glance through your thread history indicates that when the Anti-Glazer movement was at the peak, you said you just ignored it as it was a distraction, but now you have seen four managers sacked you want them out.

That is my issue with this protest. We've been here before, the name GCHQ still brings out an irrational anger in me. The Glazers put our club at risk with the leveraged buy out and without Ferguson we'd have been toast.

 

[MackRobinson]

You said it wasn't taking money out of the club. Selling equity in the club to service debt is about as clear an example of 'taking money out of the club' as it's possible to get.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. No accountant would classify selling shares as a loss. I mean this is the first I've heard of anything like this.

*If a private company sells 20% equity in exchange for £1m and the £1m goes towards servicing debt. are they poorer? Well they have less debt, but they also have 20% less company. If it was an unnecessary debt in the first place. Are they poorer? Of course they fecking are. * i'll ignore the worth £5 bit as that's a ludicrous exaggeration, shareholders aren't that dumb.

I meant £5M (which is what the valuation would be). No they are not poorer. The net present value is the same.

That "unnecessary debt" helped fund transfers btw.

exactly which part of that sounds like the proceeds are being used to invest in players to you? No I don't believe the money appears out of thin air. I think it comes from the usual sources, matchday revenue, TV/licensing rights, sponsorship packages. If they are using any debt money to service players, that's scandalous seeing as we are one of the most profitable clubs in the world, and shouldn't need to go anywhere near debt to finance transfers.

I'm talking about the original debt and it actually very common. Did you honestly think the LBO was ONLY for the purchase price and not used to fund operating costs of the club? Sheesh.

Well I agree with most of that. Though the Glazers ability to exploit the commercial side of the business is on borrowed time. They are milking the success of the SAF era. The bottom line is, people apart from truly loyal fans are not interested in an unsuccessful football club and eventually those Man Utd noodle deals are going to dry up unless our owners manage to buck their historical trends and actually deliver a successful team. Doesn't seem very likely at the moment. They are terrible owners as evidence by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, as fans we got every right to feel aggrieved at this ownership, it has cost the club financially and in terms of success.

Drawing parallels between North American and European club ownership isn't wise. In the US, it's a cartel where the penalties for losing aren't as severe. With that said, owners don't matter in the NFL (especially with the hard salary cap). You have to have a good coach and get lucky in the draft and free agency. For the record, under Glazers the Bucs were a good team for almost a decade and won a Super Bowl (they had one of the best defenses of all time). They have been one of the worst drafters of talent in the last 10 or so years in the NFL. That's squarely on the GM and coaches.

 

[Andersonson]

Because it’s like arguing with someone with a world view so fundamentally opposed to your own there’s no hope of ever achieving anything but animosity by engaging them in discussion. It’s like arguing with a libertarian neckbeard who thinks corporations are exempt from criticism because what they’re doing is techically legal. Or arguing with a RAWK member. Speaking of RAWK, here are a few recent posts by them:

So if you want the same for United that RAWK wants for United (shitty owners), then go right ahead and spew more pathetic excuses for the Glazers.

I guess you're just a guy who cant handle a different view than your own then. Everyone else is wrong and you are right, correct?

 

[Rusholme Ruffian]

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. No accountant would classify selling shares as a loss. I mean this is the first I've heard of anything like this.


I meant £5M (which is what the valuation would be). No they are not poorer. The net present value is the same.

That "unnecessary debt" helped fund transfers btw.


I'm talking about the original debt and it actually very common. Did you honestly think the LBO was ONLY for the purchase price and not used to fund operating costs of the club? Sheesh.


Drawing parallels between North American and European club ownership isn't wise. In the US, it's a cartel where the penalties for losing aren't as severe. With that said, owners don't matter in the NFL (especially with the hard salary cap). You have to have a good coach and get lucky in the draft and free agency. For the record, under Glazers the Bucs were a good team for almost a decade and won a Super Bowl (they had one of the best defenses of all time). They have been one of the worst drafters of talent in the last 10 or so years in the NFL. That's squarely on the GM and coaches.

Simple question - Is it true that the Glazers’ takeover has drained United of more than £1bn in interest, costs, fees and dividends since 2005?

 

[Pearl of Wisdom]

The bolded is what's happening so that's a terrible example. If a private company sells 20% equity in exchange for £1m and they are worth £5, are they poorer?


Of course it's being used to invest in players. You think the money for buying players just appears out of thin air? The debt is also being used to fund transfers.

For the record, I think leveraged buyouts are an extremely risky, and more often-than-not horrible business practice and if SAF didn't keep banging out trophies who knows what would have happened (see Liverpool before FSG). But 7-8 years of winning, in addition to the Glazers ability to exploit the commercial side of the business, pretty removed the fears mismanaging the debt. As an aside, the Glazers/Woodward are terrible at hiring managers, but I don't know how much of skill that is. If Poch or Klopp were managers we wouldn't even be talking about it. Playing performance is down to the managers.

If anyone, business or private sells £5 worth of anything for £1m they have made exceptionally serious money..How can paying profits towards interest on borrowed money make you anything but poorer? It may come across as money payed to reduce the debt, but then when you factor in refinancing and new loans..we are in the realms of 'investment banking'.
This is the crux of the problem..
We are shite at picking managers because the decisions are made by a banker who has no professional football qualification in any way.
You put an investment banker in charge of the biggest most successful football team in Britain, and in just a few years he will make the club terrible at football and complex from a financial perspective who serves the bank first and foremost.

If Woodward is here whilst we are in debt to J P Morgan (owned by the bank), is it in his interests to pay over the odds for players and switch out the managers after under investing in them, in order to maintain the banks claws into the club as we cannot repay the debt, but rather keep accruing more and more debt through refinancing and interest payments?
It looks to me, more like the bank owns MUFC and the Glazers are just a front for the banks, and the corporate fetus is the bankers man ensuring that the status quo remains..success in very small increments, but not too much. League finishes of 5th-6th for a debt increase, 4th - 2nd for club exposure and further marketing of the brand.

 

[Pearl of Wisdom]

I think this pretty much sums up where I sit if I'm honest.

We'll just get more of the same with new owners most likely.

Folks crying out for Saudi sugar Daddy owners haven't a fecking clue what their talking about cause they haven't bothered their arse to look at City's financials either.

City owe £300m in deferred payments and sold £200m in shares about 2 years back, but they are saints to our supporters. There's £500m down the swanny and that's before their books are really looked at.

It's going to rear its head, City are into all kinds of questionable practices. I mean there's already plenty of talk about a Champions League ban, but the anti glazer sort will blow smoke up their backside and suggest that's the route we should take?

Re: the bolded part.
We will if the club is continued to be run by an investment banker.
This is not business management as he has been taught in university, this is football, a sport, where money means nothing when the whistle is blown until the final whistle is blown. He has no clue what so ever about on field success, but worry ye not..Just let him keep on running the show..he might get it right one day. (we'll most likely be crap with someone else anyway, say the ultimate pessimists)
In 24 years time,when we still have not been successful in 30 years, and the banks have extracted lots of £Billions from our fans hard earned cash with endless false dawns and most likely 20 odd managers by then. Will you still be supporting MUFC?



Who does city owe this £500 m too?
Their owners have family assets of over £1 trillion..I'll type it out to grasp the reality of the figures 1,000,000,000,000.00
Why would they need to borrow anything?
Perhaps they are moving money to by-pass FFP?

 

[The Last Jedaiiii]

Re: the bolded part.
We will if the club is continued to be run by an investment banker.
This is not business management as he has been taught in university, this is football, a sport, where money means nothing when the whistle is blown until the final whistle is blown. He has no clue what so ever about on field success, but worry ye not..Just let him keep on running the show..he might get it right one day. (we'll most likely be crap with someone else anyway, say the ultimate pessimists)
In 24 years time,when we still have not been successful in 30 years, and the banks have extracted lots of £Billions from our fans hard earned cash with endless false dawns and most likely 20 odd managers by then. Will you still be supporting MUFC?



Who does city owe this £500 m too?
Their owners have family assets of over £1 trillion..I'll type it out to grasp the reality of the figures 1,000,000,000,000.00
Why would they need to borrow anything?
Perhaps they are moving money to by-pass FFP?

The Glazer apologists really sicken me

 

[DoomSlayer]

A cursory glance through your thread history indicates that when the Anti-Glazer movement was at the peak, you said you just ignored it as it was a distraction, but now you have seen four managers sacked you want them out.

That is my issue with this protest. We've been here before, the name GCHQ still brings out an irrational anger in me. The Glazers put our club at risk with the leveraged buy out and without Ferguson we'd have been toast.

A person changing their mind? Shocking behaviour, he should stay apathetic and uncaring for the rest of his life, right?

Simple question - Is it true that the Glazers’ takeover has drained United of more than £1bn in interest, costs, fees and dividends since 2005?

It's a lot more than £1 billion but that poster has already denied that multiple times as he believe it's the Glazers' right to do it as corporate owners.

The guy must be an ultra-capitalist, who doesn't see anything wrong in corporations almost taking over the international system, bending it to their will and greed, whatever industry that is talked about. I've seen some of his posts in the "Current events" section of the Caf, definitely one to back the "big businesses" and the greedy practices of some of them.

 

[Wumminator]

The Club have increased prices for members by 5.00 which hasn’t been communicated at all. This is a massive issue and IS a much bigger issue than lack of investment.

 

[Patrick08]

All the Glazer out campaign results in 70m bid for Maguire.

 

[R'hllor]

I just dont get it, this defending reminds me of people defending their favorite gaming studios and corporations owning them, its actually mental.

 

[InspiRED]

I just dont get it, this defending reminds me of people defending their favorite gaming studios and corporations owning them, its actually mental.

'Turkeys voting for Christmas' springs to mind.

 

[clarkydaz]

The Glazer apologists really sicken me

another 10 years without a major trophy and we will still be lucky to have them

 

[The Last Jedaiiii]

another 10 years without a major trophy and we will still be lucky to have them

And it will still be the manager's fault in their eyes

 

[InspiRED]

Ok one more post and then really I'm done. Please can someone take over the mantle of this as this is just wasting my time.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. No accountant would classify selling shares as a loss. I mean this is the first I've heard of anything like this.

This is just... what can I say? Selling shares will raise capital. But it clearly says in that 2012 prospectus, the net proceeds are going to pay off debt, debt that was originally accrued as part of the acquisition of the club. You are selling a stake in the club to essentially finance the takeover of the club via debt. How can anyone not understand why fans would have a problem with that? It's a loss for the club, it's money down the drain on interest, the club essentially being forced to buy itself back. I don't give a flying feck what you think any accountant would make of that.

I meant £5M (which is what the valuation would be). No they are not poorer. The net present value is the same.

That "unnecessary debt" helped fund transfers btw.

Again you seem to be missing the point that debt was saddled onto the club, in order to buy the club in the first place. This is definitely 'unnecessary debt', unless and only unless you are the parasites who need that debt in order to gain control of the asset. So yes the club is poorer, because the club revenues, including selling equity, have to service that debt. This is actually making me pissed off now, having to spell this out time and time again, it is not difficult.

I'm talking about the original debt and it actually very common. Did you honestly think the LBO was ONLY for the purchase price and not used to fund operating costs of the club? Sheesh.

It's actually not common for a football club to be bought with PIK loans, or leveraged to the extent that the Man Utd takeover was, hence the pages and pages of articles about it at the time and the uproar from the fanbase. With better rules from FIFA or the premier league it simply shouldn't have been allowed as the Glazers wouldn't pass the fit and proper owner test. Hedge funds and private equity might get away with it in the corporate sector where their customers only care about their experience with that brand, when it's a football club it is a totally different scenario. You can do it sure, it's legal, but don't think for a fecking minute there won't and shouldn't be huge protests from the fanbase.

I'm talking about the original debt and it actually very common. Did you honestly think the LBO was ONLY for the purchase price and not used to fund operating costs of the club? Sheesh.

Oh wowwww, they used a teeny bit of the debt for a transfer or two. High fives everybody! Aren't we lucky, we got a new player as part of the debt! That is some patronising sh*t right there so wd for that.

The fact remains no matter how you try and spin it. The club was saddled with the debt of its own takeover which made it comparatively poorer than it would have been without the takeover. It is being used in the same way hedge funds use assets, to be sweated for all it is worth, as a cash cow. Nothing you say will change this. Saying we should be glad it's the Glazers and not other owners is the same as saying "well it sure sucks to have HIV, but I'm sure as sh*t glad it ain't meningitis!".

With that I'm really done. I don't like being offensive, but you are either a) dumb b) a shill or c) some kind of odd cheerleader for 'casino capitalism'. Whatever it is this is my last post replying to you. Life is really too short.

 

[MancunianAngels]

We don’t need a Sheikh/Russian billionaire to be successful

The issue we have is that there is no chance of a fan buy out or anything similar. We won’t go back to the model we had pre 2005 (which was flawed in itself). The only new option is a buy out by a billionaire with questionable ethics/politics.

Some kind of philanthropic billionaire, who’s completely ethical with no dodgy past doesn’t exist sadly.

In all honesty, I’m becoming less ars*d about the whole thing. I only go the odd home game on a freebie, I’ve stopped contributing financially to the club. Something that killed me at first but at some point, you have to make an individual stand.

Where do we go next? More moaning on the Internet before silence when we sign a couple more players and start winning matches again. Wonderful

Perhaps the Glazers sell to the guy from Saudi. Perhaps we go onto dominate after spending a billion pounds in 10 years. Maybe we just abandon anything that made the club unique. It’s basically the Glazers or that. Lovely

 

[MancunianAngels]

The Club have increased prices for members by 5.00 which hasn’t been communicated at all. This is a massive issue and IS a much bigger issue than lack of investment.

Yep. The club then wonders why the atmosphere is rubbish.

 

[VP]

The Club have increased prices for members by 5.00 which hasn’t been communicated at all. This is a massive issue and IS a much bigger issue than lack of investment.

The biggest issue is the Glazer's poisonous ownership. It's their greed causing both ticket price increases and lack of investment

 

[CG1010]

+1. They have turned the whole club into just a money making unit from owners to managers to players.

 

[MackRobinson]

This is just... what can I say? Selling shares will raise capital. But it clearly says in that 2012 prospectus, the net proceeds are going to pay off debt, debt that was originally accrued as part of the acquisition of the club. You are selling a stake in the club to essentially finance the takeover of the club via debt. How can anyone not understand why fans would have a problem with that? It's a loss for the club, it's money down the drain on interest, the club essentially being forced to buy itself back. I don't give a flying feck what you think any accountant would make of that.

That bolded really isn't the point. You said selling shares was taking money out of the club, which is false. Like you just said, it's used to raise working capital and that is not "taking money out of the club". It seems like you don't even know what it means.

Again you seem to be missing the point that debt was saddled onto the club, in order to buy the club in the first place. This is definitely 'unnecessary debt', unless and only unless you are the parasites who need that debt in order to gain control of the asset. So yes the club is poorer, because the club revenues, including selling equity, have to service that debt. This is actually making me pissed off now, having to spell this out time and time again, it is not difficult.

You are missing the point that the debt is also used to fund investments in labor and capital (player purchases and the ability to do commercial deals). For some reason you think this money comes from thin air. The clubs increased revenues are also a function of these investments (to what degree is unknown) and you're certifiable insane if you think the money used for interest payments would have been available for transfers.

It's actually not common for a football club to be bought with PIK loans, or leveraged to the extent that the Man Utd takeover was, hence the pages and pages of articles about it at the time and the uproar from the fanbase. With better rules from FIFA or the premier league it simply shouldn't have been allowed as the Glazers wouldn't pass the fit and proper owner test. Hedge funds and private equity might get away with it in the corporate sector where their customers only care about their experience with that brand, when it's a football club it is a totally different scenario. You can do it sure, it's legal, but don't think for a fecking minute there won't and shouldn't be huge protests from the fanbase.

Again you are having trouble following along. I'm saying its common to use debt to increase labor (ie. fund transfers). It's not scandolous as you claim.

Servicing the debt isn't even an issue anymore. You are 10-15 years late for that protest. Honestly, if you can't see that the debt isn't an issue you don't know what you're talking about. Again don't take my word for it. Ask an expert (accountant, banker, etc)

Oh wowwww, they used a teeny bit of the debt for a transfer or two. High fives everybody! Aren't we lucky, we got a new player as part of the debt! That is some patronising sh*t right there so wd for that.

The fact remains no matter how you try and spin it. The club was saddled with the debt of its own takeover which made it comparatively poorer than it would have been without the takeover. It is being used in the same way hedge funds use assets, to be sweated for all it is worth, as a cash cow. Nothing you say will change this. Saying we should be glad it's the Glazers and not other owners is the same as saying "well it sure sucks to have HIV, but I'm sure as sh*t glad it ain't meningitis!".

You're just rambling in this section of your post.

With that I'm really done. I don't like being offensive, but you are either a) dumb b) a shill or c) some kind of odd cheerleader for 'casino capitalism'. Whatever it is this is my last post replying to you. Life is really too short.

No worries. I can never get offended by anyone who knows so little and that's probably the source of some of your frustration. I'm not an expert in corporate finance (even though my major was economics), but with what I do know I can tell your just repeating stuff on click-bait articles and forums. Life is too short and that's why you should probably argue about subject you know about. Cheers.

 

[Pexbo]

The biggest issue is the Glazer's poisonous ownership. It's their greed causing both ticket price increases and lack of investment

United's ticket prices have been frozen for 8 years in a row.

Meanwhile, in the last 8 years if you remove the Oil doped clubs from the occasion, only Barcelona have spent more. We also have the highest wage bill in the league.

 

[MackRobinson]

If anyone, business or private sells £5 worth of anything for £1m they have made exceptionally serious money..How can paying profits towards interest on borrowed money make you anything but poorer? It may come across as money payed to reduce the debt, but then when you factor in refinancing and new loans..we are in the realms of 'investment banking'.

It was supposed to be £5M.

This is the crux of the problem..
We are shite at picking managers because the decisions are made by a banker who has no professional football qualification in any way.
You put an investment banker in charge of the biggest most successful football team in Britain, and in just a few years he will make the club terrible at football and complex from a financial perspective who serves the bank first and foremost.

The assumes that football people are more successful choosing managers that non-football people. There is really no evidence of this and it's just an opinion (see Liverpool's first DOF under FSG)

If Woodward is here whilst we are in debt to J P Morgan (owned by the bank), is it in his interests to pay over the odds for players and switch out the managers after under investing in them, in order to maintain the banks claws into the club as we cannot repay the debt, but rather keep accruing more and more debt through refinancing and interest payments?

It looks to me, more like the bank owns MUFC and the Glazers are just a front for the banks, and the corporate fetus is the bankers man ensuring that the status quo remains..success in very small increments, but not too much. League finishes of 5th-6th for a debt increase, 4th - 2nd for club exposure and further marketing of the brand.

What!? This is just crazy talk.
1) No self-respecting CEO would sabatoge his reputation so be a 5th column for a bank
2) The bank has no reason to see United struggle. They want their money back.
3) JP Morgan isn't the only lender. United can borrow from other sources
4) Any shareholder of United wants the club to do as well as possible
5) The debt, at its current state, is more than manageable

I could go on but the scenario you posted above is just absurd.

 

[Tiber]

#cancelmutv is the latest hashtag to trend.

Interesting idea but the cynic in me wonders how many of these tweeters actually have an MUTV sub to cancel

 

[Livvie]

Apparently the Glazers are being blamed for the current lack of phone ins because they don't want to give supporters the opportunity to vent. It's true there are far fewer than there used to be.