clarkydaz
Full Member
im going off the recent glazer out posters that were all over twitter, they are the figures they propose, eg.?
The club pays about £20m in interest yearly. Its nothing.
im going off the recent glazer out posters that were all over twitter, they are the figures they propose, eg.?
The club pays about £20m in interest yearly. Its nothing.
This is the most incorrect and stupid post I have read even in this thread.Yeah it is hard mate, but i am fed up with the Glazers using the club as a personal ATM machine. We could buy a Mbappe every summer without this debt and owners taking out 1 billion.
Good to hear mate!
If people gave up before trying, we wouldnt have basic human rights or unions etc.
I posted the actual latest United financial report. Its facts. Thats not.im going off the recent glazer out posters that were all over twitter, they are the figures they propose, eg.
Forgot the worst part. That share sales is on that list is laughable and proves that whoever did that have no clue about like: anything I guess.im going off the recent glazer out posters that were all over twitter, they are the figures they propose, eg.
A net debt of £317m is practically nothing for a company of United´s size. From a financial perspective we could carry much more debt, much, much more.I thought our debt was bad until I noticed Comcast have debts of over £100bn!
Good post.I could be wrong, but my take on his post was that it isn't Ole's fault, as some are now turning on him for his promises last season, and now lack of action in the real world, but should instead vent all their fury on the Ed and the Glazers, as Ole's hands are tied.
In which case I agree, and I hope that when the inevitable happens to Ole, then the usual just blame the manager approach is firmly rejected this time, and we finally see some real heat on the right people for a change.
I’ve never really looked at it from that standpoint, just looked at football debt as bad when clubs like Leeds have suffered in the past with a debt 1/3 the size of ours at the current moment.A net debt of £317m is practically nothing for a company of United´s size. From a financial perspective we could carry much more debt, much, much more.
Which is if the Glazers do sell, and its not to the Saudis, it will be to a buyer that finances the takeover to saddle the club with much more debt. 1,5bn would not be out of the question. Another LBO.
So tell me how money have gone out of the club the last 14 years?This is the most incorrect and stupid post I have read even in this thread.
Like Ed said: "We are making money, no matter how we do on the field"Since the Glazers have taken over, the only thing they are interested in is making money, they don't care if we win or not, they know the club will always make a substantial amount of cash
The club has given around 75m in dividends in total since the Glazers takeover. In total. Over 14 years. And thats not just to the Glazers, there are other shareholders as well nowadays.So tell me how money have gone out of the club the last 14 years?
With debt, interest and dividends?
I would like to know since my post was the most stupid and incorrect in the thread.
Let’s correct it. £78 million over 5 years for a club they haven’t spent a penny on. Not a bad. Plus, we don’t know about other payments that they get indirectly from the club.I posted the actual latest United financial report. Its facts. Thats not.
I could write an essay about how much BS this is.
I will just point out one thing though and you can think for yourself: That United commenced dividend payments is because that the club are a plc now and listed on the NYSE (City and Liverpool are private companies). Thats why the years coincide, We need to pay some dividends, because there are other owners than the Glazers now. 78m over five years for a club that are valued at 4,1bn is like the worst investment ever if you are looking to bleed the club for money.
Its nothing, and the fact that the Glazers are not taking out any dividends that matters should tell people something, but I guess in this thread not even facts matters.
Without Glazers the debt and interest would not even be at the club.The club has given around 75m in dividends in total since the Glazers takeover. In total. Over 14 years. And thats not just to the Glazers, there are other shareholders as well nowadays.
So that is how much money has gone out of the club.
How is that the club being an ATM and how is 75m in dividends over 14 year going to buy us an Mbappe every year?
Interest is a financial cost, nothing else. If that is money leaving the club, then so is wages for the players and cost for food at Carrington.
Debt of course is nothing of the sorts and by even involving debt in the conversation answers your own question about stupidity and incorrectness.
okay but how much cost?The club has given around 75m in dividends in total since the Glazers takeover. In total. Over 14 years. And thats not just to the Glazers, there are other shareholders as well nowadays.
So that is how much money has gone out of the club.
How is that the club being an ATM and how is 75m in dividends over 14 year going to buy us an Mbappe every year?
Interest is a financial cost, nothing else. If that is money leaving the club, then so is wages for the players and cost for food at Carrington.
Debt of course is nothing of the sorts and by even involving debt in the conversation answers your own question about stupidity and incorrectness.
Its Joel Glazer on a redcafe campaign.Let’s correct it. £78 million over 5 years for a club they haven’t spent a penny on. Not a bad. Plus, we don’t know about other payments that they get indirectly from the club.
What’s your thing with the glazers again?
Around 20m yearly. Its been at that level for awhile now, but people love to add up the interests paid historically.okay but how much cost?
Yeah it's not that much actually.Around 20m yearly. Its been at that level for awhile now, but people love to add up the interests paid historically.
20m is nothing, the club could actually pay the remaining debt off with their own money if they wanted to. But it would make no financial sense. All companies operate with some form of debt.
Really? Please enlighten me how you know what would have happened if Cubic had not passively accepted the offer on the table from the Glazers?Without Glazers the debt and interest would not even be at the club.
That you do not even want to bring in debt into the conversation is baffling.
The Glazers have used club funds to pay debt and interest and dividends. Wich clearly take away funds for transfers. You can call it the feck you want but it is money down the drain.
Its the costs paid in interests by the Glazers since the takeover including the PIKs that the family took up themselves and was not on the club and refinanced with the bond way back when. We have not been paying interest of any real consequence to the club for 6-7 years now.Yeah it's not that much actually.
People are looking for a reason as to why we're so shit, so it is understandable really.
Where do they get the £786m in finance costs from then? Its way off.
The other top clubs like City, Barca, Bayern and Real all seem to have ownership structures where the focus is on being the best team in the world. Surely it isn't too much to hope for that United had the same thing?Really? Please enlighten me how you know what would have happened if Cubic had not passively accepted the offer on the table from the Glazers?
Thats the problem with you moaners, you act like that there is an alternative universe is one where United was bought by some benevolant billionaire that just wanted United to win and win for his own pleasure. You understand that this is a fantasy right?
United was worth too much in 2005 already for it to be anything but a LBO and if it had not been the Glazers it would have been something very similar or worse.
Its the same situation now, the Glazers is the least worst option if you dont want to go on chasing unicorns on the Caf forever.
Not just the focus, narrative, directives, discussions, decisions... everything they project and talk is to be the best.. that was actually SAF’s model.. fecking glazers and this accountant ruined and destroyed what we treasured the most.The other top clubs like City, Barca, Bayern and Real all seem to have ownership structures where the focus is on being the best team in the world. Surely it isn't too much to hope for that United had the same thing?
Why are the fecking Glazers of all people the least worst option?
Really? Please enlighten me how you know what would have happened if Cubic had not passively accepted the offer on the table from the Glazers?
Thats the problem with you moaners, you act like that there is an alternative universe is one where United was bought by some benevolant billionaire that just wanted United to win and win for his own pleasure. You understand that this is a fantasy right?
United was worth too much in 2005 already for it to be anything but a LBO and if it had not been the Glazers it would have been something very similar or worse.
Its the same situation now, the Glazers is the least worst option if you dont want to go on chasing unicorns on the Caf forever.
Because Barca, Real and Bayern are owned by it members. That is not an option for United.The other top clubs like City, Barca, Bayern and Real all seem to have ownership structures where the focus is on being the best team in the world. Surely it isn't too much to hope for that United had the same thing?
Why are the fecking Glazers of all people the least worst option?
So give me a concrete/realistic alternative that is better today and that is just not a fantasy?Ok Joel.
Glazers is the best that could happen to this club
Deluded much?
Of course they're not, they risked the future of the club for their own gain, and are unquestionably the cause of our decline as a club, if that's the 'least worst option' then we are doomed.The other top clubs like City, Barca, Bayern and Real all seem to have ownership structures where the focus is on being the best team in the world. Surely it isn't too much to hope for that United had the same thing?
Why are the fecking Glazers of all people the least worst option?
Ah well. Every cloud and all that...The Saudis are the only one that can afford to buy United today and that is probably the only thing that would force me to quit supporting the club.
Maybe its too late now but we could have ended up with owners similar to Liverpool's, who have done very smart work in making that club go from ultimate disaster under Hicks and Gillette to being champions of Europe without even spending any of their own money. Instead we got the Glazers who have taken us from the unstoppable behemoth that Fergie built to being a side that plays in the Europa League & no longer wins the Premier League.So give me a concrete/realistic alternative that is better today and that is just not a fantasy?
I can give you two realistic but terrible: The Saudis or Baron Capital who has bought up 35 percent of the shares that the Glazers floated on NYSE. The latter alternative would be another heavy LBO.
Any suggestions? The "Red Knights"?
Its interesting that people are suddenly saying that FSG are great owners and that we should look to them when they have had very similar issues with Liverpool as the Glazers have had with United post-Sir Alex.Maybe its too late now but we could have ended up with owners similar to Liverpool's, who have done very smart work in making that club go from ultimate disaster under Hicks and Gillette to being champions of Europe without even spending any of their own money. Instead we got the Glazers who have taken us from the unstoppable behemoth that Fergie built to being a side that plays in the Europa League & no longer wins the Premier League.
Ive seen reports by various news sources that have put out conflicting reports on that issue. How do you know that it was one way and not the other with such certainty? Whats your reliable source?Its interesting that people are suddenly saying that FSG are great owners and that we should look to them when they have had very similar issues with Liverpool as the Glazers have had with United post-Sir Alex.
As you point out, FSG has not put in any of their own money either.
The DoF-issue that we had with Mourinho when he refused to work with one, was the same that Liverpool had with Rodgers.
He refused to work with one as well so they stalled the appointment of Edwards to sporting director until Rodgers was gone and Klopp was onboard.
FSGs transfer record before buying Mane, Firmino and Salah was pretty fecking terrible. Andy Carroll anyone? The sales of of Suarez and Coutinho did not go down well with the the Liverpool faithful either. Liverpools transfer record was questioned as much as ours is now back then.
There is not that much of a difference between how the owners has handled the club besides the fact that FSG hit the jackpot with the appointment of Klopp. We are one successful managerial appointment from being right up there again.
Hopefully its OGS.
Its not like FSG are spending more money than the Glazers, the opposite in fact.
So I dont buy the FSG is "great" just because Liverpool is having current success, one has to look at it much more long term than that. They are in it for the money as much as the Glazers, make no mistake about it. If one thinks that is a bad thing.
So FSG were smart enough to bring in a football team involving Edwards & co almost from the very beginning. While Woodward/Glazers 5 years into the reign finally realised maybe we need one but 18 months later nothing has changed.Its interesting that people are suddenly saying that FSG are great owners and that we should look to them when they have had very similar issues with Liverpool as the Glazers have had with United post-Sir Alex.
As you point out, FSG has not put in any of their own money either.
The DoF-issue that we had with Mourinho when he refused to work with one, was the same that Liverpool had with Rodgers.
He refused to work with one as well so they stalled the appointment of Edwards to sporting director until Rodgers was gone and Klopp was onboard.
FSGs transfer record before buying Mane, Firmino and Salah was pretty fecking terrible. Andy Carroll anyone? The sales of of Suarez and Coutinho did not go down well with the the Liverpool faithful either. Liverpools transfer record was questioned as much as ours is now back then.
There is not that much of a difference between how the owners has handled the club besides the fact that FSG hit the jackpot with the appointment of Klopp. We are one successful managerial appointment from being right up there again.
Hopefully its OGS.
Its not like FSG are spending more money than the Glazers, the opposite in fact.
So I dont buy the FSG is "great" just because Liverpool is having current success, one has to look at it much more long term than that. They are in it for the money as much as the Glazers, make no mistake about it. If one thinks that is a bad thing.
That is one the worst pieces of evidence I've ever seen in a while. The people who write this crap understand nothing about corporate finance. This is what happens when the Football Manager/FIFA generation "protest".im going off the recent glazer out posters that were all over twitter, they are the figures they propose, eg.
Where would the investment have come from? The original owners a) were actively looking for new investors before the Glazers and b) actively pushed for other shareholders to sell to the Glazers. Given this I highly doubt the previous owners would have been able to weather the post-SAF storm and deal with the explosion in the price for playing staff (transfer fees and wages) given their willingness to sell and the need for outside investors.How can anyone argue that the debt has not massively hindered us? It really defies logic. Without the enormous interest payments we could have significantly strengthened consistently but instead had a long period of under-investment when our rivals seriously upped their game.
Some people here are either just contrarian by nature or too personally involved in financial feckery to admit to the damage the Glazers have brought.
I will never defend them as this club is a rudderless ship under them and that is what bothers me the most. What is true is that they have taken a lot of cash out of the club to pay for their investment, money that should have been invested directly back into the club and the infrastructure. But the only thing that bothers me is the directional mess that we are in, that´s all on the Glazers how ever it´s spun.That is one the worst pieces of evidence I've ever seen in a while. The people who write this crap understand nothing about corporate finance. This is what happens when the Football Manager/FIFA generation "protest".
@Johan07 You are wasting your time. The mob wants a scapegoat.
I know the owners had issues with SAF and actively tried to sell to the Glazers. My point about under-investment is in the 7 or 8 years pre SAF retiring, so I guess you misunderstood. As you know the club makes a ton of money (and though Ed and the Glazers have looked for every brand sponsorship possible, other clubs have also seen a marked rise in revenue), money which will always make us extremely competitive, as long as it isn't servicing debt. Not all debt is the same. Paying off 60m+ a year, when the market was completely different, means 2-3 top class players we're not signing and rejuvenating our squad.Where would the investment have come from? The original owners a) were actively looking for new investors before the Glazers and b) actively pushed for other shareholders to sell to the Glazers. Given this I highly doubt the previous owners would have been able to weather the post-SAF storm and deal with the explosion in the price for playing staff (transfer fees and wages) given their willingness to sell and the need for outside investors.
I should also add that debt is usually used to finance operating costs. I would be stunned if the Glazers only used to debt just to purchase the club.
But let's be honest. None of this really matters. If you hate the Glazers there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind until the club starts winning.
What is pathetic is the brainwashed users who have the dogmatic belief of MUST lies and accuse others for being paid and being shills when are presented with facts which conflict their fake reality.Mark and Johan, I hope you're getting paid for this, at least. Otherwise it's just pathetic.