#GlazersOut

[Chesterlestreet]

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.

Yes. There's a tendency to look at the money United have made in the Glazer era and then go "just imagine what we could've spent, who we could've bought, if it weren't for the pesky debt and the greedy leeches grabbing dividends..." but it doesn't work like that, does it?

In addition to what you say there, one could add that the old plc took out sizable dividends too, insisted on a strict turnover-to-spend percentage, told Fergie to sell before he could buy on more than one occasion, and on the whole operated with nothing like a "every penny made goes back into the football club" policy.

We weren't fan owned prior to the arrival of Uncle Malc. Some people seem to have forgotten this.

 

[MackRobinson]

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.

Yes, I hate the Glazers, I absolutely loathe them. But having a sound argument about their terrible ownership is not incompatible with hating them.

What a weird stick to beat the owners over with when the club won 5 PL and a UCL trophy in that 7 to 8 year period. I wonder how many fans were complaining about under investment during those successful periods. SAF once said there is no value in market, but now that is just dismissed as him "protecting the Glazers" (a bit insulting but whatever). Funny that.

Like I said before if the debt was also used to fund operating expenses the interest payments are irrelevant. Secondly, you assume that without the Glazers, United would have had bought these mythical top class players. That's quite a leap in logic given SAF was winning everything sight and the previous owners seemed desperate for new investment.

I've said this before: I don't give a shit about defending some random CEO at a multi-billion pound corporation. What I do abhor is fake news/facts that people regurgitate just to fit a preconceived notion. Fact checking in the information age is really fecking simple. It's fine to dislike the Glazers (ie. managerial appointments, not hiring a DOF), but we don't need these RAWKish level half-truths about the financial situation do to so.

 

[Johan07]

Mark and Johan, I hope you're getting paid for this, at least. Otherwise it's just pathetic.

Naw, what is pathetic is people making fake spreadsheets with fake numbers and then using them as fact.
The latest one which is implying that the Glazers took out £452m from the club in "share sales" is fraudulent and probably done by a Liverpool-fan to rile up posters like you.
The Glazers did not make one cent for themselves when they floated the shares on NYSE and not one cent was removed from the club.
If you dont understand this simple fact I will make it easy for you:
I own 100 shares in Apple worth 100 k in total
I decide to sell 10 shares for 10k.
I am still worth the same 100k.
I just have some of the money in cash instead of assets.
I made nothing on that transaction. Zero. Zip. I even probably lost money due to transaction costs.
How did this affect Apple?
Not at all of course. Zero. Zip.
If you see a spreadsheet like that which is obviously meant to deceive, its pretty relevant to point that out. Dont you think?

 

[M Bison]

What a weird stick to beat the owners over with when the club won 5 PL and a UCL trophy in that 7 to 8 year period. I wonder how many fans were complaining about under investment during those successful periods. SAF once said there is no value in market, but now that is just dismissed as him "protecting the Glazers" (a bit insulting but whatever). Funny that.

Like I said before if the debt was also used to fund operating expenses the interest payments are irrelevant. Secondly, you assume that without the Glazers, United would have had bought these mythical top class players. That's quite a leap in logic given SAF was winning everything sight and the previous owners seemed desperate for new investment.

I've said this before: I don't give a shit about defending some random CEO at a multi-billion pound corporation. What I do abhor is fake news/facts that people regurgitate just to fit a preconceived notion. Fact checking in the information age is really fecking simple. It's fine to dislike the Glazers (ie. managerial appointments, not hiring a DOF), but we don't need these RAWKish level half-truths about the financial situation do to so.

Great post.

Love it when someone responds to moronic, incorrect posts when you haven’t got the energy to do so.

 

[MackRobinson]

Yes. There's a tendency to look at the money United have made in the Glazer era and then go "just imagine what we could've spent, who we could've bought, if it weren't for the pesky debt and the greedy leeches grabbing dividends..." but it doesn't work like that, does it?

In addition to what you say there, one could add that the old plc took out sizable dividends too, insisted on a strict turnover-to-spend percentage, told Fergie to sell before he could buy on more than one occasion, and on the whole operated with nothing like a "every penny made goes back into the football club" policy.

We weren't fan owned prior to the arrival of Uncle Malc. Some people seem to have forgotten this.

This is my main issue. Any surface level fact checking will expose that line of thinking. But it's not about that is it? For instance, you second paragraph will be largely ignored or countered with something irrelevant. Why? It doesn't fit into the burn-the-owners-at-the-stake narrative.

The mob just wants a scapegoat.

 

[InspiRED]

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.

No, absolutely NOTHING has been provided here that contradicts the key argument that the Glazers have been a parasite on the club. The debt has been diminishing, so what? So their risk paid off, why is anyone supposed to be grateful for that? They are terrible owners who have leeched off the club by acquiring it with debt that was then saddled on to the club and had to be paid back with interest. The net interest cost of the loans over the past decade or so is circa £500m. It doesn't fecking matter that the interest costs are manageable now, the long term cost to the club has been MASSIVE. The shills, or idiots, whichever term is more appropriate, aren't winning this argument. There is no way anyone with a brain could decide these are good owners. Their gamble may have paid off, but I do not see a successful football team anywhere close. Get rid.

Interest on debt from 2009 to 2018
42+109+51+50+71+27+35+20+24+18 = £447 million, paid on debt used to finance the acquisition of the club. In addition an IPO was made to pay down some of that debt, and there was some idiot in here promoting that as a positive thing!!!

A lot of us would rather just not waste our time arguing pointlessly with shills on here. Don't make the mistake of thinking they've somehow shown a light on this debate, they've merely done the opposite.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Yes. There's a tendency to look at the money United have made in the Glazer era and then go "just imagine what we could've spent, who we could've bought, if it weren't for the pesky debt and the greedy leeches grabbing dividends..." but it doesn't work like that, does it?

In addition to what you say there, one could add that the old plc took out sizable dividends too, insisted on a strict turnover-to-spend percentage, told Fergie to sell before he could buy on more than one occasion, and on the whole operated with nothing like a "every penny made goes back into the football club" policy.

We weren't fan owned prior to the arrival of Uncle Malc. Some people seem to have forgotten this.

I honestly don't think this is the major argument people have nowadays, but just for clarity they put our club under enormous danger with their takeover, and if we weren't so well set squad wise when they forced their buy out, and hadn't had SAF there to ride out the danger years then things could have ended very differently.

The major crux now is that they refuse to kick Woodward in to touch, and get a credible structure in place, it's just unfathomable at this point, another issue for me is the lack of spending on infrastructure, it'll come back and bite us soon enough.

They have clearly thrown enough money at is post Moyes, but look at us, a mess, they had a great chance with our standing in the game at the time they spent the money to really get us back to the top, but because the wrong people were making the decisions we've ended up in a worse position, and people wonder why other clubs now take the pi*s out of us in the transfer market.

 

[Tincanalley]

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?

Let's see how he answers that one

 

[Johan07]

No, absolutely NOTHING has been provided here that contradicts the key argument that the Glazers have been a parasite on the club. The debt has been diminishing, so what? So their risk paid off, why is anyone supposed to be grateful for that? They are terrible owners who have leeched off the club by acquiring it with debt that was then saddled on to the club and had to be paid back with interest. The net interest cost of the loans over the past decade or so is circa £500m. It doesn't fecking matter that the interest costs are manageable now, the long term cost to the club has been MASSIVE. The shills, or idiots, whichever term is more appropriate, aren't winning this argument. There is no way anyone with a brain could decide these are good owners. Their gamble may have paid off, but I do not see a successful football team anywhere close. Get rid.

Interest on debt from 2009 to 2018
42+109+51+50+71+27+35+20+24+18 = £447 million, paid on debt used to finance the acquisition of the club. In addition an IPO was made to pay down some of that debt, and there was some idiot in here promoting that as a positive thing!!!

A lot of us would rather just not waste our time arguing pointlessly with shills on here. Don't make the mistake of thinking they've somehow shown a light on this debate, they've merely done the opposite.

What? Do you know what an IPO is?

 

[InspiRED]

Naw, what is pathetic is people making fake spreadsheets with fake numbers and then using them as fact.
The latest one which is implying that the Glazers took out £452m from the club in "share sales" is fraudulent and probably done by a Liverpool-fan to rile up posters like you.
The Glazers did not make one cent for themselves when they floated the shares on NYSE and not one cent was removed from the club.
If you dont understand this simple fact I will make it easy for you:
I own 100 shares in Apple worth 100 k in total
I decide to sell 10 shares for 10k.
I am still worth the same 100k.
I just have some of the money in cash instead of assets.
I made nothing on that transaction. Zero. Zip. I even probably lost money due to transaction costs.
How did this affect Apple?
Not at all of course. Zero. Zip.
If you see a spreadsheet like that which is obviously meant to deceive, its pretty relevant to point that out. Dont you think?

They sold shares to pay down debt, debt that was incurred buying the club in the first place. Therefore this is really a loss. From a supporter's point of view it is a loss, if not from the owner's. Are you the owner?! Are any of us the owner's?!

And in your example you now have 10 percent less company and someone/some people who are expecting some dividends. All so you could pay off some unnecessary debt.

 

[MackRobinson]

What? Do you know what an IPO is?

Don't worry he'll look it up on Investopedia and think of a story as to why it's bad.

 

[Flying high]

The robbing bastards used the clubs own money to buy it. It was a disgrace when we were winning, and it's still a disgrace now.

Some of the responses in this thread make my blood boil. Such unabashed ignorance on display.

Yes they could be worse, though not without increased risk of fan revolt. No, they aren't human rights abusers like the saudis.

But they are leeching off our club and the sooner the remaining scum fvck off, the better.

 

[InspiRED]

What? Do you know what an IPO is?

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

Is this an IPO? Is that why it starts "This is the initial public offering of Manchester United plc. 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. We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of the Class A ordinary shares by the selling shareholder." per chance?

 

[Johan07]

They sold shares to pay down debt, debt that was incurred buying the club in the first place. Therefore this is really a loss. From a supporter's point of view it is a loss, if not from the owner's. Are you the owner?! Are any of us the owner's?!

And in your example you now have 10 percent less company and someone/some people who are expecting some dividends. All so you could pay off some unnecessary debt.

I am sorry, but this makes no sense at all. Explain to me how the Glazers floating some of their shares on the NYSE makes the club lose money? Or on second thought, dont. You are obviously a lost cause. Carry on discussing with your peers instead where facts dont matter.

 

[R'hllor]

Imagine they drop a latter like those clowns in Arsenal, some here would explode, sperm everywhere

 

[MackRobinson]

They sold shares to pay down debt, debt that was incurred buying the club in the first place. Therefore this is really a loss. From a supporter's point of view it is a loss, if not from the owner's. Are you the owner?! Are any of us the owner's?!

And in your example you now have 10 percent less company and someone/some people who are expecting some dividends. All so you could pay off some unnecessary debt.

This is just wrong and incredibly ignorant. It's a transfer of ownership in exchange for liquidity. It's not a loss for anyone.

My head hurts reading some of this stuff.

 

[Flying high]

This is just wrong and incredibly ignorant. It's a transfer of ownership in exchange for liquidity. It's not a loss for anyone.

My head hurts reading some of this stuff.

Keep trying, you'll figure it out eventually.

 

[MackRobinson]

Keep trying, you'll figure it out eventually.

Oh. Hello random internet person with nothing to add but an oddly-placed, ambiguous one liner.

 

[Revan]

They sold shares to pay down debt, debt that was incurred buying the club in the first place. Therefore this is really a loss. From a supporter's point of view it is a loss, if not from the owner's. Are you the owner?! Are any of us the owner's?!

From a supporter/club point of view it means nothing bar some part of the club is owned from some other billionaires instead of Glazers. If that money is used to pay debts, then pretty good.

From Glazers point of view it means that their shares got converted to cash. Considering that the money was used to pay debt, it actually means that they now have less money/shares, but also less debt in the club. Which is what fans wanted in the first place, having less debt.

How is this a negative?

 

[Johan07]

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

Is this an IPO? Is that why it starts "This is the initial public offering of Manchester United plc. 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. We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of the Class A ordinary shares by the selling shareholder." per chance?

If the club issues new shares or the Glazers float some of their existing shares makes practically no difference from a financial point of view.
And it does not affect the clubs finances. If they choose to use the money for refinancing instead of taking it out of the club it should be seen as something positive according to your own reasoning.
By issuing new shares the Glazers could issue a Class A share with less voting power and less dividends. While retaining the Class Bs for themselves.
From this summer Class A it will be traded ex-dividends entirely btw. That is quite interesting, but not for this thread.

 

[InspiRED]

I am sorry, but this makes no sense at all. Explain to me how the Glazers floating some of their shares on the NYSE makes the club lose money? Or on second thought, dont. You are obviously a lost cause. Carry on discussing with your peers instead where facts dont matter.

From the 2012 offering use of net proceeds

"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"

Please explain to everyone with your financial genius insight, how using all the net proceeds from a share offering to reduce indebtedness, indebtedness that was incurred during the acquisition of the club, is a good thing for supporters.

Oh, that's right you can't.

 

[InspiRED]

From Glazers point of view it means that their shares got converted to cash. Considering that the money was used to pay debt, it actually means that they now have less money/shares, but also less debt in the club. Which is what fans wanted in the first place, having less debt.

The point is, it was never the club's debt in the first place. The club has had to pay through the nose, to buy itself so the Glazer's can own it. That is it, right there in a nutshell.

It's good the debt's reducing, why was there so much of it in the first place? Oh yeah, so the Glazer's could buy the club.

Some of you are reasoning the way the owner's would reason. I get how they are doing good business from the club. But it's simply not possible to argue that it's not money down the drain from a supporters point of view.

 

[MackRobinson]

@InspiRED Did you honestly just ask why reducing the amount of debt is bad? Please stop. You're having a mare.

 

[Bastian]

What a weird stick to beat the owners over with when the club won 5 PL and a UCL trophy in that 7 to 8 year period. I wonder how many fans were complaining about under investment during those successful periods. SAF once said there is no value in market, but now that is just dismissed as him "protecting the Glazers" (a bit insulting but whatever). Funny that.

Like I said before if the debt was also used to fund operating expenses the interest payments are irrelevant. Secondly, you assume that without the Glazers, United would have had bought these mythical top class players. That's quite a leap in logic given SAF was winning everything sight and the previous owners seemed desperate for new investment.

I've said this before: I don't give a shit about defending some random CEO at a multi-billion pound corporation. What I do abhor is fake news/facts that people regurgitate just to fit a preconceived notion. Fact checking in the information age is really fecking simple. It's fine to dislike the Glazers (ie. managerial appointments, not hiring a DOF), but we don't need these RAWKish level half-truths about the financial situation do to so.

Successful clubs keep building for the future but don't just fill the tank once they run out of gas. And I don't believe the no value in the market phrase would have been uttered had we been competitive in the market in those years. You can find that insulting towards SAF all you like. I don't, but there you go.

I assume nothing. I simply point to what this ownership has hindered the club from doing. Of course there are equally bad versions of ownership or worse, but also much better forms of ownership. And to be honest, comparing United to most other clubs in this regard is a bit pointless because United make so much money and have done for many many years now. This is why you can argue that not lacing the club with enormous debt and subsequent enormous interest payments would have enabled the club to compete and keep attending to the future of the team whilst we were still relevant in the footballing sense. Also, just a brief point, we were successful for years because of SAF and the spine of the team but we could have still been much more competitive in Europe and you only have to look at our midfield in those years to see that. But I guess that's fake news and RAWK like to say.

It's fine that you stick to your guns, believing your side of the argument is the only one supported by facts. No problem with that. I just don't agree. Do look at our recruitment in SAFs last 6-7 years. Also, look at the interest payments. I know, like you say, it's all available on the Internet, no difficulty finding it.

For the record, I don't argue the club has not spent since LVG was appointed. It has. Terribly. So a long period of under-investment followed by a scattergun approach to spending after years of squad neglect. That's how I see it.

 

[Flying high]

Oh. Hello random internet person with nothing to add but an oddly-placed, ambiguous one liner.

I have plenty to add. But until you've worked out the basics of the situation, I sincerely doubt that it's worth my time engaging in anything other than a drive by.

 

[InspiRED]

@InspiRED Did you honestly just ask why reducing the amount of debt is bad? Please stop. You're having a mare.

Hey look this is just for you

It's good the debt's reducing,

 

[Johan07]

From the 2012 offering use of net proceeds

"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"

Please explain to everyone with your financial genius insight, how using all the net proceeds from a share offering to reduce indebtedness, indebtedness that was incurred during the acquisition of the club, is a good thing for supporters.

Oh, that's right you can't.

No I cant, because it makes pretty much no difference to us supporters. If you think debt is bad per se it should be a positive for you.
What that IPO meant was that the Glazers chose to finance a ltb more of the operational side of the business by equity instead of debt, taking the debt to a perfectable manageble amount.
You should really stop now and go sign up for Financing 101 or something.

 

[Sky1981]

From the 2012 offering use of net proceeds

"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"

Please explain to everyone with your financial genius insight, how using all the net proceeds from a share offering to reduce indebtedness, indebtedness that was incurred during the acquisition of the club, is a good thing for supporters.

Oh, that's right you can't.

So no owner can take out dividents from owning an asset without being called a leecher and parasite?

God forbid those uber driver making a living from mortgaged cars.

 

[WR10]

Haven't really looked at what you folks are arguing about but that income statement caught my eye. Quite healthy numbers aren't they? The only severely depressing thing is with our spending (especially on wages) it is absolutely disastrous the football output of this company is.

Having said that - this is the table that anyone cares about at the upper management. Not the premier league table. Our position "Year change" in the premier league table is a healthy (10%) dropping a place every year into midtable. But boy look at that total income year changes. Why would you fire Ed?

The Glazers have made a complete mockery of the fan base and the 'football' at this club. In the past 6-8 years, they've seen the money roll in and have decided to sell the football soul of the club for that clean net profit.

It's the largest heist of the modern football era. Hundreds of millions of 'fans' and people absolutely conned. The commercial companies that pay the Glazers don't give a feck about our football. They get access to hundreds of millions of brainwashed 'supporters' who still think they support a 'football' club.

What will it take for a seismic change? The football club is bigger than the glazers. The club will always churn in its commercial deals because you just have to show up and show them the reach around the world. We need someone at the top that puts the money greed aside and trickles down messages of success not only monetarily but also on the pitch.

As it is right now - there is a complete disconnect. It will stay so as well. The status quo is insanely profitable for the Glazers.

 

[Flying high]

We are talking about a football club.

Just thought I'd remind those who seem to be looking at this from a purely business/finance point of view.

 

[MackRobinson]

Successful clubs keep building for the future but don't just fill the tank once they run out of gas. And I don't believe the no value in the market phrase would have been uttered had we been competitive in the market in those years. You can find that insulting towards SAF all you like. I don't, but there you go.

I assume nothing. I simply point to what this ownership has hindered the club from doing. Of course there are equally bad versions of ownership or worse, but also much better forms of ownership. And to be honest, comparing United to most other clubs in this regard is a bit pointless because United make so much money and have done for many many years now. This is why you can argue that not lacing the club with enormous debt and subsequent enormous interest payments would have enabled the club to compete and keep attending to the future of the team whilst we were still relevant in the footballing sense. Also, just a brief point, we were successful for years because of SAF and the spine of the team but we could have still been much more competitive in Europe and you only have to look at our midfield in those years to see that. But I guess that's fake news and RAWK like to say.

It's fine that you stick to your guns, believing your side of the argument is the only one supported by facts. No problem with that. I just don't agree. Do look at our recruitment in SAFs last 6-7 years. Also, look at the interest payments. I know, like you say, it's all available on the Internet, no difficulty finding it.

For the record, I don't argue the club has not spent since LVG was appointed. It has. Terribly. So a long period of under-investment followed by a scattergun approach to spending after years of squad neglect. That's how I see it.

Everything you're saying is great with the benefit of hindsight. And again, where were these cries for underinvestment when the club was winning?

And of course you are assuming. If you state the that ownership has hindered the club, that means you ASSUME without the owners the club would have been able to buy these top players. The other assumption you make is that interest payment are the reason why the club didn't invest and that SAF wasn't truthful when he said there wasn't any value in the market. I mean your post is laced with assumptions (which is not a bad thing but plainly obvious)

I'm not on any side of any argument. I'm just clarifying some of the "facts" certain people are peddling. Like I said before, if you hate the Glazers, there is virtually nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise. That's just how it is with sports fans and owners.

 

[Johan07]

Haven't really looked at what you folks are arguing about but that income statement caught my eye. Quite healthy numbers aren't they? The only severely depressing thing is with our spending (especially on wages) it is absolutely disastrous the football output of this company is.

Having said that - this is the table that anyone cares about at the upper management. Not the premier league table. Our position "Year change" in the premier league table is a healthy (10%) dropping a place every year into midtable. But boy look at that total income year changes. Why would you fire Ed?

The Glazers have made a complete mockery of the fan base and the 'football' at this club. In the past 6-8 years, they've seen the money roll in and have decided to sell the football soul of the club for that clean net profit.

It's the largest heist of the modern football era. Hundreds of millions of 'fans' and people absolutely conned. The commercial companies that pay the Glazers don't give a feck about our football. They get access to hundreds of millions of brainwashed 'supporters' who still think they support a 'football' club.

What will it take for a seismic change? The football club is bigger than the glazers. The club will always churn in its commercial deals because you just have to show up and show them the reach around the world. We need someone at the top that puts the money greed aside and trickles down messages of success not only monetarily but also on the pitch.

As it is right now - there is a complete disconnect. It will stay so as well. The status quo is insanely profitable for the Glazers.

That depends on what you mean by profitable. For a company that is valued at 4,1bn we make a shit profit and dont give dividends that matters for any investor. Which is mainly as you say because we have been spending more and more on wages and transfers since Sir Alex left.
And its logical because the Glazers do not care about bleeding United for profits through dividends. That much should be evident by now.
To drive the asset value of United is where the money is for them. To take out 20m in dividends every year is nothing if they can drive the asset value up 1 or 2bn more.
I am all for discussing how the money has been spent but this idea that the Glazers is not investing almost every penny into the club is frankly not correct. And I care little about how much interest the club paid 10 years ago. Whats relevant is that they spend today. How is another discussion for me.

 

[MackRobinson]

I have plenty to add. But until you've worked out the basics of the situation, I sincerely doubt that it's worth my time engaging in anything other than a drive by.

Oh cool. So you still don't have anything to add.

 

[InspiRED]

No I cant, because it makes pretty much no difference to us supporters. If you think debt is bad per se it should be a positive for you.
What that IPO meant was that the Glazers chose to finance a ltb more of the operational side of the business by equity instead of debt, taking the debt to a perfectable manageble amount.

Can you really not understand, why even with those eye watering interest payouts over the majority of the last ten years, why supporters would not have a problem with the Glazer's and their leveraged buy out of Utd?

What that IPO meant was that the Glazers chose to finance a ltb more of the operational side of the business by equity instead of debt, taking the debt to a perfectable manageble amount.

I don't think they are bad business owners, from a financial point of view i think they're playing a blinder. Not from a supporters though, far from it. The extent of the 'leverage' in the buyout, is what is at issue here. How much is the club being or has been milked? From those figures you can conclude, quite a lot, even if it is being run in a manageable way now and the debt is diminishing. Despite that, the owners do not seem to have the ability to implement a structure that delivers success on the field. I'm sure there are worse owners out there, but i'm sure there are better ones too.

You should really stop now and go sign up for Financing 101 or something.

i don't claim to be any finance expert. But I know enough to know that a highly leveraged buyout is going to drain resources from a football club if it has to cover the costs of that from its revenues. People argue well there is no alternative in today's world with a club of Utd's size, but the point is Man Utd was in a very healthy position, before the Glazer's made their hostile takeover.

It's completely fair that Utd fans do not like the Glazer's. their ownership is parasitic, almost by definition. Maybe because you guys might work in finance you can't see it and just see a business being well operated. But essentially what it looks like to me is you pointing to the grass and swearing to us that the colour of it is "blue". I would believe you if i thought you were right, I just don't. It's not that I don't understand your arguments, i understand them fully. It is you who seem to have missed the fact that the takeover was "hostile" and unwanted by the fans and did saddle the club with unnecessary debt. Those are the facts of the matter, they won't change regardless of how successfully the Glazer's have played their hand by increasing commercial revenues, diminishing debt and yes providing money for transfers.

There is also a political element for me as someone who loathes the "financialisation" of the economy, the emergence of private equity and hedge funds and the general disruptive consequence that has had on society.

There is little point continuing here but I apologise for insinuating anyone was an "idiot".

 

[Bastian]

Everything you're saying is great with the benefit of hindsight. And again, where were these cries for underinvestment when the club was winning?

And of course you are assuming. If you state the that ownership has hindered the club, that means you ASSUME without the owners the club would have been able to buy these top players. The other assumption you make is that interest payment are the reason why the club didn't invest and that SAF wasn't truthful when he said there wasn't any value in the market. I mean your post is laced with assumptions (which is not a bad thing but plainly obvious)

I'm not on any side of any argument. I'm just clarifying some of the "facts" certain people are peddling. Like I said before, if you hate the Glazers, there is virtually nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise. That's just how it is with sports fans and owners.

Fair enough, I do make assumptions, but I also qualified it by saying there are various forms of ownership, worse, and better, whilst also pointing out that United make enough money purely in and of itself to have been competitive at the highest level in the market during all those years if the club had been owned by people who did not pile debt on the club. Contingent on ownership that doesn't cost the club 60m a year in debt alone (not including director fees or dividend payments).

Loads of fans were complaining about under-investment for years prior to SAF retiring. I was one of them and I remember continual discussion of our lack of midfield for instance on the Caf. Also, people were devastated to see the superb '08 side dismantled without the ambition to build properly again.

Now you say you are not on any side of an argument, you just point out facts. Well, I see you saying "aha, but how could you know that the club would be better run if that Glazers hadn't come in. for all you know, it could have been much worse." I agree it's a fact that none of us know how things could have panned out, but that doesn't mean that the current owners shouldn't be criticised for what is worthy of criticism. I haven't noticed that you are just patrolling the thread making sure everyone respects the truth. You are fighting your corner same as others, arguing your own narrative, same as others. Nothing wrong with that, it's what I'm doing too.

 

[Flying high]

Oh cool. So you still don't have anything to add.

Like I said, you are so clearly devoid of any knowledge, as plainly evidenced below, that it wouldn't be worth my time to walk you through it. Especially since you have ignored the efforts of those with a greater tolerance of morons/shills than I have.

Everything you're saying is great with the benefit of hindsight. And again, where were these cries for underinvestment when the club was winning?

 

[MalcolmTucker]

Everything you're saying is great with the benefit of hindsight. And again, where were these cries for underinvestment when the club was winning?

There were vociferous cries of underinvestment back then. We were always complaining about our central midfield and many were distraught with the way the Ronaldo money wasn't invested back into the squad.

 

[Johan07]

Can you really not understand, why even with those eye watering interest payouts over the majority of the last ten years, why supporters would not have a problem with the Glazer's and their leveraged buy out of Utd?



I don't think they are bad business owners, from a financial point of view i think they're playing a blinder. Not from a supporters though, far from it. The extent of the 'leverage' in the buyout, is what is at issue here. How much is the club being or has been milked? From those figures you can conclude, quite a lot, even if it is being run in a manageable way now and the debt is diminishing. Despite that, the owners do not seem to have the ability to implement a structure that delivers success on the field. I'm sure there are worse owners out there, but i'm sure there are better ones too.



i don't claim to be any finance expert. But I know enough to know that a highly leveraged buyout is going to drain resources from a football club if it has to cover the costs of that from its revenues. People argue well there is no alternative in today's world with a club of Utd's size, but the point is Man Utd was in a very healthy position, before the Glazer's made their hostile takeover.

It's completely fair that Utd fans do not like the Glazer's. their ownership is parasitic, almost by definition. Maybe because you guys might work in finance you can't see it and just see a business being well operated. But essentially what it looks like to me is you pointing to the grass and swearing to us that the colour of it is "blue". I would believe you if i thought you were right, I just don't. It's not that I don't understand your arguments, i understand them fully. It is you who seem to have missed the fact that the takeover was "hostile" and unwanted by the fans and did saddle the club with unnecessary debt. Those are the facts of the matter, they won't change regardless of how successfully the Glazer's have played their hand by increasing commercial revenues, diminishing debt and yes providing money for transfers.

There is also a political element for me as someone who loathes the "financialisation" of the economy, the emergence of private equity and hedge funds and the general disruptive consequence that has had on society.

There is little point continuing here but I apologise for insinuating anyone was an "idiot".

Of course I can. I was heavily against the LBO when it happened as well. It was way too leveraged and carried to much risk. I thought then.
But fact is that Cubic wanted rid of United and they were going to sell to the highest bidder no matter what. And that would have been a LBO, Glazers or someone else.

Thing is now, 15 years later, we had our most successful period ever during the 10 years after the takeover. I really dont care today if the club paid a lot of interest during that period now in retrospect. I would not have cared if the owners had taken the same amount out in dividends over that period either. Which would have been the alternative. I am sorry, but it is a unicorn that any owner would just keep on buying players, etc when we already were winning. Its a fantasy.

For me what is relevant today is that the club is in an excellent financial situation (does it really matter how we got here) and that the owners are seemingly willing to spend, spend and spend. If the Glazers do sell that could very well not be the case anymore.

I have some real issues with how the club is being run on the footballing side and how the money is being spent, but that is another issue for me. As many other here my issue with this thread is the fake news that is spread, which quite frankly is bad for the club itself. Plus its sad to see the Caf being turned into RAWK more every day.

 

[Valar Morghulis]

And now, a question from the "what the feck does all this financial stuff even mean" sector of the forum:

I'm curious about the rumoured Saudi interest that has gone quiet. They are probably the most realistic buyer in financial terms however a lot of people would be completely against it. I'm wondering have we heard the last about them now ie. because of the Khashoggi stuff or do we think that their serious in wanting to own us, and if they do want us, will they be a) willing to pay what we'd cost and b) will they actually be allowed to go through with a purchase or would the uproar and government intereference make this an extremely difficult task for them.

I realise these questions are hard to answer because this isn't a psychic forum, but any educated guesses or predictions on what lies ahead for us post-Glazers? I'd be interested to read this shit cause all the debt stuff and LBO's and whatever hurts my head

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Of course I can. I was heavily against the LBO when it happened as well. It was way too leveraged and carried to much risk. I thought then.
But fact is that Cubic wanted rid of United and they were going to sell to the highest bidder no matter what. And that would have been a LBO, Glazers or someone else.

Thing is now, 15 years later, we had our most successful period ever during the 10 years after the takeover. I really dont care today if the club paid a lot of interest during that period now in retrospect. I would not have cared if the owners had taken the same amount out in dividends over that period either. Which would have been the alternative. I am sorry, but it is a unicorn that any owner would just keep on buying players, etc when we already were winning. Its a fantasy.

For me what is relevant today is that the club is in an excellent financial situation (does it really matter how we got here) and that the owners are seemingly willing to spend, spend and spend. If the Glazers do sell that could very well not be the case anymore.

I have some real issues with how the club is being run on the footballing side and how the money is being spent, but that is another issue for me. As many other here my issue with this thread is the fake news that is spread, which quite frankly is bad for the club itself. Plus its sad to see the Caf being turned into RAWK more every day.

It is not another issue, it is the main issue now, and the fact the club had their best period after the Glazers took ever is coincidence, we had a fantastic squad, and a fantastic manager, who much as people maybe will disagree probably went at it with even more focus after the events leading up to the takeover, Rock of Gibraltar, Magnier, Tabor, etc.

The fact is since the established setup left nothing good has been done, all managers failed, virtually every signing either failed, or disappointed, and it's unforgivable that they still refuse to remove their golden boy on the back of this.

I want them out, because there is nothing to suggest that however good business men they are, and however much they are willing to spend, that they are about to grasp the nettle and become good footballing men, which is what it's all about, surely.