#GlazersOut

Lebowski

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
707
Location
Collyhurst
In order to reach 1b (dollar), you need to add some of the Glazers money (which they got via selling their A shares to other people) which they used to reduce/restructure the debt. From MUST this is somehow seen as a negative (cause why not, let's go with the agenda), but in fact it was a positive. They sold some of their shares (and now own less than the entire club) and used that money to repay the debt. However, it is portrayed like 'yet another sum of money they drained from the club'.

It also doesn't use any context, like if that money wouldn't have been spent on the debt and interest, some part of it would have been spent on taxes. I briefly touched that topic just a few posts ahead.

Finally, it doesn't measure their (undeniable) contribution in the financial growth of the club. Just check the sheets, out commercial income had stagnated before them, and our advertisement department has 2 employees. Now, it is on the hundreds. Obviously, some other owner might have done the same, but it is unlikely that the previous owners would have managed to do this, considering that a) they were clueless; b) they were clueless; c) they were clueless and d) their strategy was Nike + vodafone and nothing else.

Don't get me wrong, all things considered, there was a gigantic amount of money that was drained from the club. Just that it wasn't 1b; some of that money would have been paid in taxes instead of interest payment; Glazers contributed in growing (financially) the club. Now, it is hard to guesstimate how much money was spent because of Glazers (as in remove interest, debt and divident payment, add taxes) but for sure it has to be in the hundreds of millions. Just that nowhere close to a billion. And the equation becomes impossible, if you also add into account Glazers contribution to the growth of the club and that the PLC also got dividents.
I think $1b is actually a pretty conservative estimate. As far as I can tell it is a simple calculation of the costs directly associated with the Glazer's ownership (debt, debt restructure, interest repayments, director remuneration, dividends). It doesn't include things that most comprehensive costing exercises would though, such as the full cost of finance and, more crucially, the damage/opportunity cost associated with the takeover.

For example you cite the Glazer's expansion of our commercial revenue, and it is true that commercially our turnover greatly exceeds what it was when they took over. That is the sort of contribution that would be included in a full costing exercise, but so would the lost opportunity of having hundreds of millions of pounds that would have been available to spend on players, the stadium, facilities, marketing and so on.

I would like to see a comprehensive costing of the Glazer takeover done however for obvious reasons this will not be something they would allow. I would speculate that the final figure is probably higher than the $1b that has become the most commonly cited figure.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,657
In order to reach 1b (dollar), you need to add some of the Glazers money (which they got via selling their A shares to other people) which they used to reduce/restructure the debt. From MUST this is somehow seen as a negative (cause why not, let's go with the agenda), but in fact it was a positive. They sold some of their shares (and now own less than the entire club) and used that money to repay the debt. However, it is portrayed like 'yet another sum of money they drained from the club'.

It also doesn't use any context, like if that money wouldn't have been spent on the debt and interest, some part of it would have been spent on taxes. I briefly touched that topic just a few posts ahead.

Finally, it doesn't measure their (undeniable) contribution in the financial growth of the club. Just check the sheets, out commercial income had stagnated before them, and our advertisement department has 2 employees. Now, it is on the hundreds. Obviously, some other owner might have done the same, but it is unlikely that the previous owners would have managed to do this, considering that a) they were clueless; b) they were clueless; c) they were clueless and d) their strategy was Nike + vodafone and nothing else.

Don't get me wrong, all things considered, there was a gigantic amount of money that was drained from the club. Just that it wasn't 1b; some of that money would have been paid in taxes instead of interest payment; Glazers contributed in growing (financially) the club. Now, it is hard to guesstimate how much money was spent because of Glazers (as in remove interest, debt and divident payment, add taxes) but for sure it has to be in the hundreds of millions. Just that nowhere close to a billion. And the equation becomes impossible, if you also add into account Glazers contribution to the growth of the club and that the PLC also got dividents.

I'll say what I have always said that Glazers are better than PLC, and that since the debt was restructured, financial wise they have done a superb job (I think only City and Barca have outspent us since SAF left in transfers, and only Barca in salaries). At the same time, they were bad in the first 5 years (where we were paying 62m in interest payments, while having less than 300m revenue). The main problem I have with them is that they seem to be clueless on running the club (which is done via their employees like Woodward), and as a result, despite that we are spending on pair with the richest clubs (right there with City, Barca and PSG, more than Madrid, Juve and Liverpool), we are not even a top 10 club in Europe. If the criticism starts getting addressed there instead of on myths (or in the past), then I am all in.

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose the average fan wouldn't know the in depth financials like you have described, and I include myself in that.

But like you, the BIGGEST problem Glazer's have is that the sporting side of things have really gone bad. We all understand as a club we're not going to go bust anytime soon or anything like that but it's the in competency of Ed that has ignited all this. Like all our managers since Ed has taken over, they keep saying the club is run as Manchester United business club, rather than Manchester United Football Club.

But the buck will stop with the Glazer's, as they are the one's in charge and have the power to make the changes.
 

Giggsyking

Full Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
8,483
Why shouldn't they moan?

There aren't many realistic alternatives owner wise granted. But an annoying #glazersout campaign that spills out onto sponsors and generally disrupts their business to some degree, would at least exert some pressure on the board to focus their strategies around the running of a successful football club and not just a brand to be commercially maxed out.

Feels strange to explain that fans are probably the most important stakeholders in a club regardless of owners. Even if I didn't agree with the #glazersout campaign, I don't see what there is to be gained from trying to derail it. Just so some people can impress us because they know what a class B share is I reckon.
This.
Have been saying that for a long time, I cant understand how people here have it difficult to understand that the club's biggest and most important shareholders are the fans.
 

RedPhil1957

Full Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
5,609
Location
lincs.
I have one question to put if its Glazers out then who comes in?
As far as I know only the Knights, who in my opinion would have completely wrecked the club, and possibly the Saudi's have shown any interest. Very few people in the world can splash 2billion+ to buy a football club and why would they? So far the glazers have shown very no interest in selling and if they did we easily might well be in a far worse position than now.
 

reddevilchennai

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2019
Messages
725
I have one question to put if its Glazers out then who comes in?
As far as I know only the Knights, who in my opinion would have completely wrecked the club, and possibly the Saudi's have shown any interest. Very few people in the world can splash 2billion+ to buy a football club and why would they? So far the glazers have shown very no interest in selling and if they did we easily might well be in a far worse position than now.
They will sell in 5 years once they have fecked up our club and when market value for the club falls down massively.
 

Moriarty

Full Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
19,066
Location
Reichenbach Falls
I have one question to put if its Glazers out then who comes in?
As far as I know only the Knights, who in my opinion would have completely wrecked the club, and possibly the Saudi's have shown any interest. Very few people in the world can splash 2billion+ to buy a football club and why would they? So far the glazers have shown very no interest in selling and if they did we easily might well be in a far worse position than now.
They're not exactly queuing up to buy us are they? Names get bandied about, the Saudis, some rich bloke or other, but, as far as I know, the Glazers have never given any sort of hint that they might sell. But, in the world of business, everything has its price and if they did part company with the club, we as fans would have little or no say in who the new owners would be but you'd have to think it would be an oil state.

For all the campaigns, Green & Gold to #Glazersout, they have remained aloof. They don't say much about what their plans are for the club and I can't remember an interview along these lines since Joel Glazer gave one over ten years ago. Sure, we might be worse off with a new owner, but the other side of that coin is we might be better off. No one can say.
 

buckooo1978

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
13,764
well said!!


nice to hear someone speak out on answering the fans on MUTV no less!
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Say something repeatedly, and it becomes the truth. Debt is not harmful at all, it is negligible (20m interest payments for year, which is less than Sanchez's salary), and most (if not all) of that money would have gone in taxes *. There is a good reason why every company has debt.

Of course, it was totally different in 2005-2010 when we were paying 60-70m per year, while having less than half of our current revenue.

The fact that people still talk about the debt as it was the reason (or even a reason) for us not doing that well shows how good MUST were at their brainwashing propaganda. There are many more reasons to dislike/hate Glazers and to want them out (though, careful what you wish for, if they're out it is either another leveraged buyout which would put 2b+ in debt, or becoming the propaganda tool of Saudi Arabia), but the debt (at least since it was reconstructed) is not one of those reasons.

* We were paying 7m/year in taxes under PLC, and since then the revenue and profit have been increased 5 times or so, which might mean that taxes would have increased quite significantly. However, between their takeover and 2012, United paid 4.1m taxes in total. I don't know how much we recently pay in taxes, but it is likely, that we are paying less (or even) in interest payments and taxes, rather than what we would have paid in taxes alone if United was debt-free. Of course, the morality of 'avoiding - though totally legally - paying taxes' can be discussed to death.
The bolded is the single most overlooked fact when talking discussing why everyone is so focused on the debt. MUST's propaganda was very effective b/c it glossed over the all the intricacies of the LBO while putting out very misleading facts. Most fans doesn't care enough about corporate finance to fact check so it was an easy half-truth to peddle (IIRC they initially claimed the Glazers took 1 billion out of the club by adding in future interest payments). David Conn's click-bait article added more fuel to the fire at a time when the debt wasn't even a larger issue. As an aside, that article is one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've ever read and that guy shamelessly exploited the emotions of a fan base going through a disastrous season.
 

mariachi-19

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
18,616
Location
I may be the devil, but i'm not a monster
So im intrigued.

If United bring in Fernandes, Dyabala and Maguire, do the moaning Glazer hates retreat back into their shell?

It would mean

A. owners have backed the manger;
B. owners have invested in the team; and
C. owners have an understanding that United need to improve.


If you look at the history of the Owners since Moyes, they have back their manager in every transfer window except for Mounrinho's last when he'd spent money on shite and they were clearly no longer buying into his bullshit and he didn't like it and spoke out.

No different to a player buying into a Manager, the Manager has to make the owners buy into his plans as well. Mourinho failed and got the arse.


I must be missing a point here but correct me if im wrong. United is self sufficient. It does not need investment from its owners. In fact, it seems completely illogical that any owner in a business with the profit margins of United, would invest their own funds into the business. Its a self sustaining business, it literally needs no investment.

Prior to the Glazer ownerships, we were a PLC where parties received Dividends much the same way our current owners do. As United grew, so would have those dividend payouts to shareholders.

Thirdly, United have debt which the company offsets it taxation on. Effectively meaning that the money being used to service the debt would simply go to the tax man.

In other words, this idea that the Glazers have pulled out a billion from the club in the last 10 years is virtually bullshit as the club would have paid a substantial part of that in taxation anyway.
 
Last edited:

Denis79

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
7,770
So im intrigued.

If United bring in Fernandes, Dyabala and Maguire, do the moaning Glazer hates retreat back into their shell?

It would mean

A. owners have backed the manger;
B. owners have invested in the team; and
C. owners have an understanding that United need to improve.


If you look at the history of the Owners since Moyes, they have back their manager in every transfer window except for Mounrinho's last when he'd spent money on shite and they were clearly no longer buying into his bullshit and he didn't like it and spoke out.

No different to a player buying into a Manager, the Manager has to make the owners buy into his plans as well. Mourinho failed and got the arse.
I won't, they put us in this mess with their take-over. Honestly I'm happy with the window as is, would have loved if we offloaded more players but that's not easy in this crazy market. What I would want though is them to relinquish power over football matters, until they do that or sell, I'll be against their ownership.
 

Denis79

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
7,770
So im intrigued.

If United bring in Fernandes, Dyabala and Maguire, do the moaning Glazer hates retreat back into their shell?

It would mean

A. owners have backed the manger;
B. owners have invested in the team; and
C. owners have an understanding that United need to improve.


If you look at the history of the Owners since Moyes, they have back their manager in every transfer window except for Mounrinho's last when he'd spent money on shite and they were clearly no longer buying into his bullshit and he didn't like it and spoke out.

No different to a player buying into a Manager, the Manager has to make the owners buy into his plans as well. Mourinho failed and got the arse.


I must be missing a point here but correct me if im wrong. United is self sufficient. It does not need investment from its owners. In fact, it seems completely illogical that any owner in a business with the profit margins of United, would invest their own funds into the business. Its a self sustaining business, it literally needs no investment.

Prior to the Glazer ownerships, we were a PLC where parties received Dividends much the same way our current owners do. As United grew, so would have those dividend payouts to shareholders.

Thirdly, United have debt which the company offsets it taxation on. Effectively meaning that the money being used to service the debt would simply go to the tax man.


In other words, this idea that the Glazers have pulled out a billion from the club in the last 10 years is virtually bullshit as the club would have paid a substantial part of that in taxation anyway.
I'll link you an extensive break-down of United finances. Which show how 750M has been used to service the loan they created with the take-over. On top of that it shows how much they have taken out in dividends and it pretty much equals to 1 billion.

http://priceoffootball.com/manchester-united-2018-finances-made-of-stone/

Now you link me a similar break-down of United finances that says it's bullshit as you claim it to be please.

Edit: I can link you several more articles that show the same numbers.
 

mariachi-19

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
18,616
Location
I may be the devil, but i'm not a monster
I'll link you an extensive break-down of United finances. Which show how 750M has been used to service the loan they created with the take-over. On top of that it shows how much they have taken out in dividends and it pretty much equals to 1 billion.

http://priceoffootball.com/manchester-united-2018-finances-made-of-stone/

Now you link me a similar break-down of United finances that says it's bullshit as you claim it to be please.
Again, you seem to be missing the point.

If that money is not used to service the loan, it potentially goes to the taxman... Further, we paid dividends previous to their ownership. That part of any argument put forward by people opposing the Glazers is fecking stupid. Do you think John Henry or Mark Cuban (two high profile sports franchise owners) do this shit for free or not to make a profit?

United are not a charity, stop expecting it to be treated like one. Sport is a business whether you're Manchester United or Ferrari or Bahrain Merida cycling team.
 

Denis79

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
7,770
Again, you seem to be missing the point.

If that money is not used to service the loan, it potentially goes to the taxman... Further, we paid dividends previous to their ownership. That part of any argument put forward by people opposing the Glazers is fecking stupid. Do you think John Henry or Mark Cuban (two high profile sports franchise owners) do this shit for free or not to make a profit?

United are not a charity, stop expecting it to be treated like one. Sport is a business whether you're Manchester United or Ferrari or Bahrain Merida cycling team.
We are discussing you calling the 1 billion bullshit, the article i linked and several other clearly show how the club paid 750M with club generated money to service a loan they took to buy the club, essentially going in their pocket the day they sell.

Again, you called it bullshit. Please show some proof of your accusation.
 

Denis79

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
7,770
Again, you seem to be missing the point.

If that money is not used to service the loan, it potentially goes to the taxman
... Further, we paid dividends previous to their ownership. That part of any argument put forward by people opposing the Glazers is fecking stupid. Do you think John Henry or Mark Cuban (two high profile sports franchise owners) do this shit for free or not to make a profit?

United are not a charity, stop expecting it to be treated like one. Sport is a business whether you're Manchester United or Ferrari or Bahrain Merida cycling team.
Profit is taxed, that money could have been invested in the stadium that is in dire need of some loving, used for other infrastructure or even more transfers.
 

cfkane

Full Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2015
Messages
368
Be careful what you wish for. I work at a place that was the best in it's area at what it did. The original owners sold out. The new owners took some money out of the business, and many people hated them for it. They sold to new ownership that ran the place down for 3 years. Then they sold out to new owners who ran it into the ground and left it's reputation in tatters. It is quite likely that the place will close permanently before the end of the year. The moral is, don't be so sure that if the Glazers were to sell the club things will be better. They are not the best owners in the world, but we could have much worse.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
30,045
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Be careful what you wish for. I work at a place that was the best in it's area at what it did. The original owners sold out. The new owners took some money out of the business, and many people hated them for it. They sold to new ownership that ran the place down for 3 years. Then they sold out to new owners who ran it into the ground and left it's reputation in tatters. It is quite likely that the place will close permanently before the end of the year. The moral is, don't be so sure that if the Glazers were to sell the club things will be better. They are not the best owners in the world, but we could have much worse.
Meh, those fairy owners are phylanthropist and love united from the bottom of their dollar
 

mariachi-19

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
18,616
Location
I may be the devil, but i'm not a monster
@mariachi-19

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...he-glazers-the-battle-behind-the-numbers/amp/

Forbes article showing the same numbers, how they are milking the club. This one even claims they are taking 50% of all our profit.
Which as they are owners, they are entitled to do :houllier:

That revenue is inclusive of purchases and sales of players. That is the cream off the top of the company. In other words, the club is being run comfortably well from a financial standpoint including spending shit loads of money on rubbish players thanks to the two previous managers. Again you dont seem to comprehend that the club is self sufficient. It does not require that 50 million to be invested back into the club. Im surprised they only take half.

Again there seems to be this ridiculous notion that the owner of the Football club is not entitled to take profit from their commercially successful business. Further, we're not in the position where we are getting bled dry by the owners. Our owners investment is that its allow the club to operate as it always has. There has never been a lack of want from the playing staff, rather a complete lack of competence from recruitment which has started at the Manager irrespective of what people think about Woody.

That clown Garry Neville craps on about nobody at the club being qualified to question Jose last season. Well feck me im not going to let some dickhead continually piss millions of my money down the drain on rubbish.
 

AlexUTD

Full Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
3,929
Location
Norway, smashing the F5 button. LUHG
@mariachi-19

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...he-glazers-the-battle-behind-the-numbers/amp/

Forbes article showing the same numbers, how they are milking the club. This one even claims they are taking 50% of all our profit.
"United have made £651m in operating profits over the last decade, but have spent £523m on financing the loans used by the Glazers to buy the club. The dividends paid to the Glazers in the most recent accounts come to £22m of £44m profit, money which many owners simply choose to keep in the club to improve "

According to the Glazers defenders the club havent used anything almost on debt..
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
8,164
Location
Manchester
So im intrigued.

If United bring in Fernandes, Dyabala and Maguire, do the moaning Glazer hates retreat back into their shell?

It would mean

A. owners have backed the manger;
B. owners have invested in the team; and
C. owners have an understanding that United need to improve.


If you look at the history of the Owners since Moyes, they have back their manager in every transfer window except for Mounrinho's last when he'd spent money on shite and they were clearly no longer buying into his bullshit and he didn't like it and spoke out.

No different to a player buying into a Manager, the Manager has to make the owners buy into his plans as well. Mourinho failed and got the arse.


I must be missing a point here but correct me if im wrong. United is self sufficient. It does not need investment from its owners. In fact, it seems completely illogical that any owner in a business with the profit margins of United, would invest their own funds into the business. Its a self sustaining business, it literally needs no investment.

Prior to the Glazer ownerships, we were a PLC where parties received Dividends much the same way our current owners do. As United grew, so would have those dividend payouts to shareholders.

Thirdly, United have debt which the company offsets it taxation on. Effectively meaning that the money being used to service the debt would simply go to the tax man.

In other words, this idea that the Glazers have pulled out a billion from the club in the last 10 years is virtually bullshit as the club would have paid a substantial part of that in taxation anyway.
It may make a few voices go quiet. But ultimately United have the resources to make those transfers. In fact, if we weren't weighed down by the Glazer debt and interest payments, we could sign even more top players.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,120
So im intrigued.

If United bring in Fernandes, Dyabala and Maguire, do the moaning Glazer hates retreat back into their shell?

It would mean

A. owners have backed the manger;
B. owners have invested in the team; and
C. owners have an understanding that United need to improve.


If you look at the history of the Owners since Moyes, they have back their manager in every transfer window except for Mounrinho's last when he'd spent money on shite and they were clearly no longer buying into his bullshit and he didn't like it and spoke out.

No different to a player buying into a Manager, the Manager has to make the owners buy into his plans as well. Mourinho failed and got the arse.


I must be missing a point here but correct me if im wrong. United is self sufficient. It does not need investment from its owners. In fact, it seems completely illogical that any owner in a business with the profit margins of United, would invest their own funds into the business. Its a self sustaining business, it literally needs no investment.

Prior to the Glazer ownerships, we were a PLC where parties received Dividends much the same way our current owners do. As United grew, so would have those dividend payouts to shareholders.

Thirdly, United have debt which the company offsets it taxation on. Effectively meaning that the money being used to service the debt would simply go to the tax man.

In other words, this idea that the Glazers have pulled out a billion from the club in the last 10 years is virtually bullshit as the club would have paid a substantial part of that in taxation anyway.
It should be bar minumim. We finished 6th place last season. Again missed out on top 4. As one of the biggest clubs in the world we should be gunning for the league and the CL. We shouldn't be aiming for top 4. Barcelona won La Liga yet again yet they've bought Griezmann and are linked to Neymar. Real Madrid are buying world class players in their rebuild. Juventus are walking the league every season and are stilling adding top players and top talent like De ligt.

After finishing 6th we should be spending.
 

InspiRED

Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,603
Supports
Outraged snowflakes
Which as they are owners, they are entitled to do :houllier:

That revenue is inclusive of purchases and sales of players. That is the cream off the top of the company. In other words, the club is being run comfortably well from a financial standpoint including spending shit loads of money on rubbish players thanks to the two previous managers. Again you dont seem to comprehend that the club is self sufficient. It does not require that 50 million to be invested back into the club. Im surprised they only take half.

Again there seems to be this ridiculous notion that the owner of the Football club is not entitled to take profit from their commercially successful business. Further, we're not in the position where we are getting bled dry by the owners. Our owners investment is that its allow the club to operate as it always has. There has never been a lack of want from the playing staff, rather a complete lack of competence from recruitment which has started at the Manager irrespective of what people think about Woody.

That clown Garry Neville craps on about nobody at the club being qualified to question Jose last season. Well feck me im not going to let some dickhead continually piss millions of my money down the drain on rubbish.
Kim Jong Un II is legally and literally 'entitled' to run North Korea as he sees fit, doesn't make it right.

The club isn't being bled dry but it's certainly been bled. In around 2009/10 when there should have been major investment in the squad a huge amount of revenue was going on the interest payments of the LBO. We could sit and speculate about figures all day but what is for certain is that it has been enormously expensive to Utd. This kind of leveraged hocus pocus to take control of a club shouldn't be allowed by the premier league.

There is also this assumption that the Glazers have massively increased commercial revenue and that a large increase wouldn't have been possible without them, which is not necessarily true. The premier league is increasingly popular worldwide and this is arguably largely behind the huge growth in commercial revenues. Woody has done a good job of capitalising on this but their ownership and direction is not the exclusive cause of an upsurge in revenue.

Really who the f are any of yous to tell us we can or can't like the Glazers? Majority of fans don't like them, with good reason. Their LBO put the club's future at risk to line their own pockets so this is obviously going to colour the nature of their relationship with fans from then on in.

The final point is the obvious one that despite being one of the, if not the richest, club in the world, we consistently have finished around 4th to 6th for the last seven seasons. Blame Jose if you want, blame Moyes but ultimately it's top down incompetence. If they focussed on what is required to run a successful club first - especially seeing as they have a virtually unlimited budget to do that - and maximising the commercial value of the brand second, we would not be in this mess. Now get off your high horse and create a thread called 'Glazers in' if you want. Which all the anti-Glazers posters will graciously stop de-railing after 36 pages of petty name calling and trolling. Sound fair?

As for calling Mourinho a 'dickhead', I don't think he was the right fit for United, but callously and petulantly insulting one of the most successful managers in world football says a lot about how seriously your viewpoint should be taken.
 

Keefy18

Full Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
2,653
So the lack of progress has been solely on the management and players?
Largely I'd say.

But there's blame all round from Fergie, Gill all 3 managers thus far and some for Ed and Glazers too.

Hope you got something out of getting riled up by the straw man you seem to have invented for yourself here. If not, your post was entirely valueless.
I'm well past being bothered to get riled up.

Just have to have a good chuckle at some of the most idiotic rhetoric to be found anywhere as arguments against the Glazers.

Case and point directly below.

Manchester United owner Glazer takes out second loan in less than five weeks

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...all-news/man-utd-glazers-news-latest-16648904
The definition of a nothing story.

It doesn't affect the club in anyway! If she defaults, she looses the shares at their current price so if they’re worth a million now and she borrows the same value, it’s depends on the closing price on the day of default, so if they drop she will loose the shares and any assets /cash to cover the costs including interest.

Basically it's in the "Glazer out" sorts favor that she does in fact default cause she would lose some control at the club.

It's actually hilarious, you've folks posting about things they haven't a breeze about and trying to suggest its hurting the club, when in reality its not.

:lol::lol::lol:
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
30,045
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
They're not exactly queuing up to buy us are they? Names get bandied about, the Saudis, some rich bloke or other, but, as far as I know, the Glazers have never given any sort of hint that they might sell. But, in the world of business, everything has its price and if they did part company with the club, we as fans would have little or no say in who the new owners would be but you'd have to think it would be an oil state.

For all the campaigns, Green & Gold to #Glazersout, they have remained aloof. They don't say much about what their plans are for the club and I can't remember an interview along these lines since Joel Glazer gave one over ten years ago. Sure, we might be worse off with a new owner, but the other side of that coin is we might be better off. No one can say.
Nobody got 5 billion with the "i dont mind pouring hundreds of millions every year for the club i love" mentality.

Those rich buggers are all cunning, ruthless, smart, finding a united fans that loves united so much they're willing to subsidize the team is hard, let alone one with 10billion net worth to boot.
 

Denis79

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
7,770
Which as they are owners, they are entitled to do :houllier:

That revenue is inclusive of purchases and sales of players. That is the cream off the top of the company. In other words, the club is being run comfortably well from a financial standpoint including spending shit loads of money on rubbish players thanks to the two previous managers. Again you dont seem to comprehend that the club is self sufficient. It does not require that 50 million to be invested back into the club. Im surprised they only take half.

Again there seems to be this ridiculous notion that the owner of the Football club is not entitled to take profit from their commercially successful business. Further, we're not in the position where we are getting bled dry by the owners. Our owners investment is that its allow the club to operate as it always has. There has never been a lack of want from the playing staff, rather a complete lack of competence from recruitment which has started at the Manager irrespective of what people think about Woody.

That clown Garry Neville craps on about nobody at the club being qualified to question Jose last season. Well feck me im not going to let some dickhead continually piss millions of my money down the drain on rubbish.
Yes they are entitled to do whatever they want, let OT fall apart, under-invest when we were on top and suck the club dry. Prio one is making money for them, secondly success. That's the point and the reason many fans will always dislike them. Also the reason certain clubs outran us. We competed with the absolute best before they took over and dug us in a hole.
 

Denis79

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
7,770
"United have made £651m in operating profits over the last decade, but have spent £523m on financing the loans used by the Glazers to buy the club. The dividends paid to the Glazers in the most recent accounts come to £22m of £44m profit, money which many owners simply choose to keep in the club to improve "

According to the Glazers defenders the club havent used anything almost on debt..
They just spew opinions without presenting a single fact.
 

Keefy18

Full Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
2,653
Which as they are owners, they are entitled to do :houllier:

That revenue is inclusive of purchases and sales of players. That is the cream off the top of the company. In other words, the club is being run comfortably well from a financial standpoint including spending shit loads of money on rubbish players thanks to the two previous managers. Again you dont seem to comprehend that the club is self sufficient. It does not require that 50 million to be invested back into the club. Im surprised they only take half.

Again there seems to be this ridiculous notion that the owner of the Football club is not entitled to take profit from their commercially successful business. Further, we're not in the position where we are getting bled dry by the owners. Our owners investment is that its allow the club to operate as it always has. There has never been a lack of want from the playing staff, rather a complete lack of competence from recruitment which has started at the Manager irrespective of what people think about Woody.

That clown Garry Neville craps on about nobody at the club being qualified to question Jose last season. Well feck me im not going to let some dickhead continually piss millions of my money down the drain on rubbish.
Jesus, nearly fell of my seat reading this.

Not cause it was bad, simply that is hit the nail on the head!
 

Dangles

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
13
The issue I have with the argument is that if we went back over the last decade and assumed the same operating profit level and deducted amounts of profit-sharing and dividends payments owed under the PLC structure that we would see an equal amount effectively leave the club over the same period?

I'm not a fan of the Glazers but I do think it's odd how there seems to be this belief that prior to 2006 we were owned by a billionaire philanthropist. As far as I know ever since the days of the Edwards family we've been owned by people/shareholders who skim off the top. Whether the money is going on debt repayments or lining the pockets of investors - it's pretty much of a muchness isn't it?

I get the criticism but I don't really understand fans who seem to want to take us back to a time when we were a 'proper club', when if the definition of a 'proper club' is that we're owned by people who don't line their own pockets off the back of our success - we've never ever been. At least not in the lifetime of anyone who makes the argument.

It seems as if the real argument is against greed and capitalism in football and it's rather awkwardly been framed as a Glazer ownership issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niall

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
30,045
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
The issue I have with the argument is that if we went back over the last decade and assumed the same operating profit level and deducted amounts of profit-sharing and dividends payments owed under the PLC structure that we would see an equal amount effectively leave the club over the same period?

I'm not a fan of the Glazers but I do think it's odd how there seems to be this belief that prior to 2006 we were owned by a billionaire philanthropist. As far as I know ever since the days of the Edwards family we've been owned by people/shareholders who skim off the top. Whether the money is going on debt repayments or lining the pockets of investors - it's pretty much of a muchness isn't it?

I get the criticism but I don't really understand fans who seem to want to take us back to a time when we were a 'proper club', when if the definition of a 'proper club' is that we're owned by people who don't line their own pockets off the back of our success - we've never ever been. At least not in the lifetime of anyone who makes the argument.

It seems as if the real argument is against greed and capitalism in football and it's rather awkwardly been framed as a Glazer ownership issue.
They forgot that the 1 billion glazer paid goes to the previous owner and some fans who owns a share.

That 750m loan actually moved hands to fans.
 

United58

Full Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,190
Location
Ireland
The biggest problem at United at the moment is the Glazer's ownership.

Looking back on the past few transfer windows, you could certainly make an argument that the Glazers aren't afraid to spend big - we broke the British transfer record in 2014 with Di Maria in a massive window, and the world record fee in 2016 for Paul Pogba - but these windows came after the phenomenally miserly windows of Ferguson's final few years, as well as Moyes' 2013 £27m window that oversaw an ageing squad in desperate need of renovation. Valencia replaced Ronaldo in a window with a massive profit, with punts being put in to cheap/youth players like Hernandez, Bebe, Cleverley and Welbeck as opposed to pushing the bids a few million higher to secure the likes of Modric and Robben (no value in the market, eh?). Even RVP, seen as a big investment at the time, was just £15m rising to £24m with add ons - hardly a monster deal.

The signings of Di Maria, Pogba, Bailly, Shaw, Herrera et al. were made in a desperate attempt to get the club back in to an optimum profit range for the Glazers - they continue to leech money out of the club at an extortionate rate, profiting off the immense popularity generated mainly by the phenomenal Sirs Busby and Ferguson. Di Maria and Pogba in particular seemed panic, paper over the cracks buys - Di Maria was desperate for PSG, and Pogba wasn't suited to a stoic Mourinho system. Watching clubs like Liverpool and Spurs, who earn far less money than we do, perform much better than us while playing better football is painful. Even Arsenal seem to be going in the right direction this window, with an intelligent transfer committee (though their ownership is similar to ours).

One of the few positives of the Glazer reign is that the relative paucity of our transfer budget allows players like Rashford, McTominay and Lingard to establish themselves into the team from the academy - having players come through the academy like that means that they're more likely to give 100% for the badge on their chest, and less likely to be attracted to the bright lights of European giants (Pogba is an obvious exception, but was originally signed by us from France at 16). Look at Foden and Sancho at City - phenomenally talented players who would start every game at United, but with you can pay £70m for a better player like *that*, how confident is an academy graduate in securing a first team role? Hopefully under Ole, we'll see the likes of Garner, Gomes, Greenwood, Tuanzebe and Henderson establish themselves as first team regulars over the next few years.

We have other massive problems too - Woodward's mad game as a director of football has been a short-sighted shambles (the Mourinho debacle a particularly painful episode), but the Glazer's leeching of the club, especially given the size of Manchester United, its phenomenal history and the unparalleled dedication from its fans, has been nothing short of criminal.
 

Champ

Refuses to acknowledge existence of Ukraine
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
9,888
Getting pretty sick of reading the same crap in here, 'The Glazers have spent money' ' the Glazers have backed the team with lots of money'.
When will people realise that's it's not the money that's being spent that's the issue, it's the way the money is being spent.
We have been left so far behind, in terms of playing staff and facilities yet we consistently go into season after season with no coherent plan.
The simple fact is as a business we are great, as a football club we are shite.
What would you rather be?
 

Jericholyte2

Full Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
3,561
So it looks like the 100m story is true:

  • 67m on AWB and James
  • Buy Maguire and make it look like we’re going to spend more
  • Have a deal for Lukaku “suddenly” disintegrate without a replacement
  • Net spend end up under 100m
  • United go limping along in mediocrity
 

Eckers99

Michael Corleone says hello
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
6,117
United are linked with Dybala, thread slips off the front page.

United pull out of Dybala signing, thread back near the top of the front page.

I swear there's a pattern here.