- Joined
- May 10, 2009
- Messages
- 36,724
More for dividend payments you mean.It's a massive shame that we've spent so much and so poorly on players (worst in the world surely).
If we'd done better there, we'd certainly have more money to spend on the stadium and facilities.
I'm not justifying the glazer ownership, just saying what could have been if we'd spent better in terms of player recruitment.
its not just recruitment. Its the stupid wages we pay, overpay for players and cant sell. Hang on to older players not good enough to avoid replacing them. Supposedly Ederson at City is on 65k a week, DeGea is on £375k, Henderson 120k etc. Just plain stupidityIt's a massive shame that we've spent so much and so poorly on players (worst in the world surely).
If we'd done better there, we'd certainly have more money to spend on the stadium and facilities.
I'm not justifying the glazer ownership, just saying what could have been if we'd spent better in terms of player recruitment.
Absolutely, it was disgusting that they allowed it.That ship has long sailed at this stage but how on Earth the authorities (the Premier League, the FA, the government etc.) green-lit the takeover is one of the great tragedies of sport in this country.
We have been badly let down by those who are supposed to be on every football supporters’ side. It’s a national scandal, no other term to describe it.
The debts were put against the owners assets and the club was one of those assets. And the cold reality is that United from the Glazers standpoint isn't different to a real estate investment, United generates "rent" money that is used to pay the loan and a little bit of side money for the owners. It's a fairly common practice.The problem is their leveraged buyout in 2005, how it was allowed? why the debts were put against the club's assets?
the way they engineered their purchase of the club is terrible for the club, the club lost almost 1bn just to pay debts & interest!!!
There is no way in hell that Ederson is on £65k a week.its not just recruitment. Its the stupid wages we pay, overpay for players and cant sell. Hang on to older players not good enough to avoid replacing them. Supposedly Ederson at City is on 65k a week, DeGea is on £375k, Henderson 120k etc. Just plain stupidity
am i right thinking is no longer legal?The problem is their leveraged buyout in 2005, how it was allowed? why the debts were put against the club's assets?
the way they engineered their purchase of the club is terrible for the club, the club lost almost 1bn just to pay debts & interest!!!
Didnt it happen to Burnley recently?am i right thinking is no longer legal?
Interest is not profit for the owner.Playing devils advocate - dont ban me and hunt me down just trying to understand this. If the interest is 800 mill over 15 years is what 55 mill ish a year? Thats not exactly a lot? If they didnt pay interest what should they have done with the cash? Buy players? So they arnt allowed profit? Lets say they pocketed 55 mill a year. Thats peanuts. Large companies makes 2, 3, 4, 5 times that a day. This whole business model looks completely sht for an investor. Why ever buy a football club. You make next to nothing. What it also shows is player sales and especially salaries is killing football. Thats where all the cash is going. 50 percent of income going to salaries! And its all linked to the oil rich clubs and the impossibility of competing with them. There is more to the problem here then simply interest rates on the loans.
Id they never had a loan and bought the club with cash then the money they are spending on interest would be profit?Interest is not profit for the owner.
That's more like it, I suppose. Tax may make this a more complicated calculation, though.Id they never had a loan and bought the club with cash then the money they are spending on interest would be profit?
im going off this, nothing seems particulary out of line for anyone else.There is no way in hell that Ederson is on £65k a week.
I hate the Glazers as much as anyone, but we need to remember that we're competing against a City organisation that aren't playing by the same rules as us. The full £375k we pay De Gea has to be shown on our books because we are a PLC and as such, answerable to financial authorities. City can show £65k for Ederson on their books and then hide the other £300k via their state infrastructure. They are not answerable to any authority so can paint what ever financial picture they like and then pretend all these top class players are there simply for the love of the club and it's deep and honoured history.
The banks. They are parasitic. And i've said it because you show future projections and it seems logical that a franchise would appeal to grow the business and natural as thats how sport is in America. In addition if glazers suddenly stopped paying what they owe ....can a bank take control at some point? Would a bank look to maybe take control and sell on craigs list or ebay? . Its all about the money system that feeds on greed. How do banks lose? They create money or steal a nations property and sell it and would move the damn thing if they wished. It wont go there but this is why nations themselves have to make their own money. To control it and make it work for the people. Right now it's used to make you a debt slave because of the interest on top. This is why politicans dont listen. Once that's got debt that is. Why would any nation allow debt upon itself? To pass the debts...onto the peopleThe problem is their leveraged buyout in 2005, how it was allowed? why the debts were put against the club's assets?
the way they engineered their purchase of the club is terrible for the club, the club lost almost 1bn just to pay debts & interest!!!
In essence yes, we'd then be paying more tax as we'll then.Id they never had a loan and bought the club with cash then the money they are spending on interest would be profit?
They haven’t put a single penny of their own money into the club.Playing devils advocate - dont ban me and hunt me down just trying to understand this. If the interest is 800 mill over 15 years is what 55 mill ish a year? Thats not exactly a lot? If they didnt pay interest what should they have done with the cash? Buy players? So they arnt allowed profit? Lets say they pocketed 55 mill a year. Thats peanuts. Large companies makes 2, 3, 4, 5 times that a day. This whole business model looks completely sht for an investor. Why ever buy a football club. You make next to nothing. What it also shows is player sales and especially salaries is killing football. Thats where all the cash is going. 50 percent of income going to salaries! And its all linked to the oil rich clubs and the impossibility of competing with them. There is more to the problem here then simply interest rates on the loans.
They are also taking dividends. I would have no issue with them making a profit if the club as a business was successful and they were fulfilling their obligations as owners. But the debt only exists so they didn't have to spend any of their own money to buy the club - now money the club generates each year is being taken to pay interest on a debt that is hanging around the clubs neck. Not to reduce the debt, if anything it is bigger than when they bought the club, but just so it can exist without them having to pay it off.Playing devils advocate - dont ban me and hunt me down just trying to understand this. If the interest is 800 mill over 15 years is what 55 mill ish a year? Thats not exactly a lot? If they didnt pay interest what should they have done with the cash? Buy players? So they arnt allowed profit? Lets say they pocketed 55 mill a year. Thats peanuts. Large companies makes 2, 3, 4, 5 times that a day. This whole business model looks completely sht for an investor. Why ever buy a football club. You make next to nothing. What it also shows is player sales and especially salaries is killing football. Thats where all the cash is going. 50 percent of income going to salaries! And its all linked to the oil rich clubs and the impossibility of competing with them. There is more to the problem here then simply interest rates on the loans.
Because they use the numbers provided by clubs. Clubs owned by individuals and organisations from countries with proper financial accountability cannot hide payments from their official accounts. Clubs who are owned by states can.im going off this, nothing seems particulary out of line for anyone else.
https://www.spotrac.com/epl/rankings/weekly/
KDB 385k
Aguero 230k,
Rashford 200k
Martial 250k,
Greenwood 75k
Indeed it has. Which is why I find it weird the way so many people bring up the debt as though it’s “brand new information”. They put that debt on the club 16 years ago. We just paid over 30 million quid for a player that had only just been born when the Glazers brought the club!That ship has long sailed at this stage but how on Earth the authorities (the Premier League, the FA, the government etc.) green-lit the takeover is one of the great tragedies of sport in this country.
We have been badly let down by those who are supposed to be on every football supporters’ side. It’s a national scandal, no other term to describe it.
It says Kante earns 140K, telegraph (Chelsea's mouthpiece Matt law) reported he earns 290K-300K.im going off this, nothing seems particulary out of line for anyone else.
https://www.spotrac.com/epl/rankings/weekly/
KDB 385k
Aguero 230k,
Rashford 200k
Martial 250k,
Greenwood 75k
They haven’t put a single penny of their own money into the club.
They continue to siphon tens of millions of pounds out of the club in dividend payments each year.
They haven’t reduced the overall debt by any meaningful amount in years. We are still ~£500m in debt, the second-largest debt in English football after Spurs, who just built a state-of-the-art football stadium whilst Old Trafford hasn’t had as much as a lick of paint in recent years.
In short, they are horrible parasites and nobody here should be defending their prostitution of our proud football club.
Ok Ill put it another way. If you owned a business worth 4bn how much profit would you expect to make? Is 55 million a year a lot? If they are pocketing 55 million or taking the 55 mill and paying it to a bank for interest whats the difference. Most companies are run on loans before its profitable. Amazon lost money for years before it made it. Thats how business works. You are asking for a business to act like no other business. Pay in cash. Make no profit. This only works for Oil barons.They are also taking dividends. I would have no issue with them making a profit if the club as a business was successful and they were fulfilling their obligations as owners. But the debt only exists so they didn't have to spend any of their own money to buy the club - now money the club generates each year is being taken to pay interest on a debt that is hanging around the clubs neck. Not to reduce the debt, if anything it is bigger than when they bought the club, but just so it can exist without them having to pay it off.
£800m might not sound like a lot to you over 15 years, but when you consider only £118m of the clubs money has been used on all capital expenditure during the same time, it makes you look at the stadium and facilities which are falling behind our rivals and question the numbers.
Football clubs aren’t profitable it’s the value of the club where all the profit comes from. If they sold for £2bn they’d walk away with well over a billion in profit. Not bad for some incompetents whose success stems from being the offspring of a billionaire.Ok Ill put it another way. If you owned a business worth 4bn how much profit would you expect to make? Is 55 million a year a lot? If they are pocketing 55 million or taking the 55 mill and paying it to a bank for interest whats the difference. Most companies are run on loans before its profitable. Amazon lost money for years before it made it. Thats how business works.
No, it's a business generating revenue for its owners.Honestly it's legalised theft.
The business isn't worth £4bn, that is just the pricetag the Glazers want for it.Ok Ill put it another way. If you owned a business worth 4bn how much profit would you expect to make? Is 55 million a year a lot? If they are pocketing 55 million or taking the 55 mill and paying it to a bank for interest whats the difference. Most companies are run on loans before its profitable. Amazon lost money for years before it made it. Thats how business works.
That's not true. The vast majority of Football clubs aren't profitable, Manchester United is one the exceptions.Football clubs aren’t profitable it’s the value of the club where all the profit comes from. If they sold for £2bn they’d walk away with well over a billion in profit. Not bad for some incompetents whose success stems from being the offspring of a billionaire.
The reasons why Glazers are clinging on is they are scared that value might get bigger and someone else cashes in.
Thank you very much for this. I will give it a read. Needless to say, not many positives will come from it for the Glazers.
Tax and the perhaps bigger dividends for themselves would mean reduced profits (for the club). But surely better than not having 1 bln lost on loan repayments and still 500 mil still in debt!That's more like it, I suppose. Tax may make this a more complicated calculation, though.
It's that too. And that is very sad and dispiriting to most people who care about the sport and football club they've spent their whole lives watching.No, it's a business generating revenue for its owners.
Yes an exception but profits are fairly minor and given level of investment constantly required in players and infrastructure they aren’t great investments in terms of profits.That's not true. The vast majority of Football clubs aren't profitable, Manchester United is one the exceptions.
The only reason they “own” the club is because of their morally-bankrupt leveraged buyout. Had that been vetoed like it should have, do you honestly think the Glazers would’ve financed the takeover themselves with their own cash?Ok Ill put it another way. If you owned a business worth 4bn how much profit would you expect to make? Is 55 million a year a lot? If they are pocketing 55 million or taking the 55 mill and paying it to a bank for interest whats the difference. Most companies are run on loans before its profitable. Amazon lost money for years before it made it. Thats how business works. You are asking for a business to act like no other business. Pay in cash. Make no profit. This only works for Oil barons.
They bought a company that had no debt, with debt. They have since invested next to nothing in the assets of that company i.e. Old Trafford and the training facilities. They've obviously spent poorly on other 'assets' too, all whilst barely reducing the initial debt and paying themselves very nice dividends.Ok Ill put it another way. If you owned a business worth 4bn how much profit would you expect to make? Is 55 million a year a lot? If they are pocketing 55 million or taking the 55 mill and paying it to a bank for interest whats the difference. Most companies are run on loans before its profitable. Amazon lost money for years before it made it. Thats how business works. You are asking for a business to act like no other business. Pay in cash. Make no profit. This only works for Oil barons.