Swiss Ramble twitter thread on Glazers ownership

McTerminator

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
948
diarm said:
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.
Click to expand...
Also, let’s not forget that we have to pay these wages because we no longer have much footballing appeal due to years of underinvestment by the Glazers.

People love to try and be ‘rational’ and profound by pinpointing all of the other areas we are failing as a club, but ultimately it all starts and ends with the Glazers, simple as that.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,625
McTerminator said:
Also, let’s not forget that we have to pay these wages because we no longer have much footballing appeal due to years of underinvestment by the Glazers.

People love to try and be ‘rational’ and profound by pinpointing all of the other areas we are failing as a club, but ultimately it all starts and ends with the Glazers, simple as that.
Click to expand...
Is it because of under investment or just plain bad investment?
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,807
McTerminator said:
Also, let’s not forget that we have to pay these wages because we no longer have much footballing appeal due to years of underinvestment by the Glazers.

People love to try and be ‘rational’ and profound by pinpointing all of the other areas we are failing as a club, but ultimately it all starts and ends with the Glazers, simple as that.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 

laughtersassassin

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,524
diarm said:
And we've been outgrown by a number of our rivals during that period. We're still the biggest because of where and what we were before they took over but that gap is shrinking every year.
Click to expand...
Exactly yet their are still Glazer defenders everywhere saying that there are worse owners out there.

They are pretty much as bad as it gets. No club in world football has more.money taken out of the club.

In interests we have paid off THEIR debt nearly twice over now. And our debt is still 500 million which is where it started. We are in an endless cycle of being fecked.

We are the only team paying dividends.

They are an absolute disgrace and I'd literally take anyone over the as most likely we end up with better owners cause you can't get much worse.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,658
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
JPRouve said:
I would agree if the dividends were better than they are. With current returns they would need 40 years to match the profits of a sell at 2.5bn. Let's say that they each get around 400m, you can easily yield a 1% interest income with that and match what United provides.
Click to expand...
This neglects the presence of the asset, which is almost as good as the bundle of cash on its own but has the added benefit of an income stream. Plus the asset also confers prestige which is more difficult to ascribe value to.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,972
Location
France
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
This neglects the presence of the asset, which is almost as good as the bundle of cash on its own but has the added benefit of an income stream. Plus the asset also confers prestige which is more difficult to ascribe value to.
Click to expand...
I thought about that aspect but in the context of United being for sale, I don't know how to value those points. If the Glazers aren't entertaining a sell on their own and need convincing then you are right.
In a different way you could use the Timberwolves as an example, Glenn Taylor absolutely wanted to sell but under certain conditions(keeping the team where it is) and in order to meet those conditions he allegedly settled on an inferior offer, the superior offer being linked to Vegas. My point being that their goal could be to not necessarily sell at the highest fee but a combination of selling quickly and at a good fee.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,658
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
JPRouve said:
I thought about that aspect but in the context of United being for sale, I don't know how to value those points. If the Glazers aren't entertaining a sell on their own and need convincing then you are right.
In a different way you could use the Timberwolves as an example, Glenn Taylor absolutely wanted to sell but under certain conditions(keeping the team where it is) and in order to meet those conditions he allegedly settled on an inferior offer, the superior offer being linked to Vegas. My point being that their goal could be to not necessarily sell at the highest fee but a combination of selling quickly and at a good fee.
Click to expand...
I think that was my point all along. It would take a very big number for them to sell up. I reckon the asking price would be 10 billion and could be knocked down a billion or two through negotiation but it's still a very big number.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,972
Location
France
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
I think that was my point all along. It would take a very big number for them to sell up. I reckon the asking price would be 10 billion and could be knocked down a billion or two through negotiation but it's still a very big number.
Click to expand...
I see, I didn't had that in mind at all. It makes total sense then. :lol:
 

MU655

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
1,258
#07 said:
It is remarkable that some people on the CAF have responded to the Swiss Ramble figures by implying that, somehow, they're unfair to the Glazers. I've actually seen people, on this board, try to claim that they're not actually a problem. Next people will claim that the Glazers will be used by McKinsey as a case study for positive management change. :rolleyes:

Manchester United is, and has been for some time, an awfully run company. Its Board composition, the way its senior management team has been assembled, its lack of executive vision. The irresponsibility of continuing to take dividends during a pandemic, not to mention management fees and discretionary loans given to the Glazers for sweet FA. Do people genuinely think most normal companies are run like this?

Looked at, strictly as a business, where is the evidence that Man Utd is being run well? Costs have escalated across the board but where is the corresponding output in the bottom line? Commercial income has flatlined and has been static for years. So why are the Glazers awarding themselves management fees? Why is the executive team from Woodward down one of the best paid in football? Where is the evidence that they are taking the right decisions for the business? What is so innovative about United's commercial strategy? Getting a tractor sponsor is not innovative. For years they've just been ripping off marketing techniques used in NFL and motor sports. Since they ran out of ideas to copy what have they achieved?

There is nothing particularly cutting edge about the way United is run as a business. United were not pioneers in the use of social media. Just look at how analogue the United app is or how badly they use United's back catalogue. Just compare the interface of something like Disney+ to MUTV. Lightyears apart.

The Glazers are like 19th century aristocrats who inherited some valuable land but have no idea how to use it, its just a piggybank. Its no wonder their retail empire has been hollowed out. Based on how United is run their other businesses cannot be examples of best practice. They're paying themselves and their cronies for nothing.
Click to expand...
It isn't about being fair, but about showing reality. Fifteen years is a very long time in financial terms, and hides trends by averaging all activities over such a long period.

Firstly, it hides how bad the financials were back during the Ferguson period (about 8 years), where the interest payments and loan repayments made up 30% of outgoings. The analysis by Swiss Ramble shows it as 16%.

Secondly, it doesn't show the fact that in the last 8 years, this has dropped to only 6% of total outgoings. Previously, 70% was going towards club activities, but ever since Ferguson retired that has jumped to 94% (the rise probably actually started under Ferguson, but I would have to split it up more to find out). You can't hide that a massive improvement has occurred as it does need to be seen to give a proper picture of their current ownership. In terms of financials, I don't think you can improve upon our position, at the moment. Very few would pay off the debt and very few would not take dividends, so a new owner will not likely change our financial position. A new owner will not result in us spending any more money than we are.

Innovation in football is done on the pitch, so this is something that isn't really on the owners; I would say that would be the football management. Using social media isn't innovative, and neither is having an app (I didn't even know there was one). Besides, aren't Manutd the most followed sports team on there? (I don't know; I don't us Twitter). The brand has been spread through advertising; no, it is innovative, but it does it job. It brings in money through sponsorship and has the potential to increase the fanbase.

In response to your other post, what owners really deserve to take loads of money out? In the end, shareholders don't do anything but put their money in companies. The Glazers don't really interfere in the management of Manutd, which is supported by what Ferguson and Gill said. They pretty much left them to run Manutd in their place.
 

VeevaVee

The worst "V"
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
46,263
Location
Manchester
Counterfactual said:
Well TeamViewer didn't spend much on TrustPilot, with less than a thousand reviews including the negative ones.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean by buying reviews and not TeamViewer specifically. Many companies will aim for improved ratings as a KPI. TeamViewer might want to now.
 

Gasolin

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
6,107
Location
NYC
OmarUnited4ever said:
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!!!
Click to expand...
It's allowed in the corporate world, but we are not as "successful" in revenue as a private company as in order to do well overall, we need to keep winning.
 

Gasolin

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
6,107
Location
NYC
clarkydaz said:
Click to expand...
Strangely enough, I don't even want them to sell because we don't know who will come, but I want them to be forced to sit and communicate with us in person! This is the first real step. Stop hiding behind Woodward or whoever will replace him.

And discuss an effective way to reduce the debt and the interest payment, they need to handle their part and do it by a certain timeline. We need that debt to be more manageable and by that, I mean to allow us to get and attract new players and invest into OT.
 

MU655

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
1,258
Gasolin said:
Strangely enough, I don't even want them to sell because we don't know who will come, but I want them to be forced to sit and communicate with us in person! This is the first real step. Stop hiding behind Woodward or whoever will replace him.

And discuss an effective way to reduce the debt and the interest payment, they need to handle their part and do it by a certain timeline. We need that debt to be more manageable and by that, I mean to allow us to get and attract new players and invest into OT.
Click to expand...
The thing is that it is already manageable. An average of £20m interest per year isn't much. Bringing down the debt won't be beneficial; in fact, it will actually just hinder our ability to spend for quite a long time. And at the end of it, we will have at most £20m more per year. It actually isn't worth it.

And I say £20m at most because any profitability will be hit by 19% corporation tax. I would say it would be a bad decision to actually pay down the loan at this time.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
18,610
Supports
Mejbri
MU655 said:
The main point was showing that financials aren't really a problem now.

I wasn't absolving the Glazers, but really pointing out that looking back at the past, financially, is actually pretty pointless because nothing can be done about it. There were bad points then as I said with the 30% of expenses going on interest and repayments during Ferguson's period, but that is now 6% (including dividends) of total expenses. So, we have actually got past that point of financial difficulty. Protesting about that was relevant back then, but now that the Glazers aren't really hindering us financially it doesn't seem relevant. Swiss Ramble is making out that this is still an issue when it actually isn't. New owners won't change what happened in the past, either.

Will getting a new owner make any difference to our resources when 94% of it is already spent on players, wages, and other club-related stuff? The only way is if the new owner takes no dividends and pays off the $500m debt. I actually think even the new owners would prefer to just pay $20m a year in interest than pay it off, and the chance of them taking no dividend is pretty slim. Financially now, I don't think there are really better options than the Glazers, unless we get someone like the Qataris, which people seem to be against also.

I don't know how much it would cost to fix up Old Trafford, but even if we cut out the interest (paying off the debt would be detrimental as it will cost us more) and no dividends, we may have to hit other areas of expenditure, namely player purchases. Repairs and maintenance probably go on all the time (I would have to look more at the reports to see actually how much), but I imagine a full redo would massively impact us, debt or no debt.

This thread it has been moved into is mostly about the financial side of things, and this is where I don't think anything would really improve. The club was hindered financially in the past, but I do wonder why we suddenly started spending more straight after Ferguson. I mean even Moyes season we spent £70m. I do think Ferguson might have been hesitant to spend, also, which is why he hasn't really said anything about them afterwards. I don't take him as the kind of person who wouldn't have mentioned it in his biography if they were really curbing his spending. Or it might just be that he can't be bothered to get into it. I don't know.

Management is a major area requiring improvement, but I do see changes now. We have changed the scouting, we have a new setup with that Murtough fellow and Fletcher, and we will be getting a new CEO. Signings seem to have improved, which probably denotes the whole committee responsible for signings improving. We seem to be controlling costs a bit better e.g. refusing Sancho fee, grabbing Fernandes for cheaper, clearing expensive signings. The ESL was stupid, but I do think there are some positives which may carry on for the long term.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of different points to address. I'll reply in a random order.

The ESL wasn't stupid, it was an attempt to destroy football as we know it. Of course that has been happening for quite some time now with the money coming into the game and the improper ownership (foreign states, leveraged buyouts, sugar daddies who have inflated the market, European powerhouses who have gone berserk (Real Madrid Galactico era and Serie A prior to that). However, a closed competition with it's trickle down economics is the final hellish end game. So stupid is an understatement. Quite unforgivable.

What Moyes spent was pretty much small time given the neglected squad that seriously needed rejuvenating. Moyes didn't sign well (Fellaini for more than he could have earlier in the window) and a very good Mata who wasn't really what we needed at the time (or since). It was also during his reign that Wayne signed that ludicrous contract (250K 5 year deal when he had begun his obvious decline).

SAF's lack of Glazer criticism can be read in various ways. I can't help thinking he feels some regret there, but who knows. If he could have competed with the top clubs for players back then, I don't think he would have come out with "no value in the market" bit. When we sold Ronaldo it was a sign of things to come, but through SAF's instilled mentality at the club we won things regardless. I can't imagine we'd have won anything of significance had SAF retired in 2005.

Now your main point, the let's not dwell on the past because now the money isn't an issue. It's kind of like saying let's talk about things but don't use any words with vowels in them. It's integrally linked. Our wage bill is inflated due to a) serious incompetence and b) our rapidly declining appeal to top players. Our mismanagement of transfer funds is due to serious incompetence with the club changing directions every two to three years with no clear vision as well as having moneymen in charge of transfers having no experience in the football world and taking (according to multiple sources) an absolute age to get things done and not doing due diligence. We've also not recouped anywhere close to what is normal for a well run club. The state of the stadium and training facilities becomes more and more costly to address the longer it is left neglected, so opposite to preserving Phil Jones' value, we've let the facilities depreciate.

So now, just because Ole is signing players who fit better to what he's trying to achieve and some players have been sold or paid off, we're supposed to let bygones be bygones? I just don't get that at all. Would you continue with a spouse who has manipulated you for 15 years, because they've abused you long enough for their need to abuse you to have dissipated a tad bit? That's how it reads to me.

Other owners: Yes, this is problematic if there's not legislative changes brought forth. Let's assume there won't be, for the sake of argument. Most sane fans do not want a sugar daddy or a dictatorship PR stunt, but someone who can afford not to bleed the club and just leave it operating as the self-sustaining juggernaut it is. Will the Glazers get way above the current evaluation (i.e. 4b) if protests continue and sponsors become more wary?

I'm optimistic in the sense that I think the more this goes on, the more it's in the public eye, not least if every single bit of their businesses and partners are targeted, coupled with some form of legislation that rules out the top clubs legal room to take over the TV revenues, the less appealing this will be for the scum, and some of those cnuts aren't even involved, have probably never had anything public to say about the club. Do they want the hassle if it starts to look as if this is the best time to feck off?
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,807
MU655 said:
The thing is that it is already manageable. An average of £20m interest per year isn't much. Bringing down the debt won't be beneficial; in fact, it will actually just hinder our ability to spend for quite a long time. And at the end of it, we will have at most £20m more per year. It actually isn't worth it.

And I say £20m at most because any profitability will be hit by 19% corporation tax. I would say it would be a bad decision to actually pay down the loan at this time.
Click to expand...
You'd wonder how we managed to become the biggest club on earth without it.

You can also negate needing to spend money on corporation tax by spending money on the squad and facilities. Or you know, use the money generated by football fans, for the football club.
 

McTerminator

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
948
alexthelion said:
What an inspired reply. Just because some don't agree with you. Well done, I bet it took you ages to think that up.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, I will be sure to try harder to make sure my off the cuff remarks are more to your liking in future...

Did the poster I responded to put in any more effort than I reciprocated? No.

If you want to have a discussion, let’s have a discussion.

If you want to trade one liners then I can do that too.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,807
Imagine making 70 odd posts in a single day and every one of them being absolute dogshit!
 

Exiust

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
7
Ultimately the Glazers cost us around 40 million a year the last couple of years (30 million in dividends and 20 million in interest = 50 million, but without the debt it would only leave 40 million after taxes anyway). So if 40 million a year is considered to be too much... then anyone who buys us for 4 billion will have to look at an annual return of less than 1% (since it has to be below 40 million). No sane investor is going to do this.
So we are most likely guaranteed worse owners after the Glazers sell the club. You really have to look at what the realistic consequences are after the Glazers sell the club. The argument that everything will be fine and much better, resembles a lot the position of those who were in favour of Brexit. Anyone who questioned Brexit was considered to be a fear monger etc.

Anyway my guess is that the Glazers will probably do some compromise for the next couple of years, don't take any dividends and use that money to reduce the debt (the debt is for a lot of fans a problem, even though in financial terms it is no issue anymore). They will sell some shares to make it up for the lack of dividends.
 

MU655

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
1,258
Bastian said:
There's a lot of different points to address. I'll reply in a random order.

The ESL wasn't stupid, it was an attempt to destroy football as we know it. Of course that has been happening for quite some time now with the money coming into the game and the improper ownership (foreign states, leveraged buyouts, sugar daddies who have inflated the market, European powerhouses who have gone berserk (Real Madrid Galactico era and Serie A prior to that). However, a closed competition with it's trickle down economics is the final hellish end game. So stupid is an understatement. Quite unforgivable.

What Moyes spent was pretty much small time given the neglected squad that seriously needed rejuvenating. Moyes didn't sign well (Fellaini for more than he could have earlier in the window) and a very good Mata who wasn't really what we needed at the time (or since). It was also during his reign that Wayne signed that ludicrous contract (250K 5 year deal when he had begun his obvious decline).

SAF's lack of Glazer criticism can be read in various ways. I can't help thinking he feels some regret there, but who knows. If he could have competed with the top clubs for players back then, I don't think he would have come out with "no value in the market" bit. When we sold Ronaldo it was a sign of things to come, but through SAF's instilled mentality at the club we won things regardless. I can't imagine we'd have won anything of significance had SAF retired in 2005.

Now your main point, the let's not dwell on the past because now the money isn't an issue. It's kind of like saying let's talk about things but don't use any words with vowels in them. It's integrally linked. Our wage bill is inflated due to a) serious incompetence and b) our rapidly declining appeal to top players. Our mismanagement of transfer funds is due to serious incompetence with the club changing directions every two to three years with no clear vision as well as having moneymen in charge of transfers having no experience in the football world and taking (according to multiple sources) an absolute age to get things done and not doing due diligence. We've also not recouped anywhere close to what is normal for a well run club. The state of the stadium and training facilities becomes more and more costly to address the longer it is left neglected, so opposite to preserving Phil Jones' value, we've let the facilities depreciate.

So now, just because Ole is signing players who fit better to what he's trying to achieve and some players have been sold or paid off, we're supposed to let bygones be bygones? I just don't get that at all. Would you continue with a spouse who has manipulated you for 15 years, because they've abused you long enough for their need to abuse you to have dissipated a tad bit? That's how it reads to me.

Other owners: Yes, this is problematic if there's not legislative changes brought forth. Let's assume there won't be, for the sake of argument. Most sane fans do not want a sugar daddy or a dictatorship PR stunt, but someone who can afford not to bleed the club and just leave it operating as the self-sustaining juggernaut it is. Will the Glazers get way above the current evaluation (i.e. 4b) if protests continue and sponsors become more wary?

I'm optimistic in the sense that I think the more this goes on, the more it's in the public eye, not least if every single bit of their businesses and partners are targeted, coupled with some form of legislation that rules out the top clubs legal room to take over the TV revenues, the less appealing this will be for the scum, and some of those cnuts aren't even involved, have probably never had anything public to say about the club. Do they want the hassle if it starts to look as if this is the best time to feck off?
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree about Fellaini and Mata. . What I was more speaking about is why we were able to blow £70m/€77m that season. But I admit I was a bit wrong about this having checked it. I forgot we signed Kagawa in the same season as Van Persie, so we did end up spending a similar amount in Ferguson's last season, also. It seemed 09/10 and 10/11 were the issues, where we only spent €27m and €29m, respectively. After that, it started to recover with €62m and €76m in Ferguson's last two seasons.

The thing with dwelling on the past is that nothing can be done about it now. The situation has changed financially under the same owners, and it seemed it actually started to change in 11/12, judging by the rise in transfer fees above. I haven't done the calculations, but I bet this is where the percentage of interest and loan repayments really started to fall. So, it has been heading towards the point it is at for about 10 years. It isn't a recent change to reach a point where 94% of all outgoings are club related.

The thing is that a new owner won't make much difference unless they are a sugar daddy at this point. At most, Manutd will have the 6% more to spend on club related activities, but that would only be achieved if the loan is paid off and the new owners refuse to take dividends. I find both of these unlikely, unless you get a state-backed owner or someone like Bezos decides he is a Manutd fan and sells his holding in Amazon. Financially, the difference will be unnoticeable.

I'm assuming we have a transfer committee rather than the manager having all the say. Van Gaal and Mourinho alluded to it themselves, with both complaining about who was signed in the end. I believe I read something about a change to the scouting when Mourinho was manager (I think), so it might have started having an impact here. Not saying Solskjaer hasn't contributed, but I feel the process overall might have improved. I believe we were linked to both Fernandes and Maguire before Solskjaer became manager, so it would indicate some change in the line of thinking.

I just think there are some managerial improvements happening under the Glazers, at the moment. And I think it would be far better for these to go through than to get a new owner as I think they could be a lot worse. I am interested to see who they would bring in to replace Woodward. At the moment, I think the only option is to wait until a real solution actually appears. For me, the protests don't mean much unless there is an actual proposition backing it. I'm not sure anyone would really be interested in a takeover in such a hostile environment.

For me, hitting the sponsors could be a bad idea. If it got too serious, it could end in long-term damage to revenues due to black-listing by potential sponsors. The risk will also increase, and therefore, potential sponsors will be demanding lower fees. The other issue is it may put of potential buyers, as well, which could result it an even more difficult position.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
18,610
Supports
Mejbri
@MU655

The sponsors thing is all speculation at the moment. You can't really tell how it's going to play out, but my point of view is that it won't do long-term damage, the club will retain its appeal once the unrest comes to a logical conclusion. Speaking of which, I just don't see how people who have always treated it as a business to make money from, reigning in serious ambition the moment CL football is guaranteed, will have a change of heart and start caring about football. This to me seems to me quite wishful. There are some positives recently under Ole, but nowhere near enough from the club as a whole for me to be thinking they've started to treated like a football club.

I will concede that there could be worse owners though. That's where I'm hoping the collective protests in the country leads to legislation protecting at least some of the integrity of the game, which I think is a lot more important than my club being in a dominant position financially. As it is, we've got neither.
 

Oldyella

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
5,869
Hmm. Sky trying to doorstep Avram Glazer as he gets in his car, good stuff. Keep it in the public eye
 
You must log in or register to reply here.