Panorama: Man United - Into the Red, BBC One, Tuesday, 8 June

[UnitedRoadRed]

I have been going to games since 1977 and I used to get change from £3
so yes it has gone up massively when compared to inflation. It is a different world now, the stadium has improved and the palyers wages haven't been linked to inflation either. The squad is almost twice the size as it was then etc etc.

I was not making a subtle point with my post, I truly am on the fence with the Glazers owning the club and do find the G&G campaign rather amusing. Till the club is sold to who? Will they be better or worse? Wel we have no idea but we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Moronic if you ask me.

I was particularly talking about ticket prices from 2005 to 2010, when you throw in the ACS too. There are people who gave their tickets up last summer that I thought would have an empty seat next to them because it's their wife's funeral. You feel like you're not just there to support the team any more but to pay the debt off.

I appreciate what you're saying about a new owner, but could they be worse?

 

[Sir A1ex]

I appreciate what you're saying about a new owner, but could they be worse?

I suppose they could in theory, but the chances are against it!

 

[sully07]

I was particularly talking about ticket prices from 2005 to 2010, when you throw in the ACS too. There are people who gave their tickets up last summer that I thought would have an empty seat next to them because it's their wife's funeral. You feel like you're not just there to support the team any more but to pay the debt off.

I appreciate what you're saying about a new owner, but could they be worse?

Actually I wasn't responding to your post but take your point. I haven't had a season ticket for many years now and get to 8 or so home games a season through corperate entertainment and try to not get involved in the complaints about ticket prices as I would be a hypocrite if I did.

I think the answer to your question would be ask Portsmouth, West Ham, Liverpool etc. They would say yes it could be worse.

 

[Sir A1ex]

I try to not get involved in the complaints about ticket prices as I would be a hypocrite if I did.

I don't think you would. As I've said before, we all have the right to protest on behalf of others that we think are getting a raw deal, it doesn't have to be driven by self-interest!
The fact that you and I live comfortable Western lives doesn't disqualify us from campaigning for 3rd world debt reduction for example.

 

[Rednails]

I know this is probably a naive question, but what happens if the banks call in all Glazers debts? Would they be able to sell off our assets and leave us with nothing for example?

 

[Sir A1ex]

I know this is probably a naive question, but what happens if the banks call in all Glazers debts? Would they be able to sell off our assets and leave us with nothing for example?

In theory they could, but its not a likely scenario.

The club as a whole is worth way more than its NBV - ie the assets are worth maybe £500m sold individually, but they could get £1bn for the club.

So if they absolutely had to get their hands on that sort of money to pay off the banks, selling the club would be the course of action, not selling the assets.

This only changes if, for whatever reason, the market value of the club dropped below that of the assets. Possible in theory if we started doing really badly on the pitch and all our fans left, but not likely in the foreseeable future.

This isn't to say that individual assets will nt be sold as a matter of course, if it is judged that their value as stand alone asstes is greater than the long term effect they have on the value of the club. See Ronaldo, C.

 

[fredthered]

I know this is probably a naive question, but what happens if the banks call in all Glazers debts? Would they be able to sell off our assets and leave us with nothing for example?

The absolute worst case scenario ( and I am talking about a scenario that is so far fetched it would mean a collapse of gargantuan proportions ) is that Glazer was so deep in debt that they wound everything up. Sold off all the assets, closed down all his businesses and the bucs, United and First Allied all ceased to exist.

As I say, thats never going to happen. Never in a million years. As pessimistic as I am, even I understand that they would never get to that level of indebtedness.

For a start, he could just sell the franchise for the bucs. OK he may lose money, he may lose the players and the ground, but someone would buy what was left Even it if was just the rights to use the name.

Likewise MUFC, the banks could sell the ground, the players, the training facilities, everything, but someone somewhere would buy the name MUFC.

There will never be a case where MUFC is left with nothing, because ultimately MUFC as a football club is everything... The ground, the players.. they are all just material object. MUFC is something that will always be there, no matter how deep in debt the Glazers get.

 

[dave2528]

Here's a stupid question, and if it has been answered before I apologise before hand, but I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of these discussions:

Are any of the Glazer owned business ventures besides MUFC, including the Buccaneers, turning any profit? If so, is that profit enough to cover the costs of paying off the debt and interests they have accrued?

 

[sully07]

I don't think you would. As I've said before, we all have the right to protest on behalf of others that we think are getting a raw deal, it doesn't have to be driven by self-interest!
The fact that you and I live comfortable Western lives doesn't disqualify us from campaigning for 3rd world debt reduction for example.

Fair analogy but would you call me a hypocrite if I said that all season ticket holders should stop complaining as the cost is still less than other less successful clubs and it is fair market forces considering there is a waiting list?
This from the comfort of my free corporate seat.

Being a pedant as the above is not what I think.

 

[theimperialinn]

The information the programme is based on just isn't credible though. You just have to see the way Andy Green, himself a very keen anti-Glazer activist, has valued the properties. The valuations are literally ''back of a fag packet'' calculations based on extremely unreliable methodology.

With no independently verified professional valuations, the programme's content can't be taken seriously and nor can the conclusions that Andy Green makes on his blog.

Just more biased propaganda I'm afraid. I'll stick to forming my conclusions on the basis of independently audited accounts filed at Companies House.

I drew pretty much the same conclusion from his blogs tbf.

The programme last night was actually quite balanced and well worth watching.

 

[theimperialinn]

Also, will they explain whether money can be taken out of United to pay for them?

The simple answer to that for the time being is no.
Money can be transferred from United to the holding company to clear it's 'indebtness', ie, the PIks but the gimps don't have the distributable profits to pay themselves a dividend, hence the loans and management charges, which themselves are pretty immaterial given the size of our turnover.

 

[fredthered]

That is very sad to hear Sultan - I really hate to see our club dragged through the mud in this way, that is exactly why I spend time trying to tell people that a lot of what they hear is not true.

This is where I have an issue with much of what you say.

The truth is that the club is split, and the fans are at each others throats. Its even descended into fans fighting each other over the Glazers.

The Glazers have caused all this. Not supporters, not MUST. Not you, not I. THe Glazers.

There is no "bright side" to having them at United. There are no positives.

They have brought absolutely nothing to United that in any way shape or form benefits the supporters. Who cares if they are making more money and covering the debts. The debts shouldnt be there in the first place.

Fans are losing hope, and feeling ostracised from the club. And the more these debates go on, the worse its going to get. Until we root out the cause of the problem then that will never change.

If you want atmosphere, then look at why fans dont feel they can stand beside other reds and sing the same songs, why they dont feel as one with everyone else.

Its because the fans are so divided over what to do about Glazer. Everyone wants them gone, but no one knows how to do it without it upsetting some or all of the fans.

Even the G+G campaign draws divisions.

Until the fans unite and work together it will only get worse, and the fighting will get worse as people get more frustrated.

Thats why I get so annoyed when you go out of your way to discredit MUST. I personally dont like some of the things they do, but at the end of the day, they've got the fans interests at heart. Surely thats more than the Glazers ever will do.

Rather than telling everyone how MUST are a bunch of lying bastards, and scaremongers, why not try directing them to the reason why they are even having to raise fans awareness.

If you agree that hte Glazers have caused a split between the support, then you have to be anti Glazer. If you arent anti Glazer, then you dont give a shit how split the support is. It doesnt matter to you....

 

[fredthered]

Here's a stupid question, and if it has been answered before I apologise before hand, but I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of these discussions:

Are any of the Glazer owned business ventures besides MUFC, including the Buccaneers, turning any profit? If so, is that profit enough to cover the costs of paying off the debt and interests they have accrued?

This is the point I have been trying to make.

MUFC is the only company that has the capability to make a profit and allow it to be moved.

FIrst Allied isnt making money.

He cant use the money from the Bucs to clear off debts because NFL rules dont permit it.

The First Allied debts are about to start rising dramatically, and given they arent making any money then its obviously going to need those debts paying off.

Given First Allied cant do it, the bucs arent allowed to do it, theres only one option left...

 

[theimperialinn]

Interesting information about their debt levels, and also this corporation tax issue I was unaware of. Oddly presented it must be said! It's a shame absolutely no one, The Glazers, United, The FA, The Premier League, would give an interview to the BBC for balance

They Glazers have never turned a profit.

Why would they pay tax?

 

[fredthered]

The simple answer to that for the time being is no.
Money can be transferred from United to the holding company to clear it's 'indebtness', ie, the PIks but the gimps don't have the distributable profits to pay themselves a dividend, hence the loans and management charges, which themselves are pretty immaterial given the size of our turnover.

My argument is, what precisely is the holding company.

is RFJV the holding company, or can they go up a level and claim that the holding company is The Glazer family.

Its quite clear in the prospectus what they can take. WHat isnt so clear is who they can pay it to.

For my money, everything seems to suggest that they are lining it up so that they will repay the debts from First Allied using revenue they've got from United.

Those are the more pressing debts, and Glazer will stand to lose much more if he doesnt get them under control, than he would by leaving the PIK debts for a bit longer.

If he doesnt get those debts sorted out then the 4 malls he's already lost will be joined by many more ( thats what the whole point of Andersreds' investigation was about ).

First Allied is the weakest link, and to me, its basic common sense that if he needs those debts clearing, and MUFC has money in the bank, then getting those debts under control using Uniteds money is the first thing hes going to do.

The question is deciphering what precisely the structure in place allows him to do. We all know what he can take. What we need to know is where he's going to take it.

For me the PIK debts are not his most pressing problem.

 

[ciderman9000000]

When UEFA's new rules concerning transfer-expenditure/footballing-income in 2012, wont any 'we're no longer competitive in the transfer market' arguments be obsolete? With Chelsea and City's spending cut back to virtually nothing, even after the interest payments, the profit we turn will easily give us the biggest transfer budget in the Premier League.

 

[theimperialinn]

They banged on about American shopping centres and then didn't explain what the hell it has to do with United, other than the fact mortgaging them was perhaps how they raised some cash to fund the takeover. What has it got to do with United now? From the looks of the program, not a lot. Anyone who owns property - especially commercial property - has seen the value decrease through the recession. It seems a bit of a red herring to me and distracts from the real issues suffered by United fans.

IMO a lot is made of the mortages and I would question the valuation that has been placed on them.

I worked the value's out at about $6m a mall which seems a bit low.

Plus providing they don't need to sell in the short term it doesn't really matter what value is placed on them.

Everything about their various models suggest they use a large time horizon when making investment decisions so such a short term view seems a bit daft to me.

 

[theimperialinn]

My argument is, what precisely is the holding company.

is RFJV the holding company, or can they go up a level and claim that the holding company is The Glazer family.

Its quite clear in the prospectus what they can take. WHat isnt so clear is who they can pay it to.

For my money, everything seems to suggest that they are lining it up so that they will repay the debts from First Allied using revenue they've got from United.

Those are the more pressing debts, and Glazer will stand to lose much more if he doesnt get them under control, than he would by leaving the PIK debts for a bit longer.

If he doesnt get those debts sorted out then the 4 malls he's already lost will be joined by many more ( thats what the whole point of Andersreds' investigation was about ).

First Allied is the weakest link, and to me, its basic common sense that if he needs those debts clearing, and MUFC has money in the bank, then getting those debts under control using Uniteds money is the first thing hes going to do.

The question is deciphering what precisely the structure in place allows him to do. We all know what he can take. What we need to know is where he's going to take it.

For me the PIK debts are not his most pressing problem.

First Allied is not even part of the legal group so you're way off the mark there my friend.

The holding company is RFJV whose shares are secured against the PIK.

United can pay a dividend to RFJV to pay off the PIK but that's as far as the ladder ends.

The Glazers cannot take a dividend from the holding company until every pound of loss since the takeover is made good by profit.

They have to make good all the interest payments, amortisatons, etc.

Their model is one of long term capital gain not short term revenue.

Just look at the buccs as a case in point, valued at $1b with $100m debt.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

First Allied is not even part of the legal group so you're way off the mark there my friend.

The holding company is RFJV whose shares are secured against the PIK.

United can pay a dividend to RFJV to pay off the PIK but that's as far as the ladder ends.

The Glazers cannot take a dividend from the holding company until every pound of loss since the takeover is made good by profit.

They have to make good all the interest payments, amortisatons, etc.

Their model is one of long term capital gain not short term revenue.

Just look at the buccs as a case in point, valued at $1b with $100m debt.

Thank feck someone knows what they are talking about.

Eh fred.

 

[ciderman9000000]

So your argument is bollocks then, fred.

 

[fredthered]

First Allied is not even part of the legal group so you're way off the mark there my friend.

The holding company is RFJV whose shares are secured against the PIK.

United can pay a dividend to RFJV to pay off the PIK but that's as far as the ladder ends.

The Glazers cannot take a dividend from the holding company until every pound of loss since the takeover is made good by profit.

They have to make good all the interest payments, amortisatons, etc.

Their model is one of long term capital gain not short term revenue.

Just look at the buccs as a case in point, valued at $1b with $100m debt.

RFJV is owned by Red Football Shareholder Ltd. It is owned by Red Football LP (of Nevada). The General Partner of RF LP is Red Football General Partner. The officers of RF GP are Joel and Avram but I assumed it is owned by the whole family. Is it possible to look up the structure and capture RFS's losses and offset them against personal tax? In the UK, income losses in LLPs can only be offset vs. income from "the same trade" (to badly summarise thousands of words of tax law)!


There is another Nevada entity which I found, Red Bonds LLC. It has 6 "managing members":

JOEL M. GLAZER IRREVOCABLE EXEMPT TRUST DATED AUGUST 22, 2006

AVRAM GLAZER IRREVOCABLE EXEMPT TRUST DATED AUGUST 22, 2006

BRYAN G. GLAZER IRREVOCABLE EXEMPT TRUST DATED AUGUST 22, 2006

DARCIE S. GLAZER IRREVOCABLE EXEMPT TRUST DATED AUGUST 22, 2006

KEVIN GLAZER IRREVOCABLE EXEMPT FAMILY TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 2006

EDWARD S. GLAZER IRREVOCABLE EXEMPT TRUST DATED AUGUST 22, 2006

Note the date (except on Kevin's). It's the date the PIKS came into existence.

RFJV's accounts say the PIKS are secured on RFJV's equity holding in RF....

The plot thickens!


How does that tally up with the corporate structure thats in the bond prospectus.

There appears to be a parent company of RFJV that isnt shown.

 

[Crerand Legend]

Well I have told you that several times already to be honest.

Anyway I am not going into the same discussion again - everything you need to know is here:
https://www.redcafe.net/f6/all-issu...-cash-out-etc-280859/index31.html#post8065665

Yer typical avoid the question with waffle Roodboy bollox

 

[Joga_Bonito]

They banged on about American shopping centres and then didn't explain what the hell it has to do with United, other than the fact mortgaging them was perhaps how they raised some cash to fund the takeover. What has it got to do with United now? From the looks of the program, not a lot. Anyone who owns property - especially commercial property - has seen the value decrease through the recession. It seems a bit of a red herring to me and distracts from the real issues suffered by United fans.

I also laughed at Drasdo's comment that 'they haven't put any money into the club, but have taken money out'... of course, it's a profit making business, why the hell would they put money in?

Very disappointed to be honest. A 30 minute show was a great opportunity to look into the details of the club's financial structure and indeed the feasibility of football finance as a whole.

In relation to United, Andy Green has presented fairly conclusive evidence that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, David Gill has not exactly been honest about the PIK's.

The Glazers don't appear to have the money to deal with them, which may or may not be an astounding revelation, but it has been the consistent message from the club, and David Gill, specifically, that they were nothing to do with the club, and that the Glazers would be dealing with them, personally.

To all: That Andy Green is anti-Glazer is as irrelevant to the quality of his arguments as it would be if he was also a Martian who likes to eat small children. Attempting to discredit him by claiming that he is biased is about as low as you could go in any argument. It should be obvious what is required to discredit his arguments, and it's disappointing to see people take the intellectually lazy route of attempting to poison the well, instead.

 

[peterstorey]

To all: That Andy Green is anti-Glazer is as irrelevant to the quality of his arguments as it would be if he was also a Martian who likes to eat small children. Attempting to discredit him by claiming that he is biased is about as low as you could go in any argument.

Well no. His analysis is always excellent but his interpretation is biased by his anti-Glazer perspective, which I think is fair enough for a Man Utd supporter. Roodboy is Joe (maybe too-) Reasonable, he doesn't particularly like Glazer but he doesn't see any point in bullshitting about what's going on and he wants to go to games and enjoy them. GCHQ bends over backwards to exonerate Glazer and posts nothing about football.

 

[Spoony]

GCHQ bends over backwards to exonerate Glazer and posts nothing about football.

Yes.

 

[Joga_Bonito]

Well no. His analysis is always excellent but his interpretation is biased by his anti-Glazer perspective, which I think is fair enough for a Man Utd supporter. Roodboy is Joe (maybe too-) Reasonable, he doesn't particularly like Glazer but he doesn't see any point in bullshitting about what's going on and he wants to go to games and enjoy them. GCHQ bends over backwards to exonerate Glazer and posts nothing about football.

Well, yes, because I was very specific in saying that his thoughts about the Glazer family are irrelevant with respect to the quality of his arguments. And they are, because it is only once you have shown that he is wrong that you can perhaps make the case that it is because he is too invested in seeing them fail.

What you cannot do is suggest that he is wrong because he is anti-Glazer, and so, of course he is going argue that they are bad for the club.

It's the same as suggesting that Martin Luther King should not have been listened to, because he was going to benefit from equality of race in the US, so how could anyone trust him? But if his arguments for that position were sound, which they were, it really doesn't matter whether he benefited from it or not.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Well, yes, because I was very specific in saying that his thoughts about the Glazer family are irrelevant with respect to the quality of his arguments. And they are, because it is only once you have shown that he is wrong that you can perhaps make the case that it is because he is too invested in seeing them fail.

What you cannot do is suggest that he is wrong because he is anti-Glazer, and so, of course he is going argue that they are bad for the club.

It's the same as suggesting that Martin Luther King should not have been listened to, because he was going to benefit from equality of race in the US, so how could anyone trust him? But if his arguments for that position were sound, which they were, it really doesn't matter whether he benefited from it or not.

Though his being biased will not change the facts and the figures, it does change his interpretation of them. He's always assumed that the Glazers are inherently bad people who care nothing for the business they own, and that assumption reflects strongly in his speculation concerning their long and short term business plans for United. For example, if he shows that the Glazers can take £Xm out of the club, he automatically assumes that they will take £Xm out of the club. If he shows that they can sell the Carrington training complex, he assumes that they will sell the Carrington training complex; he regularly discounts and ignores all possibility of the Glazers ever doing anything beneficial for the club. Similarly with MUST, it's these prejudices that cause people to become wary of believing his prophecies.

 

[sammsky1]

When UEFA's new rules concerning transfer-expenditure/footballing-income in 2012, wont any 'we're no longer competitive in the transfer market' arguments be obsolete? With Chelsea and City's spending cut back to virtually nothing, even after the interest payments, the profit we turn will easily give us the biggest transfer budget in the Premier League.

Ah, back to those care free Happy dayz!! Yippee.

 

[Joga_Bonito]

Though his being biased will not change the facts and the figures, it does change his interpretation of them. He's always assumed that the Glazers are inherently bad people who care nothing for the business they own, and that assumption reflects strongly in his speculation concerning their long and short term business plans for United. For example, if he shows that the Glazers can take £Xm out of the club, he automatically assumes that they will take £Xm out of the club. If he shows that they can sell the Carrington training complex, he assumes that they will sell the Carrington training complex; he regularly discounts and ignores all possibility of the Glazers ever doing anything beneficial for the club. Similarly with MUST, it's these prejudices that cause people to become wary of believing his prophecies.

But you have to be able to show this and to then link it to him being biased. What I object to is people saying that he is biased, with the implication being that he can't be trusted, without also showing that he is wrong.

And by the way, I also object to the accusations against some on here being "pro-Glazer", for exactly the same reasons. It's a lazy and dishonest tactic.

The problem is that everyone interprets information in a slightly different way, but that's not enough to accuse someone of bias. I suppose that you could say that Andersred chooses to cover the issues that he does because of his anti-Glazer stance, but that's no more informative than accusing me of coming to this site because I support Manchester United.

 

[sammsky1]

so have we worked out yet if GCHQ is actually just part of the Glazer propaganda team? I reckon he's just a hired gun sent on here to wind up the Freds and other top reds.

 

[mariachi-19]

I still find it hilarious that people have the nerve to complain about the amount of money the Glazers are taking out of united 'feck all in the grand scheme of things' given that even Berbatov makes more out of us then they do.

 

[Commadus]

So what if it was? It's still Andy Green's comments and in any case he emailed the last quote to a Red Cafe member long before that blog article was written.

Which member was this?

Also I am still waiting a response in the other "bond thread".

 

[Joga_Bonito]

I still find it hilarious that people have the nerve to complain about the amount of money the Glazers are taking out of united 'feck all in the grand scheme of things' given that even Berbatov makes more out of us then they do.

£350m in five years is "feck all in the grand scheme of things"? Because that's how much it has cost so far to service the debt (i.e. to pay just for the interest, not to actually start to pay down the debt), in addition to all of the refinancing costs, personal loans, and management and consultancy fee's. And that's without the inclusion of the PIK's, which have been accruing interest and are yet to be factored in to the total (and which now look certain to be paid by the club).

Excluding everything but the personal loans is simply not honest, because all of these costs will eventually afford the Glazers full ownership of the club, at which point they will either be able to make a lot of money over time, or to sell the club and walk away with at least £1bn, and probably a lot more.

Of course, they may decide to walk away a lot sooner, but I'm fairly certain that the reason that they briefed the media about turning down an offer of £1.5bn is because they would only be prepared to walk away in the near future if they were effectively offered something in the region of £700m-£1bn profit, not including the debt.

If you're willing to accept this as anything other than a scandal, good for you, but I'm just not that charitable, particularly to those who don't need it.

 

[anver]

Premier League - United pressed over Glazers' debt

PA Sport - Wed, 09 Jun 11:08:00 2010
Buzz Up!

Manchester United have been asked for reassurances that the club's money will not be used to pay off the Glazer family's expensive PIK loans.

Investment analyst Andy Green, whose investigation into the Glazers' US businesses formed the basis for Tuesday night's BBC Panorama programme into United's finances, believes the Glazers have no option but to spend club funds to pay off the PIK debt which totals £220 million.

The PIKs will carry a 16.25 per cent interest rate from August, and unless any payments are made these loans will spiral to £600m by 2017, claims Green.

In an open letter to United's chief executive David Gill, Green says: "I have no doubt you will have seen the new research about the state of the Glazer family's US real estate business. I am also sure that the parlous financial state and weak cash generation of the business will have been as much of a surprise to you as it was to me.

"The family's spokesman has... stated that the club will not be sold, meaning the Glazer family need to repay their PIKS. Given the evidence now in the public domain about the profitability and levels of debt in the Glazer family's other businesses and hence the family's inability to pay off the PIKs from their own resources, it seems the only possible source of cash to do so is Manchester United itself.

"In light of these revelations, can you assure United supporters that none of club's current or future cash will be used to repay the Glazer family's PIKs?"

Panorama said the Glazer family's debts total more than £1.1 billion - £700m tied to Manchester United, £388m on mortgages for their First Allied shopping mall business in the USA and £66m tied to their Tampa Bay Buccaneers NFL team.

The Glazers say they are comfortable with the situation and that their assets total £2bn.

Gill has previously said the PIKs are nothing to do with the club and are solely the concern of the Glazers.

Gill said in January: "That is something that the family, the owners, have put in place and they will ensure is repaid or is part of their overall financial planning in due course, but that is nothing to do with the club."
PA Sport

 

[Red_Aaron]

only got round to watching the show late last night and no doubt that after 9 pages this thread has long left the show behind and has become another 'all issues relating too....' thread but i will say this: Panorama is a fecking shadow of its former self, it was 28 mins of nonsense and maybe 2 mins of anything interesting-all of which i already knew from following the discussion on these boards. it revealed nothing that those intersted in the issue didn't already know and not enough to get those that were unintersted intersted (if you know what i mean) a real missed oportunity i feel

 

[Sir A1ex]

I still find it hilarious that people have the nerve to complain about the amount of money the Glazers are taking out of united 'feck all in the grand scheme of things' given that even Berbatov makes more out of us then they do.

That's just weird. You've managed to turn a Glazer thread into Berbatov bashing. To be fair, I never knew we'd paid the Bulgarian upwards of £300m so you may have a point.

Go see if anybody will sell you a clue before your next post, they're getting increasingly bizarre!

 

[Rood]

I was going to bite on this when i saw it yesterday but I decided to leave it until I had time to do a proper response to Fred's ridiculous pontifications ...

This is where I have an issue with much of what you say.

The truth is that the club is split, and the fans are at each others throats. Its even descended into fans fighting each other over the Glazers.

The Glazers have caused all this. Not supporters, not MUST. Not you, not I. THe Glazers.

Yes there is a split and the catalyst might have been the Glazer takeover but I beleive that the fans have to look within themselves to understand why that split occured.
You wont like what I have to say about it all as I put the blame squarely at the feet of people like yourself.

As far as I am concerned the split was caused primarily by those who decided to abandon their club and fellow fans by starting a new club. There were no serious divisions until you and your mates selfishly decided to 'take the ball and go home' - basically sticking 2 fingers up at the vast majority who did not want to take that step at the time.
Now I am sure that you and many of these people had the best of intentions but in the end I see it as nothing more than a case of 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'.

History has shown us what happened next, those who left were immediately replaced in numbers (so no impact on the Glazers at all) but not in spirit. The result being that atmosphere at OT went downhill and we were left with a serious rift between the fans which still remains to this day.

There is no "bright side" to having them at United. There are no positives.

They have brought absolutely nothing to United that in any way shape or form benefits the supporters. Who cares if they are making more money and covering the debts. The debts shouldnt be there in the first place.

I dont think you will find many who will disagree that it would be better if the debts were not there but it is time to face reality. It is not 2005, it is 2010, and the debt is there and most likely it is there to stay whether the Glazers stay or go.
For that reason, I decided to take my own time to analyse our financial situation and then explain to others what it all means and why a lot of the negative things they hear about our financial situation are simply not true - it gives me great comfort to know that and I hope it also helps others to forget the politics and just focus on the football.

I have always stressed that I aim to seperate the moral and emotional side of being a Manchester United fan away from any profesional financial analysis - I realise now that many people are unwilling/unable to do that and dont see the seperation. Whether you are willing to accept it or not, there are positives and negatives about the current owners and it is for each fan to decide for themselves whether the positives outwiegh the negatives or vice versa.

Fans are losing hope, and feeling ostracised from the club. And the more these debates go on, the worse its going to get. Until we root out the cause of the problem then that will never change.

If you want atmosphere, then look at why fans dont feel they can stand beside other reds and sing the same songs, why they dont feel as one with everyone else.

Its because the fans are so divided over what to do about Glazer. Everyone wants them gone, but no one knows how to do it without it upsetting some or all of the fans.

Even the G+G campaign draws divisions.

Until the fans unite and work together it will only get worse, and the fighting will get worse as people get more frustrated.

True and a worthwhile campaign for fan unity was started and initially became a great success. Unfortunately it all got mixed up along the way with some fairytale knights and Im not really sure in which direction it is going to go now.

You also mention divisions about the G+G campaign - where does that come from? Not from me, thats for sure - however I have seen you slag off the campaign for fan unity on several occasions. Perhaps you ought to have a look in the mirror if you want to see the root of the problems that create divisions within our fanbase.

Thats why I get so annoyed when you go out of your way to discredit MUST. I personally dont like some of the things they do, but at the end of the day, they've got the fans interests at heart. Surely thats more than the Glazers ever will do.

Rather than telling everyone how MUST are a bunch of lying bastards, and scaremongers, why not try directing them to the reason why they are even having to raise fans awareness.

I really dont go out of my way to discredit MUST - in fact I probably do it less than you!! I think it is very hypocritical of you to accuse me of that when some of the most scathing criticism I have seen of MUST has come from you.
I do have issues with MUST and other supporter groups, again Im sure the people involved have the best of intentions but they seem to have got a bit lost somewhere along the way and it all ends up becoming too political, which is why I want no part of it.
I have no problem at all with people pointing out negatives about the Glazers, all I want is that any antiGlazer cause is based on facts and not propoganda.

If you agree that hte Glazers have caused a split between the support, then you have to be anti Glazer. If you arent anti Glazer, then you dont give a shit how split the support is. It doesnt matter to you....

I really hate this 'you are either with us or against us' type of attitude. Why does it need to be so black and white?
It is exactly that type of extremist thinking that creates divisions.

You need to get a serious reality check here Fred - you talk a lot about divisions in the fanbase but you need to think about how those divisions came about and whether your way of thinking helps or hinders any attempt to unify us all.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

roodboy, I'd like to think that the main difference between the Glazers and an RK-led ownership is that the latter would aim to clear the debts rather than use them as a vehicle to remove money from the club. Or do you disagree?

 

[Sir A1ex]

Yes there is a split and the catalyst might have been the Glazer takeover but I beleive that the fans have to look within themselves to understand why that split occured.
You wont like what I have to say about it all as I put the blame squarely at the feet of people like yourself.

As far as I am concerned the split was caused primarily by those who decided to abandon their club and fellow fans by starting a new club. There were no serious divisions until you and your mates selfishly decided to 'take the ball and go home' - basically sticking 2 fingers up at the vast majority who did not want to take that step at the time.

So you're saying that those who stopped going to United in 2005 were going to do so anyway, and the cause wasn't the Glazers?

That's a pretty un-hinged argument right there.

Of course the "root cause" is the Glazer take-over, whatever you think about other people's subsequent actions.

And for what it's worth, while there have been some levels of disagreement between those that oppose the Glazers but don't think stopping attending OT is the right answer, and those who did leave, those divisions are nothing compared to those between people who oppose the Glazers, and those who constantly try and undermine that view.

So your doubly wrong really. That's not the main split, and even if it was the cause of that split is the Glazers anyway.

 

[lynchie]

roodboy, I'd like to think that the main difference between the Glazers and an RK-led ownership is that the latter would aim to clear the debts rather than use them as a vehicle to remove money from the club. Or do you disagree?

Since the Red Knights have still not actually revealed who would be investing as part of their bid, I see no reason to believe that they would effectively reduce the debt burden on the club. I would feel far more comfortable if the identities of the investors were revealed so that their previous investment records could be scrutinised to see what their priorities are likely to be.

It could be that some members of the consortium have a history of asset-stripping companies for their own gain, or have made their money from less than ethical means.

At the beginning of this Red Knights thing I could understand the need for confidentiality, as everything was very embryonic. However, they now claim to be in a position to be able to make a bid, and so I would like a bit more transparency before supporting them.

It might also banish rumours that certain people might be doing certain things for their own financial gain if the parties involved were revealed.