Club Ownership

Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
22,114
Location
Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
As I explained to the other guys, their penny pinching wasn’t limited to dividends. They take money out constantly for “business costs” that only benefit themselves
I get that.

They‘ll take bits (and that’s frustrating) but in the scheme of things, it’s peanuts.

Im just blocking them out in my head and accepting there‘ll be a few million out the door over the next year or two, but focussing on the end game… it’ll be Ratcliffe. Then we properly move on (though I think we’ll improve in the interim from Summer as well). Step by step, we’re getting there.

#meanstoanend
 

Redjazz

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
455
Location
Scattered
That can still be the case. The interest on the revolving credit facility is likely higher than it would be on a long-term loan. Paying that off in the short-term means the interest liability is lower, and it reduces the overall leverage i.e. there is space on the balance sheet for a longer-term, lower interest loan that can be used for infrastructure spending.
Paying down the RCF is more about easing cash flow pressure than looking to the long term. Typically each of the RCFs have to paid down each year regardless. At that point borrowing can again resume. The club has been doing that for a while without the influx of JR cash. Difficult to manage regular pay down of 3 credit cards while having cash available for other important stuff when the total amount on the cards is close to 2 years cash earnings. I'm also pretty sure that for one or more of the RCFs, the interest charged is based on the total borrowing capacity as opposed to the amount actually borrowed. Ideally, they should be used sparingly and paid back quickly.
 

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,321
Location
bin
I get that.

They‘ll take bits (and that’s frustrating) but in the scheme of things, it’s peanuts.

Im just blocking them out in my head and accepting there‘ll be a few million out the door over the next year or two, but focussing on the end game… it’ll be Ratcliffe. Then we properly move on (though I think we’ll improve in the interim from Summer as well). Step by step, we’re getting there.

#meanstoanend
I agree with you but I can't stop hating them. It's like they turned up at my house and told me that they've bought it without me knowing, but they've used me as collateral for the loan. And as the years go by I'm expected to pay for their loan myself, as well as keep paying out of pocket to maintain the place for them. They never put their hand in their own pocket and every now and then I open the fridge to find out that one of them has taken the last fecking Fruit Corner AGAIN, like seriously you fecking cnuts I was looking forward to that you fecking fecking cnuts.
 

LawCharltonBest

Enjoys watching fox porn
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
15,285
Location
Salford
I get that.

They‘ll take bits (and that’s frustrating) but in the scheme of things, it’s peanuts.

Im just blocking them out in my head and accepting there‘ll be a few million out the door over the next year or two, but focussing on the end game… it’ll be Ratcliffe. Then we properly move on (though I think we’ll improve in the interim from Summer as well). Step by step, we’re getting there.

#meanstoanend
It’s fair enough. And I hope you’re right and they’ll be fully gone in the next couple of years. I don’t think the Ratcliffe/Glazers dynamic can work as a long term arrangement. When one side uses the club as purely a money maker and the other is trying to put money in and improve the club
 

Redjazz

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
455
Location
Scattered
@Redjazz @simonhch any idea if Raine fee (30m?) has been paid off, or is that still owed as well?
MU plc has to pay the Raine fee of 31M (plus expenses). No Idea when that's payable though I presume it's on completion of the transaction. The total fees around the transaction will be a lot higher. The third quarter accounts will show up a fair lump of it under exceptional expenses. The accounts had around 10m in exceptional expenses last quarter (to Dec 31st 23).
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
22,114
Location
Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
I agree with you but I can't stop hating them. It's like they turned up at my house and told me that they've bought it without me knowing, but they've used me as collateral for the loan. And as the years go by I'm expected to pay for their loan myself, as well as keep paying out of pocket to maintain the place for them. They never put their hand in their own pocket and every now and then I open the fridge to find out that one of them has taken the last fecking Fruit Corner AGAIN, like seriously you fecking cnuts I was looking forward to that you fecking fecking cnuts.
The billions I can let go, the last Fruit Corner though?

Enough is enough… #GlazersOut
 

Woziak

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
3,609
Im no FFP expert but I think the amortisation is only for FFP purposes no? Transfer fees and how they are structured are very unlikely to be equally spread across a 5 year period. Many release clauses are upfront payments (unless teams negotiate otherwise, eg. pay slightly more but in instalments which I think Chelsea did for Enzo maybe?) and many teams also need cash quickly so will sell for a slightly lower fee for the upfront cash.
Notransfer fees are now used as a net accounting figure, everything is done yearly so if you are only making an anual payment it goes on your book yearly as do wages. The new FSP rules from UEFA state that this summer we can only spend 80% of our current financial year, so end of June 23 to 1st July 24 is period used to measure Revenue. So for example if our revenue is £650m (current prediction) and wages are just announced at £331m.
The club would be allowed to spend 80% of that figure on our yearly accounts which include wages, amortised transfer debt, expenses, Net Summer Transfer Fees and Agent Fees.

Eighty per cent of £650m is £520m is the threshold and we know that wages are £331m, we also know that the club owe huge debts in transfer fees to other clubs probably £96m per year for the next 4 or 5 years(These are transfers like M Mount, Antony, Casemiro etc where we still owe 3 installments of €20m just for Antony!)
That’s a spend of £427m now add the cost of paying off Richard Arnold(5.6m), paying fees for the takeover to Raine group ($31/£24m) and Dan Ashworth (10m) that would mean the club even with Ratcliffe investment which helps us with the 3 year loss rule that the club probably is at about £470-475m against an allowance of £520m leaving a yearly allowance of £45-50m. Now if we bought 4 players for £200m on 5 year contracts we would be within in the rules providing we released players that freed up wages to make sure new players wages fitted into the £331m.
Example we bought M Olise for £55m and Sold DVB £8m. The club still owes Ajax £8m of the £40m agreed over 5 years so this would. Be a transfer neutral however the club would now save his wages of £6m per year.

So agreeing wages of M Olise of £6m per year means that the player goes on the yearly accounts at £11m transfer fee and £6m wages so combined cost of £17m, however the wages would be compensated by selling DVB and no longer paying his wages.

if the club sold a player like Mason Greenwood for £25m, this is 100% profit even though we may agree five year instalment payment scheme because the club has no historic cost of the player in their books. Instead of a £200m budget by selling Mason the budget would be nearer to £300m so selling academy players gives the club a huge potential transfer window.


https://www.uefa.com/returntoplay/n...a-s-new-financial-sustainability-regulations/

Click the link and it will explain the 80% rule this summer, next summer it’s 70%, the PL are trying to introduce 85%.
 

brother ant

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
46
MU plc has to pay the Raine fee of 31M (plus expenses). No Idea when that's payable though I presume it's on completion of the transaction. The total fees around the transaction will be a lot higher. The third quarter accounts will show up a fair lump of it under exceptional expenses. The accounts had around 10m in exceptional expenses last quarter (to Dec 31st 23).
I will never understand how the Glazers takeover was allowed to happen. For a family who has managed to turn practically zero into $1.3 billion (for now) they seem incredibly stupid with some of the financial decisions they have put on the club. I’m certainly no financial guru but common sense would have been to start getting the debt down to more manageable levels or cleared (not sure if the £500m odd is possible in 19 years). This would have allowed the glazers to run the club more efficiently and turning better profits for dividends. Yet we owe more now than ever and that’s after paying even more to re-service the debt and paying dividends….. criminal.

Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for the Glazers. I believe Jim will keep diluting the Glazers for next few years until he can’t be out voted and will then give the Glazers no option but to completely sell.
 

TheRedHearted

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
2,669
Location
New York, NY
I'm wondering what these Glazer cnuts will end up doing? Do they already have a deal with Sir Jim to sell outright? Are they going to let him do all of the work and reap the benefits?
Well any decent owner weighs that option before anything- hiring people to run their business. And he would also reap the benefits.. he’s part owner
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
17,792
Well any decent owner weighs that option before anything- hiring people to run their business. And he would also reap the benefits.. he’s part owner
I assume it’ll be as simple as Jim having staggered options to buy them out at a certain price points. I doubt we’ll ever see them leave, I reckon their plan will be to stick around as a minority owner for eternity.
 

TheRedHearted

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
2,669
Location
New York, NY
I assume it’ll be as simple as Jim having staggered options to buy them out at a certain price points. I doubt we’ll ever see them leave, I reckon their plan will be to stick around as a minority owner for eternity.
I don’t see why anyone at this point would sell Manchester United. We lost football relevance but are still talked about just as anyone
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
13,421
Location
manchester
i dont see why Sir Jim would overhaul the entire club AND do all the work for a new stadium/area regeneration to remain a minority owner
 

sparx99

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,946
i dont see why Sir Jim would overhaul the entire club AND do all the work for a new stadium/area regeneration to remain a minority owner
There are two things that I’ve kind of thought could be his plan.

1. Propose the new build. When he shows it’s a £2bn project it may be the thing that pushes the Glazers out. Do they really want to be on the hook for 2/3 of that. Dividends will dry up etc.

2. Make all the plans and complete the new build. Ideally the team is improving at the same time. All of a sudden the club is worth 8-10bn and Ratcliffe has to buy them out at that price. Obviously it would be like 60-70% he’d have to buy as he owns what 30% now and that stake is meant to increase over time.
 

JediSith

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 13, 2023
Messages
938
It’s fair enough. And I hope you’re right and they’ll be fully gone in the next couple of years. I don’t think the Ratcliffe/Glazers dynamic can work as a long term arrangement. When one side uses the club as purely a money maker and the other is trying to put money in and improve the club
Same here. I think it’ll lead to problems and glazers do need out. Whether it’s Ratcliffe or another group who just add money. If Ratcliffe does do everything he is planning on doing especially with the stadium. How do you tolerate majority owners who contribute nothing. But expect something. It will naturally lead to some type of negative feeling.


Also at this stage Ratcliffe deserves praise and credit but should not be above scrutiny.
 

Marcelinho87

Full Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
7,232
Location
Barnsley
I will never understand how the Glazers takeover was allowed to happen. For a family who has managed to turn practically zero into $1.3 billion (for now) they seem incredibly stupid with some of the financial decisions they have put on the club. I’m certainly no financial guru but common sense would have been to start getting the debt down to more manageable levels or cleared (not sure if the £500m odd is possible in 19 years). This would have allowed the glazers to run the club more efficiently and turning better profits for dividends. Yet we owe more now than ever and that’s after paying even more to re-service the debt and paying dividends….. criminal.

Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for the Glazers. I believe Jim will keep diluting the Glazers for next few years until he can’t be out voted and will then give the Glazers no option but to completely sell.
They aren’t as daft as people believe, they have just made in one transaction more than they have ever taken in dividends.

Had they put my more effort in yes thing will have been better but not drastically, Manchester United for all its faults still ranks as one of the most profitable sports teams so they wouldn’t have made much headway.

They have actually don’t what’s best for their wallet, minimum in, maximum out.
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
13,933
Location
Sunny Manc
Cheers. I’d be interested to know how the interest rate compares to mine. I’m pretty sure they won’t have an 18 month zero interest promo like mine!
Ha. I couldn’t tell you if the interest rates are high or low. But these types of credit lines are the corporate version of payday loans, so interest rates could be relatively high.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
17,792
I don’t see why anyone at this point would sell Manchester United. We lost football relevance but are still talked about just as anyone
Exactly, I don't think they'll be fussed about losing majority ownership if they get paid handsomely to do so. I doubt they'll be open to leaving completely, why would they? You want to stay in the PL in some capacity and what better club to be in than United as an investor who isn't spending their own money.
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
6,316
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
I agree with you but I can't stop hating them. It's like they turned up at my house and told me that they've bought it without me knowing, but they've used me as collateral for the loan. And as the years go by I'm expected to pay for their loan myself, as well as keep paying out of pocket to maintain the place for them. They never put their hand in their own pocket and every now and then I open the fridge to find out that one of them has taken the last fecking Fruit Corner AGAIN, like seriously you fecking cnuts I was looking forward to that you fecking fecking cnuts.
A good summary. Now you’ve got 25% of your house back (toilet and kitchen?) on the premise that each of the six trolls gets to sit with you in the seven seater eating popcorn and counting money (loudly, smugly) while you watch the United Liverpool game and they don’t even fecking look at the telly the fecking smurfs.
 

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,321
Location
bin
A good summary. Now you’ve got 25% of your house back (toilet and kitchen?) on the premise that each of the six trolls gets to sit with you in the seven seater eating popcorn and counting money (loudly, smugly) while you watch the United Liverpool game and they don’t even fecking look at the telly the fecking smurfs.
:lol: yep
 

TheRedHearted

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
2,669
Location
New York, NY
Exactly, I don't think they'll be fussed about losing majority ownership if they get paid handsomely to do so. I doubt they'll be open to leaving completely, why would they? You want to stay in the PL in some capacity and what better club to be in than United as an investor who isn't spending their own money.
I don’t see why they would give up majority ownership either. Just change their business model completely, if we start doing better they have less incentive to sell. Unless they want the price to sky rocket and figure out they will invest the money elsewhere
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
17,792
I don’t see why they would give up majority ownership either. Just change their business model completely, if we start doing better they have less incentive to sell. Unless they want the price to sky rocket and figure out they will invest the money elsewhere
I'm sure they had to give some kind of path to majority ownership for Sir Jim and the most obvious one will be certain amounts of share prices Sir jim has the option on after a specific period of time at a certain price (that price is likely extremely high, so they would happily sell to him if they're getting a ridiculous deal).
 

TheRedHearted

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
2,669
Location
New York, NY
I'm sure they had to give some kind of path to majority ownership for Sir Jim and the most obvious one will be certain amounts of share prices Sir jim has the option on after a specific period of time at a certain price (that price is likely extremely high, so they would happily sell to him if they're getting a ridiculous deal).

I was quite sure of that myself, but I realize now there is no evidence there. No one besides the parties involved know whether or not there is a path to majority ownership.


we could assume there is, or we could assume glazers plan on keeping it long term or maybe they want to drive the asset price so high and sell to the highest bidder (may not be INEOS) at all.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
17,792
I was quite sure of that myself, but I realize now there is no evidence there. No one besides the parties involved know whether or not there is a path to majority ownership.


we could assume there is, or we could assume glazers plan on keeping it long term or maybe they want to drive the asset price so high and sell to the highest bidder (may not be INEOS) at all.
Yeah, I mean all of this is conjecture (and all the caf is basically the same) but it seems logical given we already know he will invest again to get to 28.9%, he wanted majority and the Glazer's reportedly wanted to sell majority ownership (this part I am not so sure on). I guess we only know for sure that Ineos are controlling the football side of things and own what they own.
 

TheRedHearted

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
2,669
Location
New York, NY
Yeah, I mean all of this is conjecture (and all the caf is basically the same) but it seems logical given we already know he will invest again to get to 28.9%, he wanted majority and the Glazer's reportedly wanted to sell majority ownership (this part I am not so sure on). I guess we only know for sure that Ineos are controlling the football side of things and own what they own.
Yep I agree. I’m also sick of conjecture, realize how much time I waste on it. I dislike the “where will we finish?” “Who will we sign?” I feel like we’d all be better off if we take a break and when deadline day is over and the new season starts we look at who we sign instead of the 10,000 tweets about “United is pondering/considering/sniffing/had a brief thought of signing 1,0000 players
 

SAF is the GOAT

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 27, 2021
Messages
2,919
Give it a like



United bit starting from around 30 mins. Important points:

Having right people in right places - preferably the sporting elites.

Sir Dave Brailsford is the centrepiece of these appointments.

Talks with SDB on a daily basis, both of them are more active in that aspect. Talks with Berrada too.

Ronaldo is probably the greatest player to have ever played for United.

SJR does not remember Sir Bobby that well. We won 99 final without Keane and Scholes, that is a massive achievement.

Liverpool will feel the effect of Klopp leaving. “Did you call him?” Asks the interviewer. SJR is all smiles. “You can’t ask that sort of questions”, says SJR laughing.

Chats with SAF often picking his brains, was the first person SJR went to see after the deal finalised on Xmas eve. They spoke for about 4 hours. SAF was a master of letting players go at the right time.

Stam is probably one of the greatest CBs he has ever seen.

Utd needs to have a stadium fitting the brand that is United. Talks about Bernabeu and Nou Camp atmosphere.

PL needs to have a ground which can match those stadiums. We have enough space to build a completely new stadium. Wembley of the North being mentioned again. Mixing politics again - “it can piss off City too” asks the interviewer, “Yeah, kind of”. City is best in class absolutely now.

Future of football is going to be entertainment/shopping as well. If you can get people to pay for other stuff (with new stadium), that’s also match day revenue and can be a part of FFP.

SJR hates all the top 3 now, so he has no preference who wins.

Ineos winning the grand tour or United winning the treble - United winning treble will mean more to him. I would rather find the next Mbappe than spending the fortune now. Find the next Mbappe, next Scholes or Keane.
 
Last edited:

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
15,962
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
Good to hear SJR make mention of Arsenal being patient with Arteta. Doesn't sound like a man who will go sack EtH this summer.
They won't give him time just for the sake of giving him time (or at least I certainly hope not). They would have to judge whether ETH is actually the right man to move us forward before making that decision.
 

DomesticTadpole

Doom-monger obsessed with Herrera & the M.E.N.
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
101,165
Location
Barrow In Furness
They mentioned it on Talksport today about do we give ETH chance to clear more players out, or get another manager who will yet again give them a clean sheet.
 

Partridge

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 1, 2021
Messages
705
Location
Linton Travel Tavern
I agree with you but I can't stop hating them. It's like they turned up at my house and told me that they've bought it without me knowing, but they've used me as collateral for the loan. And as the years go by I'm expected to pay for their loan myself, as well as keep paying out of pocket to maintain the place for them. They never put their hand in their own pocket and every now and then I open the fridge to find out that one of them has taken the last fecking Fruit Corner AGAIN, like seriously you fecking cnuts I was looking forward to that you fecking fecking cnuts.
Very "Mark Corrigan" from peep show.
 

simonhch

Horrible boss
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
14,485
Location
Seventh Heaven
Supports
Urban Combat Preparedness
They aren’t as daft as people believe, they have just made in one transaction more than they have ever taken in dividends.

Had they put my more effort in yes thing will have been better but not drastically, Manchester United for all its faults still ranks as one of the most profitable sports teams so they wouldn’t have made much headway.

They have actually don’t what’s best for their wallet, minimum in, maximum out.
They are incredibly daft. The credit for the initial transaction (from a Glazer perspective) goes to Malcolm Glazer. The kids are reaping the benefit of that. But under their stewardship, they have wasted hundreds and hundreds of millions on poor transfers and terrible strategic planning. The asset value could be so much higher if they had made some smart moves over the last decade. This is a classic case of dumb kids profiting from Daddy’s nouse. They are the Succession family in real life, each one more inept than the next.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,781
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
They are incredibly daft. The credit for the initial transaction (from a Glazer perspective) goes to Malcolm Glazer. The kids are reaping the benefit of that. But under their stewardship, they have wasted hundreds and hundreds of millions on poor transfers and terrible strategic planning. The asset value could be so much higher if they had made some smart moves over the last decade. This is a classic case of dumb kids profiting from Daddy’s nouse. They are the Succession family in real life, each one more inept than the next.
Daddy may have bought it but he was never involved in running it and he's been dead a decade, those dumb kids have turned United in to an asset worth billions more than anyone thought it was worth
 

elmo

Can never have too many Eevees
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
13,394
Location
AKA: Slapanut Goat Smuggla
That's something that's not happened at Nice though.
Are Nice as fecked as us financially by FFP?

We’re handicapped because we need to make sure we are compliant with it and there’s a lot more things we need to prioritise fixing for the team. A change in manager could be lower in priority for Ineos.
 

Herman Toothrot

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2021
Messages
1,756
Daddy may have bought it but he was never involved in running it and he's been dead a decade, those dumb kids have turned United in to an asset worth billions more than anyone thought it was worth
No, time turned the club into a massive asset. That's like taking credit for the huge equity that's amassed on the house your parents bought before you were even born. If anything, they've surrendered a position of massive strength and have been overtaken by rivals on and off the pitch. If they had done anything resembling a good job, they wouldn't need Ratcliffe to bail them out.
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
13,421
Location
manchester
Daddy may have bought it but he was never involved in running it and he's been dead a decade, those dumb kids have turned United in to an asset worth billions more than anyone thought it was worth
TV deals went through the roof and all clubs benefited. Theyve feasted on the strength of the clubs name despite doing massive constant damage to it. Competent businessmen would have it currently a much more valuable worth. Before SJR saved them the club had no bloody money left
 

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
15,962
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
Daddy may have bought it but he was never involved in running it and he's been dead a decade, those dumb kids have turned United in to an asset worth billions more than anyone thought it was worth
They didn't do shit. :lol:

In fact, their mismanagement has almost certainly cost themselves well over a billion in terms of the clubs value. They've allowed complete failure on the pitch and regularly missed out on CL which has resulted in significantly lower prize and television money; they've massively overspent on transfer fees and wages; that lack of success has resulted in our percentage of the fanbase dropping world-wide; and they've allowed Old Trafford to deteriorate to the point that massive renovation or building a new stadium have to be priced into the value; all of which (along with the constant interest payments on their debt of course) has resulted in the club itself being in a poor position financially. That all gets reflected in the value of the club.

At a time when English football is swimming in money, our valuation is somehow still behind Real and Barca, and the likes of Liverpool and City aren't that far behind us anymore (although obviously there's a lot of shadowy stuff going on with the latter). We'd be easily the most valuable football club in the world with competent owners.
 
Last edited:

AltiUn

likes playing with swords after fantasies
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
23,615
Daddy may have bought it but he was never involved in running it and he's been dead a decade, those dumb kids have turned United in to an asset worth billions more than anyone thought it was worth
Yeah, their management is why it’s worth billions, not because it’s the most recognised brand in the most popular worldwide sport.
 

Don_Johan14

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 2, 2023
Messages
173
Supports
F.C.Barcelona
Apart from the money for the purchase of the club's shares and £120m cleared from revolving credit facility. Has he spent out of pocket on anything else?