All change of ownership and Red Knights related posts here please

SAred said:
These Red Knights that hoping to get control of the club, how will this benefit the average fan.If they took over are they going to drop the prices of the season tickets , give cheaper Man united jerseys. Does anyone know what the benefits shall be to the average fan.
Click to expand...

The benefit to the average fan will simply be that any money that you spend will go into the club, rather than to a bank to pay for the privilege of us having a debt.

But yes, hopefully ST prices will decrease, even slightly.
 
Julian Denny said:
It's not philanthropic at all. Whoever invests will expect a return and why shouldn't they get one. The difference is that the club will be in the hands of supporters, the bulk of whom, shareholding wise, will be a number of extremely wealthy individuals who can put in big money as well as the mass fan base, at least those who want to and are in a position to invest - perhaps 25%. From a financial viewpoint the aim is that any debt will be reduced to more manageable proportions - say 250m.

Admittedly this is all speculation at the moment but I imagine the above scenario is the general idea.
Click to expand...

But there have been reports that the RKs are trying to get some really big investors from Asia. Now, while we can be told that such investors are "big United fans", how can you be so sure? Sure enough to say that the club is in the hands of real supporters? You really do not want to be the like the scousers, ready to bare their arse because some guy has a United screensaver on their phone.
As you rightly say, everthing is speculation. And that's a pretty poor basis fir asking people to turn their backs on supporting the team.
 
The scenario that worries me here is that no investor is going to invest money and not want returns on his investment. Yes they are big United fans maybe but they also want to see a return on there money.

The one postive about the Glazers is that they have never interfered with Sir Alex and his transfer policys and look at the success over the last 4 seasons. The last thing this club needs is a bunch of massive egos in a boardroom dicussing transfer policies and what direction United should be heading. Has that will only lead to club one way. Look what happend to Chelsea when Roman interfered with Jose. Better the Devil you know.
 
Nobody would interfere with Ferguson, everybody knows he knows best. It's what the Glazers do next that's the worry.
 
In about 10 years the value of this club would reach 2 billion plus why the internet, live streaming to Unted games to any where in the world at a min cost. Imagine how much money United could make by getting away from the TV rights and selling there product over the net. Taking it directly to the homes of people anywhere in this world and this will happen.
 
SAred said:
The scenario that worries me here is that no investor is going to invest money and not want returns on his investment. Yes they are big United fans maybe but they also want to see a return on there money.

The one postive about the Glazers is that they have never interfered with Sir Alex and his transfer policys and look at the success over the last 4 seasons. The last thing this club needs is a bunch of massive egos in a boardroom dicussing transfer policies and what direction United should be heading. Has that will only lead to club one way. Look what happend to Chelsea when Roman interfered with Jose. Better the Devil you know.
Click to expand...

Yes, they let him spend that 6 million any way he wanted!
 
SAred said:
For those who know anything about stocks and shares, when United was on the stock exchange what where United paying out to there share holders annual. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I don't know the figures off hand but i would imagine they were paying around 15-30m a year. The point being enough money was retained in the club for squad improvement and we didn't have big interest payments to make.
 
charleysurf said:
But there have been reports that the RKs are trying to get some really big investors from Asia. Now, while we can be told that such investors are "big United fans", how can you be so sure? Sure enough to say that the club is in the hands of real supporters? You really do not want to be the like the scousers, ready to bare their arse because some guy has a United screensaver on their phone.
As you rightly say, everthing is speculation. And that's a pretty poor basis fir asking people to turn their backs on supporting the team.
Click to expand...

Yes I have heard that and you are right but if the RK consortium are able to pick and choose who they want on board then that should be ok. One would hope that the RK's themselves would have the controlling interest. A lot of money mind !

Nobody is being asked to "turn their backs on the team" - that would be really silly. I don't think for one moment that is the objective of the G&G campaign. Having said that, the Glazers may well dig their heels in over this and it may take a concerted effort by fans - ag a proper boycott - to get them to look seriously at an offer were it to be presented. If prolonged such a boycott would have an effect on the club and by extension the team. A war of attrition may ensue
 
theimperialinn said:
I don't know the figures off hand but i would imagine they were paying around 15-30m a year. The point being enough money was retained in the club for squad improvement and we didn't have big interest payments to make.
Click to expand...

I see so around 15-30 millon pound was paid out on a turnover of £157.2m this is the figure that was the turnover pre Glazer so now the turnover has increased to £280m would I be correct in saying that the annual payment would of jumped to 30-45 million per year. Looking at those figures over 5 years that is quite an increase in turnover and I fair wack of that from ticket price increases, which has made the Glazers very unpopular. But have these increase brought United ticket prices in line with Real Madrid , Chelsea and Barca of the world or are United fans paying more to see there team then to say a Real Madrid fan does to see his.

With a new TV deal on the horizon and a new contract with nike coming up. All this adding to a greater increase in turnover surely the Glazers will be able to meet there interest payments. No wonder they are not interested in selling. This is not to mention has I believe that within the next decade United will be streaming there games live over the world, now that will make some serious money.
 
SAred said:
I see so around 15-30 millon pound was paid out on a turnover of £157.2m this is the figure that was the turnover pre Glazer so now the turnover has increased to £280m would I be correct in saying that the annual payment would of jumped to 30-45 million per year. Looking at those figures over 5 years that is quite an increase in turnover and I fair wack of that from ticket price increases, which has made the Glazers very unpopular. But have these increase brought United ticket prices in line with Real Madrid , Chelsea and Barca of the world or are United fans paying more to see there team then to say a Real Madrid fan does to see his.

With a new TV deal on the horizon and a new contract with nike coming up. All this adding to a greater increase in turnover surely the Glazers will be able to meet there interest payments. No wonder they are not interested in selling. This is not to mention has I believe that within the next decade United will be streaming there games live over the world, now that will make some serious money.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of free streams around, some even with decent quality. It's hard to imagine tht Internetr users would pay for something they can get for free
 
SAred said:
I see so around 15-30 millon pound was paid out on a turnover of £157.2m this is the figure that was the turnover pre Glazer so now the turnover has increased to £280m would I be correct in saying that the annual payment would of jumped to 30-45 million per year. Looking at those figures over 5 years that is quite an increase in turnover and I fair wack of that from ticket price increases, which has made the Glazers very unpopular. But have these increase brought United ticket prices in line with Real Madrid , Chelsea and Barca of the world or are United fans paying more to see there team then to say a Real Madrid fan does to see his.

With a new TV deal on the horizon and a new contract with nike coming up. All this adding to a greater increase in turnover surely the Glazers will be able to meet there interest payments. No wonder they are not interested in selling. This is not to mention has I believe that within the next decade United will be streaming there games live over the world, now that will make some serious money.
Click to expand...
I don't know what their dividend policy was - Roodboy would probably be best to comment being a former shareholder. Regarding comparisons with Europe our prices are considerably higher than the likes of Barcelona and Bayern Munich but average in the PL - Ralphie is more of an expert on that and would be able to provide further comment.

The Glazers have always been able to service their debt repayments comfortably but the PIK was going to potentially cripple them if they didn't pay off the senior bank loans. Now that the bond issue is in place the Glazers can start clearing down the PIK loans.

The sad fact of the matter is in a couple of years the PIKs will be gone and in 5-7 years the bond will probably be gone as well, leaving the club debt free and the Glazers sitting on an grotesque profit.
 
radd said:
There are plenty of free streams around, some even with decent quality. It's hard to imagine tht Internetr users would pay for something they can get for free
Click to expand...

Some with even decent quailty. I can get copied DVDs for 25% of a orginal, but I wouldnt buy one. Making a legal high quality live stream for a norminal fee internet users will pay if the fee is right.
 
SAred said:
I see so around 15-30 millon pound was paid out on a turnover of £157.2m this is the figure that was the turnover pre Glazer so now the turnover has increased to £280m would I be correct in saying that the annual payment would of jumped to 30-45 million per year. Looking at those figures over 5 years that is quite an increase in turnover and I fair wack of that from ticket price increases, which has made the Glazers very unpopular. But have these increase brought United ticket prices in line with Real Madrid , Chelsea and Barca of the world or are United fans paying more to see there team then to say a Real Madrid fan does to see his.
.
Click to expand...

Turnover, pre Glazer was £171m with a gross profit of £58m. Turnover is now £278m with a gross profit of £91m. Operating costs under the Plc were therefore £113m but are now £186m. The increase in turnover is actually around 10% pa.
 
SAred said:
Some with even decent quailty. I can get copied DVDs for 25% of a orginal, but I wouldnt buy one. Making a legal high quality live stream for a norminal fee internet users will pay if the fee is right.
Click to expand...

I used to work with a firm that tried to develop applications to do something similar with commercial TV. Epic fail primarily because the costs involved were too high. It's more than likely that the cost of rights to the live broadcast will price out a reasonable fee.
 
theimperialinn said:
I don't know what their dividend policy was - Roodboy would probably be best to comment being a former shareholder. Regarding comparisons with Europe our prices are considerably higher than the likes of Barcelona and Bayern Munich but average in the PL - Ralphie is more of an expert on that and would be able to provide further comment.

The Glazers have always been able to service their debt repayments comfortably but the PIK was going to potentially cripple them if they didn't pay off the senior bank loans. Now that the bond issue is in place the Glazers can start clearing down the PIK loans.

The sad fact of the matter is in a couple of years the PIKs will be gone and in 5-7 years the bond will probably be gone as well, leaving the club debt free and the Glazers sitting on an grotesque profit.
Click to expand...

So this is my argument regarding the Red Knights are they noble and want to give the club back to the fans or do there see United has a business opportunity. Just a matter of interest when was the last time we has fans had a say in how our club was to be run.
 
radd said:
I used to work with a firm that tried to develop applications to do something similar with commercial TV. Epic fail primarily because the costs involved were too high. It's more than likely that the cost of rights to the live broadcast will price out a reasonable fee.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that's it going to happen tomorrow but in the next 10 years or so the technology will be there and the cost reasonable enough to get it done.
 
SAred said:
I'm not saying that's it going to happen tomorrow but in the next 10 years or so the technology will be there and the cost reasonable enough to get it done.
Click to expand...

You'll never get enough people to pay for it. The best way is to set up advertising contracts and stream it for free. Will never take off otherwise
 
SAred said:
So this is my argument regarding the Red Knights are they noble and want to give the club back to the fans or do there see United has a business opportunity. Just a matter of interest when was the last time we has fans had a say in how our club was to be run.
Click to expand...

I think it's impossible to raise the sums mentioned and have people not serve their own self interests. Plus with a couple of investment banks on board it doesn't add up to me.
 
Mockney said:
You'll never get enough people to pay for it. The best way is to set up advertising contracts and stream it for free. Will never take off otherwise
Click to expand...

If the figures are to be believed that United have a worldwide fan base of 333million then there will be more than enough signing up. I could be on hoilday and still watch my team any where in the world and the money that will be made out of that will be quite a pretty penny.
 
theimperialinn said:
I think it's impossible to raise the sums mentioned and have people not serve their own self interests. Plus with a couple of investment banks on board it doesn't add up to me.
Click to expand...

Correct, so is this not a case of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. At least the Glazers have left the running of the team alone unlike the likes of the Man City and Chelsea owners.
 
SAred said:
I'm not saying that's it going to happen tomorrow but in the next 10 years or so the technology will be there and the cost reasonable enough to get it done.
Click to expand...

Technology, I'll give you. Broadcast rights cheap enough? I can see Sky etc. lobbying to put all sorts of (geographical) restrictions on Internet broadcasts. In Asia, arguably the biggest market, it's a subsidiary of Sky that has the rights.

Take the UK and Asia out. How about the US market? Don't believe ESPN and FSC are going to stand by and watch their market eaten up either. Collectively, they pay hundreds of millions, if not billions to broadcast to their subscribers and they will pull out every stop to make sure their business is not threatened.

You're possibly left with the Rest of Europe, Africa and South America. Not saying that's an insubstantial number, but the only way I see something like this taking off to the degree where it affects club revenues in a big way, is if there are individual TV deals. And that we know is a non-starter. 12 clubs bar the (er, erstwhile) Big 4 to give the go-ahead will not be found.
 
radd said:
Technology, I'll give you. Broadcast rights cheap enough? I can see Sky etc. lobbying to put all sorts of (geographical) restrictions on Internet broadcasts. In Asia, arguably the biggest market, it's a subsidiary of Sky that has the rights.

Take the UK and Asia out. How about the US market? Don't believe ESPN and FSC are going to stand by and watch their market eaten up either. Collectively, they pay hundreds of millions, if not billions to broadcast to their subscribers and they will put every stop to make sure their business is not threatened.

You're possibly left with the Rest of Europe, Africa and South America. Not saying that's an insubstantial number, but the only way I see something like this taking off to the degree where it affects club revenues in a big way, is if there are individual TV deals. And that we know is a non-starter. 12 clubs bar the (er, erstwhile) Big 4 to give the go-ahead will not be found.
Click to expand...

Once a club is signed into a contract with say Sky then it can have restrictions placed upon that club, but when the technology is there and the contract comes up from renewal well then think of the bargaining power of the clubs so either way is a win win for United and of coarse the Glazers. Uniteds current value will double in the next ten years.
 
theimperialinn said:
Match day revenues only account for 1/3 of our total revenue and you will never get a mass boycott because people have to balance out what is more important to them, their love of United or their hate for the Glazers. Gill announced some figures last week that showed matchday income up by 19%, and commercial revenue up by 33%, the TV deal is also increasing year on year and despite the debt we still generate a shit load of cash year on year. Even if attendances dropped significantly their model would withstand it for a few years because of the declining importance of match day revenue. From that 1/3 60% is also from corporate seats. If everyone boycotted the maximum decrease in revenue would be 13%. It will not have a material affect on their finances. Add to that the fact that we are coming out of a recession so some of the ST's will be naturally replaced while other seats will become available to daytrippers who spend in the megastore, concourse, etc. You will end up with the same situation as 2005, the rabble out the door and a fresh intake of wide eyed punters with cash on the hip.

For me a boycott will not work.

It amazes me how KH can declare boycotters will be reinstated when their seats may already be sold. Logistically he has no hope of fulfilling that promise.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

That type of remark makes me very worried that the RK group are just indulging in fan-friendly soundbites that bear no relation to what will happen in reality if they get their hands on the club. (As I warned might be the case some time back).
 
SAred said:
Once a club is signed into a contract with say Sky then it can have restrictions placed upon that club, but when the technology is there and the contract comes up from renewal well then think of the bargaining power of the clubs so either way is a win win for United and of coarse the Glazers. Uniteds current value will double in the next ten years.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry, but your point is just not clear.

Club signs contract with Sky subject to the restrictions placed upon it by Sky (who are not going to shoot themselves in the foot by allowing cheap, high quality broadcasts to the territories they are themselves broadcasting to)

The only way a club can best Sky (or the primary rights holder) is if individual TV deals are negotiated.
 
radd said:
I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry, but your point is just not clear.

Club signs contract with Sky subject to the restrictions placed upon it by Sky (who are not going to shoot themselves in the foot by allowing cheap, high quality broadcasts to the territories they are themselves broadcasting to)

The only way a club can best Sky (or the primary rights holder) is if individual TV deals are negotiated.
Click to expand...

Sorry you are talking about TV rights and I believe that in a few years down the line live streaming will be the way to go. So the next set of contracts that are to be signed with sky will obviously have restrictions placed upon the club regarding live streaming. However in the furture when the technology is there to stream live over the net Sky will ever have to offer a larger package for the right to show the games otherwise clubs will seek alternatives.
 
SAred said:
Sorry you are talking about TV rights and I believe that in a few years down the line live streaming will be the way to go. So the next set of contracts that are to be signed with sky will obviously have restrictions placed upon the club regarding live streaming. However in the furture when the technology is there to stream live over the net Sky will ever have to offer a larger package for the right to show the games otherwise clubs will seek alternatives.
Click to expand...

I think you're right in the long term. But it really is the long term, more than a decade away. I just don't see such a massive increase in revenue as regards live streaming within the next 10 years.
 
SAred said:
Sorry you are talking about TV rights and I believe that in a few years down the line live streaming will be the way to go. So the next set of contracts that are to be signed with sky will obviously have restrictions placed upon the club regarding live streaming. However in the furture when the technology is there to stream live over the net Sky will ever have to offer a larger package for the right to show the games otherwise clubs will seek alternatives.
Click to expand...

No, as a collective group, they will accept the best offer that is put on the table.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
Exactly!

That type of remark makes me very worried that the RK group are just indulging in fan-friendly soundbites that bear no relation to what will happen in reality if they get their hands on the club. (As I warned might be the case some time back).
Click to expand...

And this is what worries me they are playing on fans emotions, but what is there real interest behind there campaign no investment banker is going to hand over a great deal of money and not want returns. Replacing the word Interest with a new word Dividend
 
The technology is already here. I watched the Liverpool game on my computer using a Channel 5 stream the other day, hell I watch games on my Iphone with the Sky streaming app - all it needs is a kickstart, and someone to launch it in a much more mainstream capacity.

Back to the RKs - I think it would be naieve to believe they would buy the club and not want to make a profit, and I am fine with that. Why shouldnt investors expect a return on the money they put in? The key for me is that we - as a club - have enough turnover to give our owners a decent return. The problem at the moment is that the Glazers are taking money out for profit and then taking a shitload more for interest payments.

If we are just paying out a nice £40m dividend every year and dont have huge, crippling interest payments on top, we will be perfectly healthy from a finance perspective.
 
SAred said:
Sorry you are talking about TV rights and I believe that in a few years down the line live streaming will be the way to go. So the next set of contracts that are to be signed with sky will obviously have restrictions placed upon the club regarding live streaming. However in the furture when the technology is there to stream live over the net Sky will ever have to offer a larger package for the right to show the games otherwise clubs will seek alternatives.
Click to expand...

TV rights are not 'just TV rights.' Your argument seems to be that if the medium is different it's a completely different scenario. It isn't. The term that's used is 'footprint.'

Take the analogy of Hollywood and DVD releases and you'll see what I'm saying. Would any studio be foolish enough to release DVDs before a film is screened and it's box office run is through? Or for that matter, would they be daft enough to allow it to be screened on TV while it's still in the theatres? Same applies.

Sky (or whoever wins the next bidding war) is not likely to be so daft (or naive) to allow (live) Internet broadcast rights to be looked at separately if it threatens their own profit margins.
 
radd said:
TV rights are not 'just TV rights.' Your argument seems to be that if the medium is different it's a completely different scenario. It isn't. The term that's used is 'footprint.'

Take the analogy of Hollywood and DVD releases and you'll see what I'm saying. Would any studio be foolish enough to release DVDs before a film is screened and it's box office run is through? Or for that matter, would they be daft enough to allow it to be screened on TV while it's still in the theatres? Same applies.

Sky (or whoever wins the next bidding war) is not likely to be so daft (or naive) to allow (live) Internet broadcast rights to be looked at separately if it threatens their own profit margins.
Click to expand...

In the future the Internet will be the competition to TV so the bargaining power of teams when negotiating broadcast rights will be greater.
 
SAred said:
In the future the Internet will be the competition to TV so the bargaining power of teams when negotiating broadcast rights will be greater.
Click to expand...

That really is the distant future though. Maybe I'll turn out to be one of those "this internet thing will never take off" guys, but there will be no goldmine from internet access to matches within the next ten years.
 
SAred said:
In the future the Internet will be the competition to TV so the bargaining power of teams when negotiating broadcast rights will be greater.
Click to expand...

If that happens, it's more likely that the existing big players in other media will swoop in and the scenario will be little different to live TV today.

At the end of the day, you're projecting huge revenues based on one thing - individual bargaining vs. collective bargaining.

In fact, if the Intenet genuienly threatens to rival TV and become a huge revenue stream, it's back to square one and you'll need the vote of 16 clubs to approve separate Intenet rights rather than a single central commercial entity that bids and wins the rights.
 
radd said:
If that happens, it's more likely that the existing big players in other media will swoop in and the scenario will be little different to live TV today.

At the end of the day, you're projecting huge revenues based on one thing - individual bargaining vs. collective bargaining.

In fact, if the Intenet genuienly threatens to rival TV and become a huge revenue stream, it's back to square one and you'll need the vote of 16 clubs to approve separate Intenet rights rather than a single central commercial entity that bids and wins the rights.
Click to expand...

But in the end it will ball down to one thing and that is clubs will recieve far greater income and that is what the Glazers and The Red Knights know.
 
Walrus said:
The technology is already here. I watched the Liverpool game on my computer using a Channel 5 stream the other day, hell I watch games on my Iphone with the Sky streaming app - all it needs is a kickstart, and someone to launch it in a much more mainstream capacity.

Back to the RKs - I think it would be naieve to believe they would buy the club and not want to make a profit, and I am fine with that. Why shouldnt investors expect a return on the money they put in? The key for me is that we - as a club - have enough turnover to give our owners a decent return. The problem at the moment is that the Glazers are taking money out for profit and then taking a shitload more for interest payments.

If we are just paying out a nice £40m dividend every year and dont have huge, crippling interest payments on top, we will be perfectly healthy from a finance perspective.
Click to expand...

So its ok paying out 40m in dividends to a few wealthy individuals rather than interest to a bank. Either way the money is leaving the club. The idea world would be all 333 million of us have a whip around of 10 pound each and buy out the glazers. Then the club is truly in the hands of the fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.