Double Glazered
- Thread starter robertsoncrusoe
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
I actually thought your post was better !That tells us nothing except that we didn't spend big money this summer - everyone knows this already.
You picked up the one part of the article which no one is disputing.
How can you possibly have a debate about Uniteds transfer budget outside of the context of general Glazer / debt related issues Rood?!
Have a word
Well everyone else seems to be managing it !
Right
So if you don't dispute that
You'll see that our debt is increasing, even as we bring record profit into the club, which includes exploiting match going supporters for more and more money each season. I believe we're the only team to raise season ticket prices this year in the Premiership
So you'll see why there are question marks over where that Ronaldo money is going. Because it damn well hasn't gone into buying players this summer
Do people think this debt, ever increasing, with ever increasing amounts to pay simply to service it, will magically vanish? Do they think such issue is divorced from matters of, hmm say... transfer spending?!
I can't believe some folk have the tenacity to tell ME I'm missing the fecking point
And that's why they're speaking about the same level of bollocks as you've been doing
Meanwhile talking down to and patronising those who are placing transfer spending in its proper context I might add
And that's why they're speaking about the same level of bollocks as you've been doing
Meanwhile talking down to and patronising those who are placing transfer spending in its proper context I might add
I think you are missing the point
How could we replace a player that wasn't ours?
As for Shearer, that summer we weren't selling a player as influential as Ronaldo has been. Besides which, didn't we bring Solksjaer in that summer? On top of the proven talent of Cantona and Cole. Back at the time when the size of the squad wasn't as important as today, and of course we weren't in the Champions League either
But anyway. The whole point of this topic though is to reflect on the Glazers. They're a burden on this club, and it's in black and white that their spending is at far reduced levels to previous, even before the Ronaldo transfer. Which is a legitimate transfer and does not deserve this ludicrous 'anomaly status' some are giving to it. If you don't reinvest that money into new players, that's called not reinvesting that money into new players!
If it's all about the Glazers, then my opinion is the same - I don't want them around. I just don't think our lack of spending this summer has much to do with them refusing to do it.
Regarding Shearer and co - we decided we needed a striker, went for a top one, didn't get him, yet didn't go for anyone else. For me, it's the same thing. We felt we had a need for a player, but when the one we targetted fell through, we stuck with what we've had (And signing Solskjaer was hardly considered a replacement).
Every time I read an article about our current club owners and our financial status I feel a deep routed hate for lepricorns. How though f*ckers manages to purchase our club without sufficient funds, off setting futures club earnings againsts loans to buy the club. At least when we were a public company we didn't have one person who could feck us over royally. The club is the biggest sporting business in the world, yet all our achievements just go to servicing the debt of the fecking ginger midgets who have know real care about our club, its history or the fans.
Right
So if you don't dispute that
You'll see that our debt is increasing, even as we bring record profit into the club, which includes exploiting match going supporters for more and more money each season. I believe we're the only team to raise season ticket prices this year in the Premiership
So you'll see why there are question marks over where that Ronaldo money is going. Because it damn well hasn't gone into buying players this summer
Do people think this debt, ever increasing, with ever increasing amounts to pay simply to service it, will magically vanish? Do they think such issue is divorced from matters of, hmm say... transfer spending?!
I can't believe some folk have the tenacity to tell ME I'm missing the fecking point
I agree. Only a blind man would think all is hunky dory. We have had huge debts forced onto us by a ruthless businessman who didn't give a feck about the club. This is turn would obviosly have many side effects, one of which could be curbs on our transfer activity. However, ever since their takeover, there's never been a season gone by where its looked like we really needed a more players, but could not afford them. We've always been amongst the top spenders in England.
I don't care what the fecking net spend is. We've made significant additions to the squad, winning us trophies in the process. If that was done by selling players we did not need/wanted to leave so be it. It is infact good business that we've managed to assemble one of the best squads in Europe with such a low net expenditure. That imo is more down to Fergie and Gill than it is to the Glazers.
My main issue with the whole arguement has been no one knows what is really happening. Maybe all the Ronaldo money has already gone into financing our debts and that's why we can't spend it. Maybe Fergie really does trust this squad enough to not spend any of it. Maybe Fergie knows we're skint and thats why he signed Owen on a free. Maybe we tried but failed to sign a big player. Maybe we'll go on a huge spending spree next summer. No one knows. What you or I say is nothing but speculation.
People are making comments they are in no position to make unless they work with the club by saying we've been hampered in the transfer market because of the Glazers. Imo we would have done the exact same thing even if we weren't owned by the yanks, but that again is speculation.
I'm pretty sure I've veered all over the place over there but I'm sleepy and I'm not going to read it all again.
So to summarise your position:
1. You don't think the lack of transfer spending is to do with the debt.
2. You don't think the increase in ticket prices is to do with the debt.
3. You are not concerned that the debt is increasing.
So to summarise your position:
1. You don't think the lack of transfer spending is to do with the debt.
2. You don't think the increase in ticket prices is to do with the debt.
3. You are not concerned that the debt is increasing.
What 'lack of transfer spending'? There isn't a lack of transfer spending.
Last season our net transfer expenditure was a record amount.
You're just upset because we didn't sign Kaka, Ribery and Messi. Awww didums.
I've met you Cider, seem a good lad, but you're a million miles away from the truth on this one. You seriously read all of Ralphies posts and come to this conclusion?!
Thanks to the stupid debt we've only got stupid Berbatov, Owen, Nani, Valencia, Anderson, the Da Silva twins, Vidic, Evra etc. Stupid non-spending Glazers!
Any financial types (or anyone who wants to offer an opinion) know what will happen when the capital needs repaying?
Could it be the case that the Glazer family will just aim to secure further loans with the aim of paying off existing loans and continue with that pattern ad infinitum? Or is it more likely that they will sell up?
Also, it seems the only thing that is clear is that nothing is clear - isn't Red Football intimately linked with the rest of the Glazer business empire and their fortunes?
Could it be the case that the Glazer family will just aim to secure further loans with the aim of paying off existing loans and continue with that pattern ad infinitum? Or is it more likely that they will sell up?
Also, it seems the only thing that is clear is that nothing is clear - isn't Red Football intimately linked with the rest of the Glazer business empire and their fortunes?
No, but that's what all this talk of 'net expenditure' boils down to - we sold Ronaldo and didn't spend all the money straight away on expensive players, so now some people are crying and blaming the Glazers.
Bollocks is that what it comes down to and you know it.
I find it disappointing that you are now not even engaging in the debate and instead turbo-posting one-line garbage. You're acting like a toddler.
Ralphie - "We're all going to die! Die, i tell you!"
Brad - "Boohoohoo, we'll never get Benzema now!"
Toddlers - well known for their turbo-posting.
It's not my fault that you're unaware as to the definition of an anomaly, Brad.
Yeh, this is just pretty pathetic really
A sure sign someone couldn't keep up in the debate and is now resorting to cheap, untruthful shots
I'm happy with the squad. And I'm anything but a transfer muppet. But there are serious questions to be asked about how we get by with this increasing debt, and to think it doesn't or won't have knock on effects on transfer activity is really fecking basic head in the sand shite
Well there's no doubt that they will look to refinance before the senior debt is repayable from 2013. I would assume, however that if the banks agree, essentially, to put back the due date, then that's going to cost the Glazers money. Last time they just added the costs on to the debt.
The Glazers have just sold one of their properties for around £70m (can't remember which one), and by all accounts they have put the Buccs up for sale. Presumably they could sell up and pay off the debt, but I'm not sure if that is financially good business for them, especially as most of the debt is secured against the club and not their other businesses or them generally.
His inability to engage in debate has obviously finally caught up on him and he's reverted to his toddler tantrum default setting. Bizarre, but amusing all the same.
If I went into my stats class, and knocked off the largest number in my data, purely for the reason it was the largest and ah well, it has to be an anomaly... my stats teacher would shoot me
Something like the Obi transfer would reasonably be classed as an anomaly. The Ronaldo deal was a routine piece of transfer business, we sold a player for what we considered to be his market worth, and if we don't spend the money brought in from his sale to re-strengthen, well that's clearly reflected in the net spend figures, isn't it!
The reason why it hasn't been spent is where it gets interesting. And there's a gaping £700million reason why that might be the case
Does anybody know,when the debt is extracted of course,what the Glaziers are actually worth
The last Forbes list had them valued as £1bn. But I'm not sure if that includes their debt liabilities or not.
EDIT: It must do, as United will be valued at £800m minimum I would have thought.
Well, it wouldn't cost them anything as it is Red Football and MUFC that would foot the bill. This is why it must be so tempting to continue refinancing and slowly, gradually start repaying the interest and capital over a long time period, akin to a 25 or 30 year mortgage.
The last time I looked at the figures it seemed as though all liabilities including MUFC were offset against one another so if one was making a loss then the profit making companies made up the shortfall. It therefore appears as though the Glazers (at least to me) would be happy to increase the debt by increasing the repayment period and lowering the yearly payments.
whether they will do that anytime soon in this financial climate is another matter entirely.
Either that or i've lost the fecking will to live thanks to you pair rabbiting-on like a couple of broken old records.
If it did include their liabilities then they would not be worth a big lot,so we would have to say that £1bn is after debts.Do you know what debt they hold against the buccs and what as a club it is worth,sorry for asking so many questions,just trying to how strong financially they are outside of Manchester United.As for the 800m value didnt they pay more than that at the time they bought the club,at that value it would have been a bad investment for them
Ciderman making sense tbh.
I agree. Only a blind man would think all is hunky dory. We have had huge debts forced onto us by a ruthless businessman who didn't give a feck about the club. This is turn would obviosly have many side effects, one of which could be curbs on our transfer activity. However, ever since their takeover, there's never been a season gone by where its looked like we really needed a more players, but could not afford them. We've always been amongst the top spenders in England.
I don't care what the fecking net spend is. We've made significant additions to the squad, winning us trophies in the process. If that was done by selling players we did not need/wanted to leave so be it. It is infact good business that we've managed to assemble one of the best squads in Europe with such a low net expenditure. That imo is more down to Fergie and Gill than it is to the Glazers.
My main issue with the whole arguement has been no one knows what is really happening. Maybe all the Ronaldo money has already gone into financing our debts and that's why we can't spend it. Maybe Fergie really does trust this squad enough to not spend any of it. Maybe Fergie knows we're skint and thats why he signed Owen on a free. Maybe we tried but failed to sign a big player. Maybe we'll go on a huge spending spree next summer. No one knows. What you or I say is nothing but speculation.
People are making comments they are in no position to make unless they work with the club by saying we've been hampered in the transfer market because of the Glazers. Imo we would have done the exact same thing even if we weren't owned by the yanks, but that again is speculation.
I'm pretty sure I've veered all over the place over there but I'm sleepy and I'm not going to read it all again.
Is absolutely spot on. Close thread.
The latest forbes list place Glazer as being worth $2.2 billion mainly asset based, however their heavy debt loading damaging profitability despite continuing rising turnover.
Glazer family sells Zapata to hedge fund
Glazer family sells Zapata to hedge fund
Our friends in the Times/tampabay.com Business department have posted an interested item to their Venture Blog about the Glazer family selling its majority stake in Zapata Corp. to a hedge fund for $74 million. Of course, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers owners have a heavy relationship with hedge funds that loaned them money for the purchase of Manchester United. Still unclear is what the Glazers overall financial situation is, but Zapata was an important investment, serving as a holding company for other businesses. Malcolm Glazer's son, Avram, is chief executive officer of Zapata.
Tampa Bay Bucs' Glazer family sells controlling stake in Zapata Corp. to hedge fund
Malcolmglazer2003KatsumiKasaharaAP Malcolm Glazer (shown in 2003 photo, with football, by AP's Katsumi Kashahara) the owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers who borrowed from hedge funds to buy the Manchester United soccer team for $1.45 billion four years ago, sold his majority stake in Zapata Corp. last month to Philip Falcone’s Harbinger Capital Partners.
As reported by Bloomberg News, hedge-fund manager Falcone agreed to buy the Glazer family’s 51 percent share of Zapata for $74 million on June 17, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Zapata, based in Rochester, N.Y., is a holding company with seven employees and no current operations.
Glazer is reported to still be incapacitated by two strokes suffered in 2006.
Zapata has sought an acquisition target since it sold a 57 percent stake in fish-meal producer Omega Protein Corp. in December 2006. Since then, Zapata has been unable to arrange any takeovers of other companies, in part because of its limited funds and the “significant deterioration” of credit markets, according to its annual report.
Zapata's sale to Falcone came two months after Manchester United’s parent company reported a loss and that net debt had grown 7.4 percent to $1.07 billion in the year ended June 30, 2008, said Bloomberg News. The team was debt-free before Glazer’s takeover, which angered fans who said his excessive borrowing threatened the team’s ability to pay top players.
“It wouldn’t be surprising if the Glazers were finding that their banks were putting severe demands on them to reduce the level of indebtedness,” Tom Cannon, a sports finance expert at the University of Liverpool in the U.K., told Bloomberg News.
Glazer, according to Bloomberg News, also borrowed 275 million pounds from Perry Capital LLC, Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC and Citadel Investment Group LLC to buy Manchester United.
Avram A. Glazer, Malcolm’s son and the chief executive officer of Zapata, didn’t return telephone calls. Malcolm Glazer, 80, couldn’t be reached. Family spokesman Tehsin Nayani declined to comment. Charles Zehren, a spokesman for New York-based Harbinger, also declined to comment, Bloomberg News reported.
PhilipfalconeAPKevinWolfThe Glazers sold 9.89 million Zapata shares for $7.50 each to three Falcone-controlled Harbinger funds, including Global Opportunities Breakaway Ltd., according to the June 19 SEC filing. Falcone (shown in AP photo by Kevin Wolf), 46, is known for investing in distressed companies. He bought stakes of 10 percent or more in New York Times Co., Houston power producer Calpine Corp., and Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., the Cleveland-based mining firm.
Former President George H.W. Bush co-founded Zapata in 1953 as an oil-drilling company. He sold his stake in 1966. The Glazer family has controlled Zapata since 1992.
-- Robert Trigaux, Times Business Columnist
Posted by Times Editor at 04:49:38 PM on July 7, 2009
in Glazer family , Management , Recession , Securities and Exchange Commission , Sports Business , Tampa Bay Buccaneers | Permalink
Might being the operative word. Nobody in this thread knows. Maybe it's the debt or perhaps it's purely a footballing decision from fergie. Either are equally plausible. The former is convenient for certain people but any definitive statement or conclusion drawn by any casual united fan is pure bollocks.
Bloody mysterious crowd these Glaziers,hard to know if they are brillant business men or a crowd of conmen,suppose only time will tell
They certainly are mysterious ---- I read some time ago Glazer wanted rid of Zapata Corp, however its only a holding company and holds no assets at present so how and why someone would pay $74 million for it. The financial world is a strange place for ordinary folk.
Ah, then the £1bn must be after the debt is taken away I assume. I remember being surprised at how little it was in the list I saw (I thought it was Forbes but maybe not).
Tbh, since we just sold Ronaldo for £80m, and our net transfer expenditure under the Glazers is STILL in the black, i for one am impressed. Hats off to the Glazers for giving our squad such a high level of investment over the years that an £80m sale doesn't take us into the red.