I did also read though that he would lower his base salary and have more in the way of potential bonuses... not sure how true that would be
General Glazer Discussion | To receive the majority of £11m stakeholder dividend today
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Lets hope so, the club has been obsessed with protecting players value which has had the opposite effect. We'll see this summer if they've learned anything.
Our finances look absolutely shite. Wage bill out of control, commercial revenue stagnating and an operating loss. Net debt up over 200m what it was in 2019. Struggling to see how we can splurge this summer, invest in a stadium revamp and overhaul Carrington like reported.
The way the Glazers run United, or rather allow United to be run, is just bizarre. We can spend millions on garbage players but turn up our noses on free transfers who'd obviously improve us. We can pay our CEO better than any other club in England but can't find money to fix the showers at Carrington. As a business United is a joke and I don't understand why. Why do they run the club in such an incoherent and arbitrary way?
Estimate of £400m wages against an estimate of £620m of Revenue is 64% wouldn't call that out of control.
The clubs cash flow from operating activities was £23m, wouldn't call that shite.
Where are you getting the revenue estimates from? Last quarter there are fewer games so it’ll be less you’d think. 64% wage to revenue may not be out of control for Barcelona but it is for us - target has been 50%. And under new CL FFP that would give us 6% to spend on transfer/agent fees.
Not an expert in finances but how do we have an operating cash flow when making a loss? 44m loss so far this financial year.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If you compare Q3 2022 with Q3 2021, the rise in commercial income, is matched by a fall in broadcast income, so that the rise in total income is entirely reflected by the rise in matchday income. There were nine home matches in the quarter, so each match generated approximately £4m. There were four home matches in the current quarter. Assuming that the four home matches generated the same level of income and that the other revenue streams matched Q4 2021 in aggregate, that would suggest total income of approximately £107m for Q4 2022, and £571m for the full year.
Wages of £288m for nine months would equate to £384m for the full year. That would suggest a wages/turnover ratio of 67.3%, which is not great and doesn’t leave much headroom under the new FFP rules.
Lots of assumptions here, of course, but I think that they are all credible.
Edited because of an error in my calculations.
Last edited:
Shouldnt offer more overall. Hes already the highest paid goalie in the world. In fact we could lower it to £300k as no one else will pay him that.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Good post. That’s 55m less than in 18/19 - where we last had both CL football and crowds back in stadiums. I wonder why it has gone down so much.
Bollocks. They pocketed the Ronaldo money and were either unable or unwilling to adequately address glaring holes in the first team as far back as 2008. Ferguson papered over the cracks and we paid the price in the end. We’re still paying it now.
There is no question Glazers have spent the money like oligarchs and gulf states. If only they had done a bit of homework and appointed right people to run the club as well.
In other words -- The Glazers own a controlling share of a profitable, publicly traded company and every year they take some of the profits as earnings and reinvest the rest. Every year the value of the company has goes up. The people who said the business model was bad and the club would collapse were wrong.
So -- once you get past complaining about how the Glazer handle the company they own, what do you have left? Why is it that a football club who used to be a leader in that field is being left in the dust. Why do we always seem to be run by has-beens and know-nothings? Seems like that's the question to ask.
PS - John Henry works for free? That's a little bit hard to believe.
But they don't re-invest the rest, since they took over about £800m has gone on interest payments to service there debt which has hardly gone down
What are you arguing? Do you even have an argument? It seems like you're replying for replying's sake, all you've said is "Man Utd are a company, the Glazers own them".
My points are:
1) They killed the club with the large interest payments (£70m a year) between 2005 and 2010. The CL winning squad withered away and once SAF left we've tried to play catch up, but badly. In the same time City signed players like Aguero, David Silva, Fernandinho, Kompany, and Sterling and De Bruyne if you want to take it as far as 2016 when we started to spend £80m a summer on a single player. We may have spent a lot since 2016 but it was 2008 to 2015 that teams like City and Real built their clubs, when players were cheaper pre-Neymar and PSG. Cake on top of course is the debt payments, dividends, and directors salaries continues to go out which could've been used to bridge the gap - that amounts to around £20m, £20m, £10m so about £50m a year. It's legal? Well that's great, doesn't help us.
2) Our board and directors are the 6 Glazer siblings and one or two others. They have no operational ability - they're essentially glorified trust fund babies milking the assets their father built. You want to blame local management as you term it, but who appoints the CEO? Who's in charge of making sure there's operational excellence within a company? The board, the chairmen, the CEO. Ours are severely wanting. The John Henry comparison is to someone who's built their own wealth, led another team to operational excellence and then applied the same to Liverpool (and no Tampa Bay and getting lucky by signing Tom Brady after 20 years of no playoff wins does not count).
If a majority of the blame for our current predicament doesn't go to the Glazers, well I'm sorry, we might as well lobotomise ourselves because clearly we no longer need brains to think with
He's not wrong factually. They have spent money post Sir Alex, a lot.
But, the biggest sin is giving individual players far too much importance on the off-field matters, and indirectly weakening each manager's position as a result. If you're a young player that is the face of a lot branding that pulls in money, it heightens the sense of self importance beyond what is helpful to the team. Chasing commercial success predominantly works in the short and medium terms, but letting the team become an irrelevance at the top table in Europe and the league itself will now hurt the bottom line too. It also means recruitment strategy is muddled as it isn't purely dictated by what the manager wants to enforce his ideas and what gaps need filling for the long term.
But, the biggest sin is giving individual players far too much importance on the off-field matters, and indirectly weakening each manager's position as a result. If you're a young player that is the face of a lot branding that pulls in money, it heightens the sense of self importance beyond what is helpful to the team. Chasing commercial success predominantly works in the short and medium terms, but letting the team become an irrelevance at the top table in Europe and the league itself will now hurt the bottom line too. It also means recruitment strategy is muddled as it isn't purely dictated by what the manager wants to enforce his ideas and what gaps need filling for the long term.
The fact that the Glazers are the owner of Manchester United seems to be hard to understand.
Sir Alex never said he couldn't buy who he wanted. Was that untrue? Did he lie?
Man City is owned by a country.
PSG is owned by a country.
Man Utd couldn't compete with that amount of money, especially since they kept spending it badly.
For some reason, Liverpool manages their money well. Perhaps that shows that if you hire competent people rather than good ole boys, you can still compete. So there is hope.
And who hired these incompetent people if it wasn't the Glazers? We had Ed Woodward making all the decisions for years wasting money, he was hired by the Glazers.
Unbelievable that people can't see what they've done to our club
The club could spend £500m on new players tomorrow and the next day a large portion of fans will still insist we’re skint and never spend money because it’s what Green and Drasdo told them 10 years ago
fecking paraistes.
Enriching their banking buddies for decades now. We will just keep paying interest on this neverending loan as long as these cnuts are still here.
They have no plan to pay it off at all. None whatsoever.
The only way it goes away is in 50-100 years time when inflation makes the 500m equivalent to todays 10m.
My issue isn't with the Glazers -- is the fact that the league allowed an LBO to happen is the issue. The opportunity was there and the Glazers took it.
As far as I am concerned, the Glazers have spent the money. 1billion plus on transfers since Fergie retired -- and that's more than any club in the league and we got so little in return. The problem was relying on a fool like Woodward who must have promised the Glazers that his approach would lead to both financial and on-field performance.
The 1billion was wasted by Woodward's incompetence and poor understanding of running a football club. Incoherent, short-term minded and wasteful transfer strategy over the past 9 years.
Thats my main gripe.
I agree they have spent money. But we would have double the amount to spend if we weren't saddled by these leeches and their interest & dividend payments. Its the clubs money, not their money. They haven't spent a dime of their own money on this club.
Appointing woodward was a massive error by them. Someone who hasn't a clue how to run a football club at the top level. Hence why we have wasted the better part of the last 8 years on failure signing after failure signings.
The FA and UK government need to look into this kind of ownership. It cannot be good for football. It's only good for the owners (Glazers). The football fans are being fecked left, right, center by Glazers. They are not even interested to attend games or speak to the fans. They just let Woodward destroy the club (football wise) as long as they get dividends, share prices up and the value of the club keeps growing. Who care about football success?
It's no coincidence that BM, Real, Barca (I know the recent issues) are successful. They are fans owned and football first club.
In my book, it's criminal what Glazers have done to Man Utd. Robbing us of billions of pounds paying their debts, saddled us with ever growing debts, unprecedented mismanagement of a football club with a decade of failures, deteriorating stadium/infrastructure and yet stand to make billions of profit off the club.
Glazers/Woodward was extremely lucky to have SAF in the early years to afford them paying the debts while still being successful on the pitch. They thought it was easy to run a football club. They hit the jackpot there with SAF. After SAF retired, it took them 10 years and we are still the laughing stock of world football. Many fans already urge Woodward to modernize the club with proper football structure many years ago but this clown was stubborn and thought he knew best.
We can only pray it will be different under Arnold and Murtough now with the new football structure. Nevertheless, this kind of ownership should be properly scrutinized and it was reported that "anti Glazers clause" is included in the Chelsea sale.
It's no coincidence that BM, Real, Barca (I know the recent issues) are successful. They are fans owned and football first club.
In my book, it's criminal what Glazers have done to Man Utd. Robbing us of billions of pounds paying their debts, saddled us with ever growing debts, unprecedented mismanagement of a football club with a decade of failures, deteriorating stadium/infrastructure and yet stand to make billions of profit off the club.
Glazers/Woodward was extremely lucky to have SAF in the early years to afford them paying the debts while still being successful on the pitch. They thought it was easy to run a football club. They hit the jackpot there with SAF. After SAF retired, it took them 10 years and we are still the laughing stock of world football. Many fans already urge Woodward to modernize the club with proper football structure many years ago but this clown was stubborn and thought he knew best.
We can only pray it will be different under Arnold and Murtough now with the new football structure. Nevertheless, this kind of ownership should be properly scrutinized and it was reported that "anti Glazers clause" is included in the Chelsea sale.
The Glazers are the worst owners in football. Even Mike fecking Ashley ran Newcastle in a more sustainable way. Yes, Newcastle were relegated, but our last 10 years are the equivalent of relegation for a club the size of United. Under both ownerships, United have declined more than Newcastle. Horrible owners.
In terms of finishing 6th on 58 points I'd call it out of control.
I agree with you but no change can happen unless internally, the footballing people elbow their way to the top. It seems we are on the right path. That's the only hope we have as supporters of this club. The FA and the government are hypocrites, gangsters protected by the law and all kinds vile shit. The system in place is meant for the likes of Glazers to thrive in and is actually encouraged.
Fans need to stop spending money on the club, that's the only way we get the Glazers out. If they can't stop spending money, then accept being a mediocre, mid-table club for the next 20 years.
Absolute no chance football people will have any real influence on how the club is to be run. Joel Glazer has a final say over everything. The scumbag.
This is what riles me up. Woodward lived off the back of Fegies legacy, burnt monopoly money yet was hailed as some maverick commercial wizard, whilst making us a laughing stock.
Remember when Rio was rumoured to be our DOF? He was trying to be a pro boxer at the time
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I kind of agree that it's a problem that the owners of the club are so hands off. I'm suspicious why the supposed fans keep pushing to have them stay hands off when they can see the problems that causes. I'm really suspicious why/how the hands-on portion of club management spends so much money and does so badly. I'm suspicious how a mob is ginned up every time the Utd gravy train looks like it's going to be upset.
Why do you think this is your club, yet refuse to try to work with the real owners of the club?
The owners don't care about United that's why they're hands-off, only here to make money which is why they kept Woodward so long.
What I don't understand is if they ran the club well and we were successful surely we'd make more money
I too find it strange that Woodward was held in high regard when it came to commercial activities.
It is not difficult to "sell" sponsorship to companies when the club has so many eyes on it. MUFC is one of the biggest clubs on the planet.
Put Woodward in charge of a club like Norwich and then let's see how many sponsorship deals he gets them.
I'd reckon on revenue being a little higher but your point on w/t being well north of 60% is well made.
Wages this year will be roughly 100m more than in 2020. The Ronaldo revival has been a bit of a disaster financially.
I'D be more concerned about our cash position; Ten Hags is, I reckon, in a worse place than any manager since Fergie to make a serious statement in the transfer market.
Cash reserves have been serious depleted over the last few years due to: heavy net spend (with little gain), a massive salary hike (30% in the last 2 years) and of course Covid.
At face value, the Q3 cash balance of 95m looks ok, but it's misleading. The club has used the company credit cards (revolving credit facilities) during Covid to make ends meet and is in the red to the tune of 100m. Theses are short term debt instruments that need to be paid down regularly before more borrowing can happen.
The club also owes about 125m (net) in outstanding balances in relation to players already acquired meaning that 125m in future net spend will be for players bought before Ten Hags gets a go at transfer roulette.
So, in short and in no particular order, for substantial transfer activity, the clubs needs to reset salaries (the lack of CL next year helps automatically) by getting rid of a lot of expensive deadwood (which tbf seems to be in the offing), go against the grain and actually recoup some proper dosh from player sales, hope that selling clubs are amenable to long term payment plans, and perhaps renegotiate the terms of its current credit facilities.
ETH needs to be first time lucky as he likely won't get to double down.
I don't know if we would make more money, sadly. Having teen idols for players probably does make financial sense, and teen idols are reasonably predictable (Greenwood notwithstanding).
They aren't wealthy enough to not care about the $5B they have sitting in Manchester.
Post SAF his not lying. But what he’s not addressing is the £1 billion lost due to servicing the debt, and we’re still in the DEBT!
That £1b could have kept us ahead of the curve in regards to modernising OT and Carrington, then I’m sure the glazers could have taken £25m a year and no one would care.
That £1b could have kept us ahead of the curve in regards to modernising OT and Carrington, then I’m sure the glazers could have taken £25m a year and no one would care.
You have but then it's not your money
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
For those saying 10m is peanuts, if they just didn't take it out of the club over 10 years that'd be 20% of the current debt...
That's WITHOUT investment. That's if they just left the fecking club alone.
That's WITHOUT investment. That's if they just left the fecking club alone.
Not rich enough to own this club. Realistically it’s going to need someone rich enough to buy it, pay off debts, build stadium, training facilities for men’s and women’s team and build a elite squad.
not a easy task. If only Elon musk wanted to get into football...
not a easy task. If only Elon musk wanted to get into football...