im going off the recent glazer out posters that were all over twitter, they are the figures they propose, eg.
#GlazersOut
- Thread starter Marcelinho87
- Start date
This is the most incorrect and stupid post I have read even in this thread.
I thought our debt was bad until I noticed Comcast have debts of over £100bn!
I posted the actual latest United financial report. Its facts. Thats not.im going off the recent glazer out posters that were all over twitter, they are the figures they propose, eg.
I could write an essay about how much BS this is.
I will just point out one thing though and you can think for yourself: That United commenced dividend payments is because that the club are a plc now and listed on the NYSE (City and Liverpool are private companies). Thats why the years coincide, We need to pay some dividends, because there are other owners than the Glazers now. 78m over five years for a club that are valued at 4,1bn is like the worst investment ever if you are looking to bleed the club for money.
Its nothing, and the fact that the Glazers are not taking out any dividends that matters should tell people something, but I guess in this thread not even facts matters.
Last edited:
Forgot the worst part. That share sales is on that list is laughable and proves that whoever did that have no clue about like: anything I guess.im going off the recent glazer out posters that were all over twitter, they are the figures they propose, eg.
A net debt of £317m is practically nothing for a company of United´s size. From a financial perspective we could carry much more debt, much, much more.
Which is if the Glazers do sell, and its not to the Saudis, it will be to a buyer that finances the takeover to saddle the club with much more debt. 1,5bn would not be out of the question. Another LBO.
Good post.
I’ve never really looked at it from that standpoint, just looked at football debt as bad when clubs like Leeds have suffered in the past with a debt 1/3 the size of ours at the current moment.
And yet Comcast still managed to fork out over £30bn for Sky
So tell me how money have gone out of the club the last 14 years?
With debt, interest and dividends?
I would like to know since my post was the most stupid and incorrect in the thread.
Like Ed said: "We are making money, no matter how we do on the field"
The club has given around 75m in dividends in total since the Glazers takeover. In total. Over 14 years. And thats not just to the Glazers, there are other shareholders as well nowadays.
So that is how much money has gone out of the club.
How is that the club being an ATM and how is 75m in dividends over 14 year going to buy us an Mbappe every year?
Interest is a financial cost, nothing else. If that is money leaving the club, then so is wages for the players and cost for food at Carrington.
Debt of course is nothing of the sorts and by even involving debt in the conversation answers your own question about stupidity and incorrectness.
Let’s correct it. £78 million over 5 years for a club they haven’t spent a penny on. Not a bad. Plus, we don’t know about other payments that they get indirectly from the club.
What’s your thing with the glazers again?
Without Glazers the debt and interest would not even be at the club.
That you do not even want to bring in debt into the conversation is baffling.
The Glazers have used club funds to pay debt and interest and dividends. Wich clearly take away funds for transfers. You can call it the feck you want but it is money down the drain.
okay but how much cost?
Its Joel Glazer on a redcafe campaign.
Around 20m yearly. Its been at that level for awhile now, but people love to add up the interests paid historically.
20m is nothing, the club could actually pay the remaining debt off with their own money if they wanted to. But it would make no financial sense. All companies operate with some form of debt.
Yeah it's not that much actually.
People are looking for a reason as to why we're so shit, so it is understandable really.
Where do they get the £786m in finance costs from then? Its way off.
Really? Please enlighten me how you know what would have happened if Cubic had not passively accepted the offer on the table from the Glazers?
Thats the problem with you moaners, you act like that there is an alternative universe is one where United was bought by some benevolant billionaire that just wanted United to win and win for his own pleasure. You understand that this is a fantasy right?
United was worth too much in 2005 already for it to be anything but a LBO and if it had not been the Glazers it would have been something very similar or worse.
Its the same situation now, the Glazers is the least worst option if you dont want to go on chasing unicorns on the Caf forever.
Its the costs paid in interests by the Glazers since the takeover including the PIKs that the family took up themselves and was not on the club and refinanced with the bond way back when. We have not been paying interest of any real consequence to the club for 6-7 years now.
The other top clubs like City, Barca, Bayern and Real all seem to have ownership structures where the focus is on being the best team in the world. Surely it isn't too much to hope for that United had the same thing?
Why are the fecking Glazers of all people the least worst option?
Not just the focus, narrative, directives, discussions, decisions... everything they project and talk is to be the best.. that was actually SAF’s model.. fecking glazers and this accountant ruined and destroyed what we treasured the most.
Because Barca, Real and Bayern are owned by it members. That is not an option for United.
City is owned by a corrupt state that does not really concern themselves with rules or human rights or anything.
Thats off the table for me.
The Saudis are the only one that can afford to buy United today and that is probably the only thing that would force me to quit supporting the club.
So give me a concrete/realistic alternative that is better today and that is just not a fantasy?Ok Joel.
Glazers is the best that could happen to this club
Deluded much?
I can give you two realistic but terrible: The Saudis or Baron Capital who has bought up 35 percent of the shares that the Glazers floated on NYSE. The latter alternative would be another heavy LBO.
Any suggestions? The "Red Knights"?
Of course they're not, they risked the future of the club for their own gain, and are unquestionably the cause of our decline as a club, if that's the 'least worst option' then we are doomed.
As you rightly say virtually every other top club is not run like we are, and there is literally nothing to suggest a takeover will leave us in a worse place, to just accept this as a safer option is crazy, we are going nowhere under this ownership.
There's too many people willing to make excuses for them, and oddly Woodward still, I swear blind it's either an inside job, or people are just been brain washed.
I feel that without having to dredge up financial details yet again, now is an opportune moment to reiterate that you would really have to be a ballbag of the highest order to defend the Glazers.
There is absolutely a shill like quality to some of these defences, arguing over minutiae, glossing over details, parading the debt diminishing like it's the work of mother Theresa.
Only a fool would think such owners wouldn't employ public relations staff to massage opinion and snuff out backlash before it has any chance to gain momentum. A campaign that affected sponsors brand image would be extremely unwelcome and there would be great incentive to stop it in its tracks.
There is absolutely a shill like quality to some of these defences, arguing over minutiae, glossing over details, parading the debt diminishing like it's the work of mother Theresa.
Only a fool would think such owners wouldn't employ public relations staff to massage opinion and snuff out backlash before it has any chance to gain momentum. A campaign that affected sponsors brand image would be extremely unwelcome and there would be great incentive to stop it in its tracks.
Ah well. Every cloud and all that...
Maybe its too late now but we could have ended up with owners similar to Liverpool's, who have done very smart work in making that club go from ultimate disaster under Hicks and Gillette to being champions of Europe without even spending any of their own money. Instead we got the Glazers who have taken us from the unstoppable behemoth that Fergie built to being a side that plays in the Europa League & no longer wins the Premier League.
Its interesting that people are suddenly saying that FSG are great owners and that we should look to them when they have had very similar issues with Liverpool as the Glazers have had with United post-Sir Alex.
As you point out, FSG has not put in any of their own money either.
The DoF-issue that we had with Mourinho when he refused to work with one, was the same that Liverpool had with Rodgers.
He refused to work with one as well so they stalled the appointment of Edwards to sporting director until Rodgers was gone and Klopp was onboard.
FSGs transfer record before buying Mane, Firmino and Salah was pretty fecking terrible. Andy Carroll anyone? The sales of of Suarez and Coutinho did not go down well with the the Liverpool faithful either. Liverpools transfer record was questioned as much as ours is now back then.
There is not that much of a difference between how the owners has handled the club besides the fact that FSG hit the jackpot with the appointment of Klopp. We are one successful managerial appointment from being right up there again.
Hopefully its OGS.
Its not like FSG are spending more money than the Glazers, the opposite in fact.
So I dont buy the FSG is "great" just because Liverpool is having current success, one has to look at it much more long term than that. They are in it for the money as much as the Glazers, make no mistake about it. If one thinks that is a bad thing.
Going into our 7th season hoping to scrape top 4 and our best players wanting out its obvious the ownerd have to go.
Ive seen reports by various news sources that have put out conflicting reports on that issue. How do you know that it was one way and not the other with such certainty? Whats your reliable source?
So FSG were smart enough to bring in a football team involving Edwards & co almost from the very beginning. While Woodward/Glazers 5 years into the reign finally realised maybe we need one but 18 months later nothing has changed.
Of course FSG & the team made mistakes in the market, there doesn't exist a club on earth with a perfect record. But the Andy Carroll transfer was funded by selling an over the hill Torres while also buying Luis Suarez at the same time. Not too bad. Since they also sold Carroll for £15m and Suarez for huge money, which funded more clever signings.
But Carroll and a few others, that was in their early days which they've clearly learnt a lot from and improved massively. Unlike our owners. Look at the successes from 2013:
Sturridge for £12m
Coutinho for £8.5m sold for a potential £142m.
Firmino £29m
Mane £30m
Salah £36m
Robertson £8m
Van Dijk £75m funded by Coutinho
Alisson £65m
Now try and name successful signings we've made since 2013. It's night and day.
And Klopp is a brilliant manager but these days you need more than that and it's no coincidence he's had success at two clubs in Dortmund & Liverpool, who put in place a superb football structure that allows a manager to thrive.
How can anyone argue that the debt has not massively hindered us? It really defies logic. Without the enormous interest payments we could have significantly strengthened consistently but instead had a long period of under-investment when our rivals seriously upped their game.
Some people here are either just contrarian by nature or too personally involved in financial feckery to admit to the damage the Glazers have brought.
Some people here are either just contrarian by nature or too personally involved in financial feckery to admit to the damage the Glazers have brought.
That is one the worst pieces of evidence I've ever seen in a while. The people who write this crap understand nothing about corporate finance. This is what happens when the Football Manager/FIFA generation "protest".im going off the recent glazer out posters that were all over twitter, they are the figures they propose, eg.
@Johan07 You are wasting your time. The mob wants a scapegoat.
Where would the investment have come from? The original owners a) were actively looking for new investors before the Glazers and b) actively pushed for other shareholders to sell to the Glazers. Given this I highly doubt the previous owners would have been able to weather the post-SAF storm and deal with the explosion in the price for playing staff (transfer fees and wages) given their willingness to sell and the need for outside investors.
I should also add that debt is usually used to finance operating costs. I would be stunned if the Glazers only used to debt just to purchase the club.
But let's be honest. None of this really matters. If you hate the Glazers there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind until the club starts winning.
Is our troubles really the Glazers and the money they have spend or not? I mean is it not how the money where spent? When Sir Alex left, David Moyes was actually appointed by him, that didnt work out, then LVG proven name with loads of trophies to back up, didnt work either, and Jose at the time it was one of the best Managers in the world. Plus We made loads of pedigree signings (Di Maria, Falcao, Ibrahimovic, Sanchez just to name the few). I dont think lack of success can be simply put down to lack of spending but rather lack of plan. Throwing money at the club didnt get us anywhere so what make You think, do it so now will. I think its the structure of the club and how that money was spend is the problem (fact that we have been spoiled by the best manager on the planet for so long does not help either)
I will never defend them as this club is a rudderless ship under them and that is what bothers me the most. What is true is that they have taken a lot of cash out of the club to pay for their investment, money that should have been invested directly back into the club and the infrastructure. But the only thing that bothers me is the directional mess that we are in, that´s all on the Glazers how ever it´s spun.
I know the owners had issues with SAF and actively tried to sell to the Glazers. My point about under-investment is in the 7 or 8 years pre SAF retiring, so I guess you misunderstood. As you know the club makes a ton of money (and though Ed and the Glazers have looked for every brand sponsorship possible, other clubs have also seen a marked rise in revenue), money which will always make us extremely competitive, as long as it isn't servicing debt. Not all debt is the same. Paying off 60m+ a year, when the market was completely different, means 2-3 top class players we're not signing and rejuvenating our squad.
Yes, I hate the Glazers, I absolutely loathe them. But having a sound argument about their terrible ownership is not incompatible with hating them.
Mark and Johan, I hope you're getting paid for this, at least. Otherwise it's just pathetic.
What is pathetic is the brainwashed users who have the dogmatic belief of MUST lies and accuse others for being paid and being shills when are presented with facts which conflict their fake reality.