#GlazersOut

[Bastian]

Of course I can. I was heavily against the LBO when it happened as well. It was way too leveraged and carried to much risk. I thought then.
But fact is that Cubic wanted rid of United and they were going to sell to the highest bidder no matter what. And that would have been a LBO, Glazers or someone else.

Thing is now, 15 years later, we had our most successful period ever during the 10 years after the takeover. I really dont care today if the club paid a lot of interest during that period now in retrospect. I would not have cared if the owners had taken the same amount out in dividends over that period either. Which would have been the alternative. I am sorry, but it is a unicorn that any owner would just keep on buying players, etc when we already were winning. Its a fantasy.

For me what is relevant today is that the club is in an excellent financial situation (does it really matter how we got here) and that the owners are seemingly willing to spend, spend and spend. If the Glazers do sell that could very well not be the case anymore.

I have some real issues with how the club is being run on the footballing side and how the money is being spent, but that is another issue for me. As many other here my issue with this thread is the fake news that is spread, which quite frankly is bad for the club itself. Plus its sad to see the Caf being turned into RAWK more every day.

That was at a time of under-investment in the squad, as numerous posters have been at pains to explain and you also theorise that the same amount would have been taken out as dividends. I think they would have started taken out dividends sooner, for sure, but maybe to the tune of 25m annually and not 60m+.

I find it strange that some United supporters do not care about two issues: 1. Our interest payments (and the leveraged takeover) and 2: (more recently) Whether we massively overspend on some players (because it's "not my money" or something similar) even though that sets a certain bar and obviously limits further spending. (btw, not accusing you of the latter Johan).

With regards to "fake news" I suggest that one of the posters arguing that the Glazers aren't bad owners and that criticism of them is riddled with inaccuracies provide a decent summary of where those inaccuracies lie, especially with regards to all the finances and how that has or hasn't impacted us in the market, instead of just saying everyone is peddling fake news.

Any takers?

 

[Revan]

It is not another issue, it is the main issue now, and the fact the club had their best period after the Glazers took ever is coincidence, we had a fantastic squad, and a fantastic manager, who much as people maybe will disagree probably went at it with even more focus after the events leading up to the takeover, Rock of Gibraltar, Magnier, Tabor, etc.

The fact is since the established setup left nothing good has been done, all managers failed, virtually every signing either failed, or disappointed, and it's unforgivable that they still refuse to remove their golden boy on the back of this.

I want them out, because there is nothing to suggest that however good business men they are, and however much they are willing to spend, that they are about to grasp the nettle and become good footballing men, which is what it's all about, surely.

It is another debate though. They've been poor owners cause of lack of football knowledge and for not having a long-term vision, yet the criticism is made for debt and lack of spending. Which is bullshit, cause the debt is manageable and maybe even beneficial, while we have been spending (since SAF left) more than any club bar Barca, PSG and City.

I also think that they should feck off, or at least remove Woodward (either entirely, or from football decisions), but for reasons that have nothing to do with money.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

It is another debate though. They've been poor owners cause of lack of football knowledge and for not having a long-term vision, yet the criticism is made for debt and lack of spending. Which is bullshit, cause the debt is manageable and maybe even beneficial, while we have been spending (since SAF left) more than any club bar Barca, PSG and City.

I also think that they should feck off, or at least remove Woodward (either entirely, or from football decisions), but for reasons that have nothing to do with money.

But it's not, it's entirely relevant within this, they've had their chance to spend the money well, and they've undeniably blown it, now we are left scratching our heads as to why Leicester want £80 m for Maguire, and why Newcastle are valuing Longstaff at 20 % of the clubs worth, we have become a standing joke.

The debt is fine, now, but it wasn't for a long time, in fact it risked the very future of the club, how that can now be deemed ok is beyond me, but as good business men they've somehow pulled it off, now though they seem content to just give Ed 'carte blanche' to throw the clubs money around, and basically do what he wants, it's beyond stupid now, and is a sad indictment of who owns us.

 

[Josep Dowling]

Everything you're saying is great with the benefit of hindsight. And again, where were these cries for underinvestment when the club was winning?

And of course you are assuming. If you state the that ownership has hindered the club, that means you ASSUME without the owners the club would have been able to buy these top players. The other assumption you make is that interest payment are the reason why the club didn't invest and that SAF wasn't truthful when he said there wasn't any value in the market. I mean your post is laced with assumptions (which is not a bad thing but plainly obvious)

I'm not on any side of any argument. I'm just clarifying some of the "facts" certain people are peddling. Like I said before, if you hate the Glazers, there is virtually nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise. That's just how it is with sports fans and owners.

You’re definitely on one side of the argument.

How do you know Fergie saying there was no value in the market was fact? We sold Ronaldo and you think he was happy replacing him with Valencia? It’s funny how our lack of investment in players came around the exact time the club’s interest rates were at their highest.

And @Johan07 you’re assuming an LBO would have happened and we would have got worse owners than the Glazers back in 2005. Again there is no factual evidence of this either.

The Glazers are just bad owners because every decision they make on the football side is reactive rather than proactive and they are relying on a man with no football experience to run the entire club.

Please stop patronising others as well. The worse kind of posters for me. You have a little bit of investment knowledge, you’re not some broker on the FTSE100.

 

[Johan07]

It is another debate though. They've been poor owners cause of lack of football knowledge and for not having a long-term vision, yet the criticism is made for debt and lack of spending. Which is bullshit, cause the debt is manageable and maybe even beneficial, while we have been spending (since SAF left) more than any club bar Barca, PSG and City.

I also think that they should feck off, or at least remove Woodward (either entirely, or from football decisions), but for reasons that have nothing to do with money.

I thought that the letter that the Arsenal fan groups sent to Kroenke and their board was a really good example on what constructive criticism could be.
And they have a much bigger issue to grind with their ownership than we have.

No "get the feck out of our club" or "fire Venkatesham tomorrow". Which wont work, because Kroenke is there to stay as is the Glazers here. Might as well accept it and move on.
They had some constructive suggestions, both on the corporate governance side of things and more operational issues like treatment of the fans, ticketing and the Emirates.
They suggested to change up the BOD, which would be my first suggestion to United.

Our Board of Advisors is and has been since Sir Alex quit; Gill, Sir Alex and Sir Bobby. If I am not mistaken.
These are the three persons that the Glazers has turned to for advise on strategic footballing matters. And it shows.
Those three should be complemented or replaced IMO. All three are advocates of the old model of running a British football club, where the manager controls everything at the club.
To replace or complement them would be a start.

And that will not be easy, if anyone thinks that those three does not still leverage an enormous amount of power at the club are naive.

 

[MackRobinson]

Like I said, you are so clearly devoid of any knowledge, as plainly evidenced below, that it wouldn't be worth my time to walk you through it. Especially since you have ignored the efforts of those with a greater tolerance of morons/shills than I have.

Oh look, its you again. More name-calling and still nothing relevant to add. Carry on.

 

[Johan07]

You’re definitely on one side of the argument.

How do you know Fergie saying there was no value in the market was fact? We sold Ronaldo and you think he was happy replacing him with Valencia? It’s funny how our lack of investment in players came around the exact time the club’s interest rates were at their highest.

And @Johan07 you’re assuming an LBO would have happened and we would have got worse owners than the Glazers back in 2005. Again there is no factual evidence of this either.

The Glazers are just bad owners because every decision they make on the football side is reactive rather than proactive and they are relying on a man with no football experience to run the entire club.

Please stop patronising others as well. The worse kind of posters for me. You have a little bit of investment knowledge, you’re not some broker on the FTSE100.

Of course I dont know what would have happened. You dont either. No one does.
You can make a pretty educated guess though. And that was what I was doing.
And I guess this is the crux of things now: because the situation is exactly the same. You dont know what comes after the Glazers, I dont either.
But I can make an educated guess and the two reasonable alternatives as of today are a sportswashing buyout (Saudis) or Baron Capital who already owns 10 percent of the clubs shares. The former I would abhor and the latter would be Glazers 4.0 and not in a good sense.
I rather not speculate with the future of the club I love and as long as not someone presents a concrete better alternative to me than the Glazers I am sticking to the devil I know.
EDIT
And I should add if we are talking history: The history of buyouts in the PL pre and past Glazers is pretty horrific. Gillett/Hicks, Shinawatra, Kroenke, Ken Bates and Leeds. Mike Ashley. Portsmouth. The list goes on.
The idea that we would have gotten a better owner than the Glazers is for me a unicorn. Or that we would now. But as you say I dont know for sure.
History seldom lies though.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I honestly don't think this is the major argument people have nowadays, but just for clarity they put our club under enormous danger with their takeover, and if we weren't so well set squad wise when they forced their buy out, and hadn't had SAF there to ride out the danger years then things could have ended very differently.

The major crux now is that they refuse to kick Woodward in to touch, and get a credible structure in place, it's just unfathomable at this point, another issue for me is the lack of spending on infrastructure, it'll come back and bite us soon enough.

They have clearly thrown enough money at is post Moyes, but look at us, a mess, they had a great chance with our standing in the game at the time they spent the money to really get us back to the top, but because the wrong people were making the decisions we've ended up in a worse position, and people wonder why other clubs now take the pi*s out of us in the transfer market.

I don't disagree with any of that.

I was against the takeover. My stance was at the time, and still is, that leveraged takeovers of football clubs should be illegal.

And United's owners are responsible for what we've seen on the football side - obviously. Who else would be? United are the grand exception to the rule which says that the more you spend - on wages in particular - the more likely you are to be successful. The years after Fergie have been feckin' shambolic in that respect.

None of this means we shouldn't call out people who peddle illogical arguments about what our owners have been up to, however.

There's a very common category of "Glazers out" fans who clearly suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance; people who blatantly ignore facts that don't suit them and go against their firmly held assumptions.

Those fans also have - as I said above - a tendency to disregard what United's ownership was like prior to the takeover, comparing United to the likes of Barca and Bayern, which is neither here nor there: it's irrelevant in the extreme, United was a vehicle for generating profit for private owners, and later shareholders, well before the Glazers entered the scene.

 

[MackRobinson]

Fair enough, I do make assumptions, but I also qualified it by saying there are various forms of ownership, worse, and better, whilst also pointing out that United make enough money purely in and of itself to have been competitive at the highest level in the market during all those years if the club had been owned by people who did not pile debt on the club. Contingent on ownership that doesn't cost the club 60m a year in debt alone (not including director fees or dividend payments).

Loads of fans were complaining about under-investment for years prior to SAF retiring. I was one of them and I remember continual discussion of our lack of midfield for instance on the Caf. Also, people were devastated to see the superb '08 side dismantled without the ambition to build properly again.

Now you say you are not on any side of an argument, you just point out facts. Well, I see you saying "aha, but how could you know that the club would be better run if that Glazers hadn't come in. for all you know, it could have been much worse." I agree it's a fact that none of us know how things could have panned out, but that doesn't mean that the current owners shouldn't be criticised for what is worthy of criticism. I haven't noticed that you are just patrolling the thread making sure everyone respects the truth. You are fighting your corner same as others, arguing your own narrative, same as others. Nothing wrong with that, it's what I'm doing too.

Also contingent on ownership that won't take out any substantial dividend payments, is willing to use are larger percentage of income on transfers, all while not taking on any debt. That sure is a lot of contingencies.

I have never once said the Glazers can't be criticized for anything. In an earlier post, I said that it's reasonable to dislike them for the terrible managers they hired and the lack of a DOF, etc. In fact, I have even said the LBO was very risky at the time of the purchase. But when people pretend finances are still an issue today, peddle half-truths, and invent their own realities, when the real issue is the club's playing performance, it just rubs me the wrong way.

 

[WillUnited16]

Also contingent on ownership that won't take out any substantial dividend payments, is willing to use are larger percentage of income on transfers, all while not taking on any debt. That sure is a lot of contingencies.

I have never once said the Glazers can't be criticized for anything. In an earlier post, I said that it's reasonable to dislike them for the terrible managers they hired and the lack of a DOF, etc. In fact, I have even said the LBO was very risky at the time of the purchase. But when people pretend finances are still an issue today, peddle half-truths, and invent their own realities, when the real issue is the club's playing performance, it just rubs me the wrong way.

I think that finances are also an issue, alongside playing performance. If it was not for the board stubbornly refusing to open up the purse strings for new transfers, would we not be playing better? Would our players not be the quality of top European clubs? Finances are a factor in the clubs ability to perform. The kind of players they sign, the contracts and pay raise granted to invaluable players to keep them with us longer, they all come from the finance side of the club and affect what we see week in and week out.

 

[Bastian]

Also contingent on ownership that won't take out any substantial dividend payments, is willing to use are larger percentage of income on transfers, all while not taking on any debt. That sure is a lot of contingencies.

I have never once said the Glazers can't be criticized for anything. In an earlier post, I said that it's reasonable to dislike them for the terrible managers they hired and the lack of a DOF, etc. In fact, I have even said the LBO was very risky at the time of the purchase. But when people pretend finances are still an issue today, peddle half-truths, and invent their own realities, when the real issue is the club's playing performance, it just rubs me the wrong way.

Sure. The problem today is playing performance, as well as a scattergun approach to manager hires and player recruitment. But also, years of under-investment coming home to roost. Had we consistently strengthened (and I just mean as befits a club of our stature, not to the extent we did in '14, '15 and '16) we would not have been on the cusp of such a decline once SAF retired. None of these seasons recently have been in isolation, they are all part of a bigger narrative. 6 years of not being competitive is worse than 2-3 years of not being seriously competitive, it sets in, a weaker mentality. Hence, you can't just ignore problems for years on end and then, when you finally do something about it, expect the previous negligence to be forgotten about. Even less so when what you do about it is haphazard and creates further problems. It's all tied together IMV.

 

[Reddy Rederson]

Let's see how he answers that one

I guess, he’s not gonna .

 

[MackRobinson]

You’re definitely on one side of the argument.

How do you know Fergie saying there was no value in the market was fact? We sold Ronaldo and you think he was happy replacing him with Valencia? It’s funny how our lack of investment in players came around the exact time the club’s interest rates were at their highest.

And @Johan07 you’re assuming an LBO would have happened and we would have got worse owners than the Glazers back in 2005. Again there is no factual evidence of this either.

The Glazers are just bad owners because every decision they make on the football side is reactive rather than proactive and they are relying on a man with no football experience to run the entire club.

Please stop patronising others as well. The worse kind of posters for me. You have a little bit of investment knowledge, you’re not some broker on the FTSE100.

I'm not arguing for or against the Glazers, so no, I'm on neither side of that argument. If you want my opinion, there is nothing special about them. Same with FSG. Owners make a difference if they really rich (City, PSG) or really dumb (the former owners of Liverpool, Rangers, Pompey, Blackburn, etc.). Besides that, there's a lot of chance involved in hiring transcendent managers and players.

Why does it make more sense to not take him for his word?

I've been accused of being a shill and on the Glazer's payroll, yet you take offense to a little snark. That's rich.

Don't even think it requires a ton of investment knowledge (I had to Google FTSE100). It's base-level finance anyone here can easily google and understand.

 

[MackRobinson]

Sure. The problem today is playing performance, as well as a scattergun approach to manager hires and player recruitment. But also, years of under-investment coming home to roost. Had we consistently strengthened (and I just mean as befits a club of our stature, not to the extent we did in '14, '15 and '16) we would not have been on the cusp of such a decline once SAF retired. None of these seasons recently have been in isolation, they are all part of a bigger narrative. 6 years of not being competitive is worse than 2-3 years of not being seriously competitive, it sets in, a weaker mentality. Hence, you can't just ignore problems for years on end and then, when you finally do something about it, expect the previous negligence to be forgotten about. Even less so when what you do about it is haphazard and creates further problems. It's all tied together IMV.

I think it's harsh to judge anyone for that given how successful the club was at the time. That's like criticizing FSG for not buying De Ligt.

 

[Tincanalley]

If the club issues new shares or the Glazers float some of their existing shares makes practically no difference from a financial point of view.
And it does not affect the clubs finances. If they choose to use the money for refinancing instead of taking it out of the club it should be seen as something positive according to your own reasoning.
By issuing new shares the Glazers could issue a Class A share with less voting power and less dividends. While retaining the Class Bs for themselves.
From this summer Class A it will be traded ex-dividends entirely btw. That is quite interesting, but not for this thread.

Well, well. Would almost make you think @Johan07 has inside info. He also knows that Jose ‘refused to work with a DoF’. Bit of a Walter Mitty/Stockholm Syndrome vibe? His confident lines would almost make you think he’s involved in the ownership, that he’s Avram in a dressing gown, glasses slipping down his nose as he taps on his tablet. I have put most of the craven Glazerites on ignore but not this lad. He’s too much fun (and tbf, makes occasional interesting points)

 

[Enigma_87]

If the club issues new shares or the Glazers float some of their existing shares makes practically no difference from a financial point of view.
And it does not affect the clubs finances. If they choose to use the money for refinancing instead of taking it out of the club it should be seen as something positive according to your own reasoning.
By issuing new shares the Glazers could issue a Class A share with less voting power and less dividends. While retaining the Class Bs for themselves.
From this summer Class A it will be traded ex-dividends entirely btw. That is quite interesting, but not for this thread.

That's simply not true. You do know how costly an IPO is and going public has direct relation to club finances.

 

[Johan07]

Well, well. Would almost make you think @Johan07 has inside info. He also knows that Jose ‘refused to work with a DoF’. Bit of a Walter Mitty/Stockholm Syndrome vibe? His confident lines would almost make you think he’s involved in the ownership, that he’s Avram in a dressing gown, glasses slipping down his nose as he taps on his tablet. I have put most of the craven Glazerites on ignore but not this lad. He’s too much fun (and tbf, makes occasional interesting points)

Naw, I just bothered to actually read the latest quarterly report.
Its stated there.
Trading ex-dividends would enable the Glazers not to take out any dividends at all again like before the IPO because the club will have no liability to do so towards the other owners.
If thats their plan I dont know.

 

[Johan07]

Well, well. Would almost make you think @Johan07 has inside info. He also knows that Jose ‘refused to work with a DoF’. Bit of a Walter Mitty/Stockholm Syndrome vibe? His confident lines would almost make you think he’s involved in the ownership, that he’s Avram in a dressing gown, glasses slipping down his nose as he taps on his tablet. I have put most of the craven Glazerites on ignore but not this lad. He’s too much fun (and tbf, makes occasional interesting points)

I thought this was pretty much a publically accepted fact by now. Or at least not controversial. In the same way that Sir Alex is against the same structure at a football club.
Do I ”know” this? If you have any common sense you would understand that I cant. And I never said I did.
If I and every other poster here had to start every sentence here that contains an opinion with a disclaimer like”In my educated opinion, which I cannot present concrete evidence for that would hold up in a court of law: etc”, the forum would soon not exist anymore.

 

[Jezpeza]

Can anyone on the Glazers side of the argument explain to me why with revenues we have of around 600m a season they cant spend 500m on players this summer and do the rebuild?

With the ability to amortise that against our accounts we’d suddenly need to lose 1.8bn over 3 years to breach FFP.

My theory is they are unwilling/dont have the cash to pump in to sign the players. If we had owners with money and willing to make the investment they'd do that. We see it happen at City and Real. It would cause us no problems.

And I actually think the signing of any more players is not going to happen this summer - i’d be very surprised if its all just noise like last year. Woodwards leaked email about ‘inflated market’ straight after AWB signed tells me the business is done. He's already laid that out as a reference point for the end of the transfer window where he can say we tried but ad he mentioned way back when we signed AWB there was no value in the market. They've spent about the same as last summer.

They bought the club to make it into an American sports franchise - its a business they make money from. Lerner did the same to Villa. The previous owners at Liverpool, hicks and gillet did it too. If you ask some fans of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers they can explain it as well.

I just dont think the Glazers are suitable owners for a club of our size in this day and age. Whilst their net worth is high almost all of that worth is tied up in the value of their sports teams and real estate. They dont have a lot in the way of hard cash.

The Glazers’ takeover has now drained out of United more than £1bn in interest, costs, fees and dividends since 2005

 

[Johan07]

[QUOTE="Jezpeza, post: 24409316, member: 112778"]Can anyone on the Glazers side of the argument explain to me why with revenues we have of around 600m a season they cant spend 500m on players this summer and do the rebuild?

With the ability to amortise that against our accounts we’d suddenly need to lose 1.8bn over 3 years to breach FFP.

My theory is they are unwilling/dont have the cash to pump in to sign the players. If we had owners with money and willing to make the investment they'd do that. We see it happen at City and Real. It would cause us no problems.

And I actually think the signing of any more players is not going to happen this summer - i’d be very surprised if its all just noise like last year. Woodwards leaked email about ‘inflated market’ straight after AWB signed tells me the business is done. He's already laid that out as a reference point for the end of the transfer window where he can say we tried but ad he mentioned way back when we signed AWB there was no value in the market. They've spent about the same as last summer.

They bought the club to make it into an American sports franchise - its a business they make money from. Lerner did the same to Villa. The previous owners at Liverpool, hicks and gillet did it too. If you ask some fans of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers they can explain it as well.

I just dont think the Glazers are suitable owners for a club of our size in this day and age. Whilst their net worth is high almost all of that worth is tied up in the value of their sports teams and real estate. They dont have a lot in the way of hard cash.

The Glazers’ takeover has now drained out of United more than £1bn in interest, costs, fees and dividends since 2005[/QUOTE]
Because of what it would do to our wage bill.

 

[Jezpeza]

Because of what it would do to our wage bill.[/QUOTE]

Wages are part of the amortisation as well. 5 players on 200k a week still only adds 52 million to the wage bill. Thats not 1.8 billion.

 

[Revan]

Can anyone on the Glazers side of the argument explain to me why with revenues we have of around 600m a season they cant spend 500m on players this summer and do the rebuild?

With the ability to amortise that against our accounts we’d suddenly need to lose 1.8bn over 3 years to breach FFP.

My theory is they are unwilling/dont have the cash to pump in to sign the players. If we had owners with money and willing to make the investment they'd do that. We see it happen at City and Real. It would cause us no problems.

And I actually think the signing of any more players is not going to happen this summer - i’d be very surprised if its all just noise like last year. Woodwards leaked email about ‘inflated market’ straight after AWB signed tells me the business is done. He's already laid that out as a reference point for the end of the transfer window where he can say we tried but ad he mentioned way back when we signed AWB there was no value in the market. They've spent about the same as last summer.

They bought the club to make it into an American sports franchise - its a business they make money from. Lerner did the same to Villa. The previous owners at Liverpool, hicks and gillet did it too. If you ask some fans of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers they can explain it as well.

I just dont think the Glazers are suitable owners for a club of our size in this day and age. Whilst their net worth is high almost all of that worth is tied up in the value of their sports teams and real estate. They dont have a lot in the way of hard cash.

The Glazers’ takeover has now drained out of United more than £1bn in interest, costs, fees and dividends since 2005

Cause those players wouldn't play for free, neither the stadium will maintain itself, nor the other club employees (close to a thousand of them) will work for free.

And no, they haven't drained out more than a billion from the club. This is a myth that somehow has become a widely accepted fact from MUST followers. I think it was @ravelston (I guess another shill) who totally dismantled it a few years back in one of the Glazers threads.

 

[Jezpeza]

Cause those players wouldn't play for free, neither the stadium will maintain itself, nor the other club employees (close to a thousand of them) will work for free.

And no, they haven't drained out more than a billion from the club. This is a myth that somehow has become a widely accepted fact from MUST followers. I think it was @ravelston (I guess another shill) who totally dismantled it a few years back in one of the Glazers threads.

Stadium doesnt get maintained mate. Obviously havent been there in a while. Have you not seen the leaking roof. Wages are part of operating costs as well if you know anything about running a business.

 

[Johan07]

Because of what it would do to our wage bill.

Wages are part of the amortisation as well. 5 players on 200k a week still only adds 52 million to the wage bill. Thats not 1.8 billion.[/QUOTE]
Now you are just throwing numbers around. We have the largest wage bill in the PL at 300m yearly. And thats before Rashfords and De Geas new contracts. Thats 50 percent of turnover which is exactly where it should be.

 

[Revan]

Stadium doesnt get maintained mate. Obviously havent been there in a while. Have you not seen the leaking roof. Wages are part of operating costs as well if you know anything about running a business.

Of course it is maintained, just not as much as we would want to. And obviously, your scenario is totally crazy, cause it leaves just 100m for all the other things, when our wage bill alone is more than twice of it. Sure, you can pay the transfers in 2 years or so instead of upfront (as long as we didn't use release clauses), but you also need to add the fact that we actually owe money to other clubs for transfers of the last 2 years.

It is very uncommon to pay for a player in installments which take longer than 2 years.

Simply, spending 500m in players is impossible, unless:

a) there is a sugar daddy to put his own money in the club (yet, it has never happened)
b) the club has been accumulating cash for many years (has for example a negative net spent in the last 5 years while having a large income, a situation Real Madrid is). Yet, it has never happened.
c) half of it being financed from player sales. Yet, it has never happened.

 

[Jezpeza]

Wages are part of the amortisation as well. 5 players on 200k a week still only adds 52 million to the wage bill. Thats not 1.8 billion.

Now you are just throwing numbers around. We have the largest wage bill in the PL at 300m yearly. And thats before Rashfords and De Geas new contracts. Thats 50 percent of turnover which is exactly where it should be.[/QUOTE]

Not really. If you sell some crud out like we need to that lowers that back to around 50 percent but obviously buying replacements costs cash like i said so no chance.

 

[Johan07]

Of course it is maintained, just not as much as we would want to. And obviously, your scenario is totally crazy, cause it leaves just 100m for all the other things, when our wage bill alone is more than twice of it. Sure, you can pay the transfers in 2 years or so instead of upfront (as long as we didn't use release clauses), but you also need to add the fact that we actually owe money to other clubs for transfers of the last 2 years.

It is very uncommon to pay for a player in installments which take longer than 2 years.

Simply, spending 500m in players is impossible, unless:

a) there is a sugar daddy to put his own money in the club (yet, it has never happened)
b) the club has been accumulating cash for many years (has for example a negative net spent in the last 5 years while having a large income, a situation Real Madrid is). Yet, it has never happened.
c) half of it being financed from player sales. Yet, it has never happened.

Yeah,
the sugar daddy thing is overrated as well. An owner cant put in more than 30m yearly into a club due to FFP, so it would take quite awhile to get to 500m.
Only way to get around it is cheat like City.

 

[Jezpeza]

Of course it is maintained, just not as much as we would want to. And obviously, your scenario is totally crazy, cause it leaves just 100m for all the other things, when our wage bill alone is more than twice of it. Sure, you can pay the transfers in 2 years or so instead of upfront (as long as we didn't use release clauses), but you also need to add the fact that we actually owe money to other clubs for transfers of the last 2 years.

It is very uncommon to pay for a player in installments which take longer than 2 years.

Simply, spending 500m in players is impossible, unless:

a) there is a sugar daddy to put his own money in the club (yet, it has never happened)
b) the club has been accumulating cash for many years (has for example a negative net spent in the last 5 years while having a large income, a situation Real Madrid is). Yet, it has never happened.
c) half of it being financed from player sales. Yet, it has never happened.

‘Sugar daddy’ - Thats what happened at City, everton, chelsea? We cant accumulate cash as we pay it all out on interest on money the glazers borrowed to leverage the takeover, and their dividends. You pay for transfers over max 2 years in terms of paying yes. But because a player counts as an intangible asset you can write the cost off against the assets operational lifetime (the players contract length). thats how you spend 100m on a player on a 5 year contract and report it as 20m a year

 

[Johan07]

‘Sugar daddy’ - Thats what happened at City, everton, chelsea? We cant accumulate cash as we pay it all out on interest on money the glazers borrowed to leverage the takeover, and their dividends. You pay for transfers over max 2 years in terms of paying yes. But because a player counts as an intangible asset you can write the cost off against the assets operational lifetime (the players contract length). thats how you spend 100m on a player on a 5 year contract and report it as 20m a year

You should take a minute to actually read the latest quarterly report before spewing incorrect facts about.
We have a gigantic accumulated equity just because we have not been paying interest and dividends practically at all the last 5 years. Which I dont count 20m in interest and 20m in dividends yearly as.
The Glazers could basically pay off the clubs debt with its own equity and then some.
If you want to have a grown-up discussion here you reelly need to get your facts straight first. It annoys the hell out of me when posters like you just spread fake facts around as they were gospel.

 

[Bestietom]

Yeah,
the sugar daddy thing is overrated as well. An owner cant put in more than 30m yearly into a club due to FFP, so it would take quite awhile to get to 500m.
Only way to get around it is cheat like City.

Yeah, full stadium every game with tickets bought by the owner.???

 

[MancunianAngels]

What a weird stick to beat the owners over with when the club won 5 PL and a UCL trophy in that 7 to 8 year period. I wonder how many fans were complaining about under investment during those successful periods. SAF once said there is no value in market, but now that is just dismissed as him "protecting the Glazers" (a bit insulting but whatever). Funny that.

Like I said before if the debt was also used to fund operating expenses the interest payments are irrelevant. Secondly, you assume that without the Glazers, United would have had bought these mythical top class players. That's quite a leap in logic given SAF was winning everything sight and the previous owners seemed desperate for new investment.

I've said this before: I don't give a shit about defending some random CEO at a multi-billion pound corporation. What I do abhor is fake news/facts that people regurgitate just to fit a preconceived notion. Fact checking in the information age is really fecking simple. It's fine to dislike the Glazers (ie. managerial appointments, not hiring a DOF), but we don't need these RAWKish level half-truths about the financial situation do to so.

It’s interesting to look at that period of 2006 - 2011. On the face of it there was 4 titles, 3 League Cups, a Champions League and a World Club Cup. A sign of successful ownership?

Let’s look beyond that for a minute. The key attacking players were signed pre Glazer (Rooney and Ronaldo). The key defensive signings were VDS, Vidic and Evra. All bought under the Glazers but all there had considerable doubts placed upon them at the time.

The signing of Carrick was also influential but I remember meltdowns on here and other places that summer.

Fergie was a genius and pushed some of those players onto amazing things. You can then look at the summer of 2008. Being European Champions placated a lot of people. In reality, as seemingly one of the best teams on the planet we only signed Berbatov. Alarm bells should have rung then but didn’t. We had a chance to build a Madrid like European dynasty but squandered it.

 

[Jezpeza]

You should take a minute to actually read the latest quarterly report before spewing incorrect facts about.
We have a gigantic accumulated equity just because we have not been paying interest and dividends practically at all the last 5 years. Which I dont count 20m in interest and 20m in dividends yearly as.
The Glazers could basically pay off the clubs debt with its own equity and then some.
If you want to have a grown-up discussion here you reelly need to get your facts straight first. It annoys the hell out of me when posters like you just spread fake facts around as they were gospel.

Equity is based on share value and debts? Remind me how your release share value? Selling then?

You are the one who need to get facts straight pal, you dont even know what equity is you spoon. Yet you're here spouting off about it because ‘youve read the quarterly report’ but didnt understand it obviously

Equity is the value of a business minus its debts, you are referring to it as if its cash in the bank?

 

[Johan07]

Equity is based on share value and debts? Remind me how your release share value? Selling then?

You are the one who need to get facts straight pal, you dont even know what equity is you spoon. Yet you're here spouting off about it because ‘youve read the quarterly report’ but didnt understand it obviously

Equity is the value of a business minus its debts, you are referring to it as if its cash in the bank?

Sigh.... What are you on about? Share value?
United has almost 400m in current assets, of which cash constitutes about 50%.
We also have a net debt of 317m if memory serves me correctly.
Thats pretty darn good.
What you said was simply not true. The Glazers has taken TOTAL dividends from United of 78m over 15 years. Its nothing.
Now I am out of debating with you, since you dont have a clue and dont seem interested to get some either.

 

[Jezpeza]

Sigh.... What are you on about? Share value?
United has almost 400m in current assets, of which cash constitutes about 50%.
We also have a net debt of 317m if memory serves me correctly.
Thats pretty darn good.
What you said was simply not true. The Glazers has taken TOTAL dividends from United of 78m over 15 years. Its nothing.
Now I am out of debating with you, since you dont have a clue and dont seem interested to get some either.

Nope you just are talking s**t and its been called mate so you are trying to style it out. All the best

 

[Duafc]

@Johan07 Fair play to you remaining reasonable and willing to explain your point of view over and over in spite of so many childish returns.

 

[Jezpeza]

@Johan07 Fair play to you remaining reasonable and willing to explain your point of view over and over in spite of so many childish returns.

Yeah. He read the quarterly report, claimed we had debt of 317m despite borrowings of 487, said the glazers could pay off a cash debt by using equity without selling it. Because he thinks equity is cash he doesn't understand its based on share value. Fair play for constantly trying to come over right about wrong ‘facts’?

 

[Duafc]

Yeah. He read the quarterly report, claimed we had debt of 317m despite borrowings of 487, said the glazers could pay off a cash debt by using equity without selling it. Because he thinks equity is cash he doesn't understand its based on share value. Fair play for constantly trying to come over right about wrong ‘facts’?

Chill out bro.

 

[Johan07]

Yeah. He read the quarterly report, claimed we had debt of 317m despite borrowings of 487, said the glazers could pay off a cash debt by using equity without selling it. Because he thinks equity is cash he doesn't understand its based on share value. Fair play for constantly trying to come over right about wrong ‘facts’?

I of course referred to net debt. Gross borrowings are not relevant. Again: facts.

 

[Sky1981]

Can anyone on the Glazers side of the argument explain to me why with revenues we have of around 600m a season they cant spend 500m on players this summer and do the rebuild?

With the ability to amortise that against our accounts we’d suddenly need to lose 1.8bn over 3 years to breach FFP.

My theory is they are unwilling/dont have the cash to pump in to sign the players. If we had owners with money and willing to make the investment they'd do that. We see it happen at City and Real. It would cause us no problems.

And I actually think the signing of any more players is not going to happen this summer - i’d be very surprised if its all just noise like last year. Woodwards leaked email about ‘inflated market’ straight after AWB signed tells me the business is done. He's already laid that out as a reference point for the end of the transfer window where he can say we tried but ad he mentioned way back when we signed AWB there was no value in the market. They've spent about the same as last summer.

They bought the club to make it into an American sports franchise - its a business they make money from. Lerner did the same to Villa. The previous owners at Liverpool, hicks and gillet did it too. If you ask some fans of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers they can explain it as well.

I just dont think the Glazers are suitable owners for a club of our size in this day and age. Whilst their net worth is high almost all of that worth is tied up in the value of their sports teams and real estate. They dont have a lot in the way of hard cash.

The Glazers’ takeover has now drained out of United more than £1bn in interest, costs, fees and dividends since 2005

Because revenue isnt same as net profit.

You make 500m revenue but you still need to pay wages salary etc.

 

[Jezpeza]

I of course referred to net debt. Gross borrowings are not relevant. Again: facts.

Net debt is sum of gross debt - cash held. Again your ‘facts’ are wrong, unless the owners pay all of that cash against the debt, then your number would be right for our gross debt. Gross borrowings are very relevant. Sigh.