Agreed. Especially in the context of Arsenal, Spurs and now Everton making big investments. We are just being milked dry till we rot away.
#GlazersOut
- Thread starter Marcelinho87
- Start date
Maybe not risk club assets for the sake of her personal investments.
Maybe not risk defaulting on her investment and having to hand over club shares to creditors!
It's pretty obvious shes loading yet more risk onto the club. Its the Glazer way. Why would you be ok with that? Seems strange.
But surely her defaulting and no longer being a shareholder is a good thing?
#glazersout and all that...
The people running the club are failing on multiple levels. Complaining only when we don't sign enough players seems short- sighted and a bit fickle.
Also, the shares are her assets and not the clubs aren’t they?
sure and I can't speak for everyone else, but I am complaining in multiple fronts about the cnuts
The fact she's even taking a loan with that much collateral is alarming, what the flaming hell is she doing?
I think a few of the Glazer loving crowd need to take a long hard look at the Glazer finances...
Their whole wealth is based on loans and assets they have correlated via said loans.
I think a few of the Glazer loving crowd need to take a long hard look at the Glazer finances...
Their whole wealth is based on loans and assets they have correlated via said loans.
Which ever way you prefer to cut it, the Glazers have drained over £1,000,000,000 from our club, while overseeing a massive decline in the playing squad.
Those who seem happy for us to be shafted like this(other than oppo fans) need to try harder to explain why, because I just can't seem to find any gratitude towards them.
Those who seem happy for us to be shafted like this(other than oppo fans) need to try harder to explain why, because I just can't seem to find any gratitude towards them.
In terms of the debt, it keeps getting 'peddled' because it's the truth. Those that were taken in by the green and gold campaign can't seem to admit they were wrong. The club didn't collapse in on itself, the debt has been shown to be eminently serviceable, and we've seen enormous growth on the back of it. You and the previous poster are asking for a different response because you don't like the one you are hearing. Now I'm sure you've already tagged me as a 'Glazer lover,' that isn't the case, but so be it.
No fan of the club can be glad to see the decline in the playing side but no one seems to be able to answer 2 questions:
1. If it wasn’t the glazers who owned the club, who would it be, what’s the alternative?
And, if you can answer the above:
2. Who would honestly have the sort of money needed to acquire a club/business of our size/value without wanting to extract significant value and/or service the debt needed to acquire the club/business?
You may well be right that the glazers are bad for the club but I can’t reasonably see how it could be any different and as I said at the start, no one can answer those 2 fundamental questions.
If you're not a 'Glazer lover' then I really don't understand why you'd use such dodgy spin in their defence.
Taken in by the green and gold campaign - What is this supposed to mean?
The club didn't collapse in on itself - No, but the decline is undeniable and there was literally no chance of the club going bust before they came. I think it's fair that we lament the possibility caused by them.
The debt is serviceable - Sure, but it drains money from the club.
..and we've seen enormous growth off the back of it - This is particularly BS. The debt was not acquired due to investment in the club, and our growth is not remarkable when compared to other clubs.
If you are of the opinion that they are worth c£70m per season to us as a club, then i respectfully disagree. But honestly, making very loaded arguments, which seem demonstrably wrong to me, in their defence. That rankles more than a little.
Agreed 100%, which is why I was calling out the owners, but in particular Woodward, since last Summer's disastrous transfer window.
We'd just finished 2nd and we had an elite level manager who was chomping at the bit to win the league title the following season.
I thought that over the Summer, Jose would get the players he needed to take us a step closer to the league.
Instead, Woodward pulled out, was satisfied with 2nd and basically told Jose to make do with the previous season's squad (probably targeting 4th).
While Woodward is in charge, we won't be winning the league. He has been in charge for 7 years and we haven't won during that time. If he stays another 20 years, we won't win the league for that time.
In Ole, he has a "yes man" who will be grateful with whatever he is given. Unlike Jose, he won't moan and make Woodward look bad in the media. All the pieces of the jigsaw are coming together and we are set fair to become a team which aspires to win the 4th place trophy every season, with a run in the domestic Cups. You'd be forgiven for thinking that I was talking about Arsenal.
Do I really need to explain it?
You're conflating two very separate things, here. Standard. And the fact that, despite our on field performances have been as woefully as they have been for over half a decade, that we are still in such a strong position as we are now, is a testiment as to how well the financial aspect of the club is being run. It bucks the trend of every other big club.
It's not bullshit, and you're assertion that it is is either delusion or denial, your choice. It's incredible really, you (rightly) assert that return on investment is all that the Glazer's care about, and yet beleive they would choose to not pay off the clubs debt with its own revenue despite it supposedly increasing profitability in the long term. It's like you think they're all complete morons. You and your Ilk have been saying the debt has been crippling the club for, what, nearly 15 years now, and each season they seemingly defy the odds.
And a chance of the club going bust?
The sheikhs and oligarchs our fanbase seems to be wanking over as of late have far more risk attached than the Glazers.Let me clarify. Im not a fan of the glazers, I'm apathetic towards their ownership, and certainly beleive the management of the footballing aspect of the club, the part that matters most to fans, has left a lot to be desired. But that doesn't mean I'll blindly agree with all the bullshit being spewed about how they're crippling the club financially. The same stuff is regurgitated year on year, despite reality playing out very differently to the premonitions of all you doomsayers.
It is servicable now, initially it had a 20% interest rate.
By default it means it was serviceable then, too.Fair questions indeed.
I didn't like the plc model. But it does seem preferable to the leeches we currently have where the owners are only vaguely accountable to some less important share holders.
Of course, ideally I would want some kind of fan ownership scheme. In any case, government should step in and make sure that sports clubs receive adequate protection from the excesses of freemarket trading and rampant capitalism.
Genuine Qs:
I don’t think the last para is realistic, do you?
What is “the Plc model”? That’s us now isn’t it? Granted voting rights sit largely with Glazer family so are you saying you’d prefer glazers to be diluted? Even if they were, would anything change?
We were outspent by more than 400M by both City and Chelsea during that period, about the same by Barca and Real, hell even Liverpool spent 100M more in the initial 8 years when the Glazers used most of the club generated funds to service the loan.
Our net spend was 19M / year for 8 years after their take-over. As a direct result of the neglect caused by the Glazers, SAF never had the funds to refresh his squad with younger players of equal quality. "there's no value in the market" was just a more professional way of saying that I don't have the funds to replace players that were ageing or sold with footballers of equal quality. During theese 8 years young world talents went left and right to our rivals but never to us. Because SAF didn't want them? Not buying it. The Glazers fueled a Ferrari with diesel.
By the time Moyes took over the squad average age was over 29 and I'm convinced it wasn't because SAF was sentimental holding on to his players but he wasn't given the backing to bring players of equal quality in, resulting in sticking to what he got. They put us here because of the way they bought the club in my opinion.
Mate I’m not being funny but isn’t it clear that our squad age wasn’t 29 post Ferguson?
Sadly, no. Not very likely while we have a) a country that continually backs right wing governments and b) a fan base that can't see past the status quo and is willing to accept being shafted.
United were a PLC from the early 90s(iirc) until the Glazers became majority shareholders and delisted the club. The model now is slightly different, with 2 tiers of shares holding different voting rights.
Sorry, starting line up.
Oh where to start with this lot? Blimey.Do I really need to explain it?
You're conflating two very separate things, here. Standard. And the fact that, despite our on field performances have been as woefully as they have been for over half a decade, that we are still in such a strong position as we are now, is a testiment as to how well the financial aspect of the club is being run. It bucks the trend of every other big club.
It's not bullshit, and you're assertion that it is is either delusion or denial, your choice. It's incredible really, you (rightly) assert that return on investment is all that the Glazer's care about, and yet beleive they would choose to not pay off the clubs debt with its own revenue despite it supposedly increasing profitability in the long term. It's like you think they're all complete morons. You and your Ilk have been saying the debt has been crippling the club for, what, nearly 15 years now, and each season they seemingly defy the odds.
And a chance of the club going bust?
Let me clarify. Im not a fan of the glazers, I'm apathetic towards their ownership, and certainly beleive the management of the footballing aspect of the club, the part that matters most to fans, has left a lot to be desired. But that doesn't mean I'll blindly agree with all the bullshit being spewed about how they're crippling the club financially. The same stuff is regurgitated year on year, despite reality playing out very differently to the premonitions of all you doomsayers.
..despite our on field performances have been as woefully as they have been for over half a decade, that we are still in such a strong position as we are now, is a testiment as to how well the financial aspect of the club is being run. It bucks the trend of every other big club - This is incredible. Here is a link you should read. You can clearly see that we were significantly ahead of the competition in 2002/3 when the Glazers took over. We now sit 3rd on the income list. While this is not exactly awful, it does quite clearly justify me in calling your BS.
...and yet beleive they would choose to not pay off the clubs debt with its own revenue despite it supposedly increasing profitability in the long term - Firstly, it's only the clubs debt because they lumbered us with it to line their own pockets. Secondly, of course the debt should be paid off. The sooner the better. Where did I say otherwise?
And a chance of the club going bust?
The sheikhs and oligarchs our fanbase seems to be wanking over as of late have far more risk attached than the Glazers. - What risk would that be? Maybe if they went totally crazy, making spending commitments which we couldn't sustain on our own should they suddenly leave? Well it would be a possibility, as with any owner. Fortunately, there are still some concerned fans of this club who keep a very close eye on what happens, and would I'm sure be very vocal should that possibility arise. I'm equally sure that there would be a whole new group of apologists lining up to tell them that their concerns are misplaced and that they should just stfu and be grateful for what they have given us.For what it's worth though, I don't want a sugar daddy owner either. I just want us to be able to keep, and spend, all the vast amounts of money that we, as the biggest club in the world, generate for ourselves.
Let me clarify. Im not a fan of the glazers, I'm apathetic towards their ownership, and certainly beleive the management of the footballing aspect of the club, the part that matters most to fans, has left a lot to be desired. But that doesn't mean I'll blindly agree with all the bullshit being spewed about how they're crippling the club financially - So you ARE happy for them the take roughly 10% of our income(not profit, income) for themselves, even though they are doing a bad job running the club. Okay, I don't understand that, but we're all different.
Links Deloitte. Excellent. Just need you to send me a link to Forbes and that's bingo.Oh where to start with this lot? Blimey.
..despite our on field performances have been as woefully as they have been for over half a decade, that we are still in such a strong position as we are now, is a testiment as to how well the financial aspect of the club is being run. It bucks the trend of every other big club - This is incredible. Here is a link you should read. You can clearly see that we were significantly ahead of the competition in 2002/3 when the Glazers took over. We now sit 3rd on the income list. While this is not exactly awful, it does quite clearly justify me in calling your BS.
...and yet beleive they would choose to not pay off the clubs debt with its own revenue despite it supposedly increasing profitability in the long term - Firstly, it's only the clubs debt because they lumbered us with it to line their own pockets. Secondly, of course the debt should be paid off. The sooner the better. Where did I say otherwise?
And a chance of the club going bust?
For what it's worth though, I don't want a sugar daddy owner either. I just want us to be able to keep, and spend, all the vast amounts of money that we, as the biggest club in the world, generate for ourselves.
Let me clarify. Im not a fan of the glazers, I'm apathetic towards their ownership, and certainly beleive the management of the footballing aspect of the club, the part that matters most to fans, has left a lot to be desired. But that doesn't mean I'll blindly agree with all the bullshit being spewed about how they're crippling the club financially - So you ARE happy for them the take roughly 10% of our income(not profit, income) for themselves, even though they are doing a bad job running the club. Okay, I don't understand that, but we're all different.
Yup and they've improved the running of the financial and marketing aspect of our club exponentially. Well done for completely missing the point though. Reread it.
They can do whatever they want. They could get naked and rub their genitals on the windows of the teams headquarters, it doesn't matter. Their business model isn't sustainable without personal investment and manipulation of FFP.
Last edited:
I'll take that as a concession then. Glad we got that sorted.
This thread is just completely mental now.
Its fair to question how we have spent the clubs money; but that it has not been spent is a lie.
Its fair to question how we have spent the clubs money; but that it has not been spent is a lie.
Yes it would be. Who said it?
Course you would. Post has been edited. Feel free to show how woefully uninformed you are on the matter.I'll take that as a concession then. Glad we got that sorted.
I won't bother replying again.Do you mean it this time?Course you would. Post has been edited. Feel free to show how woefully uninformed you are on the matter.
Yup and they've improved the running of the financial and marketing aspect of our club exponentially - Ah now see that is different from your original 'It bucks the trend of every other big club'. Yes the financial side has increased hugely, so has every other club, some have even overtaken us. But I'm glad you are now sticking to more accurate statements.
They can do whatever they want. They could get naked and rub their genitals on the windows of the teams headquarters, it doesn't matter. Their business model isn't sustainable without personal investment and manipulation of FFP. - I'm actually not sure who the 'they' is in this paragraph. If you mean the sheikhs and oligarchs that you mentioned earlier, then I agree.
Who do you think would own her shares in that eventuality?
The risk to the club (and assets) is her losing her shares to the underwriter. They would then have influence on the club. Hardly a healthy situation for Manchester United Football Club. Please note we are supposed to be a football club.
Its like a mortgage on a house. Not a big deal and nothing to do with the club´s finances.
Aren´t you one of those #Glazersout moaners that want them gone no matter the alternative btw? Then you should be happy, no?
That said its quite interesting this. She could just have floated her shares instead if she wanted to liquidate the investment.
We are a Plc now.
We should all be able to agree on that it would be like the most absolute disaster if the Glazers decided to float the major part of their Class B shares. The shares would be bought up by competing investment and risk capital firms and we would be Arsenal pre-Kroenkes total takeover but worse with conflicting shareholders.
I always try to make the point that the alternative to the Glazers are the Saudis or an LBO. I usually dont touch about the very real possibility of the Glazers floating their Class B´s publically because its a) so far from likely and b) pretty fecking scary if it would happen.
#GlazersOut
Not necessarily - All depends who buys the shares.
I dont agree with everything about the current #GlazerOut movement but there is no denying that the Glazers deserve some criticism for recent failures and a plc style board of directors representing a wider base of shareholders might make better decisions for the future of the club.
I actually think there is a possibility of more shares being sold, its clear that some of the Glazer kids have less interest in the club than others and probably would be happy to cash in. But the NYSE float has not been that much of a success, 7 years on and the market value has not changed much and probably falls far short of the Glazer's own valuation.
I would be happy to see a float of Class B full voting shares, I was a shareholder of the proper UK PLC back in the 90s and early 00s and I would like to be again. Shame that the value of the club is probably too high for the fans to buy a meaningful stake, it was a realistic target in the past but I dont think so anymore.
As currently constituted, it doesn't really matter who buys the shares (in terms of having a say). B shares do not exist outside the Glazers' ownership of them.... they convert to A shares automatically on sale or even if exercised in a pledge agreement.
If, for instance, half of the B shares were sold (around 62m), The Glazers would only own about a third of the company but would retain about 85% of the voting rights. Thus what the previous poster oddly calls an "absolute disaster" doesn't really have scope to arise.
The A/B vote split essentially gives other shareholders no say (something institutional investors and large stakeholders would be fully aware of in advance of purchase), kills off unwanted takeover advances, and enables the Glazers to sell off sizeable chunks of the club while retaining complete control.
Yeah, exactly. As currently constituted. There is nothing to stop the Glazers from floating their Class B´s as long as they agree on it. Or if there exists an majority or whatever fullfills the provisions in their shareholder´s agreement.
There are good arguments for why that could happen as well. A float of some parts of the Class B´s with full voting rights would provide a proper valuation of United for example. The Class A´s dont really do that today.
Thats said I stand by the fact that a spread of the ownership of United would be a bad thing. Its bad enough that the shares are spread out within the Glazer family as it is.
Last edited:
Redjazz - there's a blast from the past!
Im sure the A/B thing is the reason that the share price has been quite boring for years now - far less demand for the nonvoting shares. Its just a technicality though - in theory they can sell full voting rights shares if they want to.
And as I said, you cant know that without knowing who buys the shares and who ends up making major decisions - bad decisions are being made the moment so there is a lot of room for improvement. Although this could happen just by replacing Woodward rather than a more complicated ownership change
Our board is pathetic
Surely there’ll be some sort of protest should everyone’s fears/expectations be realised and we don’t sign anyone?