If the Glazers put the club up for sale...

[simmee]

Growth, it's also guesswork to say the Glazers have grown the brand more than anyone else.

They shouldn't get the credit for what Ed Woodward has done.

Ref dividends , the Piks were at 20odd % , far higher than any divi would have been.

So the buck stops with them regarding the bad decisions but they can't take credit for who they hire? Seems reasonable.

 

[wolvored]

I dunno. There used to be a time when I greatly disliked the way they operated - encumbering a financially pristine club like United with a mountain of debt from the risky leveraged buyout, and seemingly clipping Fergie's wings in the market (to an extent). That kind of peaked with the Hicks and Gillet saga at Liverpool (mostly paranoia about the same unfolding at United), and the parent company's overall debt blowing up to £700+ million. But those days are thankfully gone, and the picture is much rosier now from a 'we might go bust' perspective. So the resentment factor has progressively been chipped away, by and large.

Now they allow United to spend its own money, and don't interfere in the football side of things - which can be an issue with billionaire egomaniacs who're more hands on and have a propensity for micromanaging things and remaking their new toy in their image. Not perfect by any means, and someone like Sheikh Mansour or the Emir of Qatar would take things to the next level by pouring a lot of their money into the club (especially in terms of infrastructure and training grounds - like the Etihad Campus or the Camp des Loges to Poissy development), but as a counter - if someone of that nature isn't interested, United is so valuable as an entity that there's a risk of another leveraged buyout where someone like Stan Kroenke handicaps the club further with harsh restraints, essentially setting the club back to the dark ages for a while.

So from that sense, I'm kinda happy with that status quo. They're not the best, but far from the worst. A couple things still bug me, though. Like, there's not enough money being invested into Old Trafford, when it's the physical epicenter of the club. Makes sense from a financial perspective because matchday revenues now form a substantially lower part of the overall pie:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37339740

But Madrid are modernizing the Bernabéu and adding a roof, Barcelona are going to expand the Nou Camp to ~105,000 in the near future, Bayern moved from Olympiastadion München to Allianz Arena and expanded the latter from 65,000 to an Old Trafford-esque 75,000, etc. United are kinda standing pat in that regard (relative to clubs of similar stature) - the last minor expansion happened in 2006, even though there's a real chance to take the stadium to 95,000+ by expanding over the freight line. The whole structure would then be more symmetric, United can realistically fill out the additional seats, there'll be greater matchday revenue, the net asset value will go up, and minor bragging rights for stadium savants I guess.

I think they were looking at the South Stnd but as the freight line is owned by the railway the money and infrastructure change to move the line and surrounding roads etc would be astronomical for the gains made. The only other alternative would be a new ground altogether, which financially would also be suicide. If you moved over a bit away from the railway, then OT would have to be knocked down and rebuilt. If you went to a new location, on the edge of Manchester would be the best bet, but then would it be 'Manchester' United?

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I think they were looking at the South Stnd but as the freight line is owned by the railway the money and infrastructure change to move the line and surrounding roads etc would be astronomical for the gains made. The only other alternative would be a new ground altogether, which financially would also be suicide. If you moved over a bit away from the railway, then OT would have to be knocked down and rebuilt. If you went to a new location, on the edge of Manchester would be the best bet, but then would it be 'Manchester' United?

Eh? We're already outside of "Manchester" if you want to put it that way. We could also just move the stadium into the massive adjacent car park.

And I don't think moving the railway would ever be an option, they'd just build so that the track would go through the stadium.

 

[wolvored]

Only when they had to. And only after spending years trying to do it on the cheap to service their debt.

Under Fergie we were still winning and 2005-2013 was a golden era of trophies. We also signed Carrick Vidic Evra Nani Anderson Park Van Der Sar Van Persie Berbatov Valencia Hargreaves Young Hernandez De Gea Jones Kagawa Smalling Zaha and dont forget Bebe off the top of my head. Im not a glazer fan but do agree we seem to of come out of this ownership better than most.

 

[wolvored]

Eh? We're already outside of "Manchester" if you want to put it that way. We could also just move the stadium into the massive adjacent car park.

And I don't think moving the railway would ever be an option, they'd just build so that the track would go through the stadium.

No I meant if we moved location drastically would we be man utd historically we have always been on that spot

 

[Revan]

FFS.

I feel like I've said this about million times already but I might as well say it again: can we stop pretending pre-Glazer United was some utopian era where our manager was free to spend what he wanted, whenever he wanted and every last ounce of our profit was being reinvested in the club? Compared to how we're run now the plc was an absolutely shameful period for Manchester United as outlined by @Pexbo here:



Our marketing arm at the time consisted of two blokes in a dusty office in Manchester and our board routinely "lined their pockets" with what was left of our wasted potential via the aforementioned dividends and yet people have the audacity to call the Glazers leeches. Here's a little sample of the kind of shite SAF was dealing with in 2003:



Can you understand why Sir Alex Ferguson may have preferred the Glazers to the plc now Imagine the pandemonium that would break out here if Ed Woodward publicly stepped out against our manager and declared Mourinho should be happy with the squad that he's got. On the back of Kenyon's statement we finished 3rd two seasons in a row.

Now compare that to 2007 where we spunked millions on Nani, Tevez, Anderson and Hargreaves on the back of a successful league campaign and went on to one of our most successful periods in our history. Then there's the following season where we spunked millions on Berbatov despite having one of the most potent attacks in the league too but keep crying about how the Glazer's forced SAF Michael Owen. There's also the small matter of Sir Alex Ferguson balking at Hazard and Lucas Moura's agent fees, which again has absolutely nothing to do with the Glazers who have repeatedly displayed a willingness to back their managers at every turn, not only in terms of transfers but in regards to infrastructure too:


The Glazers have backed David Moyes to rebuild ageing United (all hail Dave's transfer bunker)
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/26/david-moyes-glazer-rebuild-manchester-united


Louis van Gaal's Manchester United revolution sees sleep pods installed at Carrington HQ
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-uniteds-louis-van-gaal-4255541

Manchester United's Louis van Gaal has exercise bikes sent to players' hotel rooms for pre-warmup warmups
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-uniteds-louis-van-gaal-4255541

Manchester United to rip up Carrington training pitches after demand from Louis van Gaal
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...pitches-after-demand-from-Louis-van-Gaal.html

Man United get permission to install floodlights at Carrington
http://www.espnfc.co.uk/manchester-...rmission-to-install-floodlights-at-carrington

Those were just a few stories I'd archived in a previous thread, there are dozens more examples available to anyone who actually cares about the infrastructure of our club as opposed to winning points in an argument about the Glazers.


So who paid off the £220 million PIKs that MUST spent the go 5 years cry wanking over?


"Years of underinvestment"

Manchester United seek permission for £25m neon sign at Carrington training ground
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...chester-united-seek-permission-for-25m-874596

Man United building £25m private hospital to prevent injury leaks
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/man-united-building-25m-private-1702695

United Purchase £8.2m worth of land around OT
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/united-purchase-£8-2m-worth-of-land-around-ot.341358/

Manchester United 'in talks' to buy 12 acres of land in Trafford Park
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...news/manchester-united-in-talks-to-buy-685324

Manchester United plan to make amends for missed opportunity by buying Gary Neville-owned Hotel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ville-owned-Hotel-Football.html#ixzz3zsiu6zIX


United draft in audio experts to improve Old Trafford atmosphere
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...-news/cant-hear-you-manchester-united-2519900


Manchester United reveal plans for new stadium next to Old Trafford
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/foot...fford-Youth-Stadium-Plans-Premier-League-News


That's another issue that's being actively worked on to be fair.

MUST Executive team meet with United’s Ed Woodward
http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-executive-team-meet-with-uniteds-ed-woodward/

IMUSA news
IMUSA Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary attended a meeting today (28th October 2013) with the club’s Executive Vice-Chairman Ed Woodward and Director of Communications, Phil Townsend.
http://www.imusa.org/newsarticle.php?id=437

Debt down, fan communications restored - where next for MUFC?
http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/debt-down-fan-communications-restored.html

Really, there is no point on this. People believe what they wanted to believe, and they have been screaming for years against Glazers (mostly, because of the militant approach of MUST), so the facts won't change their opinions. It is like giving facts to brainwashed people, it won't change anything.

 

[Revan]

Growth, it's also guesswork to say the Glazers have grown the brand more than anyone else.

They shouldn't get the credit for what Ed Woodward has done.

Ref dividends , the Piks were at 20odd % , far higher than any divi would have been.

Of course they should. Ed Woodward was their employee from the very beginning, and worked under their leadership.

And while it is true to say that Glazers aren't the only ones who would have done this unprecedented growth, I think it is also true that PLC wouldn't be able to do so, considering that the marketing team consisted of two people, their philosophy was 'we're good as long as we have Nike and vodafone', our marketing deals had been stagnated, and we were losing territory to Chelsea in every department. A couple of further years under PLC and Chelsea would have had a higher revenue than us, and feck knows what would have happened when SAF would have inevitably be sacked knowing the conflict he had with the two main shareholders.

Now, of course, if we were purchased from City's sheikhs it is very likely that we might have won even more. But, I think that Glazers did reasonably well by making us one of the most powerful clubs in the world (financial wise), winning a lot of trophies here and breaking all kinds of transfer records. Not saints obviously, and I have no doubt that they do this because they love the club, but they have been very good businessmen and the club had benefited greatly from their ownership. Despite the ridiculous doom-mongering going over the years.

 

[Munich_1958]

no cant stand them c*nts
things are not going right at united lets f*** off and set up our own club but piggy back on the club we hate and have left behind.


the glazers are doing a good job in terms of maximising our income over the short term, but their appointments on the football side of things are not working up to now. Hoping jose is the answer, but not quite convinced

I think Jose is the answer but he has to given time just like SAF was, If we miss top 4 I believe he will get another attempt

 

[Larseno]

Out tax bill would be pretty huge without that debt.

Im no good at economy on this lvl, and you prob right about the high tax, but what you seem to forget is that with no dept there is no interest. I dont know witch way is more profitable, but dept with low tax isnt necessary better then no dept with high tax.

 

[Larseno]

Of course they should. Ed Woodward was their employee from the very beginning, and worked under their leadership.

And while it is true to say that Glazers aren't the only ones who would have done this unprecedented growth, I think it is also true that PLC wouldn't be able to do so, considering that the marketing team consisted of two people, their philosophy was 'we're good as long as we have Nike and vodafone', our marketing deals had been stagnated, and we were losing territory to Chelsea in every department. A couple of further years under PLC and Chelsea would have had a higher revenue than us, and feck knows what would have happened when SAF would have inevitably be sacked knowing the conflict he had with the two main shareholders.

Now, of course, if we were purchased from City's sheikhs it is very likely that we might have won even more. But, I think that Glazers did reasonably well by making us one of the most powerful clubs in the world (financial wise), winning a lot of trophies here and breaking all kinds of transfer records. Not saints obviously, and I have no doubt that they do this because they love the club, but they have been very good businessmen and the club had benefited greatly from their ownership. Despite the ridiculous doom-mongering going over the years.

With no Sir Alex to make success I think it would have been a different story. SAF was winning trophies with almost no investments compared to many of the other teams. In a period where Glazer had to pay down on the huge loan that gave them the chance to buy United, SAF continued to win and win. Is this the main reason we are in such a good shape right now I dont know. But I think it would have been way more difficult to get where we are today if we in this period didnt have success. Would our economy be as stable as it is today? Have no clue, but I would guess no.

When it comes to Ed he should def get a thumbs up for hes work, but United would have grown a lot anyways. That I am sure of. He has taken over the economy for a club that was already one of the biggest brands in the world in a marked that is growing like hell. Is it right to give all the credit to Ed? I dont think so. But I still think he has done a great job even if I think he blew it the first transferwindows.

Bottom line I am not 100% sure that someone else couldnt have done a better job. What would have happened if Glazer sold United to the Unitedfans that gathered to try and buy United from them? Would United be in better or worse shape today?

 

[matherto]

No I meant if we moved location drastically would we be man utd historically we have always been on that spot

Aside from the fact that we were founded right near where the Etihad is and we played at Bank Street after that including eight years under our current name then yeah we've always been on that spot.

Teams move to new stadiums all the time. Eventually we will leave Old Trafford because of the location next to the rail line, I think that's inevitable. Doesn't have to be any time soon though.

 

[wolvored]

Aside from the fact that we were founded right near where the Etihad is and we played at Bank Street after that including eight years under our current name then yeah we've always been on that spot.

Teams move to new stadiums all the time. Eventually we will leave Old Trafford because of the location next to the rail line, I think that's inevitable. Doesn't have to be any time soon though.

We could knock it down and move it a bit further away from the railway in the future but where would we play for a season or two? Citys is the nearest ground but too small and apart from Wembley which is out of the question nowhere is big enough.
The problem with building over the railway is the stands still wouldnt match in height, and the cost for a small increase is phenomenal.
The only other alternative is to move I suppose so we can play at OT while its being built. This would probably be even further out of Manchester due to land prices.

 

[matherto]

We could knock it down and move it a bit further away from the railway in the future but where would we play for a season or two? Citys is the nearest ground but too small and apart from Wembley which is out of the question nowhere is big enough.
The problem with building over the railway is the stands still wouldnt match in height, and the cost for a small increase is phenomenal.
The only other alternative is to move I suppose so we can play at OT while its being built. This would probably be even further out of Manchester due to land prices.

The only way I could see it is if we did something similar to Bilbao.

The built three sides of their new stadium, knocked down the old San Mames and then played for a season with the three sides whilst they finished the remaining one.

The problem for us being that our biggest stand is the one that would have to be knocked down first in order for us to move away from the railway line and the complications in re-routing traffic, fans, police routes, et al would be enormous in the process.

Not a chance we'd play at the Etihad for a season I imagine and although we had to do it after the war when OT was bombed, I doubt many fans would entertain the idea of playing at City's ground now either.

 

[sglowrider]

If it was sold now, the new owners will want to make more on its returns -- that can only be done by increasing the revenues (and matchday tickets) or cost cutting (less spending on transfers or salaries etc.)
Not good either way.

 

[wolvored]

The only way I could see it is if we did something similar to Bilbao.

The built three sides of their new stadium, knocked down the old San Mames and then played for a season with the three sides whilst they finished the remaining one.

The problem for us being that our biggest stand is the one that would have to be knocked down first in order for us to move away from the railway line and the complications in re-routing traffic, fans, police routes, et al would be enormous in the process.

Not a chance we'd play at the Etihad for a season I imagine and although we had to do it after the war when OT was bombed, I doubt many fans would entertain the idea of playing at City's ground now either.

It really is a conundrum, and one that probably wont happen unless other teams start to get financially on a par with us, so a fair bit off, if ever.

 

[psychdelicblues]

You come across as a



You come across as a person hoping the Glazers are the problem but deep down you know they are doing a good job, FC united of Manchester supporter?

He's a troll-lite City fan.

 

[ravelston]

There is so much wrong with this post.

FACT - Glazers paid for club with our money. The PIKS - who took them out, who paid the interest?

As I mentioned earlier, the links in question came from an older post of mine but there are plenty of other examples for anyone who cares. MUST for example were represented at the Manchester United Fans' Forum for the first time in over a decade this year and a lot of the concerns raised during said meeting are being directly addressed by the club, including safe standing, away ticket allocation and the general safety of away fans. When I say the club have been actively liaising with fan groups recently, I genuinely mean it.

Some specific examples would be grand.

I specifically mentioned the PIKs because they were one of the biggest pain points for the folks behind FC United, MUST and andersred before, during and after the takeover. In regards to how we managed to pay the interest, a lot of it has to do with the Glazer's revolutionary approach towards marketing, their foresight re: international broadcasting revenue (remember when everyone assumed they wanted to break up the Premier League's collective bargaining power?) and their overall shrewdness i.e. the fact that they managed to take over a billion dollar business for a fraction of its true value and helped them realise that value through an unforeseen global economic crisis. These are some of the many reasons why I'd rather have them in charge of us ahead of an oligarch or bored Saudi prince.

Growth, it's also guesswork to say the Glazers have grown the brand more than anyone else.

They shouldn't get the credit for what Ed Woodward has done.

Ref dividends , the Piks were at 20odd % , far higher than any divi would have been.

There a few misconceptions floating around here.

The Glazers initially put 270 million of equity into the LBO; on top of that you can add the 250 million they spent paying down the PIKs - so their total equity investment has been 520 million.

No one paid the interest on the PIKs (until they were paid down) - the whole point of them was that the interest was rolled up rather than paid on a year by year basis. What we could do was write the "interest payments" off against current tax - so the PIKs cost United nothing and, in fact, gave us a tax benefit of around 45 million.

The interest rate on the PIKs initially was a little over 11%. In 2010 it would have gone up to a little over 14% - that was the driver behind the overall refinancing that year. (As a side note, it turns out that , on an after tax basis, the PIKS were cheaper than the alternative form of mezzanine financing - preferred stock - on which United would have had to pay the interest on a year by year basis.)

 

[rcoobc]

Average attendances everywhere are going to decline over the next two decades (is my guess).

No point talking about stadium expansion

 

[MrPooni]

There a few misconceptions floating around here.

The Glazers initially put 270 million of equity into the LBO; on top of that you can add the 250 million they spent paying down the PIKs - so their total equity investment has been 520 million.

I appreciate this post a great deal. I knew the numbers were out there but I didn't have time to fish around for them so thank you.

 

[MrPooni]

Really, there is no point on this. People believe what they wanted to believe, and they have been screaming for years against Glazers (mostly, because of the militant approach of MUST), so the facts won't change their opinions. It is like giving facts to brainwashed people, it won't change anything.

I completely understand your thinking and accept that I'm probably an outlier when it comes to this kind of thing but I used to be vehemently anti-Glazer myself and it took a bit of growing up and a lot of lurking around RedCafe's club finances thread for me to finally change my mindset so it would be kind of rude for me not to offer other people the same opportunity, however deluded they appear.

 

[Rood]

I feel like I should post something in this thread just for old times sake, but I cant be arsed

 

[Sky1981]

This is one of those times when fans are proven wrong. Glazer ain't bad.

Be a bigger man and accept it. They got to won you over at some point

 

[Livewire1974]

We just had a 2% drop on the NYSE. Anybody know why?

 

[LisburnWhite]

Maybe its payback time because the glazers helped Trump win the election.

 

[wolvored]

Not much of the debt left now.

Its gone up over the last couple of years to about £470 million and rising.

 

[MartialsBeard]

Those of you clamouring for a sale are in dreamland. Invest 4bn in a club with over 300m debt and about 400m rising profit leaves you with a 5-6 period of not coming close to competing for the top players and thus falling behind rivals and pretty much becoming second fiddle to city. no chance.

 

[Will Absolute]

Its gone up over the last couple of years to about £470 million and rising.

It varies with the value of the dollar.

 

[Macern]

I'd be very displeased. I think the glazers have been brilliant for the club in the recent years. The massive income is largely due to them and they don't get involved in the football side of the club. At the moment they're perfect owners.

 

[mitchmouse]

How would you feel about it?

Just for discussion - at this point there is no mention of potential buyers, it could be an Oil Sheik, Red Knight style crowd funding or Glazer style shrewd speculators.

Would you feel relieved they're finally going or nervous about what might come?

I'd bid for it...

 

[stevoc]

At this point no Oil baron or Billionaire is going to buy United as a play thing the cost would be too much. Especially when they could just buy a small mid-table club for 10% of what United is worth, pump £1billion into it and be competing within 2-4 years.

No if United is sold it's going to be another leveraged buy out by one or a group of people who will then once again use club profits to pay their loans off. Which means another 5-10 years of ''No value in the transfer market''.

 

[Jaxdan]

Klopp and Hazard for starters

Suddenly, Klopp isn't looking all that 'can't miss' is he? Again, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[stevoc]

This basically. A good owner would have lined up the right replacement for SAF and bought loads of good players.

To be fair Ferguson never told them he was retiring until March so they couldn't have lined anyone up really given the time frame.

So they just went with the guy Ferguson had lined up.

 

[DanClancy]

I'm not sure how any true red could praise them that much. We're one of the worlds richest football clubs just as we were then they turned up. The club was debt free prior to arrival and is clearly not now, thankfully that isn't an issue and lets hope it remains that way given we spend probably less than 4% of our turnover on servicing it. They do deserve to be criticised for the lack of investment in the squad from 2009 to 2012. Contrary to whatever Fergie says the accounts clearly show a huge % of our turnover was used to service the debt. Word class players were simply not replaced which had led to the huge spending in recent years and a lack of success.

I'm happy for them to continue as owners now as the club is in a good place and the club is now prepared to compete with Real & Barca for the worlds best players.

Who knows what the future holds though, i'd expect another share issue sometime inside the next 5 years to keep some of the Glazer siblings happy.

 

[Oyibo]

The Trump factor.

Looks and acts a cnut, but is a great businessman.

 

[SirAF]

The Trump factor.

Looks and acts a cnut, but is a great businessman.

Not sure about that considering how many projects he's failed with, but that's for another thread As for the Glazers? Perfectly good owners.

 

[GBBQ]

I'm not sure how any true red could praise them that much. We're one of the worlds richest football clubs just as we were then they turned up. The club was debt free prior to arrival and is clearly not now, thankfully that isn't an issue and lets hope it remains that way given we spend probably less than 4% of our turnover on servicing it. They do deserve to be criticised for the lack of investment in the squad from 2009 to 2012. Contrary to whatever Fergie says the accounts clearly show a huge % of our turnover was used to service the debt. Word class players were simply not replaced which had led to the huge spending in recent years and a lack of success.

I'm happy for them to continue as owners now as the club is in a good place and the club is now prepared to compete with Real & Barca for the worlds best players.

Who knows what the future holds though, i'd expect another share issue sometime inside the next 5 years to keep some of the Glazer siblings happy.

I think we're already seeing though that the relative short term pain (which may or may not have been caused by SAF not feeling there was value in the market) has led us to be the richest club in the world, completely self sufficient and not relying on a sugar daddy who may one day get bored of his play thing.

As for selling there is no way the Glazer's would sell, its a cash cow that pays for itself.

 

[Jev]

I'd be very displeased. I think the glazers have been brilliant for the club in the recent years. The massive income is largely due to them and they don't get involved in the football side of the club. At the moment they're perfect owners.

Agreed. History have shown them to be very, very good owners.

 

[DanClancy]

I think we're already seeing though that the relative short term pain (which may or may not have been caused by SAF not feeling there was value in the market) has led us to be the richest club in the world, completely self sufficient and not relying on a sugar daddy who may one day get bored of his play thing.

As for selling there is no way the Glazer's would sell, its a cash cow that pays for itself.

The money simply wasn't there as a huge % of the clubs revenues was spent on servicing the debt. Fergie was towing the line. Fergie had never been afraid to go out and spend big when he access to it.

Not all of the Glazer siblings share the same opinion, another share issue as we've seen previously keeps them happy. They take £2.5m each from the year in dividends, not exactly the greatest return is it? Its less than 1% each on what their individual share is probably worth.

 

[The_Order]

Definitely a "Devil you know, is better than the devil you don't" situation.

 

[Oscie]

Which means another 5-10 years of ''No value in the transfer market''.

But there never has been5-10 years of that in the first place let alone 'another 5-10 years'

One throw away comment by Fergie constantly misrepresented by people who try and pretend we haven't spent money like a perv at a strip club for the last 7 years.