Joel Glazer sets fan forum date (4th June)

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
19,123
Any one who thinks this was anything more than an attempt to passify the angry fanbase is a fool.

They were finally scared into coming out of the shadows - now the fanbase needs to reject this bullshit and continue the protest in ways that gets their attention.

I don't remember fans ever saying they want to work with the Glazers - as far as I'm concerned it's still Glazer Out and always will be.
You've misconstrued the post because I'm not insinuating the Glazers had noble intentions. I'm saying this was a good opportunity to hold them to account but instead there is a spin of cautious optimism from our own fanbase.
 

Rightnr

Full Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
3,760
So fan bought shares... do they come with dividends?
This is actually an excellent question. If dividends are paid out, it would be based on the shares, so buying the shares might not be a bad investment if the dividends are constant because you'd be able to break even over a longer horizon. Granted, there's oppotunity cost but owning meaningful United shares definitely appeals to me.

Then, potentially, there might be a structure which lets you forego your dividend for investment in the club.

I still don't believe a word the Glazers say. You'd be trusting investment bankers and if you have ever been around most of them, you'd know they think of themselves as masters of the universe and will stick the knife in your back at any opportunity.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,399
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
This is actually an excellent question. If dividends are paid out, it would be based on the shares, so buying the shares might not be a bad investment if the dividends are constant because you'd be able to break even over a longer horizon. Granted, there's oppotunity cost but owning meaningful United shares definitely appeals to me.

Then, potentially, there might be a structure which lets you forego your dividend for investment in the club.

I still don't believe a word the Glazers say. You'd be trusting investment bankers and if you have ever been around most of them, you'd know they think of themselves as masters of the universe and will stick the knife in your back at any opportunity.
But isnt that what the fans are all against? Taking dividends?
 

Rightnr

Full Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
3,760
But isnt that what the fans are all against? Taking dividends?
Well, I am against it because all the dividends go to the Glazers (there's very little outside ownership). If we hold the power, we can decide to reinvest.

Paying a dividend is also a tricky thing in financial markets. Once you start, you can't stop, otherwise your stock price gets hammered because there's a bit of an implicit assumption you'll keep paying it. In fact, there are whole strategies and funds based on investing in companies with constantly growing dividends.

Manchester Untied have a finite amount of good investment opportunities. If they, as a company, think that it's better for shareholders to pay them out, instead of investing in more expensive players/wages, etc., they can propose the dividend. If we as fans (and owners of the stock), think it can do better at the club and maybe propose alternaive uses, we can do that. We can vote to pay off the debt, expand the club e.g. bigger facilities for the female team, even build football schools in other parts of the country/abroad, we can also do that.

At the end of the day, my problem is the dividends are a way to funnel out value out of the club through the backdoor by the Glazers for their own benefit only. At the same time, they didn't even put up the equity (i.e. take on the risk in the first place) to deserve this. They're draining us with debt and dividends.

I see the Glazers are as a family of smarter and taller Phillip Greens. Look at what he did to the pensions of ordinary people and how he run his companies into the ground.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Messages
1,899
Location
Whalley Range
You've misconstrued the post because I'm not insinuating the Glazers had noble intentions. I'm saying this was a good opportunity to hold them to account but instead there is a spin of cautious optimism from our own fanbase.
I would have to disagree with you,

The Glazers aren't being held to account by a few polite questions over a video call.

Fans don't have any meaningful way of holding the Glazers to account. And nothing regarding how the club is run will change while they own it, regardless of what crumbs they throw the fan forum.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,399
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Well, I am against it because all the dividends go to the Glazers (there's very little outside ownership). If we hold the power, we can decide to reinvest.

Paying a dividend is also a tricky thing in financial markets. Once you start, you can't stop, otherwise your stock price gets hammered because there's a bit of an implicit assumption you'll keep paying it. In fact, there are whole strategies and funds based on investing in companies with constantly growing dividends.

Manchester Untied have a finite amount of good investment opportunities. If they, as a company, think that it's better for shareholders to pay them out, instead of investing in more expensive players/wages, etc., they can propose the dividend. If we as fans (and owners of the stock), think it can do better at the club and maybe propose alternaive uses, we can do that. We can vote to pay off the debt, expand the club e.g. bigger facilities for the female team, even build football schools in other parts of the country/abroad, we can also do that.

At the end of the day, my problem is the dividends are a way to funnel out value out of the club through the backdoor by the Glazers for their own benefit only. At the same time, they didn't even put up the equity (i.e. take on the risk in the first place) to deserve this. They're draining us with debt and dividends.

I see the Glazers are as a family of smarter and taller Phillip Greens. Look at what he did to the pensions of ordinary people and how he run his companies into the ground.
So the fans should not take dividends, guaranteed. Any profits should be reinvested to the clubs.

Or the fans got their dividends first? And should they feel generous can opt to forgone it? Or invest in back? Wouldn't that be written under loan?

What about adding their own money to buy a certain player? Inject their own cash when united isnt doing well.

And veto power? Who holds veto power? The fans? What if the fans are split, 50% wants ole 50% wants Zidane? How do we get unanimous fans vote?
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
85,653
Location
Eric Bailly's Red Army
So the fans should not take dividends, guaranteed. Any profits should be reinvested to the clubs.

Or the fans got their dividends first? And should they feel generous can opt to forgone it? Or invest in back? Wouldn't that be written under loan?

What about adding their own money to buy a certain player? Inject their own cash when united isnt doing well.

And veto power? Who holds veto power? The fans? What if the fans are split, 50% wants ole 50% wants Zidane? How do we get unanimous fans vote?
Does the board choose the manager or is it DoF and CEO? Generally these sorts of appointments and transfers are day-to-day business as usual things that don't go to a shareholder's vote.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,399
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Does the board choose the manager or is it DoF and CEO? Generally these sorts of appointments and transfers are day-to-day business as usual things that don't go to a shareholder's vote.
Choosing CEO would probably falls under board meeting.

In real world i think it's not as clear cut, most ceo would need board proposal to make certain big decisions. No ceo would operate under full authority. They might on paper but they'll consult the owner to the very least.
 

Rightnr

Full Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
3,760
So the fans should not take dividends, guaranteed. Any profits should be reinvested to the clubs.

Or the fans got their dividends first? And should they feel generous can opt to forgone it? Or invest in back? Wouldn't that be written under loan?

What about adding their own money to buy a certain player? Inject their own cash when united isnt doing well.

And veto power? Who holds veto power? The fans? What if the fans are split, 50% wants ole 50% wants Zidane? How do we get unanimous fans vote?
These are the type of questions that the government would need to help with but I have no trust in the UK for that, especially with the current liar in charge. The Glazers would always push for a structure where they retain the power.

That's why it's essential that even if there's equal voting power for fans, there's an unified rep for it. People can still vote as part of this insitution (e.g. trust) but there must be an unanimous decision on the big issues.

For smaller money-side things, individual investors can vote as part of the annual meetings. Maybe the club can propose dividends and say, we need Xm and if you vote to reinvest, we'll do it. This is all details but I fundamentally don't think there's real intent behind the Glazers' proposal.

Choosing CEO would probably falls under board meeting.

In real world i think it's not as clear cut, most ceo would need board proposal to make certain big decisions. No ceo would operate under full authority. They might on paper but they'll consult the owner to the very least.
CEOs are nominated by the directors. Shareholders can say yes or no. Similar to compensation packages. It all depends on how things are set up.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
19,123
I would have to disagree with you,

The Glazers aren't being held to account by a few polite questions over a video call.

Fans don't have any meaningful way of holding the Glazers to account. And nothing regarding how the club is run will change while they own it, regardless of what crumbs they throw the fan forum.
They can be held to account with the right questions. Which was my point.
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
85,653
Location
Eric Bailly's Red Army
Choosing CEO would probably falls under board meeting.

In real world i think it's not as clear cut, most ceo would need board proposal to make certain big decisions. No ceo would operate under full authority. They might on paper but they'll consult the owner to the very least.
Generally hiring and firing is done at the direct report level. So if the manager reports to the Dof or CEO, that role does the hiring and firing. They may keep the board informed of the process and their decision but generally it is in their remit and they have full control.

CEOs report to the Board so the Board generally makes the decision on who fills that role. Shareholders typically vote for Board appointments.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
7,159
Location
Blitztown
Well, I am against it because all the dividends go to the Glazers (there's very little outside ownership). If we hold the power, we can decide to reinvest.

Paying a dividend is also a tricky thing in financial markets. Once you start, you can't stop, otherwise your stock price gets hammered because there's a bit of an implicit assumption you'll keep paying it. In fact, there are whole strategies and funds based on investing in companies with constantly growing dividends.

Manchester Untied have a finite amount of good investment opportunities. If they, as a company, think that it's better for shareholders to pay them out, instead of investing in more expensive players/wages, etc., they can propose the dividend. If we as fans (and owners of the stock), think it can do better at the club and maybe propose alternaive uses, we can do that. We can vote to pay off the debt, expand the club e.g. bigger facilities for the female team, even build football schools in other parts of the country/abroad, we can also do that.

At the end of the day, my problem is the dividends are a way to funnel out value out of the club through the backdoor by the Glazers for their own benefit only. At the same time, they didn't even put up the equity (i.e. take on the risk in the first place) to deserve this. They're draining us with debt and dividends.

I see the Glazers are as a family of smarter and taller Phillip Greens. Look at what he did to the pensions of ordinary people and how he run his companies into the ground.
TLDR = Capitalism has cnuts at the top of the pyramid.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
7,159
Location
Blitztown
So the fans should not take dividends, guaranteed. Any profits should be reinvested to the clubs.

Or the fans got their dividends first? And should they feel generous can opt to forgone it? Or invest in back? Wouldn't that be written under loan?

What about adding their own money to buy a certain player? Inject their own cash when united isnt doing well.

And veto power? Who holds veto power? The fans? What if the fans are split, 50% wants ole 50% wants Zidane? How do we get unanimous fans vote?
As long as you don’t get a say, we’re probably ok.yes this is a joke
 

Marcus

Full Member
Joined
Oct 3, 1999
Messages
4,309
This is interesting. At least there is some movement. It is not going to change the world but at lesst there are avenues for constant feedback and commitment to improve things. Yes, my expectations are not high, but realistic.
 

Barnslig

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
2,077
Location
Norwegian living Down Under
Just reading the first point there, does anyone think United could be partnering with Chilliz (https://www.chiliz.com/en/) like Barca, Juve, Atletico, Milan, City etc?

Chilliz creates fan ownership tokens that are being used to vote within the club, and has other benefits to them as well. Can any publicly listed company create groups of stocks at will?
 

tenpoless

Full Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
6,780
Location
*Teleports behind you*
16 years. Christ. 16 years and they're still shite at it.

16 years is enough to improve an intelligence of a king kong but not their abilities to manage and own a football club apparently.
 

Dante

Bang Average but can post Blindfolded for 15 secs
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,373
Location
My wit's end
Did he address when the debt would be paid off, was he even questioned on that?
No commitment to paying off the debt. See Number 8.


1. Only means something if fans get a veto
2. Consultations don't amount to anything
3. See 1 and 2
4. That's the least they could do. They don't deserve any credit for this
5. No figures or targets have been quoted, so this might just mean that the janitor gets a new mop
6. See 2
7. See 2 and 3
8. Capitalism. Sticks in the craw, but that's the way the world works so okay
9. Capitalism. Sticks in the craw, but that's the way the world works so okay
10. No different from any other summer

Pretty meaningless overall.
 

Ferguson’s Hairdryer

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
395
No commitment to paying off the debt. See Number 8.
Hopefully majority of fans see through it and continue with the protests.

Not committing to a plan to pay off the debt is an insult… only good part was 4 but as you say it’s the least they could do, and no doubt once they start investing in the stadium they will then start restricting spending on transfers.
 

Commentary

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 28, 2021
Messages
26
I understand this was a video zoom conference?

Will any video of the meeting, or at least a transcript of what was said be released? I'm curious to know the details outside of media reports.
 

KungPaoChicken

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
47
So people want the club to spend to several hundreds of million Pounds on transfers. The same on upgrades on old trafford and Carrington. At the same time the club should be reducing its debt.... The debt was at one point a big burden and cost the club alot. The highest intrest loans have either been paid off or been renegotiated. Over the last 5 years the club have paid around 20 million per year in interest.

Also dividends are natural when you own a Company and run it as a business and not run it as a passion project or a marketing tool like some of the oil clubs.
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
4,147
On the point of paying off the debt, that would surely have a massive impact on our cash flow? Apart from putting in their dividends, is there even a way of doing this that won’t impact the footballing side?
 

DRJosh

Full Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
528
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Can’t believe nobody is crediting the one and only Florentine Perez for these concessions. If not for his blood-sucking capitalistic power play, and the Glazers subsequent acceptance of his ESL proposal, none of these “concessions” and fan engagement sessions would have ensued.
 

KungPaoChicken

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
47
On the point of paying off the debt, that would surely have a massive impact on our cash flow? Apart from putting in their dividends, is there even a way of doing this that won’t impact the footballing side?
Unless we find a ultra rich prince or a country to purchase the club it would be highly unlikely. Look at whats happening at inter. Is that a more appealing scenario than glazer? Their owners looked very solid in the beginning, and look where they are right now.

Even Bayern munich who people look at as some sort of holy grail, paid out 15m euros in dividends last year.
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
10,796
Location
manchester
Can’t believe nobody is crediting the one and only Florentine Perez for these concessions. If not for his blood-sucking capitalistic power play, and the Glazers subsequent acceptance of his ESL proposal, none of these “concessions” and fan engagement sessions would have ensued.
That was surely American driven, Perez just fell for it and was the deluded spokesperson
 

UnitedSofa

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,117
Isn’t it ironic that a lot of fans wanted this, they got it, got told some rather positive things & they STILL aren’t happy.

What do they expect? For it to all happen instantly? For them to divulge everything going on at board level? What a disaster that would be.

You can’t expect everything to happen all at once, who knows there may be another fan forum and some more details may come out about the OT renovation or other bits.

The mind boggles about how everything is a PR move according to this place, getting beyond a joke now. Even if the Glazers follow through with renovating the stadium, which I think they will, you don’t go through the hassle of organising a meeting with the fans forum, tell them things for then to pull the rug from under our feet, would just piss the fans off even more, I believe some fans would STILL be calling it a PR move.

Just be patient and see what happens.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,399
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Hopefully majority of fans see through it and continue with the protests.

Not committing to a plan to pay off the debt is an insult… only good part was 4 but as you say it’s the least they could do, and no doubt once they start investing in the stadium they will then start restricting spending on transfers.
Some debt are low interest and in the current economy where cash is kings it's prudent to just keep the debt.

Example. Due to the pandemic my mortgage got restructured to 10 more years at a fix rate of 5 percent per annum.

I might have the cash to pay them all off, but if i invest that cash in say... gold or stocks or bluechips that yields return of 10 percent per annum it's wiser to just keep the debt.

Property are going down worldwide due to people selling off to stave the pandemy, if you own a cold hard cash now is the time to invest. I even marketed my house a good 20 percent bellow market price.

So it's not always the best case to clear off your debt if they're manageable and with reasonable interest. Off course we're not talking about overnight loans or credit card loans. But long term loans are pretty low interest.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,653
Wouldn't have expected them to stop paying dividends, or to clear the debt when that may well not be the best move financially.

The supposedly major investment in OT is what I'll be looking out for. We've seen Europe's elite clubs either build/plan entirely new stadiums or complete overhauls of their current stadiums in the last decade and a half, leaving OT looking third-rate. If their idea of "major investment" is just to do basic things like fix the roof and install a big screen then they can feck off. Major investment should mean spending enough to make OT one of the best stadiums in the country again. Which will cost a lot.
 

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
55,562
Location
Peng a leng.
If there’s no cheese room I’m kicking off
Wouldn't have expected them to stop paying dividends, or to clear the debt when that may well not be the best move financially.

The supposedly major investment in OT is what I'll be looking out for. We've seen Europe's elite clubs either build/plan entirely new stadiums or complete overhauls of their current stadiums in the last decade and a half, leaving OT looking third-rate. If their idea of "major investment" is just to do basic things like fix the roof and install a big screen then they can feck off. Major investment should mean spending enough to make OT one of the best stadiums in the country again. Which will cost a lot.
Cost close to a billion. They should rebuild each stand again. Imagine OT designed by Herzog de Meuron. I'd love that.
 

RedCoffee

Rants that backfired
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
1,602
If the club is valued at 3 billion it should issue new shares to fans to the tune of 750m giving them 25%.

We should then use the 750m to clear some debt, say 350m and stadia improvements of say 400m.
 

Water Melon

before it dries out, eh
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
3,974
Location
garden bed
That would be an amazing outcome. So they’ve given 15% of the club they legally own to fans with equal voting rights and say half the money raised gets spent on the club...and you’re moaning that would be a negative :lol:

For the record I expect them to pocket 100% of the money raised because Glazers gonna Glazer.
Yes, it is a negative for me. Because in the outcome that I am expecting, it will actually be fans paying from their pockets for OT repair while Glazers still pocket some of their money and look like better owners than they really are. At the end of the day 10-15% of shares spread amoung thousands if not millions of fans mean sweet feck all.
 

Water Melon

before it dries out, eh
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
3,974
Location
garden bed
I see it differently buddy. Paying more tax means a healthy business. Yes, it could be argued the owners would be taking/entitled to more dividends if they so choose.

@stampedingviking argument was completely different which just makes no sense to me as a layman. We do have a number of accountants on the site who could clarify.

I quote

"A debt-free United would then be paying large sums in tax, very possibly larger than repayments.

You really should learn financials before just spouting off that debt is bad."
Sultan is absolutely spot on here. It really is a ridiculous take on the whole picture. Some people believe that a club saddled with huge debt is in healthier state than a debt free one.