Joel Glazer sets fan forum date (4th June)

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
13,060
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.
For United, it's obviously infinitely better to not be saddled with debt. For the owners though, it may be beneficial, instead of paying it off.
 

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
5,020
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
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.
No. It would be fans paying from their pocket to own shares in the club. That money isn’t being used to fund anything - it’s being used to purchase shares from the Glazers. In your fantasy world the Glazers would then use their money that they’ve just received by selling their shares to then pump money into the club - they won’t - and if they did it wouldn’t be a negative it would be brilliant.
 

Commentary

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 28, 2021
Messages
26
I think the most depressing outcome of this meeting is that it signals to potential buyers that the Glazer's have no plans to sell. (offering a share scheme to fans to help drive up stock prices instead)

Arsenal is apparently up for sale, and my greatest fear is that Prince bin Salman will give up chasing United, buy Arsenal, and United fans will be stuck watching another big money team surpass them.

The Glazer's bought a club that they can't afford to keep at the top of the league, but they've been making a fortune from merchandise and dividends as a result of its past success.
 

Ferguson’s Hairdryer

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
395
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.
The club has paid £billion in 16 years to “service” the debt, and the debt amount is pretty much the same as when it started. That cold harsh cash you talk about, has been going on servicing a debt that remains constant.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
38,471
The club has paid £billion in 16 years to “service” the debt, and the debt amount is pretty much the same as when it started. That cold harsh cash you talk about, has been going on servicing a debt that remains constant.
Yep. If I had 200k left on my mortgage, and had 200k in cash, I'd probably want my biggest lifetime purchase sealed and properly own it for security to be honest.
Rather than playing some game of continuing to pay interest, as I could invest money elsewhere for more!
 

Ferguson’s Hairdryer

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
395
For United, it's obviously infinitely better to not be saddled with debt. For the owners though, it may be beneficial, instead of paying it off.
In what business world and for what company does it make sense for a club to pay over a £billion on a £500m loan over 16 years and still be in debt around £500m?

I’m not a financial expert. But the rates paid suggest that Glazers were viewed as high risk in relation to what they were trying to do, and so got very high interest rates. But unlike a lawyer on 100k a year who decides to apply for a loan to buy a £1m La Ferrari and take on the risk, the Glazers were able to put that loan on the club.

Also… no one expects them to just pay it off overnight, no one wants them to pay it off over 3 years and see us suffer austerity that leads to relegation. But a plan of action saying that they intend to make the club debt free within 5-10, should be viable. I’m sure deals can be found.
 
  • Like
Reactions: langster
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
12,102
Yep. If I had 200k left on my mortgage, and had 200k in cash, I'd probably want my biggest lifetime purchase sealed and properly own it for security to be honest.
Rather than playing some game of continuing to pay interest, as I could invest money elsewhere for more!
In your scenario - you have £200k to invest. The key is whether you can getter a better return than the 2% (example) interest you are paying. If you can, and most people should be able to, then no you shouldn’t pay off your mortgage - from a financial perspective at least.

with your mortgage you are leveraging your ability to make money. That’s exactly what the Glazers have done.
 

Pexbo

Online influencer who has never watched Star Wars
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
54,791
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
Yep. If I had 200k left on my mortgage, and had 200k in cash, I'd probably want my biggest lifetime purchase sealed and properly own it for security to be honest.
Rather than playing some game of continuing to pay interest, as I could invest money elsewhere for more!
Difference is your house doesn’t turn a massive profit which can be offset for tax purposes by servicing debt.
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
12,102
In what business world and for what company does it make sense for a club to pay over a £billion on a £500m loan over 16 years and still be in debt around £500m?

I’m not a financial expert. But the rates paid suggest that Glazers were viewed as high risk in relation to what they were trying to do, and so got very high interest rates. But unlike a lawyer on 100k a year who decides to apply for a loan to buy a £1m La Ferrari and take on the risk, the Glazers were able to put that loan on the club.

Also… no one expects them to just pay it off overnight, no one wants them to pay it off over 3 years and see us suffer austerity that leads to relegation. But a plan of action saying that they intend to make the club debt free within 5-10, should be viable. I’m sure deals can be found.
interest only loans are very common. There is no need to pay off the capital. They make their money though the capital increase in the company. Which is this case is significant. In addition they have taken dividends.

not condoning them as owners of our football club, but from a ‘business’ perspective - which you are judging then on in your post, they have done very well, and through a process which is both normal and relatively straight forward.
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
10,796
Location
manchester
In what business world and for what company does it make sense for a club to pay over a £billion on a £500m loan over 16 years and still be in debt around £500m?

I’m not a financial expert. But the rates paid suggest that Glazers were viewed as high risk in relation to what they were trying to do, and so got very high interest rates. But unlike a lawyer on 100k a year who decides to apply for a loan to buy a £1m La Ferrari and take on the risk, the Glazers were able to put that loan on the club.

Also… no one expects them to just pay it off overnight, no one wants them to pay it off over 3 years and see us suffer austerity that leads to relegation. But a plan of action saying that they intend to make the club debt free within 5-10, should be viable. I’m sure deals can be found.
i think the point is we will never be debt free under them. Like Liverpool without a title for 30 years, they would happily keep us in debt long term. Hell were over halfway there now
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
38,471
In your scenario - you have £200k to invest. The key is whether you can getter a better return than the 2% (example) interest you are paying. If you can, and most people should be able to, then no you shouldn’t pay off your mortgage - from a financial perspective at least.

with your mortgage you are leveraging your ability to make money. That’s exactly what the Glazers have done.
Get the logic, but I'm one of life's cautious types and I'd want to get it owned ASAP and then you have the rest of your life to be free from work constraint etc.
Though I'm sure Martin Lewis the money guy would agree with you.

Though right now interest rates for savings and investments are rock bottom.
 

Ferguson’s Hairdryer

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
395
interest only loans are very common. There is no need to pay off the capital. They make their money though the capital increase in the company. Which is this case is significant. In addition they have taken dividends.

not condoning them as owners of our football club, but from a ‘business’ perspective - which you are judging then on in your post, they have done very well, and through a process which is both normal and relatively straight forward.
interest only loans usually have a set period. After which the amount is paid off, in the hopes that the asset has increased in value eg homes or at the very least any decrease is made up for by yearly profits.
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
12,102
interest only loans usually have a set period. After which the amount is paid off, or refinanced in the hopes that the asset has increased in value eg homes or at the very least any decrease is made up for by yearly profits.
You can refinance at any time.

what was the capital value of the club when the glazers bought it, compared to now?
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
12,102
Get the logic, but I'm one of life's cautious types and I'd want to get it owned ASAP and then you have the rest of your life to be free from work constraint etc.
Though I'm sure Martin Lewis the money guy would agree with you.

Though right now interest rates for savings and investments are rock bottom.
it’s why I said from a purely financial perspective, especially with your own home - depends on your risk profile, and your outlook etc.

there’s a massive thread on MSE about how to become mortgage free - so it’s all swings and roundabouts.
 

ATXRedDevil

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
839
Location
The Live Music Capital of the World
Interest rates change. There is already talk of an increase.

The debt will be there indefinitely.
Except nearly 60% of our debt is fixed-rate at 3.79%. The rest is (1) a term loan facility with an applicable margin of 1.25-1.75% on LIBOR (I’m not sure whoch Libor rate, but the current 1 month rate is like 0.1% and the current 1 year LIBOR is like 0.6%), that could easily be refinanced with a fixed rate bond issuance that I would expect to price similarly to the existing 3.79% notes (but LIBOR would need to go from <1% to over 2% for that to make sense) and (2) revolving credit facilities which EVERY large entity HAS because you’d have to be an idiot to not have liquidity.

so essentially we’re subject to little interest fluctuation risk (our variable debt is currently cheaper than our fixed debt), if that changed we could refinance. your concerns about interest rate fluctuations are unfounded and our interest rates on our debt (both fixed and variable) are very good.
 

Gasolin

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
5,797
Location
NYC
For United, it's obviously infinitely better to not be saddled with debt. For the owners though, it may be beneficial, instead of paying it off.
We are kind of stuck basically. If we start paying it off, we are now subject to taxes on our revenue, which is normal and healthier but it will penalize us more in the short and medium term.
It would be best if we find a way to pay that bloody debt back but I guess this is no more an option. Until then, let's get some players first and win some titles, we will figure the rest out later.
 

Tiber

Full Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
8,188
A few empty words and now the protests will lose steam for several years.

They may be twats, but the Glazers continue to get everything they ever dreamed of from United despite hardly investing any of their own money.

The self appointed 'voices of the fans' at MUST must feel very important though
 
Last edited:

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,399
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
The club has paid £billion in 16 years to “service” the debt, and the debt amount is pretty much the same as when it started. That cold harsh cash you talk about, has been going on servicing a debt that remains constant.
The club has gone up from 1bn when they bought it to easilly 4bn now.

That's why they're a billionaire and we're not
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,399
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Get the logic, but I'm one of life's cautious types and I'd want to get it owned ASAP and then you have the rest of your life to be free from work constraint etc.
Though I'm sure Martin Lewis the money guy would agree with you.

Though right now interest rates for savings and investments are rock bottom.
It's not risky. If you invest in say.... a smaller property paid in full. Or gold bullions. Or any other relatively safe asset. We're not talking about crypto or high risk stocks.

If you outright buy a flat and rent it out. You'd be making more profits yearly than if you pay your house outright.

And there's very little risk..if shits happen you sell your second flat at a small profit and still left with more.

Money makes money. That's how they make billions. Ethical? Questionable but the equation remains.
 

Adisa

likes to take afvanadva wothowi doubt
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
41,651
Location
Birmingham
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.
Why would the Glazers use money they raised by selling their equity to clear the club's debt and pay for stadium refurbishment?
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
28,273
Why would the Glazers use money they raised by selling their equity to clear the club's debt and pay for stadium refurbishment?
Tbh it's their debt but we all know they won't clear it.
 

bdecuc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
819
Location
Ireland
The club has gone up from 1bn when they bought it to easilly 4bn now.

That's why they're a billionaire and we're not
That's not astuteness or cleverness or talent. It's opportunity and a brass neck.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,974
Location
Somewhere out there
The club has gone up from 1bn when they bought it to easilly 4bn now.

That's why they're a billionaire and we're not
Heard this argument before but…

a) they were allowed to leverage a buyout against the club, hell if the banks allowed me to do so, I would also.

b) pretty much every Premier League club has at least tripled in value during that time, it’s not unique to United due to incredibly astute ownership.

I don’t think they’ve done anything particularly “clever”, they just have money due to Daddy, and having money gets banks onside, and money breeds money.
Even Arsenal, who I’m sure no-one would argue are well run have been valued with all this Ek talk around 2.5bn right?

These people are billionaires not because they are more astute than the layman, but because money grants them opportunities. So “that’s why they’re billionaires and we’re not” is a phrase that’ll rarely make any sense.
 
Last edited:

captain666

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
339
Location
Philippines
Except nearly 60% of our debt is fixed-rate at 3.79%. The rest is (1) a term loan facility with an applicable margin of 1.25-1.75% on LIBOR (I’m not sure whoch Libor rate, but the current 1 month rate is like 0.1% and the current 1 year LIBOR is like 0.6%), that could easily be refinanced with a fixed rate bond issuance that I would expect to price similarly to the existing 3.79% notes (but LIBOR would need to go from <1% to over 2% for that to make sense) and (2) revolving credit facilities which EVERY large entity HAS because you’d have to be an idiot to not have liquidity.

so essentially we’re subject to little interest fluctuation risk (our variable debt is currently cheaper than our fixed debt), if that changed we could refinance. your concerns about interest rate fluctuations are unfounded and our interest rates on our debt (both fixed and variable) are very good.
Thank you for some sense,our debt obligation is very serviceable,manageable and should not provoke such hysteria.In an ideal world I'd like to see Glazers take no fees/dividends for 5 years and have that money put back into infrastructure and training facilities for a start.Any profit from a supporters share sale should go towards new players.
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
645
But isn’t that what business is?

There’s not many business or property owners who acquired their asset by funding it through their own pocket.

I know the scale maybe larger than most but if we’re calling people who take out loans to help for a business, property or asset they acquire and then use that asset to repay those loans bad business people then good business people don’t exist because that’s what everyone does else were in situation where only the mega rich could ever afford to buy a business
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
645
Lending is a massive part of life yeah.
Sorry I edited since as I needed a wee. But of course. I get criticism of them but nothing they did was particularly unusual for business, even if it was for football.

Now we’re clamouring for shares again I think the ship has sailed on demanding a separation of the two.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,974
Location
Somewhere out there
Thank you for some sense,our debt obligation is very serviceable,manageable and should not provoke such hysteria.In an ideal world I'd like to see Glazers take no fees/dividends for 5 years and have that money put back into infrastructure and training facilities for a start.Any profit from a supporters share sale should go towards new players.
I give zero fecks about the debt when the club is worth billions so yeah, more important right now I’d say is investment in infrastructure, not debt repayment.

The “problems” with OT are massively overblown, just google “stadium roof leaking” and you’ll see dozens of articles about new stadiums with these issues, shit happens.

Unlike many other clubs, OT wasn’t in need of a massive refurbishment due to how much more the club did to keep it up to date…. But…. We’re now reaching a point where OT is starting to fall behind and a plan for the future is necessary.

The same with Carrington, it was the best for a long time, but now needs a new investment.

The fact that the Glazers haven’t done this earlier isn’t at all strange to me, because it wasn’t essential, only now are we getting to that stage where plans need to be made and hopefully we’ll see that.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
28,273
Legally, it isn't. It's the club's debt.
Of course legally it is but we all know how the club got the debt and that's because of piece of shit owners who dumped their debt on the club.
 

Redfrog

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
689
Yep. If I had 200k left on my mortgage, and had 200k in cash, I'd probably want my biggest lifetime purchase sealed and properly own it for security to be honest.
Rather than playing some game of continuing to pay interest, as I could invest money elsewhere for more!
You are wrong there, as if you pay your mortgage, you don’t have any money left to invest.
Right now, interests cost is very low , basically money to borrow cost almost nothing.
You will be better off to invest your money in another or several properties then rent them. That’s how you make money.
Inflation cost much more then borrowing at a low cost which will not move for all the years you pay it back. So more you can buy now, more the properties you bought will cost in the futur and you will be beneficial at the end.

It is a mistake to think that you are not rich if you borrow money. In reality more you are rich more you can borrow and more it will be beneficial at the end. Sure it is more risky then pay your mortgage back already but that is how you get richer basically.
 

captain666

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
339
Location
Philippines
I give zero fecks about the debt when the club is worth billions so yeah, more important right now I’d say is investment in infrastructure, not debt repayment.

The “problems” with OT are massively overblown, just google “stadium roof leaking” and you’ll see dozens of articles about new stadiums with these issues, shit happens.

Unlike many other clubs, OT wasn’t in need of a massive refurbishment due to how much more the club did to keep it up to date…. But…. We’re now reaching a point where OT is starting to fall behind and a plan for the future is necessary.

The same with Carrington, it was the best for a long time, but now needs a new investment.

The fact that the Glazers haven’t done this earlier isn’t at all strange to me, because it wasn’t essential, only now are we getting to that stage where plans need to be made and hopefully we’ll see that.
Situation is critical at OT/Carrington and the Cliff,we are lagging way behind our competitors.We have gone from trailblazers in many respects to also rans!
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,399
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Heard this argument before but…

a) they were allowed to leverage a buyout against the club, hell if the banks allowed me to do so, I would also.

b) pretty much every Premier League club has at least tripled in value during that time, it’s not unique to United due to incredibly astute ownership.

I don’t think they’ve done anything particularly “clever”, they just have money due to Daddy, and having money gets banks onside, and money breeds money.
Even Arsenal, who I’m sure no-one would argue are well run have been valued with all this Ek talk around 2.5bn right?

These people are billionaires not because they are more astute than the layman, but because money grants them opportunities. So “that’s why they’re billionaires and we’re not” is a phrase that’ll rarely make any sense.
My point was that there are various investment that are easilly earns more than the loan. Hence it's not always economical to pay off your debt if you have means to invest.

Which they did.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,974
Location
Somewhere out there
Situation is critical at OT/Carrington and the Cliff,we are lagging way behind our competitors.We have gone from trailblazers in many respects to also rans!
There’s that OTT nonsense again.
We still have by far the biggest capacity in the country, it’s still a very good stadium. The time has come to make plans for the future of OT for sure because, well, buildings age. There’s a huge opportunity for massively improving the hospitality and VIP areas.
Same goes for Carrington, still one of the best around but time for some new steps.
I mean, yes the bottomless pit has a tremendous training facility, as do Spurs, but we still have a much bigger stadium than both, that we fill and I’m sure in the coming years we’ll see some big upgrades.

This “critical” hyperbole sounds like a kid crying his mate got a new playstation with better specs so he wants one right now now now.

It’s also no surprise United have backed off with redevelopments whilst awaiting further developments regarding safe standing.
 

arthurka

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
13,936
Location
Rectum
The club has gone up from 1bn when they bought it to easilly 4bn now.

That's why they're a billionaire and we're not
Would have happened with our without them. Money in football and better deals for the Premier League did that. But the 1bn is still a billion with our without the club value.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,399
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Would have happened with our without them. Money in football and better deals for the Premier League did that. But the 1bn is still a billion with our without the club value.
They're savvy enough to see the deal and grab em.

Like it or hate it it happens under them.

Not many football owners enjoys quadruple growth in 10 years.
 

arthurka

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
13,936
Location
Rectum
They're savvy enough to see the deal and grab em.

Like it or hate it it happens under them.

Not many football owners enjoys quadruple growth in 10 years.
So you mean they did foresee the financial crash in 2007. The club was in real shit after that paying huge amount to service debt. You are giving them far to much credit.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,399
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
So you mean they did foresee the financial crash in 2007. The club was in real shit after that paying huge amount to service debt. You are giving them far to much credit.
We were never be in real shit financially

They bought United for 1bn, now they can sell it for 4bn to the very least. The stock price indicates that they never be in any real crisis.

I don't like them as much as the next guy, but it is what it is, they're making a fortune out of United.