When was the last time an IT firm accept a multi-million pound bid from a rival for their best project manager?
Panorama: Man United - Into the Red, BBC One, Tuesday, 8 June
- Thread starter mickthered
- Start date
without such answers from someone how do we know who to back? I for one want to know EXACTLY how any new prospective owner plans to do things. There are sufficient examples of financial car crashes following the arrival of new "savior" owners for me not to take anything on trust alone.
And what?
Again, this is one of many reasons to sit back and think before trusting people to act on your behalf.
MUST higher-ups have all seen this magical document, but want to tell us nothing while expecting us to boycott? I know the boycott business isn't official, but when Anders puts it out on his blog we should without giving us the whole picture, then I'm afraid it reflects rather badly.
I've been to trust meetings before (not MUST) and when you speak to the fellows in charge, they've always got some 'inside information' that they can't reveal. It reminds me of "I know something you don't know!"
MUST higher-ups have all seen this magical document, but want to tell us nothing while expecting us to boycott? I know the boycott business isn't official, but when Anders puts it out on his blog we should without giving us the whole picture, then I'm afraid it reflects rather badly.
I've been to trust meetings before (not MUST) and when you speak to the fellows in charge, they've always got some 'inside information' that they can't reveal. It reminds me of "I know something you don't know!"
Never thought I'd say this, but I agree completely with Fred.
IF a consortium such as the RKs had come along before the Glazers turned up, everyone would have been 100% against a takeover
Now, we're expected to all support a takeover bid, seemingly based purely on the fact that they're not Malcolm Glazer.
Never mind how they'd go about servicing the debt any differently, how much more damage would be drummed up during the takeover process, or the valid questions as to whether they're even capable of running the club or looking after it's future interests.
I'm not comfortable with supporting it or MUST's role in it. United fans should be asking these questions of the RKs, and not even considering whether it's worth backing until there are some clear answers, and so far the people who have been asking these questions get ignored, which would suggest the answers simply aren't there. Why aren't MUST the ones asking the questions in the first place? It all seems a bit foolhardy
The time to act out purely against the Glazers being in charge, was BEFORE they took over. It's too late now so you have to start looking at the issue as a whole (i.e. the debt, and how the club would be run). The Glazers are a non issue aside from simply not being the right answer.
What makes you think that?
A consortium offering to take no dividend and give 25% to the fans?
I think we would ahve been interested to find out more, much as many of us are now.
You said that football is no different. Apart from slavery, how many other industries sell their employees?
yes, that's exactly what should happen.
Drug companies are constrained by laws which stop them from fulling taking advantage of the free market. In their case, it is recognised that, without sufficient reutrns, there would be no R&D, and so it is necesary to strike a balance.
In the case of football clubs you could actually go a lot further with legislation to constrain the free market. If there was sod all money to be made from football, then all the parasites wuold feck off, but there would still be football.
But would they have? Or is it something used as leverage to get MUST onboard?
It may turn out to be a cynical view, but this is business at the end of the day and people like them don't earn the money they do by not playing the game.
I'm very interest to know more. A great deal more in fact. The detail of which seems to be MIA.
So you're saying a share's value is based on the potential worth of all assets if liquidised?
Sorry, that's just not the case - Google may not have any specific plans to pay a dividedn, but the expectation is always there that one day, they will. This article, for example gives a good example of how investors do expect a dividend at some point.
Edit: This one nails it better:
Why are Larry and Sergey's shares valuable? They don't collect a dividend either. Why don't they just throw them in the fire? Part of it is, because if they wanted to, they could turn on the dividend faucet, and start collecting income on their shares -- but then so could every other shareholder. The same potential for Sergey and Larry exists for every other shareholder, and that potential is valuable.
If it was totally impossible for that "dividend faucet" to ever be turned on, the shares would be worthless, or at best limited to the NBV of the individual assets in teh case of liquidation.
A consortium of people who want to run the club who we know almost nothing about, and who have done little to change that.
Do you know what they're going to do with the debt? how they plan to run the club...if there even is a plan beyond removing the Glazers and trying to get the club on the cheap? It's a crazy situation from what I can see.
It's like giving the keys of your house to some guy who you've never met, because he reckons he knows your uncle.
I'm certainly interested to find out more, but exactly how long do I have to be interested for, before either MUST or the RKs come up with some answers?
Which is what I said.
I didn't say we would leap into their arms, but it's certainly not true that "everyone would have been 100% against a takeover".
We would at least be interest to the extend of "sounds too good to be true, but if it is true it sounds great... let's see the colour of your money" (which would, of course, be red).
It's not going to happen though; football and business are inextricably linked, the clocks will not go back because it has global appeal. Why should anyone wish to restrict football's ability to make money? It's an entertainment industry, not an absolute necessity - we can play football for free, but if we want to be entertained by watching others play it at the top level we are always going to have to pay for it. As long as there's global demand for United matches to be broadcast, someone will be making money from it.
I'm not going over that argument again, it took me ages to type every other time, but if you don't believe there are United fans with money who are prepared to spend (but not even spend really, just invest with no profit) their money for the good of the club, then so be it, and good luck to every charity and every purveyor of luxury goods, because they won't be getting a penny off all these tight-wad millionaires
Peronally, I have enough faith to at least want to find out if there's anything in it rather than just immediately dismiss it as a trick.
Indeed.
But I'm pretty fed up with people mistaking "remaining interested" with "jumping into bed with".
There are good reasons why everything is not immediately out in the open, and balancing these with fans' totally reasonable desire to know more before deciding to give full support is always going to be a tricky business.
I don't think anyone (other than Glazer's boy) is saying any different.
However, putting blind faith in it by joining MUST and even perhaps putting money into them just because a few of them have said "we've seen documents" and then boycotting the club to make it happen, is more foolish.
There are two parties who, if they are doing their jobs right, have every reason - governments and the games' governing bodies.
Unfortunately, by and large, at present the former aren't interested and the latter are too corrupt and in it for the money themselves.
But these are both things that we can reasonably expect to influence over time.
Then you need to stop mistakenly thinking that all of us are saying that. I know that's certainly not the point I'm making anyway.
The problem you have, is you are not looking at the historic nature of football, and why clubs were set up in the first place. Neither are you looking at who precisely are the people who have turned football into businesses.
For well over 120 years owners of clubs were unable to make money from football clubs, and the rules of the FA were quite clear. If those rules were still in place, much of what has happened in football in the last 20 years wouldnt have happened.
You wouldnt have seen Leeds hit the pan, you wouldnt see Gillette and Hicks running LFC into the ground, you wouldnt have seen the Glazers, and you wouldnt have seen over 70% of all the clubs in the country so deep in debt, that if they were run as proper businesses they would be wound up instantly.
If football were a business, like any other, Portsmouth would have been made bankrupt, as would Crystal palace, Leeds, and every other club thats ever gone into administration.
Why havent those clubs ever been shut down and made non existent ? Because the self serving businessmen cannot afford for the reality to be made public. If one team goes under the whole pack of cards collapses and it lays down a precedence that every club in financial trouble would have to go as well, and if that happened nigh on every club beneath the premiership ( and some in it ) would be in real danger of going bust.
If clubs get into financial difficulties then the players are the first people that are entitled to their money, above everyone else. What other business can apply that ? If a normal business goes tits up, the last people considered are the staff. They get their money if and when everyone else gets paid, if theres nothing left the staff get nothing.
How can a business that places its staff above everyone else be likened to a business where the staff come last in line ?
The FA is ran by the very people who own the clubs, so the self serving nature is so prevalent in football that the rules are altered to suit the greedy twats who have bought clubs. The Premier League is accountable to those that stand to make the most money from it. If they dont like the rules, they simply change them to suit.
What other business can change the rules as and when they see fit.
Find me another business that can legally ban any form of competition, and impose restrictions on who else is permitted to compete with them on a level playing field ? You try televising any form of football between 3 and 5pm on a Saturday.. You can't.. The rules just dont allow it. yet Sky and the PL can dictate exactly who gets shown and when. Sod the other 72 teams. They are not allowed any form of enterprise themselves.
Take a look at rule 34 of the original FA constitution. If a club was wound up all its assets were to be given to community projects within the area that club was in. That rule was flouted originally by Spurs, and followed closely by United and other countless clubs. Now if a club gets into trouble the owner can wind it up, sell all the assets and keep whats left. Look at how many clubs no longer own their grounds because the owners have sold it off.
Rule 34 was quite clear, but because Spurs found a loophole, rather than close the loophole, the FA actually removed clause 34, claiming it restricted businessmen from making money from clubs and deterred investment.
So for 120 odd years clubs that had previously been run and owned by people whos sole interest in the club, were now being owned by people looking for profit, and the FA actually changed the rules to allow them to do it.
You find me any other business where that would be acceptable ?
Football may be a business, but its not being ran like other businesses. THe only thing thats businesslike about football clubs is hte fact they are generating revenue. Thats the only thing that owners see as businesslike in football clubs.
No, you'd be pitifully naive to think football was a business like any other, because it would suggest that you were unaware of the way in which economically it is run differently (i.e. a business where companies don't want to send each other out of business), and legally it exists in a different framework (e.g. with regard to the Lisbon Treaty).
MUST haven't asked for any money.
Neither have they said anyone should boycott the club.
What are these reasons? Glazers just want as much cash as possible. I doubt they care where it comes from.
Fair enough, but you're right that "this is business at the end of the day and people like them don't earn the money they do by not playing the game." sounds very cynical and exactly liek that is what you are saying.
lol
You also know the best investor in the world Mr Buffet company Berkshire Hathaway has never paid a dividend yet look at its share price - Class A shares circa $100k.
You don't even need to have the dividends ever to be turned on - as long as the company is doing well and re-investing its cash and gaining at least as good returns as it has done before then the share price will rise.
What don't you get about that? You know also there can be tax advantages that you wont need to pay tax on dividends as you don't receive them in the first place!
I never said they have.
I never said they have. What I said earlier is Andersred is saying people should and he's linked heavily to MUST.
The same as for any corporate buy-out.
I'm no expert on them myself, far from it, but I have good friends who work on such things, and when a buy-out is in the pipeline they are the most secretive feckers you'd ever meet... I get more information from people I know who work in politics!
I didn't say it wasn't cynical - in fact I said it was, or at least could turn out to be. I fail to see your point here.
Sorry mate, dont' mean to sound patronising, but it's you that's not getting it...
You're dead right that you don't even need to have the dividends ever to be turned on, but you need there to be the potential to turn them on.
If it is expressly, legally, permanently ruled out the whole premise collapses and the stock is worth no more than the NBV.
However many examples of cmopanies you give that have never paid a dividend, unless you find one which is physically incapable of every doing so, nothing changes in this debate!
What don't you get about that?
This is something I can't understand.
Why insult a good initiative from a fellow United supporter?? I can understand if you think it's unrealistic but I can't see the reason to patronize a intresting vision.
And at the same time why do the other side have a go at all of us who are "neutral"? I'm not defending the owners because I like them, I defend there legal rights and that every intrested businessmen had the same chance to buy our club. I separate individuals from factual matter's.
I have big hopes for RK but I will not jump onboard before I have some sort of knowledge what's this plan is all about.
When GCHQ, or others, insult a good vision they lost nearly all credit thay have gained from good analyse's. For me that's the same as having weak argument's.
I know you didn't - that's why I said you're right that it sounds cynical!
I think the point I'm making is simple - those who say "nobody would possibly invest in this without wanting profit, these are hard-nosed businessmen" are wrong.
If you do not go along with that quote then fair enough, we have no disagreement on this.
But I'm not sure what your point is in that case... just that some other people might say that, but you disagree? Or just that part of you thinks that?
Every word of that falls flat when you come to realise that football is the business, and the individul clubs are just it's independently run component parts; just like a shopping mall contains individually operating shops. Look higher up and you'll find a business just like any other.
But football wasnt, and shouldnt be a business. It was never set up to be a business.
Do you know how many premier league clubs were set up to be profit seeking operations.. The answer is NONE.
How many clubs were set up as professional sporting institutions.. TWO..
All the rest were clubs set up to benefit local communities.
The whole point is businessmen have taken football, and its passion, and tried to make money out of it, and in 99.9% of cases they've completely fecked it up.
The number of cases of businessmen making millions from football without it harming the clubs can be counted on one hand.
And shops can't exist without a shopping mall?
My point is that regardless of whether you want to believe their motives or not, you can never afford to overlook the possibility of them using MUST, thus using the fans. Hence why I keep repeating that it matters little to me if MUST members keep saying they've seen the 'plans' because not only is that another layer of trust you have to find, but also it doesn't seem as any of the plans are finalised anyway!I know you didn't - that's why I said you're right that it sounds cynical!
I think the point I'm making is simple - those who say "nobody would possibly invest in this without wanting profit, these are hard-nosed businessmen" are wrong.
If you do not go along with that quote then fair enough, we have no disagreement on this.
But I'm not sure what your point is in that case... just that some other people might say that, but you disagree? Or just that part of you thinks that?
In reality I believe our thinking is actually very close, hence why I was a little unsure as to the point you were making to me, because it seemed close to my own
lol
I don't think you have come across Zero-Dividend Preferred Stock.
The Zero-Dividend Preferred Stock - Financial Web
I tend to agree with you here..My point is that regardless of whether you want to believe their motives or not, you can never afford to overlook the possibility of them using MUST, thus using the fans. Hence why I keep repeating that it matters little to me if MUST members keep saying they've seen the 'plans' because not only is that another layer of trust you have to find, but also it doesn't seem as any of the plans are finalised anyway!
In reality I believe our thinking is actually very close, hence why I was a little unsure as to the point you were making to me, because it seemed close to my own
Perhaps all this has made people ultra suspicious, not only of Glazer, but of the alternatives.
Theres so much secrecy involved, no one has a clue who is telling the truth and who isnt.
Which is what goes back to my original point:
In making this public far too early and without a set plan, both MUST and the RK's have not only opened themselves up to scrutiny that they just don't have, or can't give the answers for, but they've opened up the wedge between the fans further. Which is all hurting any bid to get a cohesive plan of action in place. This then brings questions about the motives and competence, which then brings perhaps more hostile than need be responses...etc...etc...etc.
It's a vicious circle that all should and could have been avoided in the first place with a bit of thought from all sides.
Be that as it may, times have changed. Most sports had humble beginnings, but then mass appeal causes them to blossom into something different. Consider the Gladiators of ancient Rome; do you think they invented the sport after constructing the Colloseum? No, it began in much smaller, rural communities before spreading in popularity and becoming the primary source of entertainment in the ancient world. Times change, fred.
Of course they can, but they thrive particularly when under one roof. Think of it a different way then; think of an global umbrella corporation and it's component businesses; each component business operates individually, but they are all part of the same higher organisation. Though in a strictly legal sense "Football" is not a company which owns the worlds clubs, in a philosophical and indeed very real sense it is exactly that. Football is the business, and it operates much like any other. Despite its beginnings, this is the way of the game; football and business will not be seperated.
The point is, that without the details or plan to back it up, there's actually very little to differentiate between this and the Glazers. That's what I'm getting it.
This stuff with the bonds. It makes feck all difference to how safe a pair of hands the club will be in. It doesn't solve any of the issues relating to the Glazer takeover.
I wouldn't be cynical enough to say the RKs intentions aren't good, but if you take out the fact that they're supposedly a bunch of United fans, what is there in it that's all that more attractive than the situation we're in under the Glazers?
I'm saying that if they came along before the Glazer takeover, then they'd have needed to answer that question before anyone got behind them. Now it seems they don't, despite it being if anything even more important of an issue.