Panorama: Man United - Into the Red, BBC One, Tuesday, 8 June

[Sir A1ex]

Since the Red Knights have still not actually revealed who would be investing as part of their bid, I see no reason to believe that they would effectively reduce the debt burden on the club. I would feel far more comfortable if the identities of the investors were revealed so that their previous investment records could be scrutinised to see what their priorities are likely to be.

It could be that some members of the consortium have a history of asset-stripping companies for their own gain, or have made their money from less than ethical means.

I don't really understand.

The leaders of the consortium (O'Niell, Harris, Rawlinson, Marshall, Hytner etc) spent ages investigating potential investment sources, and vetting them on their intentions and track records.

Do you think that they will not have managed to do this properly and you could do better, or is it these leaders of the consortium whose motives you're questioning?

 

[MikeUpNorth]

It only reasonable to want to know the source of the money, what return on investment they would be looking for and their business plan. We know practically nothing about the people financing the bid so it would be ludicrous to offer an opinion of whether they'd be good owners or not.

 

[lynchie]

I don't really understand.

The leaders of the consortium (O'Niell, Harris, Rawlinson, Marshall, Hytner etc) spent ages investigating potential investment sources, and vetting them on their intentions and track records.

Do you think that they will not have managed to do this properly and you could do better, or is it these leaders of the consortium whose motives you're questioning?

I'd just like it to be open, rather than them saying "Yeah, we've got the money, and it's all fine and dandy, so no need to worry your little heads about it." They say they've vetted them, so revealing who or what the investment sources are shouldn't really be a big issue. If they're investing in purchasing the club, and thus will want input on the running of the club, I'd like to know who they are.

 

[Rood]

roodboy, I'd like to think that the main difference between the Glazers and an RK-led ownership is that the latter would aim to clear the debts rather than use them as a vehicle to remove money from the club. Or do you disagree?

I have no idea what a RK-led ownership would entail as I have never seen any concrete details about it.

So you're saying that those who stopped going to United in 2005 were going to do so anyway, and the cause wasn't the Glazers?

No that is not what I am saying.
I wrote a long post with a lot of different points and a general theme which it seems you missed - I cant really be arsed to respond to nit picking on any small part of it to be honest.
Same goes to Fred - if you want to respond then address everything I have covered, otherwise that will be the end of the conversation.

 

[Sir A1ex]

It only reasonable to want to know the source of the money, what return on investment they would be looking for and their business plan. We know practically nothing about the people financing the bid so it would be ludicrous to offer an opinion of whether they'd be good owners or not.

It would be nice to know all the individuals, but I think it is more important to know the business plan, and the terms on which they've been brought on board.

Ie if you compar it to the PLC, there was no need to know exactly who every share-holder was, but it was worth knowing what the structure was, who the major-players were and what their business plan was.

As I've said all along, we need more detail on exactly how the proposed new ownership structure would work before it's sensible to fully get behind the Red Knights. But I've still not seen any reason to doubt that it would be structured with the aim of prioritising the good of the club above the returns for the owners.

I've gone through the argument a thousand times on here, but a lot of people stick to this strange idea that a succesful businessman is incapable to doing anything for reasons other than pure profit. That may be true of some succesful businessmen, but there are plenty who are happy to spend their moneyb in all sorts of ways - after all, what's the point in getting rich if you can't do something with all that money?

 

[Sir A1ex]

I'd just like it to be open, rather than them saying "Yeah, we've got the money, and it's all fine and dandy, so no need to worry your little heads about it." They say they've vetted them, so revealing who or what the investment sources are shouldn't really be a big issue. If they're investing in purchasing the club, and thus will want input on the running of the club, I'd like to know who they are.

That's fair enough, and I'm sure the investors would be revealed in good time. But it's not a massive priority for me, as I'm in no position to seive throught the financial history of every one of 40 or so investors anyway, so would have to continue to largely trust the judgement of O'Niel et al.

 

[Sir A1ex]

I have no idea what a RK-led ownership would entail as I have never seen any concrete details about it.

You're being wilfully ignorant again.

I've didn't read the election manifestos of either the BNP or the green party, but I wouldn't say I've no idea what having either of them in government would entail.

You can get a general picture from various anouncements made, without knowing the fine details, so to say you have no idea is just daft.

 

[Sir A1ex]

I wrote a long post with a lot of different points and a general theme which it seems you missed - I cant really be arsed to respond to nit picking on any small part of it to be honest.
Same goes to Fred - if you want to respond then address everything I have covered, otherwise that will be the end of the conversation.

That's about the most stupid thing I've ever read on here.

You address a whole series of points (quoting various different posts from other people) in one post, and suddenly we're not allowed to reply to specific parts?

You really do talk some shit sometimes, I think it may be best for you if you stick to that promise at the end of the above.

 

[Rood]

Not sure what you are on about now - I responded to 1 long post from Fred and addressed everything he said, I just split it up for ease of replying and reading.

 

[Dublin Red]

As I've said all along, we need more detail on exactly how the proposed new ownership structure would work before it's sensible to fully get behind the Red Knights. But I've still not seen any reason to doubt that it would be structured with the aim of prioritising the good of the club above the returns for the owners.

What have you seen of the RK bid that leads you to believe it will be structured with the aim of prioritising the good of the club above the returns for the owners?

 

[Sir A1ex]

Not sure what you are on about now - I responded to 1 long post from Fred and addressed everything he said, I just split it up for ease of replying and reading.

And I picked up specifially on your argument that the divisions are cause by those who left, and not the Glazers.

I didn't happen to want to discuss your other points about how you "decided to take my own time to analyse our financial situation" and "aim to seperate the moral and emotional side of being a Manchester United fan", nor the one about how the G&G campaign "got mixed up along the way with some fairytale knights" nor even the part about how you "do have issues with MUST and other supporter groups" at that point.

Is that not allowed now? We have to respond to every single point you amke or none at all? It's not how most conversatinos I've had in the caf work.

 

[Sir A1ex]

What have you seen of the RK bid that leads you to believe it will be structured with the aim of prioritising the good of the club above the returns for the owners?

Well, as has been said, nothing that counts as concrete "proof" that that is the case, but it is the stated aim of those organising it - the enitre raison d'etre of the RK bid.

I do believe that Jim O'Niel is a genuine fan - if not he's been doing a good job of pretending for a long time! And I do believe that because of this he aims to put in an ownership structure which benefits the club.

The following question doesn't apply if you're happy with the Glazers, but otherwise ask yourself this:
As a United fan yourself, if you had the money and influence to try and improve the situation for the club, would you do so?

 

[MikeUpNorth]

The following question doesn't apply if you're happy with the Glazers, but otherwise ask yourself this:
As a United fan yourself, if you had the money and influence to try and improve the situation for the club, would you do so?

Hmmm, probably not as I would likely feel there are better causes than a football club for that amount of wealth.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Hmmm, probably not as I would likely feel there are better causes than a football club for that amount of wealth.

So you'd give it all to charity? That's very admirable!

The way I see it, the motivation for putting money in as a RK doesn't exactly correspond to other things you can do with money, but falls somewhere between:

1) Spending money on yourself, which most rich peole like doing - they buy sports cars and yachts not to make money out of them but to enjoy them. We all get a lot of enjoyment out of watching United, and many of us spend a good deal of our income to watch them and get involved in other ways (merchandise etc).
If somebody told me that if I paid them a fiver we'd win the European cup I'd do it, and I'd do it purely for my own pleasure (actually there are at least two things wrong with that example, but I can't be arsed thinking of a better one, it illustrates the point!)

2) Giving money to charity - for obvious reasons this is being brought up as a comparison, and there is indeed a large altrusitic element in getting involved. But again, plenty of rich people give away huge sums to charity, even if it is just to make themselves sleep better at night!

3) Investment. Don't forget that, unlike giving to charity, or a lot of spending for pleasure, they are not just losing the money, it is an investment. Not an investment that would be taken just for the returns, which will be small, but all the same (within the exact confines of the structure) they will be able to get their money back at some point, and probably with a bit of profit on top. To this extent, I guess the comparison to buying a big house or classic sports car holds.

Between those 3 ideas, I find it very easy to see why somebody who had a whole lot of money, and cared about United, would want to get involved.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

So you'd give it all to charity? That's very admirable!

I doubt it. But I doubt I'd give it all to a football club either.

 

[Sir A1ex]

I doubt it. But I doubt I'd give it all to a football club either.

Stingy bastard.

Can I have it?

 

[ciderman9000000]

Incidently, the Glazers do a lot of charity work.

Glazer Family Foundation

 

[Dublin Red]

Well, as has been said, nothing that counts as concrete "proof" that that is the case, but it is the stated aim of those organising it - the enitre raison d'etre of the RK bid.

I do believe that Jim O'Niel is a genuine fan - if not he's been doing a good job of pretending for a long time! And I do believe that because of this he aims to put in an ownership structure which benefits the club.

The following question doesn't apply if you're happy with the Glazers, but otherwise ask yourself this:
As a United fan yourself, if you had the money and influence to try and improve the situation for the club, would you do so?

I'd rather wait and see the what they have in mind for the Club before supporting their bid. I wouldn't question Jim O Neil's motives but he is only one of many Red Knights, it may not go the way he envisages. We need a lot more information about the Red Knights bid, I don't understand the need for all the secrecy.

 

[andersred]

Hi everyone.

A big thank you to the mods for letting me on here. Apologies to anyone who thinks it's wrong that they did so.

I was particularly keen to get on as everyday I can see certain people quoting (and in my view often twisting) my words and I'd like a right of reply.

Having said that, it shouldn't be me who's the subject, but Manchester United.

On this RK point, I've seen the prospectus all potential RKs have to agree to re: how the club would be run, dividends etc. It is the real deal, a philanthropic exercise which is why it's taking longer than hoped (lot's of people baulk at the idea!).

You don't have to believe me of course, and fans should reserve judgement until they can see the details.

It just isn't possible to do this all in public I'm afraid. The RKs have picked MUST to be the supporters' voice in this, you may be pleased about that or not.

Anyway, hello again.

 

[esmufc07]

I saw you on the telly on Tuesday!

 

[esmufc07]

Incidently, the Glazers do a lot of charity work.

Glazer Family Foundation

What the feck does that have to do with anything?

Look, supporters, we're going to raise ticket prices by around 50% over the next 5 years, and bring in an ACS forcing you to buy tickets you don't want. But it's OK! Do not worry. What's that? Will it be re-invested back into the club? No, sorry, it won't be. But we do donate to charities, which I'm sure you'll be very happy to know.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Welcome to the forum Andy, looking forward to having the chance to hear what you have to say and ask some questions. Just don't bring the gnomes with you.

 

[andersred]

Welcome to the forum Andy, looking forward to having the chance to hear what you have to say and ask some questions. Just don't bring the gnomes with you.

For the purposes of full disclosure I should reveal that I've asked for a Malcolm gnome and intend to put it in my downstairs toilet....

 

[Sir A1ex]

Incidently, the Glazers do a lot of charity work.

Glazer Family Foundation

Yep, that sure is incidental.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Hi everyone.

Welcome aboard Andy, good to have you here.

Been very impressed with your work on the blog, not that we want to sound like a bunch of fanboys or anything...

I saw you on the telly on Tuesday!

...oh.

 

[esmufc07]

 

[ciderman9000000]

What the feck does that have to do with anything?

Look, supporters, we're going to raise ticket prices by around 50% over the next 5 years, and bring in an ACS forcing you to buy tickets you don't want. But it's OK! Do not worry. What's that? Will it be re-invested back into the club? No, sorry, it won't be. But we do donate to charities, which I'm sure you'll be very happy to know.

Well, considering some have reported them to be $1.9bn in debt, i think giving so much to charity is a extremely admirable gesture

It'd make an interesting new soundbite for MUST; "Every last penny the Glazers took out of United in management fees went towards helping unfortunate children! The dirty, robbing, self pocket-lining, evil bastards!"

 

[Sir A1ex]

For the purposes of full disclosure I should reveal that I've asked for a Malcolm gnome and intend to put it in my downstairs toilet....

Stick it in the cistern and you'll knock a few quid a year of your water bill, I guess.

 

[esmufc07]

Well, considering some have reported them to be $1.9bn in debt, i think giving so much to charity is a extremely admirable gesture

It'd make an interesting new soundbite for MUST; "Every last penny the Glazers took out of United in management fees went towards helping unfortunate children! The dirty, robbing, self pocket-lining, evil bastards!"

You're a fecking idiot!

 

[Sir A1ex]

It just isn't possible to do this all in public I'm afraid.

I'm not doubting this at all, but can you outline some of the reasons for this?

A lot of people keep asking "why the secrecy?", and it would be good to have a specific answer rather than just "it's a big high-finance deal, it's bound to be seccretive, innit!".

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Andy, could you please comment on the issue of First Allied and whether money can be taken out of United or Red Football to service First Allied's debts as has been speculated in this thread by Fred?

My argument is, what precisely is the holding company.

is RFJV the holding company, or can they go up a level and claim that the holding company is The Glazer family.

Its quite clear in the prospectus what they can take. WHat isnt so clear is who they can pay it to.

For my money, everything seems to suggest that they are lining it up so that they will repay the debts from First Allied using revenue they've got from United.

Those are the more pressing debts, and Glazer will stand to lose much more if he doesnt get them under control, than he would by leaving the PIK debts for a bit longer.

If he doesnt get those debts sorted out then the 4 malls he's already lost will be joined by many more ( thats what the whole point of Andersreds' investigation was about ).

First Allied is the weakest link, and to me, its basic common sense that if he needs those debts clearing, and MUFC has money in the bank, then getting those debts under control using Uniteds money is the first thing hes going to do.

The question is deciphering what precisely the structure in place allows him to do. We all know what he can take. What we need to know is where he's going to take it.

For me the PIK debts are not his most pressing problem.

Is this the case? It seems unlikely that the bond provisions allow this to me.

 

[Sir A1ex]

You're a fecking idiot!

I think Ciderman is best ignored when he's in one of his "silly" moods. It's easy to get side-tracked otherwise!

 

[7even]

Hi everyone.

A big thank you to the mods for letting me on here. Apologies to anyone who thinks it's wrong that they did so.

I was particularly keen to get on as everyday I can see certain people quoting (and in my view often twisting) my words and I'd like a right of reply.

Having said that, it shouldn't be me who's the subject, but Manchester United.

On this RK point, I've seen the prospectus all potential RKs have to agree to re: how the club would be run, dividends etc. It is the real deal, a philanthropic exercise which is why it's taking longer than hoped (lot's of people baulk at the idea!).



You don't have to believe me of course, and fans should reserve judgement until they can see the details.

It just isn't possible to do this all in public I'm afraid. The RKs have picked MUST to be the supporters' voice in this, you may be pleased about that or not.

Anyway, hello again.

Welcome andersred!

I hope you aproach this subject with sense. I'm positive regarding new owners, if they can show me a better business-plan then the Glazers. For me that's a financial-plan who can reduce or whipe out the PIKs, have a good co-operation with supporers and be succesfull on and off the field.

I hope you don't use propaganda. No black and white scenario or "if you not with me you are against me". Feed me with fact's, a proper vision and positive thinking and I'm with you all the way.

I will never ever hate the Glazers. I can dislike there business-modell or that they are gready. But that's it.

Looking forward to read a lot from you.

 

[ciderman9000000]

I think Ciderman is best ignored when he's in one of his "silly" moods. It's easy to get side-tracked otherwise!

You were talking about altruism, businessmen giving to charity etc. I simply pointed out that the Glazers give millions to charity. I don't see how that sidetracks anything, do you? Obviously MUST portray the image of nasty old Mister Glazer lining his own pocket all day and eating kids, but the reality is somewhat different, is all i'm saying.

 

[Dublin Red]

Welcome to the forum Anderesred, I'm looking forward to seeing you counter argument to the points raised by Roodboy and GCHQ in particular

 

[ciderman9000000]

Anyone fancy a sweepstake on how long it'll take Anders to lose his rag and become just a regular caftard?

 

[sincher]

Seems to me it's a bit irrelevant whether or not it's the 'real deal' - it looks dead in the water. I'd also make the point that a philanthropic intent doesn't necessarily translate into the ability to run the club well, in particular, which may in fact mean not being of much benefit to many of the people it is intended to please, and doesn't necessarily mean that the senior people involved won't make money, even if it isn't quite as directly as the current owners.

 

[andersred]

The secrecy stems from putting the consortium together, it's a negotiation between private individuals. MUST (and hence people like me who advise them) get to the see the work in progress and outcome. It remains a fluid document but the core principles are agreed. I can't discuss it because I'm tied to confidentiality agreements as are MUST.

The way I think about the RKs is as a collection of mini (some not so mini) Abramovichs or Mansours. These days nobody is surprised by people like them "investing" in football for no return, perhaps even a -100% return. This is just the same thing spread more widely.

On the other point, I don't think RFJV can pay out monies to other Glazer companies whilst the PIKS are in place. Nobody has managed to get hold of a PIK document, they are private and obviously now rather sensitive. In the 2006 refinancing docs, the banks refer to RFJV as ("PIKCO"). It has no purpose but to hold the PIKS. It would be extraordinary for the PIK docs to allow cash leakage out of the structure. Unprecedented.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Obviously MUST portray the image of nasty old Mister Glazer lining his own pocket all day and eating kids, but the reality is somewhat different, is all i'm saying.

Incidentally, some leading members of MUST have kids, y'know.

Two can play that game, now please try and keep to the topic.

 

[Sir A1ex]

For me that's a financial-plan who can reduce or whipe out the PIKs.

I'm pretty sure any buy-out by anybody would be the end of the PIKs, as far as we're concerned, as the purchaser wouldn't buy RFJV, but RF, leaving the Glazers to sort out the PIKs.

That's not to say they couldn't fund the take-over with other dodgy debts, though getting hold of those kind of PIKs in today's financial climate may prove tricky, even for credit junkies like the Glazers.