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

[fredthered]

I understand that and I've always been very open about where the vast majority of the extra revenue has come from. It is still at the end of the day additional revenue which is of benefit to the club itself. Manchester United is far from the only club in the Premier League that charges as much as it can get away with.

The club has changed beyond all recognition over the last 20 years and some people have been left behind. That's just life I'm afraid.

Sorry I fail to understand where the club has benefitted from the extra revenue. Not when that money is being used to pay off debts that shouldnt even be there.

Now I fully understand where you are coming from regarding the PLC and what it COULD have made if it were still there, but what could have been and what is, are two totally different things.

Ultimately, if someone comes in and invests £300 million of their own hard earned cash, and is prepared to allow that money to be used to buy players, improve the ground, clear off any debts, then I see no reason why they shouldnt be rewarded. They have helped United by giving up their money.

But we are not talking about someone who has invested their own money, we are talking about someone who hasnt invested one cent of his own cash. All hes done is borrowed money and then passed on those debts to United and asked them to pay it.

If Glazer had put in £300 million of HIS cash then fair enough, let him take some out, but its a fecking liberty to take out a loan, use that money to buy United and then expect the fans to repay that money on his behalf.

THAT is what gets peoples backs up.

Its not that he owns the club ( thats a seperate issue altogether ) its the way he's got to own it, and more importantly, who's paying for him to own it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I understand that and I've always been very open about where the vast majority of the extra revenue has come from. It is still at the end of the day additional revenue which is of benefit to the club itself. Manchester United is far from the only club in the Premier League that charges as much as it can get away with.

The club has changed beyond all recognition over the last 20 years and some people have been left behind. That's just life I'm afraid.

This is where you differ from everyone else on here and every football fan I know.

You don't seem to understand that football fans only want what is best for the club, providing it doesn't conflict with their own interests as a fan. This is a perfectly reasonable stance which, for some strange reason, you struggle to grasp.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Sorry I fail to understand where the club has benefitted from the extra revenue. Not when that money is being used to pay off debts that shouldnt even be there.

Now I fully understand where you are coming from regarding the PLC and what it COULD have made if it were still there, but what could have been and what is, are two totally different things.

Ultimately, if someone comes in and invests £300 million of their own hard earned cash, and is prepared to allow that money to be used to buy players, improve the ground, clear off any debts, then I see no reason why they shouldnt be rewarded. They have helped United by giving up their money.

But we are not talking about someone who has invested their own money, we are talking about someone who hasnt invested one cent of his own cash. All hes done is borrowed money and then passed on those debts to United and asked them to pay it.

If Glazer had put in £300 million of HIS cash then fair enough, let him take some out, but its a fecking liberty to take out a loan, use that money to buy United and then expect the fans to repay that money on his behalf.

THAT is what gets peoples backs up.

Its not that he owns the club ( thats a seperate issue altogether ) its the way he's got to own it, and more importantly, who's paying for him to own it.

Fred, you do realise that taking equity out of something you own to buy something else is your own money don't you? No?

 

[fredthered]

Fred, you do realise that taking equity out of something you own to buy something else is your own money don't you? No?

Not if someone else is being asked to pay back that equity.

If I secure equity in my house and use the money to buy a car, then ask my parents to repay that secured loan, I havent bought the car...

You do realise that dont you ? No ?

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Not if someone else is being asked to pay back that equity.

If I secure equity in my house and use the money to buy a car, then ask my parents to repay that secured loan, I havent bought the car...

You do realise that dont you ? No ?

But united aren't being asked to pay it back. First allied and the bucs are separate legal entities. We've been through all this. Still not got it?

 

[GCHQ]

This is where you differ from everyone else on here and every football fan I know.

You don't seem to understand that football fans only want what is best for the club, providing it doesn't conflict with their own interests as a fan. This is a perfectly reasonable stance which, for some strange reason, you struggle to grasp.

No, I do perfectly understand that point.

The simple fact is though that the fans feelings are completely irrelevant when we're looking at a cash outflow analysis to the club itself of the two different ownership structures.

 

[fredthered]

But united aren't being asked to pay it back. First allied and the bucs are separate legal entities. We've been through all this. Still not got it?

That you do not know..

They are seperate entities, but if those PIK debts are cleared, then there is NOTHING to stop Glazer taking money from United and using it to pay off the debts of other businesses he owns.

There were many who said the PIK debts were not Uniteds responsibility. Well he's already managed to palm off £160 millions worth of them onto United, with a further £225 million lined up.

When Glazer took over United the club was responsible for about £400 million of the debts. We now know thats soon going to become £725 million.

If he is prepared to saddle United with £380 million of his own debts, then I think its a brave man that says he wont try getting other debts onto Uniteds books as well.

 

[fredthered]

No, I do perfectly understand that point.

The simple fact is though that the fans feelings are completely irrelevant when we're looking at a cash outflow analysis to the club itself of the two different ownership structures.

Thats why the fans are boycotting.

Because the fans think it is relevant, and they arent happy at being used the way they are.

The Glazers may not see it as relevant, but 99.9% of fans do..

 

[Marching]

Sorry I fail to understand where the club has benefitted from the extra revenue. Not when that money is being used to pay off debts that shouldnt even be there.

Now I fully understand where you are coming from regarding the PLC and what it COULD have made if it were still there, but what could have been and what is, are two totally different things.

Ultimately, if someone comes in and invests £300 million of their own hard earned cash, and is prepared to allow that money to be used to buy players, improve the ground, clear off any debts, then I see no reason why they shouldnt be rewarded. They have helped United by giving up their money.

But we are not talking about someone who has invested their own money, we are talking about someone who hasnt invested one cent of his own cash. All hes done is borrowed money and then passed on those debts to United and asked them to pay it.

If Glazer had put in £300 million of HIS cash then fair enough, let him take some out, but its a fecking liberty to take out a loan, use that money to buy United and then expect the fans to repay that money on his behalf.

THAT is what gets peoples backs up.

Its not that he owns the club ( thats a seperate issue altogether ) its the way he's got to own it, and more importantly, who's paying for him to own it.

Don't most businesses run like that fred? Aren't they run on borrowed money?

 

[Dans]

what's all this?

The Glazers bought into a cash rich industry simply to be able to afford to pay themselves and their families high consultancy fees.

If or when their company goes tits up it will have no effect on the personal wealth they have accummulated in the mean time - that money is lost and now theirs.

It is really that simple isn't it? I mean, what's Glazer daughter number 1 doing for her massive consultancy fee? Or did I misread what her fee was?

 

[esmufc07]

Football clubs are very different to 'most businesses' though.

 

[Marching]

This is where you differ from everyone else on here and every football fan I know.

You don't seem to understand that football fans only want what is best for the club, providing it doesn't conflict with their own interests as a fan. This is a perfectly reasonable stance which, for some strange reason, you struggle to grasp.

Football clubs are very different to 'most businesses' though.

And that's why it's best that football fans don't run their clubs.

This is the vital point most seem to ignore...there is a world of difference between what MUFC means to you Pogue and what it means to the owner, the bank, the sponsor.

 

[fredthered]

Don't most businesses run like that fred? Aren't they run on borrowed money?

We return back to the fundamental point here, football is not like any other business.

How many other businesses would operate with a blatant disregard for the customers who pay to keep it afloat.

If coca cola suddenly decide to increase their prices to £10 a tin because they had overloaded themselves with debt, then the customers would simply stop buying it, and go drink an alternative brand. You cant do that with football..

What they are in fact doing is using the fans loyalty to United to pay off hte debt. If the fans dont like it, then simply "feck off"

How many other businesses can operate with that mentality.

 

[fredthered]

what's all this?

The Glazers bought into a cash rich industry simply to be able to afford to pay themselves and their families high consultancy fees.

If or when their company goes tits up it will have no effect on the personal wealth they have accummulated in the mean time - that money is lost and now theirs.

It is really that simple isn't it? I mean, what's Glazer daughter number 1 doing for her massive consultancy fee? Or did I misread what her fee was?

Do you have a link for this ?

You are the second person to mention his daughter getting a consultancy fee, and yet I've not seen it anywhere.

I am not saying you are wrong, its just news to me.

 

[Dans]

And that's why it's best that football fans don't run their clubs.

This is the vital point most seem to ignore...there is a world of difference between what MUFC means to you Pogue and what it means to the owner, the bank, the sponsor.

Yes, in this respect, people seem to have forgotten the greedy chairman who ran football clubs in the 80s.

The other problem, is that clubs like Barca have had their structure forever. It's not a model that can simply be used nowadays to replace the commercial one.

The way to go is the German model - but then we have to have a rethink about the game in general and the commercial aspect of it, because we would not be able to compete with the likes of Madrid unless UEFA impose some sort of binding standard across all of Europe, whereby perhaps a salary cap would have to play a role.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

what's all this?

The Glazers bought into a cash rich industry simply to be able to afford to pay themselves and their families high consultancy fees.

If or when their company goes tits up it will have no effect on the personal wealth they have accummulated in the mean time - that money is lost and now theirs.

It is really that simple isn't it? I mean, what's Glazer daughter number 1 doing for her massive consultancy fee? Or did I misread what her fee was?

Actually were united to go tits up tomorrow they'd find the hedge funds who financed the piks having a very significant interest in the remainder of their personal wealth.

 

[fredthered]

And that's why it's best that football fans don't run their clubs.

This is the vital point most seem to ignore...there is a world of difference between what MUFC means to you Pogue and what it means to the owner, the bank, the sponsor.

WIth all due respect, but given whats happened to Leeds in the last 5-6 years, I would expect you of all people to understand where United fans are coming from.

As a business model, Leeds got it as spectacularly wrong as you are ever going to get.

For someone, having seen all that at Leeds, to come and tell us that we should allow someone to run our club in a similar way, is just unbelievable.

The words "own house in order" spring to mind.

 

[fredthered]

Actually were united to go tits up tomorrow they'd find the hedge funds who financed the piks having a very significant interest in the remainder of their personal wealth.

Not sure what you mean here ?

Are you saying Uniteds debts can influence the rest of their business empire ?

 

[andersred]

To answer a few general points about the Red Knights within the limits of what I can say:

1. It can’t possibly work if they are going to take out dividends in anything other than the very long term. Therefore it IS about altruism. I know people baulk at this, but all we are really talking about is a group of “mini” Abramovichs or Mansours or Jack Walkers. The Glazers are the absolute exceptions in English football in that they expect an ongoing return. Almost all other owners sink capital in. Money has historically been made by owners on sale not through regular dividends.

2. One of the key aims is to deleverage the club, reducing financial risk and freeing up more of the club’s cash for footballing purposes. The initial way to do this is through eliminating the PIKS which the Glazers would repay with the money they receive. This prevents the £95m initial dividend payment from having to be made as well as the ongoing £25m per annum.

3. It is very expensive to repay the bond on day 1 and requires the RKs to find far more equity up front. So it’s sensible to leave the bond in place. Longer term, I don’t think it’s a sensible instrument. It is very expensive (c. 8.75% pa) because the Glazers needed to pay up for something that allowed them to take large sums out of the club. With that requirement gone, a more reasonable facility could be put in place costing (say) c. 6% per annum and saving c. £12m each year.

4. So in quite a short time, you could see the club at current levels of profitability (c. £95m of EBITDA) having £50m+ available (even with some corporation tax being paid) for football/club use. There are obviously three areas each with good claims on this money; debt reduction, affordable tickets and squad investment. No doubt if any of this happens forums such as this will be scenes of heated debate about merits of each.

5. On the fans’ 25%, I doubt the RKs would just hand such a stake over for free, altruism has its limits, but any sale to fans at a premium to what the RKs paid would be unacceptable in my view.

6. There are clearly issues of “governance” to be debated and agreed. Nobody is stupid enough to think that 30 or 40 people (or 50,000 fans) can run a football club together.

 

[Dans]

Do you have a link for this ?

You are the second person to mention his daughter getting a consultancy fee, and yet I've not seen it anywhere.

I am not saying you are wrong, its just news to me.

I will have a look, but I don't know where I read it,. only that I did.

 

[Marching]

We return back to the fundamental point here, football is not like any other business.

How many other businesses would operate with a blatant disregard for the customers who pay to keep it afloat.

If coca cola suddenly decide to increase their prices to £10 a tin because they had overloaded themselves with debt, then the customers would simply stop buying it, and go drink an alternative brand. You cant do that with football..

What they are in fact doing is using the fans loyalty to United to pay off hte debt. If the fans dont like it, then simply "feck off"

How many other businesses can operate with that mentality.

The club can't be run like that though fred...it is a business and must be looked at as such. Your passion for the club is totally different to someone preferring Coke to Pepsi or an Audi to a BMW...your team is MUFC come what may and it won't change.

Of course the fans are paying for the owners borrowings..again don't you think you pay for the same at the Audi garage or when you buy something from M&S...every company has borrowings and the customer pays for it.

Unless you find another Abramovich who is willing/able to provide a bottomless pit of cash it will be the same story whoever takes over.

 

[Dans]

Actually were united to go tits up tomorrow they'd find the hedge funds who financed the piks having a very significant interest in the remainder of their personal wealth.

Ok, well you know more than I, so that is encouraging assuming the hedge funds actually have a claim on their wealth which is what I presume you are saying would then legally be the case right?

 

[Dans]

Do you have a link for this ?

You are the second person to mention his daughter getting a consultancy fee, and yet I've not seen it anywhere.

I am not saying you are wrong, its just news to me.

I read it in the Telegraph:

Manchester United owners take £23m out of club - Telegraph

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Not sure what you mean here ?

Are you saying Uniteds debts can influence the rest of their business empire ?

You know as well as I do that the piks are the legal responsibility of the glazers not united.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Ok, well you know more than I, so that is encouraging assuming the hedge funds actually have a claim on their wealth which is what I presume you are saying would then legally be the case right?

The piks are not secured against united.

 

[Dans]

You know as well as I do that the piks are the legal responsibility of the glazers not united.

Are they? Or are they the responsibility of Red Football or whatever that company they set up is called?

 

[Dans]

Ok - gotcha.

 

[Marching]

WIth all due respect, but given whats happened to Leeds in the last 5-6 years, I would expect you of all people to understand where United fans are coming from.

As a business model, Leeds got it as spectacularly wrong as you are ever going to get.

For someone, having seen all that at Leeds, to come and tell us that we should allow someone to run our club in a similar way, is just unbelievable.

The words "own house in order" spring to mind.

Good point you make fred.

I am not telling you to run the club in a similar way...far from it. Peter Ridsdale and Allan Leighton were/are 2 of the biggest Leeds fans you will find but were they right to run the club? Hell no!

I am not telling you to run the club in a similar way at all...just that expecting anyone to appear with hundreds of millions of pounds to pay off debt, buy players, run the club and give 25% of it away to fans is pie in the sky.

 

[Dublin Red]

Not if someone else is being asked to pay back that equity.

If I secure equity in my house and use the money to buy a car, then ask my parents to repay that secured loan, I havent bought the car...

You do realise that dont you ? No ?

Part of your problem Fred is that your looking at the situation from a indivuaduals perspective instead of from a business perspective.

If a businessman secures equity from one business to buy another business it would be normal to expect profits from the new business to be used to pay off the loan.

Like it or not United is a business and they have to be run as such if they are to survive and prosper.

 

[GCHQ]

To answer a few general points about the Red Knights within the limits of what I can say:

1. It can’t possibly work if they are going to take out dividends in anything other than the very long term. Therefore it IS about altruism. I know people baulk at this, but all we are really talking about is a group of “mini” Abramovichs or Mansours or Jack Walkers. The Glazers are the absolute exceptions in English football in that they expect an ongoing return. Almost all other owners sink capital in. Money has historically been made by owners on sale not through regular dividends.

2. One of the key aims is to deleverage the club, reducing financial risk and freeing up more of the club’s cash for footballing purposes. The initial way to do this is through eliminating the PIKS which the Glazers would repay with the money they receive. This prevents the £95m initial dividend payment from having to be made as well as the ongoing £25m per annum.

3. It is very expensive to repay the bond on day 1 and requires the RKs to find far more equity up front. So it’s sensible to leave the bond in place. Longer term, I don’t think it’s a sensible instrument. It is very expensive (c. 8.75% pa) because the Glazers needed to pay up for something that allowed them to take large sums out of the club. With that requirement gone, a more reasonable facility could be put in place costing (say) c. 6% per annum and saving c. £12m each year.

4. So in quite a short time, you could see the club at current levels of profitability (c. £95m of EBITDA) having £50m+ available (even with some corporation tax being paid) for football/club use. There are obviously three areas each with good claims on this money; debt reduction, affordable tickets and squad investment. No doubt if any of this happens forums such as this will be scenes of heated debate about merits of each.

5. On the fans’ 25%, I doubt the RKs would just hand such a stake over for free, altruism has its limits, but any sale to fans at a premium to what the RKs paid would be unacceptable in my view.

6. There are clearly issues of “governance” to be debated and agreed. Nobody is stupid enough to think that 30 or 40 people (or 50,000 fans) can run a football club together.

Fantasist.

Have you met Keith Harris btw? Is he hoping to be one of these ''mini'' Abramovichs?

 

[fredthered]

You know as well as I do that the piks are the legal responsibility of the glazers not united.

SO why are United going to be paying them off then ?

 

[fredthered]

The piks are not secured against united.

They are secured against the shares of MUFC though.

So if they default the banks take shares in United thus meaning they then become legal owners of the assets of MUFC.

Or so I am led to believe. Anders could answer this in more detail if he wouldnt mind.

 

[Commadus]

Actually were united to go tits up tomorrow they'd find the hedge funds who financed the piks having a very significant interest in the remainder of their personal wealth.

Nope. If I recall correctly.

The PIKS are on RFJV which owns 100% of RF which owns United. If United went bankrupt first in line for payment would be the Bond holders, then any other banks loans before creditors lined up, after that it would be the shareholders which is RFJV. So the PIKS really operate like equity ergo the massive interest rate on them as in the event of a bankruptcy they will not be paid in full - more risk more return.

The Hedge Funds won't be able to go after the Glazers personal wealth because if they did then the PIK i-rate would be far less as it would have been additionally secured against the Glazers wealth.

 

[andersred]

Fantasist.

Have you met Keith Harris btw? Is he hoping to be one of these ''mini'' Abramovichs?

I see you've abandoned evidence for assertion again.

Yes I've met him and no he isn't.

 

[GCHQ]

I see you've abandoned evidence for assertion again.

Yes I've met him and no he isn't.

Seriously Anders, what do you think your chances are? 0.01% chance? 0.1 chance? The fact that you personally called for people to boycott the club shows what a desperate and hopeless position you're in.

What did you make of Harris and do you not think the supporters of your plan should be rather concerned about the high profile media role he's taken on in all this?

 

[andersred]

Seriously Anders, what do you think your chances are? 0.01% chance? 0.1 chance? The fact that you personally called for people to boycott the club shows what a desperate and hopeless position you're in.

What did you make of Harris and do you not think the supporters of your plan should be rather concerned about the high profile media role he's taken on in all this?

Not sure what the chances are to be honest.

I don't think Keith Harris has made any public statements since February and any quotes since are reshashs of previous comments.

I still don't understand your "fantasist" comment. I've seen the documents and you haven't. Are you telepathic?

 

[GCHQ]

Not sure what the chances are to be honest.

I don't think Keith Harris has made any public statements since February and any quotes since are reshashs of previous comments.

I still don't understand your "fantasist" comment. I've seen the documents and you haven't. Are you telepathic?

You're not even prepared to give people a ballpark estimate of what you think your chances are?

Are you less confident now than you were a few months ago?

My ''fantasist'' comment was in reference to you thinking that the ''Red Knights'' have a chance of being able to buy the club from the Glazers. I mean you MUST believe there is at least some chance, right? Otherwise, you would have just been completely wasting your time, right? Unless of course this has all just been one big ego trip for those involved.

 

[fredthered]

You're not even prepared give people a ballpark estimate of what you think your chances are?

Are you less confident now than you were a few months ago?

My ''fantasist'' comment was in reference to you thinking that the ''Red Knights'' have a chance of being able to buy the club from the Glazers. I mean you MUST believe there is at least some chance, right? Otherwise, you would have just been completely wasting your time, right? Unless of course this has all just been one big ego trip for those involved.

You really do love working on hyperthetical assumptions dont you..

Everything is "estimates" with you.

 

[andersred]

You're not even prepared to give people a ballpark estimate of what you think your chances are?

Are you less confident now than you were a few months ago?

My ''fantasist'' comment was in reference to you thinking that the ''Red Knights'' have a chance of being able to buy the club from the Glazers. I mean you MUST believe there is at least some chance, right? Otherwise, you would have just been completely wasting your time, right? Unless of course this has all just been one big ego trip for those involved.

50-50 on a 12mth view perhaps.

 

[Marching]

To answer a few general points about the Red Knights within the limits of what I can say:

1. It can’t possibly work if they are going to take out dividends in anything other than the very long term. Therefore it IS about altruism. I know people baulk at this, but all we are really talking about is a group of “mini” Abramovichs or Mansours or Jack Walkers. The Glazers are the absolute exceptions in English football in that they expect an ongoing return. Almost all other owners sink capital in. Money has historically been made by owners on sale not through regular dividends.

2. One of the key aims is to deleverage the club, reducing financial risk and freeing up more of the club’s cash for footballing purposes. The initial way to do this is through eliminating the PIKS which the Glazers would repay with the money they receive. This prevents the £95m initial dividend payment from having to be made as well as the ongoing £25m per annum.

3. It is very expensive to repay the bond on day 1 and requires the RKs to find far more equity up front. So it’s sensible to leave the bond in place. Longer term, I don’t think it’s a sensible instrument. It is very expensive (c. 8.75% pa) because the Glazers needed to pay up for something that allowed them to take large sums out of the club. With that requirement gone, a more reasonable facility could be put in place costing (say) c. 6% per annum and saving c. £12m each year.

4. So in quite a short time, you could see the club at current levels of profitability (c. £95m of EBITDA) having £50m+ available (even with some corporation tax being paid) for football/club use. There are obviously three areas each with good claims on this money; debt reduction, affordable tickets and squad investment. No doubt if any of this happens forums such as this will be scenes of heated debate about merits of each.

5. On the fans’ 25%, I doubt the RKs would just hand such a stake over for free, altruism has its limits, but any sale to fans at a premium to what the RKs paid would be unacceptable in my view.

6. There are clearly issues of “governance” to be debated and agreed. Nobody is stupid enough to think that 30 or 40 people (or 50,000 fans) can run a football club together.

Can't see it happening.

With the benefit of you having seen the documents, why did the RK's interest fail and where are they going from here?