Swiss Ramble twitter thread on Glazers ownership

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
27,953
This is a very good read.

 

OmarUnited4ever

Full Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
353
Location
Malaysia
The problem is their leveraged buyout in 2005, how it was allowed? why the debts were put against the club's assets?

the way they engineered their purchase of the club is terrible for the club, the club lost almost 1bn just to pay debts & interest!!!
 

MDFC Manager

Full Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
18,227
It's a massive shame that we've spent so much and so poorly on players (worst in the world surely).

If we'd done better there, we'd certainly have more money to spend on the stadium and facilities.

I'm not justifying the glazer ownership, just saying what could have been if we'd spent better in terms of player recruitment.
 

dove

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
5,757
It's a massive shame that we've spent so much and so poorly on players (worst in the world surely).

If we'd done better there, we'd certainly have more money to spend on the stadium and facilities.

I'm not justifying the glazer ownership, just saying what could have been if we'd spent better in terms of player recruitment.
More for dividend payments you mean.
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
10,762
Location
manchester
It's a massive shame that we've spent so much and so poorly on players (worst in the world surely).

If we'd done better there, we'd certainly have more money to spend on the stadium and facilities.

I'm not justifying the glazer ownership, just saying what could have been if we'd spent better in terms of player recruitment.
its not just recruitment. Its the stupid wages we pay, overpay for players and cant sell. Hang on to older players not good enough to avoid replacing them. Supposedly Ederson at City is on 65k a week, DeGea is on £375k, Henderson 120k etc. Just plain stupidity
 

Buchan

has whacked the hammer to Roswell
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
16,243
Location
The Republik of Mancunia | W3102
That ship has long sailed at this stage but how on Earth the authorities (the Premier League, the FA, the government etc.) green-lit the takeover is one of the great tragedies of sport in this country.

We have been badly let down by those who are supposed to be on every football supporters’ side. It’s a national scandal, no other term to describe it.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,804
Location
Somewhere out there
That ship has long sailed at this stage but how on Earth the authorities (the Premier League, the FA, the government etc.) green-lit the takeover is one of the great tragedies of sport in this country.

We have been badly let down by those who are supposed to be on every football supporters’ side. It’s a national scandal, no other term to describe it.
Absolutely, it was disgusting that they allowed it.

Swiss ramble is back, protests, my God it’s like I’ve just jumped in a DeLorean. Yet people still haven’t learnt their lesson, protest to the arseholes who let this happen.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,717
Location
France
The problem is their leveraged buyout in 2005, how it was allowed? why the debts were put against the club's assets?

the way they engineered their purchase of the club is terrible for the club, the club lost almost 1bn just to pay debts & interest!!!
The debts were put against the owners assets and the club was one of those assets. And the cold reality is that United from the Glazers standpoint isn't different to a real estate investment, United generates "rent" money that is used to pay the loan and a little bit of side money for the owners. It's a fairly common practice.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,816
its not just recruitment. Its the stupid wages we pay, overpay for players and cant sell. Hang on to older players not good enough to avoid replacing them. Supposedly Ederson at City is on 65k a week, DeGea is on £375k, Henderson 120k etc. Just plain stupidity
There is no way in hell that Ederson is on £65k a week.

I hate the Glazers as much as anyone, but we need to remember that we're competing against a City organisation that aren't playing by the same rules as us. The full £375k we pay De Gea has to be shown on our books because we are a PLC and as such, answerable to financial authorities. City can show £65k for Ederson on their books and then hide the other £300k via their state infrastructure. They are not answerable to any authority so can paint what ever financial picture they like and then pretend all these top class players are there simply for the love of the club and it's deep and honoured history.
 

UpWithRivers

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
1,674
Playing devils advocate - dont ban me and hunt me down just trying to understand this. If the interest is 800 mill over 15 years is what 55 mill ish a year? Thats not exactly a lot? If they didnt pay interest what should they have done with the cash? Buy players? So they arnt allowed profit? Lets say they pocketed 55 mill a year. Thats peanuts. Large companies makes 2, 3, 4, 5 times that a day. This whole business model looks completely sht for an investor. Why ever buy a football club. You make next to nothing. What it also shows is player sales and especially salaries is killing football. Thats where all the cash is going. 50 percent of income going to salaries! And its all linked to the oil rich clubs and the impossibility of competing with them. There is more to the problem here then simply interest rates on the loans.
 

hellhunter

Full Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,686
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Supports
Karlsruher SC
Playing devils advocate - dont ban me and hunt me down just trying to understand this. If the interest is 800 mill over 15 years is what 55 mill ish a year? Thats not exactly a lot? If they didnt pay interest what should they have done with the cash? Buy players? So they arnt allowed profit? Lets say they pocketed 55 mill a year. Thats peanuts. Large companies makes 2, 3, 4, 5 times that a day. This whole business model looks completely sht for an investor. Why ever buy a football club. You make next to nothing. What it also shows is player sales and especially salaries is killing football. Thats where all the cash is going. 50 percent of income going to salaries! And its all linked to the oil rich clubs and the impossibility of competing with them. There is more to the problem here then simply interest rates on the loans.
Interest is not profit for the owner.
 

hellhunter

Full Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,686
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Supports
Karlsruher SC
Id they never had a loan and bought the club with cash then the money they are spending on interest would be profit?
That's more like it, I suppose. Tax may make this a more complicated calculation, though.
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
10,762
Location
manchester
There is no way in hell that Ederson is on £65k a week.

I hate the Glazers as much as anyone, but we need to remember that we're competing against a City organisation that aren't playing by the same rules as us. The full £375k we pay De Gea has to be shown on our books because we are a PLC and as such, answerable to financial authorities. City can show £65k for Ederson on their books and then hide the other £300k via their state infrastructure. They are not answerable to any authority so can paint what ever financial picture they like and then pretend all these top class players are there simply for the love of the club and it's deep and honoured history.
im going off this, nothing seems particulary out of line for anyone else.

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/rankings/weekly/

KDB 385k
Aguero 230k,
Rashford 200k
Martial 250k,
Greenwood 75k
 

Striker10

"Ronaldo and trophies > Manchester United football
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
18,853
The problem is their leveraged buyout in 2005, how it was allowed? why the debts were put against the club's assets?

the way they engineered their purchase of the club is terrible for the club, the club lost almost 1bn just to pay debts & interest!!!
The banks. They are parasitic. And i've said it because you show future projections and it seems logical that a franchise would appeal to grow the business and natural as thats how sport is in America. In addition if glazers suddenly stopped paying what they owe ....can a bank take control at some point? Would a bank look to maybe take control and sell on craigs list or ebay? :). Its all about the money system that feeds on greed. How do banks lose? They create money or steal a nations property and sell it and would move the damn thing if they wished. It wont go there but this is why nations themselves have to make their own money. To control it and make it work for the people. Right now it's used to make you a debt slave because of the interest on top. This is why politicans dont listen. Once that's got debt that is. Why would any nation allow debt upon itself? To pass the debts...onto the people

Thats how its allowed. Its because many are materialistic and worship money
 
Last edited:

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
6,950
Id they never had a loan and bought the club with cash then the money they are spending on interest would be profit?
In essence yes, we'd then be paying more tax as we'll then.

I don't think any of us would be complaining if the interest was charged on a loan used on the stadium ala spurs or aresenal. Its the fact its on a loan that allowed them to initially buy us.
 

Buchan

has whacked the hammer to Roswell
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
16,243
Location
The Republik of Mancunia | W3102
Playing devils advocate - dont ban me and hunt me down just trying to understand this. If the interest is 800 mill over 15 years is what 55 mill ish a year? Thats not exactly a lot? If they didnt pay interest what should they have done with the cash? Buy players? So they arnt allowed profit? Lets say they pocketed 55 mill a year. Thats peanuts. Large companies makes 2, 3, 4, 5 times that a day. This whole business model looks completely sht for an investor. Why ever buy a football club. You make next to nothing. What it also shows is player sales and especially salaries is killing football. Thats where all the cash is going. 50 percent of income going to salaries! And its all linked to the oil rich clubs and the impossibility of competing with them. There is more to the problem here then simply interest rates on the loans.
They haven’t put a single penny of their own money into the club.

They continue to siphon tens of millions of pounds out of the club in dividend payments each year.

They haven’t reduced the overall debt by any meaningful amount in years. We are still ~£500m in debt, the second-largest debt in English football after Spurs, who just built a state-of-the-art football stadium whilst Old Trafford hasn’t had as much as a lick of paint in recent years.

In short, they are horrible parasites and nobody here should be defending their prostitution of our proud football club.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,816
Playing devils advocate - dont ban me and hunt me down just trying to understand this. If the interest is 800 mill over 15 years is what 55 mill ish a year? Thats not exactly a lot? If they didnt pay interest what should they have done with the cash? Buy players? So they arnt allowed profit? Lets say they pocketed 55 mill a year. Thats peanuts. Large companies makes 2, 3, 4, 5 times that a day. This whole business model looks completely sht for an investor. Why ever buy a football club. You make next to nothing. What it also shows is player sales and especially salaries is killing football. Thats where all the cash is going. 50 percent of income going to salaries! And its all linked to the oil rich clubs and the impossibility of competing with them. There is more to the problem here then simply interest rates on the loans.
They are also taking dividends. I would have no issue with them making a profit if the club as a business was successful and they were fulfilling their obligations as owners. But the debt only exists so they didn't have to spend any of their own money to buy the club - now money the club generates each year is being taken to pay interest on a debt that is hanging around the clubs neck. Not to reduce the debt, if anything it is bigger than when they bought the club, but just so it can exist without them having to pay it off.

£800m might not sound like a lot to you over 15 years, but when you consider only £118m of the clubs money has been used on all capital expenditure during the same time, it makes you look at the stadium and facilities which are falling behind our rivals and question the numbers.
 

Blake's 7

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
68
To the Glazers we were just a buy to rent investment. The leveraged loan was their mortgage, we cover their repayments and a tidy annual profit whilst the underlying asset keeps increasing in value. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Unfortunately until their income stream is curtailed I don't see why they would sell, it's not like they attend games or love the club, it's just a cash cow to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheimoon

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,816
im going off this, nothing seems particulary out of line for anyone else.

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/rankings/weekly/

KDB 385k
Aguero 230k,
Rashford 200k
Martial 250k,
Greenwood 75k
Because they use the numbers provided by clubs. Clubs owned by individuals and organisations from countries with proper financial accountability cannot hide payments from their official accounts. Clubs who are owned by states can.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
108,654
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
That ship has long sailed at this stage but how on Earth the authorities (the Premier League, the FA, the government etc.) green-lit the takeover is one of the great tragedies of sport in this country.

We have been badly let down by those who are supposed to be on every football supporters’ side. It’s a national scandal, no other term to describe it.
Indeed it has. Which is why I find it weird the way so many people bring up the debt as though it’s “brand new information”. They put that debt on the club 16 years ago. We just paid over 30 million quid for a player that had only just been born when the Glazers brought the club!

I’m old enough to remember well the outrage at the leveraged purchase. It was heartbreaking. But there’s nothing we can do to make it unhappen.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
27,953
im going off this, nothing seems particulary out of line for anyone else.

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/rankings/weekly/

KDB 385k
Aguero 230k,
Rashford 200k
Martial 250k,
Greenwood 75k
It says Kante earns 140K, telegraph (Chelsea's mouthpiece Matt law) reported he earns 290K-300K.

Also these sites never published Aguero wages was 350K which was leaked by Der Spiegel.

Sportrac also had Sane on 90K per week, when the leaked contract showed he was guaranteed at least 150K per week (24.5 million in 3 years guaranteed payments).
 

UpWithRivers

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
1,674
They haven’t put a single penny of their own money into the club.

They continue to siphon tens of millions of pounds out of the club in dividend payments each year.

They haven’t reduced the overall debt by any meaningful amount in years. We are still ~£500m in debt, the second-largest debt in English football after Spurs, who just built a state-of-the-art football stadium whilst Old Trafford hasn’t had as much as a lick of paint in recent years.

In short, they are horrible parasites and nobody here should be defending their prostitution of our proud football club.
They are also taking dividends. I would have no issue with them making a profit if the club as a business was successful and they were fulfilling their obligations as owners. But the debt only exists so they didn't have to spend any of their own money to buy the club - now money the club generates each year is being taken to pay interest on a debt that is hanging around the clubs neck. Not to reduce the debt, if anything it is bigger than when they bought the club, but just so it can exist without them having to pay it off.

£800m might not sound like a lot to you over 15 years, but when you consider only £118m of the clubs money has been used on all capital expenditure during the same time, it makes you look at the stadium and facilities which are falling behind our rivals and question the numbers.
Ok Ill put it another way. If you owned a business worth 4bn how much profit would you expect to make? Is 55 million a year a lot? If they are pocketing 55 million or taking the 55 mill and paying it to a bank for interest whats the difference. Most companies are run on loans before its profitable. Amazon lost money for years before it made it. Thats how business works. You are asking for a business to act like no other business. Pay in cash. Make no profit. This only works for Oil barons.
 

Roboc7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
4,439
Ok Ill put it another way. If you owned a business worth 4bn how much profit would you expect to make? Is 55 million a year a lot? If they are pocketing 55 million or taking the 55 mill and paying it to a bank for interest whats the difference. Most companies are run on loans before its profitable. Amazon lost money for years before it made it. Thats how business works.
Football clubs aren’t profitable it’s the value of the club where all the profit comes from. If they sold for £2bn they’d walk away with well over a billion in profit. Not bad for some incompetents whose success stems from being the offspring of a billionaire.

The reasons why Glazers are clinging on is they are scared that value might get bigger and someone else cashes in.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,816
Ok Ill put it another way. If you owned a business worth 4bn how much profit would you expect to make? Is 55 million a year a lot? If they are pocketing 55 million or taking the 55 mill and paying it to a bank for interest whats the difference. Most companies are run on loans before its profitable. Amazon lost money for years before it made it. Thats how business works.
The business isn't worth £4bn, that is just the pricetag the Glazers want for it.

Your £55m figure also doesn't include the dividend payments and loan repayment amounts. Add those and you're up to £73.3m per season, for a business that averaged £393.3m a season in revenue. So using your theory, that's the equivalent of a business taking 18.6% profits while neglecting to spend on critical capital expenditure. I would say that is excessive no matter what line of business you are in.

I own a business that I do well from. I have no debt, no pressing capital expenditure concerns and the business makes between 5 and 7% profit each year.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,717
Location
France
Football clubs aren’t profitable it’s the value of the club where all the profit comes from. If they sold for £2bn they’d walk away with well over a billion in profit. Not bad for some incompetents whose success stems from being the offspring of a billionaire.

The reasons why Glazers are clinging on is they are scared that value might get bigger and someone else cashes in.
That's not true. The vast majority of Football clubs aren't profitable, Manchester United is one the exceptions.
 

led_scholes

Full Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Messages
808
That's more like it, I suppose. Tax may make this a more complicated calculation, though.
Tax and the perhaps bigger dividends for themselves would mean reduced profits (for the club). But surely better than not having 1 bln lost on loan repayments and still 500 mil still in debt!
 

bdecuc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
818
Location
Ireland
No, it's a business generating revenue for its owners.
It's that too. And that is very sad and dispiriting to most people who care about the sport and football club they've spent their whole lives watching.
 

Roboc7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
4,439
That's not true. The vast majority of Football clubs aren't profitable, Manchester United is one the exceptions.
Yes an exception but profits are fairly minor and given level of investment constantly required in players and infrastructure they aren’t great investments in terms of profits.
 

Striker10

"Ronaldo and trophies > Manchester United football
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
18,853
This is the point i want to make because parasites used a lot and there was a thread here i saw yesterday re how much would you want to retire on etc...something like that. We see hearsay that they want to grow the business to 7billion. The question is why? And to me people never discuss it. If you put half a billion in say most normal people would be happy with doubling their money. These levels of money distort decency. And how is this not looked at as a mental illness? The level of greed is such that they are not rational or decent. It's never enough they've enough to live 10000s of lifetimes comfortable. They do it, to screw ordinary people. Just like over generations people have been taught to rely more and more on the system losing the basic ability to be self sufficent. We happy to diagnose kids with this illness or that but not these meglomanics who created a system based on hate. This is why i speak out. The things people accept amazes me. The glazers strength lies not in themselves. It's the banks propping up that dead corpse. Its the banks and as a consequence, they will be greedy because the money system has their back.Its designed this way. People need to start associating glazers and banks because its a business for both. The glazers own the club but the banks own the glazers and the club as a direct result
 
Last edited:

Buchan

has whacked the hammer to Roswell
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
16,243
Location
The Republik of Mancunia | W3102
Ok Ill put it another way. If you owned a business worth 4bn how much profit would you expect to make? Is 55 million a year a lot? If they are pocketing 55 million or taking the 55 mill and paying it to a bank for interest whats the difference. Most companies are run on loans before its profitable. Amazon lost money for years before it made it. Thats how business works. You are asking for a business to act like no other business. Pay in cash. Make no profit. This only works for Oil barons.
The only reason they “own” the club is because of their morally-bankrupt leveraged buyout. Had that been vetoed like it should have, do you honestly think the Glazers would’ve financed the takeover themselves with their own cash?

Other businesses you mentioned are completely different and cannot be compared to the Glazer situation at United. Bezos at Amazon etc. took on the risk associated with starting and owning a business, what risk did the Glazers take and what entitles them to siphon tens of millions of pounds every year from the club in dividends and other payments?

They are parasites to their very fibre and defending them here - as a supposed United fan - beggars belief.
 

bsCallout

Full Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
3,264
Ok Ill put it another way. If you owned a business worth 4bn how much profit would you expect to make? Is 55 million a year a lot? If they are pocketing 55 million or taking the 55 mill and paying it to a bank for interest whats the difference. Most companies are run on loans before its profitable. Amazon lost money for years before it made it. Thats how business works. You are asking for a business to act like no other business. Pay in cash. Make no profit. This only works for Oil barons.
They bought a company that had no debt, with debt. They have since invested next to nothing in the assets of that company i.e. Old Trafford and the training facilities. They've obviously spent poorly on other 'assets' too, all whilst barely reducing the initial debt and paying themselves very nice dividends.

People rightly opposed the takeover and many more are now opposing what they've done since.

Where has United done well out of this ownership?