Swiss Ramble twitter thread on Glazers ownership

[Adam-Utd]

Yeah I agree with this. This is just standard practice.

I have this argument with people all of the time. The Glazers hurt us financially between 2005-2010, we were paying something like £70m-odd in interest each year. Imagine what £350m extra invested in the playing squad during that period could have achieved?

Since the loans were restructured in 2010, we can't really complain about the money that has been made available for transfers. Again, you get morons on Twitter who think they have some kind of unique insight into this, and I am fully aware it's 'our' money, so I'm not crediting the Glazers for spending it. What I am saying is that more than enough funds have been made available to build a successful football team. The Glazers aren't obliged to put ANY of it back into the club. They could have pocketed the lot and let us field 23 Academy players every week, but they have consistently spent big (within our means) on transfers and wages.

I'm starting to come around to the opinion that we could be far, far worse off. FSG run a very tight ship financially at Liverpool, and it's only the brilliance of Michael Edwards and Jurgen Klopp which have enabled them to build a successful side. City and Chelsea are obviously effectively 'cheating', but we'd be hypocrites if we moaned about Abu Dhabi and Roman whilst secretly hoping we get bought by the Saudi's.

Ideally, we would be fan-owned, but that isn't going to happen. So then what...we get bought by one mega-rich Utd fan, maybe? But is that a 'good' thing? That person might be entitled enough and interested enough to start meddling, with disastrous results!

Personally, I have made my peace with the Glazer ownership. It's not ideal, but it could be far worse. They have the right motivation to keep investing in the club, whilst at the same time, being wise enough to leave the football-side to the football people. As long as the club spends it's surplus revenue, after operating costs and dividends, on improving the side - which has been the case for the last ten years, then I am happy with a somewhat uneasy, conditional truce

For me it would be a good gesture of them to stop taking dividends for a few years + start repaying the debt with it instead.

after 4/5 years we could get the debt down to something way more manageable and allow the club a lot more room to breathe - then they can continue taking their 'fair share'.

 

[stepic]

For me it would be a good gesture of them to stop taking dividends for a few years + start repaying the debt with it instead.

after 4/5 years we could get the debt down to something way more manageable and allow the club a lot more room to breathe - then they can continue taking their 'fair share'.

The debt is already manageable

 

[alexthelion]

Yeah I agree with this. This is just standard practice.

I have this argument with people all of the time. The Glazers hurt us financially between 2005-2010, we were paying something like £70m-odd in interest each year. Imagine what £350m extra invested in the playing squad during that period could have achieved?

Since the loans were restructured in 2010, we can't really complain about the money that has been made available for transfers. Again, you get morons on Twitter who think they have some kind of unique insight into this, and I am fully aware it's 'our' money, so I'm not crediting the Glazers for spending it. What I am saying is that more than enough funds have been made available to build a successful football team. The Glazers aren't obliged to put ANY of it back into the club. They could have pocketed the lot and let us field 23 Academy players every week, but they have consistently spent big (within our means) on transfers and wages.

I'm starting to come around to the opinion that we could be far, far worse off. FSG run a very tight ship financially at Liverpool, and it's only the brilliance of Michael Edwards and Jurgen Klopp which have enabled them to build a successful side. City and Chelsea are obviously effectively 'cheating', but we'd be hypocrites if we moaned about Abu Dhabi and Roman whilst secretly hoping we get bought by the Saudi's.

Ideally, we would be fan-owned, but that isn't going to happen. So then what...we get bought by one mega-rich Utd fan, maybe? But is that a 'good' thing? That person might be entitled enough and interested enough to start meddling, with disastrous results!

Personally, I have made my peace with the Glazer ownership. It's not ideal, but it could be far worse. They have the right motivation to keep investing in the club, whilst at the same time, being wise enough to leave the football-side to the football people. As long as the club spends it's surplus revenue, after operating costs and dividends, on improving the side - which has been the case for the last ten years, then I am happy with a somewhat uneasy, conditional truce

Well said.

 

[ReddyMcRedface]

One thing I never really see mentioned when it comes to any Glazer debate is the commercial income.

What I’d really like is to see some sort of expert put together what they think United’s income may have been if the old plc had stayed in for the last 15 years. A few years back I had a look at the United accounts from around 1999 to 2004 and the commercial revenue was pretty much the same every year.

Soon after the takeover the commercial side of the club shot up, and I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the next 3 shirt sponsors were all massive American companies. Apparently it was Woodward’s business plan to split up the globe and have different sponsors for effectively the same thing in different countries.

I’ve never looked into it enough to have an opinion either way but it would be interesting to see how much of the cost of Glazer ownership is offset by the increase in revenue.

 

[The Irish Connection]

The Ronaldo signing was perfect for them. Gets loads onside but actually pays for itself in a short time. We were left short again, in midfield. But people will say that’s just greedy.

 

[atkar83]

If I were in the multi billionaire club, I'd frankly be embarrassed if I had to buy a team with debt. Either you can afford it or you can't. If you can't pay with your own money maybe go for a cheaper team like....Norwich.

In the NFL they don't allow you to purchase a team with debt or a bunch of partners. It's one of the reasons Trump was denied the Buffalo Bills in 2012 or so if I'm not mistaken (other than the other owners probably knowing who he really is), he wanted to buy them with debt and in that class of wealth that's embarrassing

 

[stw2022]

It’s only embarrassing if you think Abramovic invented football

 

[Teja]

I don't understand people defending the ownership structure here. First we were saddled with a bunch of debt and interest payments purely because of the takeover. If the debt was "manageable" because we've built a new stadium, fine. How can you defend debt taken just to help someone buy the club?

Re: the dividend payments, how many clubs in world football pay for the privilege of having someone own them? We're not a fecking super market chain or an insurance company for the owners to demand dividends and ROI. If they want actual ROI, then they shouldn't even be investing in something with as poor an ROI as a football club.

If you're buying a sports team, you're doing it for the prestige / hobby / whatever, not to run it like a business and extract value from it.

One thing I never really see mentioned when it comes to any Glazer debate is the commercial income.

What I’d really like is to see some sort of expert put together what they think United’s income may have been if the old plc had stayed in for the last 15 years. A few years back I had a look at the United accounts from around 1999 to 2004 and the commercial revenue was pretty much the same every year.

Soon after the takeover the commercial side of the club shot up, and I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the next 3 shirt sponsors were all massive American companies. Apparently it was Woodward’s business plan to split up the globe and have different sponsors for effectively the same thing in different countries.

I’ve never looked into it enough to have an opinion either way but it would be interesting to see how much of the cost of Glazer ownership is offset by the increase in revenue.

I think this is a reasonable argument - if the Glazers weren't around, maybe our commercial revenues wouldn't quite have been as high. I'm not sure it holds up because sponsorship deals have exploded in recent times. After our initial one with Adidas that was world record, basically all the big clubs jumped on the bandwagon and we're no longer sitting alone at the top.

I think we would've seen an increase in commercial revenues but how quickly and how much relative to what we have now are a question mark.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

The Ronaldo signing was perfect for them. Gets loads onside but actually pays for itself in a short time. We were left short again, in midfield. But people will say that’s just greedy.

Excuse me, what pays for itself? Making shit loads of money off Ronnie doesn’t mean a reinvestment in the club. Love to know where the money does end up though

 

[wolvored]

For me it would be a good gesture of them to stop taking dividends for a few years + start repaying the debt with it instead.

after 4/5 years we could get the debt down to something way more manageable and allow the club a lot more room to breathe - then they can continue taking their 'fair share'.

The thing is its owned 6 ways through the siblings of Malcolm Glazer, who bought the club and hen he died it split into the 6 way ownerhip. Now I read about 6 years ago after the fathers death 3 wanted to sell up, but Joel, Avram and another brother (sorry dont know all the names, think the sister is Darcie), persuaded them not to, and jut keep milking the club. I think I read last year that one of the other 3 sold a lot of his shares last year, and Joel purchased some. Getting them all to agree on paying off the debt and not getting a dividend would be impossible, I would imagine.

 

[wolvored]

One thing I never really see mentioned when it comes to any Glazer debate is the commercial income.

What I’d really like is to see some sort of expert put together what they think United’s income may have been if the old plc had stayed in for the last 15 years. A few years back I had a look at the United accounts from around 1999 to 2004 and the commercial revenue was pretty much the same every year.

Soon after the takeover the commercial side of the club shot up, and I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the next 3 shirt sponsors were all massive American companies. Apparently it was Woodward’s business plan to split up the globe and have different sponsors for effectively the same thing in different countries.

I’ve never looked into it enough to have an opinion either way but it would be interesting to see how much of the cost of Glazer ownership is offset by the increase in revenue.

The club would have been more attractive to buy as well, as it wouldnt have a £3-4 billion price on it. Maybe between £1-1.5 billion, something like that.

 

[Lentwood]

I've read through your comments in this thread and you sir need to create a new thread explaining the Glazer ownership vs previous ownership. At the moment this site is filled with dross threads that don't add any value. I'd definitely read your explanation into the whole matter.

Too often I see people pretend like the Glazers are these spawn of the devil while the previous owners were these altruistic demigods that could do no wrong. Just your example of them pocketing 8 million out of Beckham's 25 million fee is insane. Imagine the uproar if the Glazers pocketed 24 million from Lukaku's sale.

Mate, what are you on about? In that time period we signed Nani, Anderson, Smalling, Jones, Valencia, whilist promoting Evans, Rafael, Fabio, Cleverly and Wellbeck. We also tried to sign Tevez, Benzema and Hazard.

First of all, you are picking on the wrong person because I have been largely pro-Glazer in this thread.

Secondly, I have facts on my side here. The net spend between 2005-2010 was positive. Fact. The PIK loans were in-place between 2005-2010. Fact. It's fairly clear the high-interest PIK loans hampered our transfer business.

Nobody is denying we signed SOME players, but we also sold our best player during this period. Jones and Smalling came in post-2010.

 

[Revan]

One thing I never really see mentioned when it comes to any Glazer debate is the commercial income.

What I’d really like is to see some sort of expert put together what they think United’s income may have been if the old plc had stayed in for the last 15 years. A few years back I had a look at the United accounts from around 1999 to 2004 and the commercial revenue was pretty much the same every year.

Soon after the takeover the commercial side of the club shot up, and I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the next 3 shirt sponsors were all massive American companies. Apparently it was Woodward’s business plan to split up the globe and have different sponsors for effectively the same thing in different countries.

I’ve never looked into it enough to have an opinion either way but it would be interesting to see how much of the cost of Glazer ownership is offset by the increase in revenue.

PLC were shit. They had two people working on commercial department, while now I think we have a few hundred. That is not to say that some other owners wouldn’t have been as good as Glazers in that aspect, but the previous ones definitely wouldn’t.

 

[Revan]

Excuse me, what pays for itself? Making shit loads of money off Ronnie doesn’t mean a reinvestment in the club. Love to know where the money does end up though

The financial sheets of the count are public. It is pretty straightforward to see where does the money end.

 

[Redjazz]

One thing I never really see mentioned when it comes to any Glazer debate is the commercial income.

What I’d really like is to see some sort of expert put together what they think United’s income may have been if the old plc had stayed in for the last 15 years. A few years back I had a look at the United accounts from around 1999 to 2004 and the commercial revenue was pretty much the same every year.

Soon after the takeover the commercial side of the club shot up, and I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the next 3 shirt sponsors were all massive American companies. Apparently it was Woodward’s business plan to split up the globe and have different sponsors for effectively the same thing in different countries.

I’ve never looked into it enough to have an opinion either way but it would be interesting to see how much of the cost of Glazer ownership is offset by the increase in revenue.

Christ alive but that was\is always front and center: Remember GQ (?) and his "Glazer Inspired Commercial Acumen" mantra?
A comparison with some supposed counterfactual "old plc" is just daft; even if the Glazers didn't exist neither would the old plc 15+ years on. Personnel change and directors serve at their shareholders' discretion. Had the club remained a plc (and sans Glazers) then all key posts would realistically be held by different folks with different levels of expertise, skills, etc.
The only realistic comparisons that can be made, are with other leading clubs in the premiership and Europe. Deloitte publish commercial revenue figures for the top 20 clubs yearly and I think that Swissramble and co run commentary on it every now and then. The general theme of it is Man Utd surging ahead of the pack from about 2006 to 2013, with the pack closing in latterly as Man Utd's commercial growth stalled over the last 5 to 6 years.

Yes , the reported commercial figures for the old plc were pretty flat in the period from 99 to 2004, but the club moved from a gross to net income reporting basis post the NIKE deal. Unwinding that impact would produce a growth rate of about 7% pa over the period. Still not great, but indicative of our footballing exploits over the period.
The misreported figures for the old plc are about as indicative and as sound a basis for future prognostication as Man Utd's commercial performance (even precovid) over the last 5/6 years is of the "Glazer Inspired Commercial Acumen".

 

[ReddyMcRedface]

Christ alive but that was\is always front and center: Remember GQ (?) and his "Glazer Inspired Commercial Acumen" mantra?
A comparison with some supposed counterfactual "old plc" is just daft; even if the Glazers didn't exist neither would the old plc 15+ years on. Personnel change and directors serve at their shareholders' discretion. Had the club remained a plc (and sans Glazers) then all key posts would realistically be held by different folks with different levels of expertise, skills, etc.
The only realistic comparisons that can be made, are with other leading clubs in the premiership and Europe. Deloitte publish commercial revenue figures for the top 20 clubs yearly and I think that Swissramble and co run commentary on it every now and then. The general theme of it is Man Utd surging ahead of the pack from about 2006 to 2013, with the pack closing in latterly as Man Utd's commercial growth stalled over the last 5 to 6 years.

Yes , the reported commercial figures for the old plc were pretty flat in the period from 99 to 2004, but the club moved from a gross to net income reporting basis post the NIKE deal. Unwinding that impact would produce a growth rate of about 7% pa over the period. Still not great, but indicative of our footballing exploits over the period.
The misreported figures for the old plc are about as indicative and as sound a basis for future prognostication as Man Utd's commercial performance (even precovid) over the last 5/6 years is of the "Glazer Inspired Commercial Acumen".

I didn’t know that about the change in reporting on the Nike deal, that’s interesting because, as you say, it does paint a slightly improved picture for the pre-Glazer era.

The question I’m asking is impossible to answer but I just think it’s worth considering when thinking about the impact the Glazers have had on the club.

For what it’s worth these days I just take a better the devil you know approach, there’s lots of things I’d like them to do better or do differently but I think all alternatives would also have their own pitfalls.

 

[ravelston]

First of all, you are picking on the wrong person because I have been largely pro-Glazer in this thread.

Secondly, I have facts on my side here. The net spend between 2005-2010 was positive. Fact. The PIK loans were in-place between 2005-2010. Fact. It's fairly clear the high-interest PIK loans hampered our transfer business.

Nobody is denying we signed SOME players, but we also sold our best player during this period. Jones and Smalling came in post-2010.

The PIK loans had a positive, NOT negative, impact on our finances - weird isn't it. The interest was never paid - it just got rolled into the principal amount - but it did provide us with a tax offset which freed up cash for other purposes. Saved somewhere around £25-30 million over it's life. Then the Glazers paid it down - never cost us a penny.

"Some players" amounted to almost an entire team - VdS, Vidic, Evra, the twins for defense, Carrick, Hargreaves and Anderson for midfield, and Nani, Berbatov, Tevez, Park for attack (and all the others I've forgotten). The 2008 CL final team was more than half players bought after the buyout. Losing Ronaldo wasn't good but our goals scored in the PL went up the next year as Rooney and Berbatov took up the slack. The bigger problem was losing Queiroz - our defense slowly went to shit after he left.

 

[The Irish Connection]

Excuse me, what pays for itself? Making shit loads of money off Ronnie doesn’t mean a reinvestment in the club. Love to know where the money does end up though

Well yes

 

[Adam-Utd]

The debt is already manageable

manageable but way too much. We shouldn’t be spending that much on repayments every season.

 

[stepic]

manageable but way too much. We shouldn’t be spending that much on repayments every season.

£20m? That’s barely anything for a club with our annual revenues.

 

[Pronewbie]

If I were in the multi billionaire club, I'd frankly be embarrassed if I had to buy a team with debt. Either you can afford it or you can't. If you can't pay with your own money maybe go for a cheaper team like....Norwich.

In the NFL they don't allow you to purchase a team with debt or a bunch of partners. It's one of the reasons Trump was denied the Buffalo Bills in 2012 or so if I'm not mistaken (other than the other owners probably knowing who he really is), he wanted to buy them with debt and in that class of wealth that's embarrassing

The ugly side of free-wheeling, rent-seeking capitalism, unfortunately..

 

[Lentwood]

I don't understand people defending the ownership structure here. First we were saddled with a bunch of debt and interest payments purely because of the takeover. If the debt was "manageable" because we've built a new stadium, fine. How can you defend debt taken just to help someone buy the club?

I can't speak for everybody but my point is not that I LIKE the Glazers, but that I have made my peace with them because it could be much worse. You have to separate the Glazer ownership into two periods really, as below.

2005-2011 | Incredibly damaging. Leveraged buyout, saddled the club with debt, paid £70m+ in interest payments annually which should have been invested in the squad. Positive net spend over a 5YR period.

2012-2021 | Since the PIK loans were restructured, the Glazers have allowed the club to spend virtually every spare penny we have (after dividends, which really are so negligible it's a red herring in my book). The fact is, unless Utd were owned by the Saudi's, Qatari's or Abu Dhabi, there are virtually no owners in world football under whom Utd could have invested a significant amount more in the squad. It's not the Glazers fault the money has been wasted at times.

So, just to reiterate my earlier point, I would love Utd to be owned by the fans or perhaps a small group of rich United supporters. The problem is, due to the sheer size and commercial value of Manchester Utd, neither option was ever likely to be viable. At this moment in time, I have a sort of uneasy truce with the Glazers, as long as the cash keeps being made available

 

[Stevondo8]

Wages keep increasing, especially with Ronaldo and Varane. Pogba, Bruno and Shaw contract extensions next, plus Rashford and Greenwood in 1-2 years.
Only Cavani will leave at the end of the season. This means wages will increase further. Oh and maybe Haaland …

Hopefully we have everything under control and won’t turn into Barca where we ask players to reduce wages, etc.

We’ve got one of the lowest wages-as-a-%-of-revenue ratios in the league, so whilst wages are going up this season, we’re nowhere near a Barca situation.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DevilsOwn]

We’ve got one of the lowest wages-as-a-%-of-revenue ratios in the league, so whilst wages are going up this season, we’re nowhere near a Barca situation.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Does the ratio consider 20-21 earnings (i.e. no income from ticket purchases) or estimate of 21-22 earning (w/ tickets income)?

 

[Stevondo8]

Does the ratio consider 20-21 earnings (i.e. no income from ticket purchases) or estimate of 21-22 earning (w/ tickets income)?

I don’t subscribe to the athletic so can’t read the full article, but I’d assume the 65% quoted is based on most recent accounts. If we make it through champions league group, plus return of fans, I’d imagine turnover will increase more than wages for the forthcoming financial year.

 

[DevilsOwn]

I don’t subscribe to the athletic so can’t read the full article, but I’d assume the 65% quoted is based on most recent accounts. If we make it through champions league group, plus return of fans, I’d imagine turnover will increase more than wages for the forthcoming financial year.

Exactly my thoughts. Our matchday income for this year would substantially improve the ratio.

Glazers/Woody, seemingly have done this bit - increasing revenue and maintaining financial control - much better than most.

 

[Revaulx]

I can't speak for everybody but my point is not that I LIKE the Glazers, but that I have made my peace with them because it could be much worse. You have to separate the Glazer ownership into two periods really, as below.

2005-2011 | Incredibly damaging. Leveraged buyout, saddled the club with debt, paid £70m+ in interest payments annually which should have been invested in the squad. Positive net spend over a 5YR period.

2012-2021 | Since the PIK loans were restructured, the Glazers have allowed the club to spend virtually every spare penny we have (after dividends, which really are so negligible it's a red herring in my book). The fact is, unless Utd were owned by the Saudi's, Qatari's or Abu Dhabi, there are virtually no owners in world football under whom Utd could have invested a significant amount more in the squad. It's not the Glazers fault the money has been wasted at times.

So, just to reiterate my earlier point, I would love Utd to be owned by the fans or perhaps a small group of rich United supporters. The problem is, due to the sheer size and commercial value of Manchester Utd, neither option was ever likely to be viable. At this moment in time, I have a sort of uneasy truce with the Glazers, as long as the cash keeps being made available

Fully agree with all of this except the bolded part. It’s their job as owners (and to their benefit) to ensure they’ve got the right “footballing people” in place. Things seem finally to have improved in that area, though I’m still sceptical, but it’s taken a ridiculously long time; even if one forgives them for failing to anticipate the fallout from SAF’s departure.