Swiss Ramble twitter thread on Glazers ownership

SuperiorXI

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
7,978
Location
Manchester, England
Is this possibly the worst loan of all time?

550m original loan, over 700m paid on the fecking interest
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
27,077
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!!!
What the Glazers did was perfectly legal, because the club was treated more or less like any other business. Sports clubs are so much more than just businesses though, they're pillars of local communities, they're institutions, they're altars, they're sacred, part of the fabric of our very culture. It's high time the powers that be recognize that fully.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,816
Whether you care about the debt and money leeched from the business or not (I clearly do), there remains the fact that our football club is geared towards servicing this debt first, and football second.

Whether you look at this as a passionate football fan or a dispassionate businessman, this isn't good news.

The Glazers neglected the footballing side of the club for years. They wrongly believed that because the clubs was and is a cash cow, that it would always remain so, regardless of their neglect. They put bankers and accountants into key roles at the top of the club and this has resulted in hundreds of millions of pounds spent poorly and without direction. It created a ridiculous wage bill and led to pitiful returns from player sales. Poor football direction and management cost us hundreds of millions in lost Champions League revenues and associated commercial incomes. It has led to slower growth than several of the rivals we eclipsed both on and off the field before their takeover.

The single only way you can look at the Glazers ownership and call it successful, is if your measure of success for a football club is for an owner to make as much money for themselves as they can by spending the least. And even that isn't sustainable "success".
 
Last edited:

UpWithRivers

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
1,674
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.
Yes agreed. Thats why 50+1 will never work for them.

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.
Thanks. This makes sense looking at it like this yes 5-7 percent profit would be about norm for most companies.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,716
Location
France
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.
That's not how it works. Players are essentially intermediate goods, they are not investments or at least they are not the concerns of investors because the playing staff is part of recurring expenses and within annual budgets, they have nothing to do with the owners remuneration and their purchase doesn't come from their pockets, at least not at clubs like United.
What you need to consider when you try to determine whether United is a good investment or not for the Glazers is that they mainly didn't purchase the club with their own cash, the club generates enough revenue to cover the bills and also pay dividends, so it is in fact a great investment for whoever is able to purchase it through an LBO, at least it was in 2005, particularly when you consider the profits from a future sell. Now it would be a terrible investment if they purchased it with their own cash.
 

louvega

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,181
you'll have to block many many games for these parasites to go away
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
17,654
Location
Sydney
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.
what good would that do now?
 

OleGunnar20

Full Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2018
Messages
713
They only understand one thing. Once the value of the club starts to dip consistently, they'll be on their bike for sure.
Exactly. Bad PR sustained over a length of time = investor uncertainty = a falling value.

Its the only way to get these scumbags out of our club.
 

MU655

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
516
These figures actually show that management has been the real issue, not finances.

2% dividends is nothing in the grand scheme of things. It has had no bearing over the club's ability to succeed. 10% on interest is more substantial, but, again, it is not the reason why we have failed in the last 8 years. With the debt repayments, that is 16% overall (rounding to 1dp, it is 15.6%). So, 84% is still spent on the club.

Net player purchases is a bit of a flimsy argument to level 'payments to Glazers' with 'investments in players'. In the end, cash from player sales isn't specifically held to pay for players, so it makes no sense. Some of that could have actually been used to pay dividend or expenses etc. In the end, 1.4bn has been spent on players no matter how you twist it.

The 16% is not the reason the club is currently in the position it is. The main problem is bad investments and overpaying of wages. Correct these and people probably won't even notice the owners.
 

ZupZup

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
1,991
Location
W3104
It's crazy really... you should not be able to treat a football club like a buy to let mortgage.
 

RUCK4444

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
6,300
Location
$¥$¥$¥$¥$
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.
Another way of looking at it would be, if we hadn’t spent more on debts that were dumped on us than we have on player recruitment that we would have had twice as much chance of getting an elite team together over the last 10 years.

People need to stop being grateful for what we have spent on players when we could have literally spent DOUBLE that, except we didn’t because we’ve been crippled by clowns from the states who haven’t put a single penny in.

Fact: if we had spent double what we have on players we would be in a MUCH better position.
 

OmarUnited4ever

Full Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
353
Location
Malaysia
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.

not sure if this is a common thing in Real Estate, but they got a huge loan that funded the takeover itself (not their own money or their own assets as collateral), the club then is saddled with hundreds of millions worth of debt which is originally from their loan to takeover.

Can one get a loan to acquire a major Real Estate piece then put the entire loan on the acquired Real estate piece? what is the collateral in this case?

based on the reports, many banks refused Glazer's proposals until JP Morgan & Ed Woodward appeared.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,716
Location
France
not sure if this is a common thing in Real Estate, but they got a huge loan that funded the takeover itself (not their own money or their own assets as collateral), the club then is saddled with hundreds of millions worth of debt which is originally from their loan to takeover.

Can one get a loan to acquire a major Real Estate piece then put the entire loan on the acquired Real estate piece? what is the collateral in this case?

based on the reports, many banks refused Glazer's proposals until JP Morgan & Ed Woodward appeared.
That's an LBO, it's a theorized and relatively common purchase strategy. The goal is generally, if not exclusively, to sell the purchased company in the short to mid term for a huge profit.
 

Reyoji-Utd

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
153
Location
USA
I think its hard to argues against each sides because of where they stand.

Fans want an owner that dont think about making any profits off the club. That the owner should use all the money generate from club to put backnin the club...etc. i think the best way was fans should buy up the club 15 yrs ago. Then there wouldnt be any of these issues. But now its done and dusted, the club is the Glazers property.

As some previous posts were stating, the Glazers are looking at UTD as a business entity or less we like it cash cow property. They just want to make some money off the club each year and maybe when its time they will cash in. Its just simple as that. I dont think we can say that they are bad or anything because they are playing by the rules that we as fans or even as citizens didnt say anything against the rules for years.
 

King7Eric

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
2,108
Location
Galway
Another way of looking at it would be, if we hadn’t spent more on debts that were dumped on us than we have on player recruitment that we would have had twice as much chance of getting an elite team together over the last 10 years.

People need to stop being grateful for what we have spent on players when we could have literally spent DOUBLE that, except we didn’t because we’ve been crippled by clowns from the states who haven’t put a single penny in.

Fact: if we had spent double what we have on players we would be in a MUCH better position.
It never ceases to amaze me that people don't get this. Yes we've spent a billion on transfers, but we should be spending a billion more. We are not a City or Chelsea who should just be grateful for whatever the owners put in to save us from irrelevancy. This is the club's own money and should be invested in the club, in the first team, the academy, the stadium, the training ground and so on. And to make matters worse, the money they have spent they've done it badly.
 

DoomSlayer

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
4,476
Location
Bulgaria
Whether you care about the debt and money leeched from the business or not (I clearly do), there remains the fact that our football club is geared towards servicing this debt first, and football second.

Whether you look at this as a passionate football fan or a dispassionate businessman, this isn't good news.

The Glazers neglected the footballing side of the club for years. They wrongly believed that because the clubs was and is a cash cow, that it would always remain so, regardless of their neglect. They put bankers and accountants into key roles at the top of the club and this has resulted in hundreds of millions of pounds spent poorly and without direction. It created a ridiculous wage bill and led to pitiful returns from player sales. Poor football direction and management cost us hundreds of millions in lost Champions League revenues and associated commercial incomes. It has led to slower growth than several of the rivals we eclipsed both on and off the field before their takeover.

The single only way you can look at the Glazers ownership and call it successful, is if your measure of success for a football club is for an owner to make as much money for themselves as they can by spending the least. And even that isn't sustainable "success".
It's pathetic how people can defend them or justify any of the actions till this day.

I don't give 2 flying fecks about business practices or what is legal, I want these horrible bastards and all their cronies out of our club. Woodward, Judge and everyone else from the Glazer circle, along with them, should feck off to the US and their precious handegg!
 

Escobar

Poster originally known as Michel04
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
24,589
Location
La-La-Land
Just imagine where we would be financially without the leveraged buy out! The costs of being own by the Glazers is a disgrace and yet they only care about their dividends
 

OmarUnited4ever

Full Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
353
Location
Malaysia
That's an LBO, it's a theorized and relatively common purchase strategy. The goal is generally, if not exclusively, to sell the purchased company in the short to mid term for a huge profit.
LBO as in leveraged buyout, maybe it's common as you say in the financial world
 

Sting

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
29
These figures actually show that management has been the real issue, not finances.

2% dividends is nothing in the grand scheme of things. It has had no bearing over the club's ability to succeed. 10% on interest is more substantial, but, again, it is not the reason why we have failed in the last 8 years. With the debt repayments, that is 16% overall (rounding to 1dp, it is 15.6%). So, 84% is still spent on the club.

Net player purchases is a bit of a flimsy argument to level 'payments to Glazers' with 'investments in players'. In the end, cash from player sales isn't specifically held to pay for players, so it makes no sense. Some of that could have actually been used to pay dividend or expenses etc. In the end, 1.4bn has been spent on players no matter how you twist it.

The 16% is not the reason the club is currently in the position it is. The main problem is bad investments and overpaying of wages. Correct these and people probably won't even notice the owners.
I kind of agree with this tbh. But then again it boils down to who do you hold responsible for those bad investments? I know it’s mostly the managers who choose which players to sign but when it’s all said and done the buck stops with the owners and the exec .
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
22,236
The issue is and was with the leveraged buy out. Even if we can't get rid of the Glazers I'm hoping the protests cause the rules to be looked at so there's a cap on LBOs like in other sports.

It'll be a struggle as you'd expect it would lower the stupid valuations of clubs like ours and the greedy parasites will do anything to stop it.
 

Reyoji-Utd

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
153
Location
USA
What the Glazers did was perfectly legal, because the club was treated more or less like any other business. Sports clubs are so much more than just businesses though, they're pillars of local communities, they're institutions, they're altars, they're sacred, part of the fabric of our very culture. It's high time the powers that be recognize that fully.
I agree the club are worth more to us fans than the Glazers or any other businessman. Its the memories, happiness and sadness that grows along with us. Thats why i dont understand why the legal entities or rules didnt prohibited the LBO from the Glazers in the first place or any other clubs after that. This bound to happens when you have more businessman buying up clubs to make profits or to promote their various other agenda. When you have so much money pours in years after years, the fundamental essence of football is corrupting.
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
14,115
Location
Hell on Earth
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!!!
This is the Original Sin.

I am much more angrier at the cnuts in the League relevant (Fit & Propper or Finance/takeover) committee/s that allowed an LBO to happen than I am at the Glazers.
Hope they all die a slow & painful death.
 

Maticmaker

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
2,316
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.
.....and in this case, its 'on Steriods'.
As you say, both business and legal wise, the Glazers have done nothing wrong, just applied their real estate development practice, albeit to a football club. This is why 'blunt-force' protests are in my mind counterproductive in term's of criticizing the owners, because it not only offers 'cover' to the Glazers in that they can point to the 'unruly mob that stormed their own citadel' , but also demonstrate to other potential investors how knowledgeable/smart they are in carrying out their business.

The moment Martin Edwards took the Club into looking for the 'land of plenty' (and some might say found the 'land of sharks',) by presenting Manchester United as a business investment, the writing was on the wall... a matter of time..."we're all doomed, doomed a tell yer" should have been the mantra.
 

hungrywing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
9,069
Location
Your Left Ventricle
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.
Not the thread for it, but that player recruitment thing is again underlining how bad Woodward/Judge are/were. As bad as the ownership and worse in some ways. If they'd bought better, not overpaid players out of fear, etc. these threads literally might not exist.

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
Yep. Qui bono. Remember, a lot of institutions 'refused/declined/said it was impossible' to help the Glazers with the LBO and then Woodward and JP Morgan did the deal and if you go by just the numbers, depending on who you ask and their valuations, they owned about 30% of the club. In many ways, Woodward was acting as a steward for his old JP Morgan bosses.
 

Ish

Lights on for Luke
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
26,618
Location
Where fans' expectations are too high
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!!!
Would have been put up against collateral from the owners assets and/or business plan/revenue contracts in place. Think of it like trying to buy a second home/an investment property.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,716
Location
France
.....and in this case, its 'on Steriods'.
As you say, both business and legal wise, the Glazers have done nothing wrong, just applied their real estate development practice, albeit to a football club. This is why 'blunt-force' protests are in my mind counterproductive in term's of criticizing the owners, because it not only offers 'cover' to the Glazers in that they can point to the 'unruly mob that stormed their own citadel' , but also demonstrate to other potential investors how knowledgeable/smart they are in carrying out their business.

The moment Martin Edwards took the Club into looking for the 'land of plenty' (and some might say found the 'land of sharks',) by presenting Manchester United as a business investment, the writing was on the wall... a matter of time..."we're all doomed, doomed a tell yer" should have been the mantra.
Not at all, it was a fairly safe LBO because the Glazers provided more funds than you often see, iirc around 300m. Now a quick google search will give you for example Gibson Greeting Cards being purchased in 1982 for 80m with only 1m in cash and the rest borrowed.
 

MDFC Manager

Full Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
18,227
Not the thread for it, but that player recruitment thing is again underlining how bad Woodward/Judge are/were. As bad as the ownership and worse in some ways. If they'd bought better, not overpaid players out of fear, etc. these threads literally might not exist.
Thank you, this is the point i wanted to make as well. The mismanagement of financial resources is absolutely on the owners and Woodward and the rest.
 

MU655

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
516
I kind of agree with this tbh. But then again it boils down to who do you hold responsible for those bad investments? I know it’s mostly the managers who choose which players to sign but when it’s all said and done the buck stops with the owners and the exec .
The issue potentially stems from them being very hands-off owners, which is supported by some of Ferguson's comments in the past. He pretty much said they didn't really get involved, and just sort of left him to it. But then again, being hands-off owners can be beneficial, as well.

Possibly, they might be taking a more hands-on approach during this period, which may lead to some changes.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,816
This. How do they call themselves savvy businessmen then pay ~120% of the initial loan in interest?
Because it has never cost them a penny. They don't pay the interest on the loan, we do. They then take £20mil a year for themselves for the privilege of us doing so and people like @JPRouve spend hours every day telling people it's fine because it's common in the financial world.
 

hungrywing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
9,069
Location
Your Left Ventricle
Thank you, this is the point i wanted to make as well. The mismanagement of financial resources is absolutely on the owners and Woodward and the rest.
Yep, I could tell. I was just backing you up.

This. How do they call themselves savvy businessmen then pay ~120% of the initial loan in interest?
For the four-hundred-ninety-six-thousand-seven-hundredth-and-forty-first time, because they're not.

The average caftard needs to pound it into his/her skull that the Glazer children are not very smart. Their father was; they are not. Look up where they went to school. Look up all their failed business endeavours away from their father's supervision.

Never attribute malice to stupidity and all that. They were never directing Woodward. Not in the master/puppet way in which so many caftards misunderstand the relationship. If anything, it was the other way around, ESPECIALLY after Papa Glazer passed away.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,716
Location
France
Because it has never cost them a penny. They don't pay the interest on the loan, we do. They then take £20mil a year for themselves for the privilege of us doing so and people like @JPRouve spend hours every day telling people it's fine because it's common in the financial world.
That's not what I said, if you want to know what I think and thought about United being purchased by the Glazers, ask me, don't run your mouth on my behalf.