Swiss Ramble twitter thread on Glazers ownership

b20times

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
210
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!!!
They got in before the fit and proper law came into play in the premier league. They'd be left high and dry if they tried it today.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
9,485
Location
Manchester
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.
That was the era when they were green lighting every takeover. Look at Portsmouth.
 

Rooney24

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
7,453
I think it was 30%. But those businesses you mentioned aren't football clubs, they're not cultural entities. There's a world of difference.
If you are listed on the stock exchange and available for sale to the highest bidder you are a business.
 

Nytram Shakes

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
4,254
Location
Normally dark rooms
There is no question miss management of funds has been a massive problem in the Woodward era. I personly think it has held us back far more than the Glazers debt. We saw it in that since the very first summer, the paying above Fellani's buyout clause from a few weeks prior as we are last-minute panic buying. The giving 100's of millions to a manager(Van Gaal) who likes to play possession-based football and bring through young players, to firing him and doing a 180 and bringing in a manager(mourinho) who likes to play without the ball with experienced players and giving him 100's of millions to spend. To the constant contract messes, Sanchez and Rooney being the key ones, but De Gea, Phil Jones, Matic, Bailly, and even Martial show how this is still a huge problem. So yeah with better management there is no question we could have saved 100's of millions.

I think fans who have complained about the amount the glazers have spent on transfers are just nonesense. We are near the top of every net spend and wages expenditure chart going. Fans just always need a new shiny signing or they lose their minds (see most fans wanting us to break the British Transfer record in the middle of a global pandemic). Also, fans demand for owners to pump their own money into a club is nothing short of toxic for the game as it is utterly unsustainable.

Obviously, having said all that, the way the Glazers bought the club and has used its own revenue to pay off the loans is really gutting from a fan point of view who want to see that money invested back into the club. And there is no doubt that if that debt happened been present then there would have been more money to spend on the infrastructure of the club, which there has no doubt about it been neglected under the glazers.

But realistically the Glazers are a million miles away from being the worst owners in premier league history. At least they haven't let the club overspend and let the debts spiral out of control. Look at what has happened Portsmouth, Sunderland QPR Leeds Blackburn, what nearly would have happened to City if they hadn't been bought, or what could happen to clubs like Villa or Everton now, Clubs that are spending far more than they earn and are completely reliant on the owners and if that funding was cut you would see the club implode.
 

MU655

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
537
This could just be a post in the Swiss thread
Why is this a different thread? Debate it in the other thread.

A lot of people read the op and post. I don't like what is, in the end, misinformation. So, it results in a lot of people taking that and agreeing with it.

The topic wasn't just about the Glazers, but it was also about educating people about financials. As an accountant myself, who regularly analyses financial statements, I know not everyone has that understanding and can be drawn in by these posts. The fact of the matter is time periods can completely manipulate how financials look.

Also, there are other matters such as why the debt is not paid down. Not everything is bad just because it looks like it. To be honest, not paying down the debt now is probably a good decision as paying down, interest costs, and taxation from potential growth in profitability will lead to higher annual costs.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
9,144
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
I guess "cost them" is the wrong words, it's left them less dividends to collect. Unrealized profits I guess is more correct.
I'm not sure we're on the same page here at all. They are only servicing enough of the debt to keep the show on the road so that they can keep taking the dividend.

You seem to think if they were paying off the debt they could take a bigger dividend? They've no interest in paying off the debt while it's 'manageable'
 

Murder on Zidane's Floor

You'd better not kill Giroud
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
8,994
We’ve spent similarly on players, but that’s only a part of City’s investments. City have invested in a training ground, invested heavily in their youth, and have hired the best in class football men above Pep that money can buy. United on the other hand have a great Stadium that needs some serious love, a training ground which is lagging behind the best, and, until recently, allowed Ed Woodward to basically play fifa with our football team, which was second priority behind business.
I agree, it is a lot of different factors and I want the money kept in the club. That being said, they'd spunked an awful lot of cash on rubbish.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,761
Location
France
I apologise if I've been unfair to you. Reading back you were just answering a question.

I do however disagree with your thought process that we should approach our opposition to their ownership solely through realism and by removing emotion. I think that plays into their hands and just helps maintain the status quo.

Realism and speaking about our football club in the same terms you would every other business leads to defeatism and the lull in fan efforts we saw between 2010 and the last few weeks. If every time someone gets upset and angry, there is someone better educated like you to tell them how commonplace these things are in the world of business and how at the end of the day, we are just a business after all, then they just become disillusioned and numb to the idea of doing anything at all. When someone suggests a boycott, there is always someone clever there to tell them how it won't make any difference because fans in Asia or the US will just take their place. When fans protested at Carrington, there were loads laughing at them and telling them how pathetic they were. It all adds up to real fans of the club doing the Glazers dirty work for them.

They decided football clubs were businesses, not us. Why should we stop talking about the clubs we care about without emotion just because that's what they want? Emotion leads to what happened on Sunday - more impact and awareness in 6 hours than in 10 years of sensible and rational debate.
I don't think @roonster09 created the thread so people could just vent, the purpose was to start a conversation. So I don't see how you expect to have any sort of conversation with others if you only care about your own emotions, case in point, someone asked a question, other people made particular points, I answered to them and you responded to me emotionally.
If you cared about what I have to say, you may have known that because I know that the Glazers are only interested in money, their Achilles' heel is money, boycotting them is the first step, don't purchase merchandises, don't go to the stadium and berate them on social media.
 

Barnslig

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
2,051
Location
Norwegian living Down Under
I'm not sure we're on the same page here at all. They are only servicing enough of the debt to keep the show on the road so that they can keep taking the dividend.

You seem to think if they were paying off the debt they could take a bigger dividend? They've no interest in paying off the debt while it's 'manageable'
I might be way off, I'm not an economist, but wouldn't paying off the debt before the interest amounts to ~120% of the initial loan, for then to take the money spent on managing the debt as dividends? If they paid off the loan while the interest amounted to 200m pounds f.ex, they would've been able to take another 500m in dividends?
 

Rooney24

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
7,453
I might be way off, I'm not an economist, but wouldn't paying off the debt before the interest amounts to ~120% of the initial loan, for then to take the money spent on managing the debt as dividends? If they paid off the loan while the interest amounted to 200m pounds f.ex, they would've been able to take another 500m in dividends?
This could be because they are probably getting tax benefits on the loan so its better for them to keep it structure like that. Im not sure though.
 

Eugenius

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
3,622
Location
Behind You
Do most people pay ~120% of the initial loan in interest?
They have paid off the most expensive of the interest. From the accounts posted were have been paying about £20m of interest a year on gross debt of call it £500-600m.

What is more striking (and the reason that the debt isn't going down) is that the company doesn't actually generate any free cash flow. £200m of operating cash flow is being wiped out by £150m a year of player investment, not by the £20m of interest or the dividends they are pulling out.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,850
I don't think @roonster09 created the thread so people could just vent, the purpose was to start a conversation. So I don't see how you expect to have any sort of conversation with others if you only care about your own emotions, case in point, someone asked a question, other people made particular points, I answered to them and you responded to me emotionally.
If you cared about what I have to say, you may have known that because I know that the Glazers are only interested in money, their Achilles' heel is money, boycotting them is the first step, don't purchase merchandises, don't go to the stadium and berate them on social media.
But to get people to commit to boycotts you need to have them invested emotionally, and every time people see someone defending the Glazers or their methods, even if they don't agree with them as in your case, they become less likely to engage. When you rationalise their purchase and restructuring of the club in business terms, it paints a picture of legitimacy that turns people away from the boycotts you want to happen. It's the same with those telling people they respect their right to protest, but only when it's done in a polite way.

Fans don't see their football club as a business. The Glazers do and by speaking about the club on their terms, you are legitimising them and what they have done.

There needs to be a balance between emotion and logic. I've already admitted I was too far to one side responding to you initially but I feel you are too far down the other.
 

Danillaco

Full Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2010
Messages
3,948
Location
Rio
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.
The dark side of having shitty owners and shittier incompetent money men taking care of footballing issues that they have no fecking clue about.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,761
Location
France
But to get people to commit to boycotts you need to have them invested emotionally, and every time people see someone defending the Glazers or their methods, even if they don't agree with them as in your case, they become less likely to engage. When you rationalise their purchase and restructuring of the club in business terms, it paints a picture of legitimacy that turns people away from the boycotts you want to happen. It's the same with those telling people they respect their right to protest, but only when it's done in a polite way.

Fans don't see their football club as a business. The Glazers do and by speaking about the club on their terms, you are legitimising them and what they have done.

There needs to be a balance between emotion and logic. I've already admitted I was too far to one side responding to you initially but I feel you are too far down the other.
By telling people that the Glazers are investors and only care about money, I believe that I give a strong argument for people to boycott them and also give them a clue as to what they should target.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
43,937
Location
Munich
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 average dividend in S&P500 is around 2%. Our club is worth around 2.5B (based on stock's value, not in Glazers' wishes), so you should expect them to get out around 50M/year.

This is what they take out when you combine dividends plus interest payment (interest payments are purely because they leveraged the debt to buy the club towards the club assets). Perfectly reasonable looking it purely from a business PoV, but definitely not reasonable if you look at it from a football club PoV (no other club does anything remotely the same).
 

MU655

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
537
A few thoughts @MU655

The interest on the debt that burdened the club in what you split as the first 8 year period meant that our preparation for SAF's retirement left a new manager with an ageing squad whilst our rivals were very much up to speed. That coincides with the market boom where purchasing quality all of a sudden became a lot more expensive. That's one million percent on the Glazers.

Meanwhile, Old Trafford and the training complex have been long neglected.

The fact Woodward was shit at his job doesn't absolve the Glazer scum one bit, they had final say on transfers, which is part of the reason why we acted very slowly in the market, and they put Woodward in that hot seat along with Judge. Moneymen they trusted. Asking for clueless American owners to be more hands on is daft. They have proven beyond any doubt they don't know what they're doing.

Mismanagement of funds is down to the Glazers. Spending to break into the CL spots, paying over the odds for almost every player, dishing out far too high contracts to underperforming players, going from one managerial vision to another, accruing players unsuitable for different setups, raking in very little from transfers compared to well run clubs, still having a bloated squad and "preserving value" on duds.

Again, as has been repeated by a million people, millions of times, if the club had not been saddled with debt, it would have been fine competitively through it's own self-generated income, not needing any sugar daddy like City, Chelsea, etc.

The Glazers have fecked the club and there is not one good thing to say about them.

And:
The main point was showing that financials aren't really a problem now.

I wasn't absolving the Glazers, but really pointing out that looking back at the past, financially, is actually pretty pointless because nothing can be done about it. There were bad points then as I said with the 30% of expenses going on interest and repayments during Ferguson's period, but that is now 6% (including dividends) of total expenses. So, we have actually got past that point of financial difficulty. Protesting about that was relevant back then, but now that the Glazers aren't really hindering us financially it doesn't seem relevant. Swiss Ramble is making out that this is still an issue when it actually isn't. New owners won't change what happened in the past, either.

Will getting a new owner make any difference to our resources when 94% of it is already spent on players, wages, and other club-related stuff? The only way is if the new owner takes no dividends and pays off the $500m debt. I actually think even the new owners would prefer to just pay $20m a year in interest than pay it off, and the chance of them taking no dividend is pretty slim. Financially now, I don't think there are really better options than the Glazers, unless we get someone like the Qataris, which people seem to be against also.

I don't know how much it would cost to fix up Old Trafford, but even if we cut out the interest (paying off the debt would be detrimental as it will cost us more) and no dividends, we may have to hit other areas of expenditure, namely player purchases. Repairs and maintenance probably go on all the time (I would have to look more at the reports to see actually how much), but I imagine a full redo would massively impact us, debt or no debt.

This thread it has been moved into is mostly about the financial side of things, and this is where I don't think anything would really improve. The club was hindered financially in the past, but I do wonder why we suddenly started spending more straight after Ferguson. I mean even Moyes season we spent £70m. I do think Ferguson might have been hesitant to spend, also, which is why he hasn't really said anything about them afterwards. I don't take him as the kind of person who wouldn't have mentioned it in his biography if they were really curbing his spending. Or it might just be that he can't be bothered to get into it. I don't know.

Management is a major area requiring improvement, but I do see changes now. We have changed the scouting, we have a new setup with that Murtough fellow and Fletcher, and we will be getting a new CEO. Signings seem to have improved, which probably denotes the whole committee responsible for signings improving. We seem to be controlling costs a bit better e.g. refusing Sancho fee, grabbing Fernandes for cheaper, clearing expensive signings. The ESL was stupid, but I do think there are some positives which may carry on for the long term.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,850
By telling people that the Glazers are investors and only care about money, I believe that I give a strong argument for people to boycott them and also give them a clue as to what they should target.
You really think that's what you were doing in this thread before you got upset at me calling you out?

Have a read back through your first 6 or 7 posts and have a think about whether that's how it came across.

If you still feel the same, well let's just agree to disagree and leave it there.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,761
Location
France
You really think that's what you were doing in this thread before you got upset at me calling you out?

Have a read back through your first 6 or 7 posts and have a think about whether that's how it came across.

If you still feel the same, well let's just agree to disagree and leave it there.
You called me out for talking about what an LBO was after someone asked about the way the club was purchased. There was no feelings in my posts.
 

MU655

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
537
I might be way off, I'm not an economist, but wouldn't paying off the debt before the interest amounts to ~120% of the initial loan, for then to take the money spent on managing the debt as dividends? If they paid off the loan while the interest amounted to 200m pounds f.ex, they would've been able to take another 500m in dividends?
That is assuming they had the money to pay off the debt, which they probably did not. Paying off the debt would probably be at the cost of selling shares in Manutd. Though dividends are good, share price is the real money maker, so you would want to hold onto as many shares as possible.

They could try and pay more from Manutd's own revenue, but there actually wasn't more to give without risking the club's existence. That would be going against what the Glazers wanted. Cashflows would be highly disrupted with immense cash outflows for paying off the loan, which could leave the club short for player wages and other expenses. In the end, profitability means nothing if you run out of cash.

You could ask why they haven't paid down the debt now, but that wouldn't benefit them. At the moment, the debt is $500m but only the interest (which average at $20m annually for the past 8 years) is taken into account for profit. Removing the debt will only improve the bottom line by $20m per year. Tax will also need to be paid if profit is made in the year, so not all of it will be attributable to shareholders. Also, it would impact cashflows which might actually limit the ability to even pay a dividend. I can't say exactly the amount without doing calculations, but they are some reasons why you wouldn't pay it off.
 

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
4,132
The fact that we have owners who have invested nothing, and taken so much, is always going to render this ownership one of the worst in sports. We're saddled with debt that will likely never be paid off.

The annual dividends is something I've railed on and on about forever, and having the actual scope of the financial treachery laid out by Swiss Ramble makes me nauseous.

If the Glazers were interested in developing Manchester United Football Club they would not take money out of the club. It would be invested in infrastructure, talent and staff. Every other "big six" club apart from Arsenal have had good owners, Fenway have invested in Liverpool, Roman is forever going to be Chelseas Daddy, Tottenham got a new stadium (along with infinitydebt worse then ours), City got Abu Dhabi United Group, and we got owners who at the height of controversy refuse to even speak to the fans.

Our spend has been astronomical as well, a long line of impressively costly mistakes and attempts at becoming some budget "Galacticos" with the spending on players like Di Maria and Alexis Sanchez. And for all that money we have almost nothing to show for it.

To just top it all off, at the very tail end of a season that's been full of positives on the pitch, taking big strides to close the gap in the legue, and a foot and a half in a major competition final, they spearhead the biggest attempted coup of the sport in history.
 

TrueRed1999

Somehow bleaker than Nostradamus
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
233
Location
Manchester
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.
If we banded together and made it IMPOSSIBLE for any sponsor to sponsor us and the others to leave due to the toxicity that comes with sponsoring us it would force them to sell as our value would plummet, this is achievable but only if supporters are now finally able to come together as one and makes this a reality in no buying merchandise, mass walkouts or massive drop in people buying tickets/season tickets getting enough games postponed that investigations start being led by those higher up. I think as a fanbase we have come to this point when they were willing to throw our history to the dust to make 350m every year to line THEIR pockets. They wouldn't have put a penny into the club from that and those still on the line about the Glazers need to come across with the majority who now in more agreement as ever they have to leave. Even ex-players are now in agreement about this something not happened before. #GlazersOut
 

lysglimt

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
11,807
I don’t think this is right either. If the value is decreasing but they don’t see it increasing for a long time they’ll be out. $3bn or whatever it’s worth can be put to better use.

You don’t maximise your profits by waiting for an asset to return to a value that something used to be worth. You make a decision based on all the variables currently in play. If they feel the value has topped out they’ll sell, no matter what it was worth last week or last year. Likewise if someone offers a lot more than it’s worth, they’ll be gone in a second.
No but no sane person will sell when the value is at the bottom - and even if they do manage to drive the value down, it will go up again as long as United do well or the protests stop. The value of football absolutely hasn't peaked
 

Nytram Shakes

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
4,254
Location
Normally dark rooms
The main point was showing that financials aren't really a problem now.

I wasn't absolving the Glazers, but really pointing out that looking back at the past, financially, is actually pretty pointless because nothing can be done about it. There were bad points then as I said with the 30% of expenses going on interest and repayments during Ferguson's period, but that is now 6% (including dividends) of total expenses. So, we have actually got past that point of financial difficulty. Protesting about that was relevant back then, but now that the Glazers aren't really hindering us financially it doesn't seem relevant. Swiss Ramble is making out that this is still an issue when it actually isn't. New owners won't change what happened in the past, either.

Will getting a new owner make any difference to our resources when 94% of it is already spent on players, wages, and other club-related stuff? The only way is if the new owner takes no dividends and pays off the $500m debt. I actually think even the new owners would prefer to just pay $20m a year in interest than pay it off, and the chance of them taking no dividend is pretty slim. Financially now, I don't think there are really better options than the Glazers, unless we get someone like the Qataris, which people seem to be against also.

I don't know how much it would cost to fix up Old Trafford, but even if we cut out the interest (paying off the debt would be detrimental as it will cost us more) and no dividends, we may have to hit other areas of expenditure, namely player purchases. Repairs and maintenance probably go on all the time (I would have to look more at the reports to see actually how much), but I imagine a full redo would massively impact us, debt or no debt.

This thread it has been moved into is mostly about the financial side of things, and this is where I don't think anything would really improve. The club was hindered financially in the past, but I do wonder why we suddenly started spending more straight after Ferguson. I mean even Moyes season we spent £70m. I do think Ferguson might have been hesitant to spend, also, which is why he hasn't really said anything about them afterwards. I don't take him as the kind of person who wouldn't have mentioned it in his biography if they were really curbing his spending. Or it might just be that he can't be bothered to get into it. I don't know.

Management is a major area requiring improvement, but I do see changes now. We have changed the scouting, we have a new setup with that Murtough fellow and Fletcher, and we will be getting a new CEO. Signings seem to have improved, which probably denotes the whole committee responsible for signings improving. We seem to be controlling costs a bit better e.g. refusing Sancho fee, grabbing Fernandes for cheaper, clearing expensive signings. The ESL was stupid, but I do think there are some positives which may carry on for the long term.
I think a lot of the issues is that as fans we haven't forgotten the way in which the Glazers purchased the club. While it's normal in business for individuals to put a deposit down then use the company's own profits to pay off loans, it is not normal in football and doesn't sit well with fans (understandably so).

But I agree with most of what you said, I don't think realistically the Glazers ownership is a massive problem in terms of limiting our spending anymore. And realistically the time for protesting came and went a decade ago. The problems are there is a lot of leftover negativity from how the club was bought and the amount of money taken out of the club because of that.

Also, fan expectation is not only that owners shouldn't take money out of the club, but it's also that they should pour money into the club. And when owners don't, that is almost as much of a crime in fans' eyes as taking money out of the club. We saw this summer how much the club was losing yet still fans were demanding the club spend 100's million on transfers and when we only spent, (what was 70 million?) that was seen as the owners being tight, which is frankly ridiculous.
 

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
4,132
That is assuming they had the money to pay off the debt, which they probably did not. Paying off the debt would probably be at the cost of selling shares in Manutd. Though dividends are good, share price is the real money maker, so you would want to hold onto as many shares as possible.

They could try and pay more from Manutd's own revenue, but there actually wasn't more to give without risking the club's existence. That would be going against what the Glazers wanted. Cashflows would be highly disrupted with immense cash outflows for paying off the loan, which could leave the club short for player wages and other expenses. In the end, profitability means nothing if you run out of cash.

You could ask why they haven't paid down the debt now, but that wouldn't benefit them. At the moment, the debt is $500m but only the interest (which average at $20m annually for the past 8 years) is taken into account for profit. Removing the debt will only improve the bottom line by $20m per year. Tax will also need to be paid if profit is made in the year, so not all of it will be attributable to shareholders. Also, it would impact cashflows which might actually limit the ability to even pay a dividend. I can't say exactly the amount without doing calculations, but they are some reasons why you wouldn't pay it off.

I haven't seen any of the loan spesifics, but for enormous corporate loans like this, the banks will often demand that you have x amount of cash in the bank to ensure that you can be compliant with the loan terms. If the club drops below x value, for esxample, the bank can attempt to cancel the loan and demand the balance paid back. This way they have some safety in cash and available equity before the company reaches a point where there is potentially no value to withdraw.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,850
You called me out for talking about what an LBO was after someone asked about the way the club was purchased. There was no feelings in my posts.
I called you out for discussing the football club like you would a business.

The fact there was no feeling in your posts is exactly the point I'm making.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,761
Location
France
I called you out for discussing the football club like you would a business.

The fact there was no feeling in your posts is exactly the point I'm making.
I was talking about what the Glazers did and answering a question about it. It seems that you wanted me to not answer the question asked by a poster or say things that aren't accurate just for the sake of it.
 

Nytram Shakes

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
4,254
Location
Normally dark rooms
The fact that we have owners who have invested nothing, and taken so much, is always going to render this ownership one of the worst in sports. We're saddled with debt that will likely never be paid off.

The annual dividends is something I've railed on and on about forever, and having the actual scope of the financial treachery laid out by Swiss Ramble makes me nauseous.

If the Glazers were interested in developing Manchester United Football Club they would not take money out of the club. It would be invested in infrastructure, talent and staff. Every other "big six" club apart from Arsenal have had good owners, Fenway have invested in Liverpool, Roman is forever going to be Chelseas Daddy, Tottenham got a new stadium (along with infinitydebt worse then ours), City got Abu Dhabi United Group, and we got owners who at the height of controversy refuse to even speak to the fans.

Our spend has been astronomical as well, a long line of impressively costly mistakes and attempts at becoming some budget "Galacticos" with the spending on players like Di Maria and Alexis Sanchez. And for all that money we have almost nothing to show for it.

To just top it all off, at the very tail end of a season that's been full of positives on the pitch, taking big strides to close the gap in the legue, and a foot and a half in a major competition final, they spearhead the biggest attempted coup of the sport in history.
Completely disagree with this. Compare this ownership to that of say the past ownerships of clubs like Portsmouth, Sunderland, Leeds, QPR, Blackburn..... and they are incredible owners. Fans regularly laud owners for helping clubs spend beyond their means, something a lot of clubs in the premier league are doing, personally, I think this is far worse ownership than what the glazers are doing as we have seen what happens to clubs where owners withdraw that support or can longer afford it.
 
Last edited:

MU655

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
537
I haven't seen any of the loan spesifics, but for enormous corporate loans like this, the banks will often demand that you have x amount of cash in the bank to ensure that you can be compliant with the loan terms. If the club drops below x value, for esxample, the bank can attempt to cancel the loan and demand the balance paid back. This way they have some safety in cash and available equity before the company reaches a point where there is potentially no value to withdraw.
True, I guess they probably had some fixed/floating agreement on assets of the Glazers or, at least, Manutd if things turned sour, also. But I guess they still wouldn't have had enough cash just to pay off the whole loan, though, without selling their interests in other companies.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,850
I was talking about what the Glazers did and answering a question about it. It seems that you wanted me to not answer the question asked by a poster or say things that aren't accurate just for the sake of it.
No I've said what I think.
 

MalcolmTucker

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
1,728
I was talking about what the Glazers did and answering a question about it. It seems that you wanted me to not answer the question asked by a poster or say things that aren't accurate just for the sake of it.
Nah, no one was asking you anything when a guy said it was legalised theft.

You injected saying "No, it's a business generating revenue for its owners."

That comes across as tacit agreement with the way in which the Glazers took over the club.
 

NFM

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
266
Interest is not profit for the owner.
No but it replaces TAX. If United had made a huge profit, the tax man would have taken his rather large slice.
The structure is one that relies on debt management to offset tax payments. As long as they are not too out of kilter it comes out in the wash. United would not have had all that money as free cash to spend. There is a downside to being a big cash generator in audited accounts as a PLC. As someone else has pointed out, United compete with City and Chelsea. City hide their costs and cash via their ownership structure. Chelsea have a 'holding company' which absorbs the costs and non-football income.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,761
Location
France
Nah, no one was asking you anything when a guy said it was legalised theft.

You injected saying "No, it's a business generating revenue for its owners."

That comes across as tacit agreement with the way in which the Glazers took over the club.
No, it was a statement about the reality we are in, the club is a mere investment vehicle for its owners.
 

NFM

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
266
A lot of people read the op and post. I don't like what is, in the end, misinformation. So, it results in a lot of people taking that and agreeing with it.

The topic wasn't just about the Glazers, but it was also about educating people about financials. As an accountant myself, who regularly analyses financial statements, I know not everyone has that understanding and can be drawn in by these posts. The fact of the matter is time periods can completely manipulate how financials look.

Also, there are other matters such as why the debt is not paid down. Not everything is bad just because it looks like it. To be honest, not paying down the debt now is probably a good decision as paying down, interest costs, and taxation from potential growth in profitability will lead to higher annual costs.
Yes agreed.