Swiss Ramble twitter thread on Glazers ownership

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
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.
Something like this was always going to happen once we became a plc. A lot of blame needs to be heaped on previous owners for doing this.
 

MuFc_1992

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
1,027
The mere mention of Glazers makes my blood boil as I started supported United during 2006/07 Season and I blame them for making the Gravy train I got on to run out. We were definitely on the Cusp of dominating Europe during that time and I think we could've even held on to Ronaldo if we had owners whose main priority was winning things instead of paying off debts. I remember looking at our financials back then and it looked completely unsustainable at that revenue levels and the interest rates on PIK's were insane. It was incredibly frustrating to lose Ronaldo and sign Valencia and Owen to replace him and the whole no value in the market line and signing of Phil Jones and Ashley Young for 18 million each instead of competing for Europe's best talent with City is the reason we are so far behind city at the moment.
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.
But your analysis is correct too and they have loosened the purse strings significantly in the recent years. Also, the reason we are so far behind can also be attributed to the emergence of City and to a lesser degree PSG who are funded by Sovereign Wealth funds worth trillions so even if we are able to spend 100% of our revenue, it makes no difference to our ability to compete for players City want because they can just increase their spending by 10% and we'd be in the same place. I wasn't aware that we're spending 94% of our revenue into the club anyway and if that is the case then we should easily be competing with clubs that aren't bankrolled by billionaires( which we are currently doing this season). I really don't see if its possible to get rid of Glazers and I'm somewhat worried that I might have to stop supporting the Club if Saudi's takeover so, I'm really conflicted on this issue.
 

Reyoji-Utd

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
153
Location
USA
I'm not sure. There's plenty like me, who would struggle to care too much about how much profit the owners make provided the club is still successful on the field. The problem with the Glazers is the debt with which they burdened the club has hamstrung our ability to compete at the very top and position ourselves as the best club in the world. That's the real issue for many, and not one that isn't often articulated.
The thing is that it shouldnt be allowed in the first place the LBO. But its done like we said. So now the issue is its their business model to make sure they profit from their business (club) whether they have debt or not. Like previous posts said if they pay cash to buy the club rather than LBO then theyd just go ahead and pay themselves the suppose interest payment for the LBO. As for the debt if you look at the other way its not gonna make any difference bc we can say that it cancel itself out when they decided to cash in the club. Its like they just dont want to pay 500m infront when they can do it as they sell the club.
 

#07

makes new threads with tweets in the OP
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
19,102
It is remarkable that some people on the CAF have responded to the Swiss Ramble figures by implying that, somehow, they're unfair to the Glazers. I've actually seen people, on this board, try to claim that they're not actually a problem. Next people will claim that the Glazers will be used by McKinsey as a case study for positive management change. :rolleyes:

Manchester United is, and has been for some time, an awfully run company. Its Board composition, the way its senior management team has been assembled, its lack of executive vision. The irresponsibility of continuing to take dividends during a pandemic, not to mention management fees and discretionary loans given to the Glazers for sweet FA. Do people genuinely think most normal companies are run like this?

Looked at, strictly as a business, where is the evidence that Man Utd is being run well? Costs have escalated across the board but where is the corresponding output in the bottom line? Commercial income has flatlined and has been static for years. So why are the Glazers awarding themselves management fees? Why is the executive team from Woodward down one of the best paid in football? Where is the evidence that they are taking the right decisions for the business? What is so innovative about United's commercial strategy? Getting a tractor sponsor is not innovative. For years they've just been ripping off marketing techniques used in NFL and motor sports. Since they ran out of ideas to copy what have they achieved?

There is nothing particularly cutting edge about the way United is run as a business. United were not pioneers in the use of social media. Just look at how analogue the United app is or how badly they use United's back catalogue. Just compare the interface of something like Disney+ to MUTV. Lightyears apart.

The Glazers are like 19th century aristocrats who inherited some valuable land but have no idea how to use it, its just a piggybank. Its no wonder their retail empire has been hollowed out. Based on how United is run their other businesses cannot be examples of best practice. They're paying themselves and their cronies for nothing.
 

Reyoji-Utd

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
153
Location
USA
You can and should voice your opposition but there is no point in pretending that it's special, if anything we should point to the fact that it's not special and a problem that hasn't been adressed despited decades of criticisms. And I'm not just talking about Football, LBOs are controversial in general and always one of the domains that is supposed to be more regulated but we don't see much from politicians after elections.
Its true. It shouldnt have been gone through if more regulation and politician are voicing their concern and oppose against the case. Its like we only care when it hurt us but now its too late.
 

MalcolmTucker

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
1,728
No, it was a statement about the reality we are in, the club is a mere investment vehicle for its owners.
Everyone knows the club is an investment vehicle for the Glazers - the guy who said it was legalised theft never said it wasn't.

So what exactly was your point of your post?
 

hungrywing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
9,069
Location
Your Left Ventricle
It is remarkable that some people on the CAF have responded to the Swiss Ramble figures by implying that, somehow, they're unfair to the Glazers. I've actually seen people, on this board, try to claim that they're not actually a problem. Next people will claim that the Glazers will be used by McKinsey as a case study for positive management change. :rolleyes:

Manchester United is, and has been for some time, an awfully run company. Its Board composition, the way its senior management team has been assembled, its lack of executive vision. The irresponsibility of continuing to take dividends during a pandemic, not to mention management fees and discretionary loans given to the Glazers for sweet FA. Do people genuinely think most normal companies are run like this?

Looked at, strictly as a business, where is the evidence that Man Utd is being run well? Costs have escalated across the board but where is the corresponding output in the bottom line? Commercial income has flatlined and has been static for years. So why are the Glazers awarding themselves management fees? Why is the executive team from Woodward down one of the best paid in football? Where is the evidence that they are taking the right decisions for the business? What is so innovative about United's commercial strategy? Getting a tractor sponsor is not innovative. For years they've just been ripping off marketing techniques used in NFL and motor sports. Since they ran out of ideas to copy what have they achieved?

There is nothing particularly cutting edge about the way United is run as a business. United were not pioneers in the use of social media. Just look at how analogue the United app is or how badly they use United's back catalogue. Just compare the interface of something like Disney+ to MUTV. Lightyears apart.

The Glazers are like 19th century aristocrats who inherited some valuable land but have no idea how to use it, its just a piggybank. Its no wonder their retail empire has been hollowed out. Based on how United is run their other businesses cannot be examples of best practice. They're paying themselves and their cronies for nothing.
It might be useful to have a curated finance thread as a resource for fans to educate themselves and where replies aren't permitted.

Good posts just get lost in the cacophony.

'Course, then you run into the problem of who curates it.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,761
Location
France
Everyone knows the club is an investment vehicle for the Glazers - the guy who said it was legalised theft never said it wasn't.

So what exactly was your point of your post?
It was a simple emphasis on the fact that we have turned into a business and that it is a common business practice, which I believe is a negative. Is that a terrible emphasis to make?

Below you will also find an other response to the same poster where I elaborate a little bit more.

You can and should voice your opposition but there is no point in pretending that it's special, if anything we should point to the fact that it's not special and a problem that hasn't been adressed despite decades of criticisms. And I'm not just talking about Football, LBOs are controversial in general and always one of the domains that is supposed to be more regulated but we don't see much from politicians after elections.
 

Red_toad

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
8,879
Location
DownUnder
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 purchased the club for 790 million, so getting a return of 55 million per annum on that would be a fantastic return. I do not believe any fans are expecting future owners to not make a profit?

Their customers (us the fans) still see the club hundreds of millions in debt, the stadium getting very shabby and the owners are completely out of touch! So the fans now need to hurt the entire club financially to get rid of the owners. I'd expect business owners would be willing to meet their customers and reach a compromise or sell at the earliest opportunity to avoid the conflict and loss of revenue. We shall see what comes of it all.
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
85,187
Location
Eric Bailly's Red Army
They purchased the club for 790 million, so getting a return of 55 million per annum on that would be a fantastic return. I do not believe any fans are expecting future owners to not make a profit?

Their customers (us the fans) still see the club hundreds of millions in debt, the stadium getting very shabby and the owners are completely out of touch! So the fans now need to hurt the entire club financially to get rid of the owners. I'd expect business owners would be willing to meet their customers and reach a compromise or sell at the earliest opportunity to avoid the conflict and loss of revenue. We shall see what comes of it all.
I am hoping that the owners take the protests to heart and invest in the stadium, squad and bring in a football person as CEO.

This is mostly because I think the asking price will be well beyond 4 billion. United is a money spinner for the Glazers so selling at market value is no incentive.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
Because we are an organisation geared more towards servicing debt than being a football club. We have bankers and accountants in positions where well run football clubs have football people.
We've spent nearly as much as City, that wasn't impacted by the debt. As was said, it was spent poorly.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
No you just jump in whenever people express frustration at the ownership and feel the need to point out how common it is in the business world. No matter how many people make it clear that they feel their football club is about more than just business, it seems really important to you that you keep educating us all on the fact it isn't.
Doesn't matter what people feel, United has been a company since it was listed (before the Glazers). That was the ideal time to protest, but nobody did.
 

lefty_jakobz

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
547
Im hoping the fans lead a ticket sales revolt to force them out. Its probably the only way fans can make their point heard, make it so theres no home support (as hard as that will be to achieve) at any game for the first half a dozen games next season and they will either be willing to listen to fans or hopefully look seriously at selling on.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,761
Location
France
I am hoping that the owners take the protests to heart and invest in the stadium, squad and bring in a football person as CEO.

This is mostly because I think the asking price will be well beyond 4 billion. United is a money spinner for the Glazers so selling at market value is no incentive.
Do you think that there is also the possibility that maintaining the price relatively low makes a sell more likely? If we consider the fact that they haven't spent money on the club every billion they make from a sell is a success.
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
85,187
Location
Eric Bailly's Red Army
Do you think that there is also the possibility that maintaining the price relatively low makes a sell more likely? If we consider the fact that they haven't spent money on the club every billion they make from a sell is a success.
No, they make too much money from United. Selling would be taking that cash cow out of their portfolio and any astute business group would look to have that lost income replaced in the sale price.
 

DomesticTadpole

Doom-monger obsessed with Herrera & the M.E.N.
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
81,607
Location
Barrow In Furness
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.
Should have secured it against the Buccs.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
We used to be the undisputed top dogs in England, but also would have been in Europe. The Glazers have destroyed that and we will never be able to reclaim that position again.

We can't financially compete with other clubs anymore and we overpay like no other club in the world. If that isn't destroying the football club, I don't know what to say.
City and Chelsea are far more to blame for that.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,761
Location
France
No, they make too much money from United. Selling would be taking that cash cow out of their portfolio and any astute business group would look to have that lost income replaced in the sale price.
They make around 3-4m each, if I'm not mistaken. I wouldn't call that too much money when they could split around 2.5bn each.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
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.
No they didn't, we were already a business before they came along.

If you're going to piss on the Glazers, at least get your facts straight.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,850
No they didn't, we were already a business before they came along.

If you're going to piss on the Glazers, at least get your facts straight.
Do me a favour mate and throw me on ignore. If I wanted to sit at the kids table I'd have written my posts in crayon.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
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
You'd succeed in destroying the club to get rid of the Glazers, with no thought about who takes over from them.

What a great idea!
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
79,553
Location
india
Is this possibly the worst loan of all time?

550m original loan, over 700m paid on the fecking interest
For us, yes. For them it's a greatest con job ever. Buy a business and make it pay your debts. Woodward helped make it happen too I believe.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
It is remarkable that some people on the CAF have responded to the Swiss Ramble figures by implying that, somehow, they're unfair to the Glazers. I've actually seen people, on this board, try to claim that they're not actually a problem. Next people will claim that the Glazers will be used by McKinsey as a case study for positive management change. :rolleyes:

Manchester United is, and has been for some time, an awfully run company. Its Board composition, the way its senior management team has been assembled, its lack of executive vision. The irresponsibility of continuing to take dividends during a pandemic, not to mention management fees and discretionary loans given to the Glazers for sweet FA. Do people genuinely think most normal companies are run like this?

Looked at, strictly as a business, where is the evidence that Man Utd is being run well? Costs have escalated across the board but where is the corresponding output in the bottom line? Commercial income has flatlined and has been static for years. So why are the Glazers awarding themselves management fees? Why is the executive team from Woodward down one of the best paid in football? Where is the evidence that they are taking the right decisions for the business? What is so innovative about United's commercial strategy? Getting a tractor sponsor is not innovative. For years they've just been ripping off marketing techniques used in NFL and motor sports. Since they ran out of ideas to copy what have they achieved?

There is nothing particularly cutting edge about the way United is run as a business. United were not pioneers in the use of social media. Just look at how analogue the United app is or how badly they use United's back catalogue. Just compare the interface of something like Disney+ to MUTV. Lightyears apart.

The Glazers are like 19th century aristocrats who inherited some valuable land but have no idea how to use it, its just a piggybank. Its no wonder their retail empire has been hollowed out. Based on how United is run their other businesses cannot be examples of best practice. They're paying themselves and their cronies for nothing.
Just read what @MU655 posted, it explains everything you need to know.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
47,761
Location
France
Personally, I think the preference is to have the income stream rather than the pile of money.
I would agree if the dividends were better than they are. With current returns they would need 40 years to match the profits of a sell at 2.5bn. Let's say that they each get around 400m, you can easily yield a 1% interest income with that and match what United provides.
 

Flying high

Full Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
931
No they wouldn't, because they wouldn't buy us.
Yes, that's the point. Drive the price down to a more reasonable level.

The next person will know that they can still make money from the club, but only as long as they keep the fans onside.
 

Xeno

Full Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
4,429
Location
Manchester
Imagine owning an asset for the kudos, and being literally unable to show your face at said asset.
 

#07

makes new threads with tweets in the OP
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
19,102
Just read what @MU655 posted, it explains everything you need to know.
I'm not sure it does, if I'm reading the right post? The one I read refers mostly to football operations and remedial actions that have been taken, belatedly, to improve these.

Nowhere does it explain why the Glazers and the executive team are rewarding themselves for years of failure. Nor why commercial income has plateaued. Nor why Man Utd, as a business, has no real vision statement (something that should be the CEO's job). Nor why the club, strategically, has been caught up by other players in the market and shows no real evidence of innovation to stay ahead.

Basically, in my eyes, Man Utd is Nokia. At one stage it was dominant, it ruled the market. Then it stopped growing. Seeing people defend that reminds me of the people who laughed when Apple said it was going to make sure people could listen to music on their mobile phones.

If you believe the Glazers deserve millions in management fees and dividends for that brand of management that's your prerogative. I don't believe we'll agree so I'm minded to leave it there.
 

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
770
Supports
Anything anti-Dipper
It is remarkable that some people on the CAF have responded to the Swiss Ramble figures by implying that, somehow, they're unfair to the Glazers. I've actually seen people, on this board, try to claim that they're not actually a problem. Next people will claim that the Glazers will be used by McKinsey as a case study for positive management change. :rolleyes:

Manchester United is, and has been for some time, an awfully run company. Its Board composition, the way its senior management team has been assembled, its lack of executive vision. The irresponsibility of continuing to take dividends during a pandemic, not to mention management fees and discretionary loans given to the Glazers for sweet FA. Do people genuinely think most normal companies are run like this?

Looked at, strictly as a business, where is the evidence that Man Utd is being run well? Costs have escalated across the board but where is the corresponding output in the bottom line? Commercial income has flatlined and has been static for years. So why are the Glazers awarding themselves management fees? Why is the executive team from Woodward down one of the best paid in football? Where is the evidence that they are taking the right decisions for the business? What is so innovative about United's commercial strategy? Getting a tractor sponsor is not innovative. For years they've just been ripping off marketing techniques used in NFL and motor sports. Since they ran out of ideas to copy what have they achieved?

There is nothing particularly cutting edge about the way United is run as a business. United were not pioneers in the use of social media. Just look at how analogue the United app is or how badly they use United's back catalogue. Just compare the interface of something like Disney+ to MUTV. Lightyears apart.

The Glazers are like 19th century aristocrats who inherited some valuable land but have no idea how to use it, its just a piggybank. Its no wonder their retail empire has been hollowed out. Based on how United is run their other businesses cannot be examples of best practice. They're paying themselves and their cronies for nothing.
As in Buzz or time/distance?
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
All you've been posting is pro Glazer nonsense
Nope, just against protests made with no thought but one; get rid of Glazers. I am genuinely afraid of who comes next, but no one (or very few) seem that bothered.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
Yes, that's the point. Drive the price down to a more reasonable level.

The next person will know that they can still make money from the club, but only as long as they keep the fans onside.
How far down, until it impacts negatively on the team?
 

Flying high

Full Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
931
How far down, until it impacts negatively on the team?
Well let's play this through.

Say we keep the protests going until the summer, just a few home games left. I doubt we'll be able to get those games called off, but either way it makes little difference to the team really. So, by the time the summer transfer market closes, the Glazers will have had to make a move of some kind. They either invest heavily to try to win the fans over before they return, or they don't. If they have made moves to try to get, for example, fans on the board/regular consultation/release voting rights/pay down the debt from their own money etc. Then they might be able to subdue enough of the fans for the protest to be shelved.

If we go into next season without any progress. With no decent signings, no light at the end of the tunnel. Then things will turn even more nasty. The protest on Sunday is just a taste of what could happen if they don't take steps to massively improve or phuck off out of the club.

So the ball is really in their court. How they respond will determine whether we need to take action next season which will, in all likelyhood, damage our chances of success in the short term. Getting the leeches out of the club and sending a clear message to anyone else who plans to treat us in the same way, is more important than what happens on the pitch over the next few months.
 

laughtersassassin

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
3,862
Maybe people will finally educate themselves on just how disgraceful Glazer ownership is.

Arguably the worst owners in world Football.

Nice to see the myth of them running the Commercial side well shotdown as well.

The growth witnessed was natural growth for all Premier league teams. We where always going to be the biggest.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,850
Maybe people will finally educate themselves on just how disgraceful Glazer ownership is.

Arguably the worst owners in world Football.

Nice to see the myth of them running the Commercial side well shotdown as well.

The growth witnessed was natural growth for all Premier league teams. We where always going to be the biggest.
And we've been outgrown by a number of our rivals during that period. We're still the biggest because of where and what we were before they took over but that gap is shrinking every year.