Swiss Ramble twitter thread on Glazers ownership

[Cassidy]

Can the Glazers turn this around and win over fans? If so, what would it take?

Take back their debt and stop taking dividends

 

[Escobar]

Take back their debt and stop taking dividends

Well, it is just impossible. They can't pay back the debt (too high, debt of the club) and since they see it as an investment (and need the money), it just won't happen.

 

[Cassidy]

Well, it is just impossible. They can't pay back the debt (too high, debt of the club) and since they see it as an investment (and need the money), it just won't happen.

I believe that is very obvious

 

[Escobar]

I believe that is very obvious

You never know on this forum

 

[mav_9me]

One tweet from his latest thread on our financials.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Adisa]

Hate the Galzers as much as anyone but can't complain about dividends.
It's a fundamental.part of ownership.
If you don't want an owner taking dividends, don't allow them buy the club. If I own a profit making business, I would take dividends.

 

[Lentwood]

Hate the Galzers as much as anyone but can't complain about dividends.
It's a fundamental.part of ownership.
If you don't want an owner taking dividends, don't allow them buy the club. If I own a profit making business, I would take dividends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sun_tzu]

One tweet from his latest thread on our financials.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

£1 Billion...
and we are still over £400m in debt

 

[SuperiorXI]

I don't think people would mind the Glazers taking profit from the club if they were investing in the club in a healthy manner and bringing the debt down. We're not unreasonable in this sense. The problem is it's too far to one side which is money in their pocket.

 

[Devil_forever]

I don't think people would mind the Glazers taking profit from the club if they were investing in the club in a healthy manner and bringing the debt down. We're not unreasonable in this sense. The problem is it's too far to one side which is money in their pocket.

What on earth are you talking about? We have spent more on transfers and wages than pretty much every team in Europe over the last 8 years. They've spent heavily this summer, next year our wage bill is forecasted to climb by 20% due to the summer additions. What more investment do you want? If you don't like the Glazers, that's fair enough but lack of investment isn't the stick to beat them with. They're invested in the wrong players, that's due to our managers and scouts.

 

[SuperiorXI]

What on earth are you talking about? We have spent more on transfers and wages than pretty much every team in Europe over the last 8 years. They've spent heavily this summer, next year our wage bill is forecasted to climb by 20% due to the summer additions. What more investment do you want? If you don't like the Glazers, that's fair enough but lack of investment isn't the stick to beat them with. They're invested in the wrong players, that's due to our managers and scouts.

I did not mention transfers and wages, there's more to a football club than that. Just take a look at the Swiss Ramble thread to get an overview.

What do I want? I want the club to get back to being the number one in England and one good transfer window does not change that. They've only just fixed the fecking leaky roof.

 

[darioterios]

Why did the payments in 2011 stick out like a sore thumb compared to all others?

 

[Denis79]

Can the Glazers turn this around and win over fans? If so, what would it take?

Me they won't win over. They have showed their true colours.

 

[Lentwood]

Why did the payments in 2011 stick out like a sore thumb compared to all others?

We restructured the debt in 2010 to make it more manageable.

Article here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11762838

 

[ravelston]

Why did the payments in 2011 stick out like a sore thumb compared to all others?

That's when the PIK debt was paid down. What he doesn't mention is that the owners injected an extra £250 million in equity to cover the cost. Swiss Ramble has always been very selective with his "facts".

 

[stw2022]

In the long run the club bring run to be entirely financially independent from its owners will ultimately prove to be a positive thing, I believe.

There will be an example one day of a billionaire just deciding: “feck it” and leaving a club with wages it can only afford based on paper sponsorship money that never really existed.

 

[stepic]

I did not mention transfers and wages, there's more to a football club than that. Just take a look at the Swiss Ramble thread to get an overview.

What do I want? I want the club to get back to being the number one in England and one good transfer window does not change that. They've only just fixed the fecking leaky roof.

How does 8 years translate to one good transfer window?

Spending money on players isn’t our issue, not by a long shot.

 

[mariachi-19]

One tweet from his latest thread on our financials.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

That is incredibly selective. How much of that interest has been written off as a tax deduction during that time period?

I'm not a Glazer apologist by any means but throwing numbers out there without looking at the commercial realities isn't good journalism.

 

[georgipep]

That's when the PIK debt was paid down. What he doesn't mention is that the owners injected an extra £250 million in equity to cover the cost. Swiss Ramble has always been very selective with his "facts".

Plus zero coverage on why they have done the restructuring, how our current state is, actually, in top financial health and neither the dividends nor debt repayments are hindering us in any way...
Just pure clickbait, as usual...

 

[SuperiorXI]

How does 8 years translate to one good transfer window?

Spending money on players isn’t our issue, not by a long shot.

No I 100% agree. These guys are serious leeches of the club, it doesn't take much research to understand that. They unfortunately can easily fool some and silence fans by splashing the cash on some new players.

 

[stw2022]

Every owner we’ve ever known has been a leech. The problem is this pretence the Glazers are any different or somehow changed us from some altruistic club of charitable benevolence to one that exists to take money from fans.

This was one of many unconvincing hills the various campaigns against them died on

 

[ravelston]

Hate the Galzers as much as anyone but can't complain about dividends.
It's a fundamental.part of ownership.
If you don't want an owner taking dividends, don't allow them buy the club. If I own a profit making business, I would take dividends.

Current dividends give them a 4% return on their equity investment (£520 million). That's the same as the old plc when it started. Compared to the current market value of their shares it's less than 1%. The old plc pushed the dividends up pretty rapidly as the value of the shares rose - they also had the cute trick of paying out a special dividend whenever we made a profit on a transfer - £8 million of the £25 million we got for Beckham went straight out as a dividend.

 

[stw2022]

Badly and the other guy were able to raise their profile significantly by writing articles that were negative on our financial outlook. It became its own economy. Nobody would pay them for articles that concluded: “probably be fine actually”

So many fans took what they said seriously with almost a religious conviction that even all these years later there’s an understandable denial that they said those things because it was financially beneficial for them to say them.

Do we really think they did due diligence on the ‘Red Knights’ or do we think they threw their support behind them due to newspaper gossip of a seat on the board?

We neither have the best owners nor the best fan representatives in the world

 

[darioterios]

We restructured the debt in 2010 to make it more manageable.

Article here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11762838

That's when the PIK debt was paid down. What he doesn't mention is that the owners injected an extra £250 million in equity to cover the cost. Swiss Ramble has always been very selective with his "facts".

Thanks a lot, I am not in the corporate finance world to be able to analyse these stuff, thus naturally driven by the points of this twitter account.

 

[ravelston]

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

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

Remember that in that time period we paid the 50% of the Rooney and Ronaldo fees that the old plc hadn't come up with. Then we bought VdS, Vidic, Evra and the twins for defense, Carrick, Anderson and Hargreaves for mid-field, and Nani and Berbatov for attack (not to mention Tevez and ayone else I'm forgetting). If not for the chronic injuries Anderson and Hargreaves sustained, we'd have been set for years. So, yes the extra money would have been handy, but we didn't do badly as it was.

 

[Rampant Red Rodriguez]

That's when the PIK debt was paid down. What he doesn't mention is that the owners injected an extra £250 million in equity to cover the cost. Swiss Ramble has always been very selective with his "facts".

Probably funded by Red and White Holdings wherever they are registered, they'd never afford that much money of their own..

 

[Lentwood]

Remember that in that time period we paid the 50% of the Rooney and Ronaldo fees that the old plc hadn't come up with. Then we bought VdS, Vidic, Evra and the twins for defense, Carrick, Anderson and Hargreaves for mid-field, and Nani and Berbatov for attack (not to mention Tevez and ayone else I'm forgetting). If not for the chronic injuries Anderson and Hargreaves sustained, we'd have been set for years. So, yes the extra money would have been handy, but we didn't do badly as it was.

Yeah, but I am trying to be as objective as I can. The facts are, we had a positive net spend between the Glazer takeover in 2005 and the restructuring of the PIK loans in 2010. During that period, we paid £70m per annum in interest on the loans. So, I think it's fair to summarise we were being constrained financially by the Glazer ownership model.

If you're looking at this through the lens of the 'decline of Manchester Utd post-SAF', I would say the lack of spending between 2005 and 2010 was definitely a contributing factor. We should have been aggressively refreshing the side, but instead we let it grow old together.

 

[100]

I would say the lack of spending between 2005 and 2010 was definitely a contributing factor. We should have been aggressively refreshing the side, but instead we let it grow old together.

It's a huge factor that goes under the radar due to the reckless spending post-fergie, which was actually a direct consequence of the underfunding pre-Fergie.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Are people being serious here? The Glazers do not have one single redeeming feature. Not one.

 

[Flytan]

Are people being serious here? The Glazers do not have one single redeeming feature. Not one.

Only if you're a complete clown. They're awful owners but there's plenty of redeeming features when you compare them to other owners.

-Not oligarchs/sportswashers
-Actually spend money unlike Arsenal
-Grew the club massively
-Had a period of sustained success under their ownership (though it was because of SAF, at least they weren't dumb enough to fall out with him).

It's fans who speak in hyperbole like you that make the wider football world fail to understand why United fans hate the Glazers. If you can't view them rationally, it only hurts the cause.

 

[lostcauz]

It's a huge factor that goes under the radar due to the reckless spending post-fergie, which was actually a direct consequence of the underfunding pre-Fergie.

The reckless spending is down to the fact that we didn’t have the proper structures in place once David Gill and SAF left and I’m not really sure why it was left like that.
We could’ve spent more money on transfers after SAF left but more than likely it would’ve been wasted on players that don’t fit a system together or have the quality required. By the start of next season, the starting line up will consist of 2-3 players that were signed before Ole took over and 1 of those was signed by SAF.

 

[elmo]

Are people being serious here? The Glazers do not have one single redeeming feature. Not one.

They’re not slave owners or murderers as far as I know.

 

[tomaldinho1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completely agree. Almost worth thinking of their ownership in two parts, the dark ages pre loan restructuring and the generally solid time since. I get some will never forgive them for the LBO (although that’s more on the financial services as a whole as it’s common) but as owners they have done their minimum requirement which is make money available for transfers (we generally have phenomenal windows despite how many players work out once they’re here and rarely if ever are beaten to any player we set our sights on) and keep us growing and profitable. Yes, it could be better but it could also be far worse.

 

[arthurka]

Only if you're a complete clown. They're awful owners but there's plenty of redeeming features when you compare them to other owners.

-Not oligarchs/sportswashers
-Actually spend money unlike Arsenal
-Grew the club massively
-Had a period of sustained success under their ownership (though it was because of SAF, at least they weren't dumb enough to fall out with him).

It's fans who speak in hyperbole like you that make the wider football world fail to understand why United fans hate the Glazers. If you can't view them rationally, it only hurts the cause.

Agree with this. No one should like them as they have saddled the club with debt, taken out money and stopped investing in infrastructure.
But no one can say they haven´t spent on the squad. My biggest issue is the complete lack of structure and vision of the club post Fergie, you only need to look at our signings and manager recruitment in that period to see they are absolutely clueless. Absolutely not great but could be so much worse.

 

[ravelston]

Yeah, but I am trying to be as objective as I can. The facts are, we had a positive net spend between the Glazer takeover in 2005 and the restructuring of the PIK loans in 2010. During that period, we paid £70m per annum in interest on the loans. So, I think it's fair to summarise we were being constrained financially by the Glazer ownership model.

If you're looking at this through the lens of the 'decline of Manchester Utd post-SAF', I would say the lack of spending between 2005 and 2010 was definitely a contributing factor. We should have been aggressively refreshing the side, but instead we let it grow old together.

Didn't the signings I listed constitute "aggressively refreshing the side"?

 

[100]

The reckless spending is down to the fact that we didn’t have the proper structures in place once David Gill and SAF left and I’m not really sure why it was left like that.
We could’ve spent more money on transfers after SAF left but more than likely it would’ve been wasted on players that don’t fit a system together or have the quality required. By the start of next season, the starting line up will consist of 2-3 players that were signed before Ole took over and 1 of those was signed by SAF.

Spending will be reckless when its reactive rather and proactive.

Mistakes were made from 2013 onwards but the foundations were laid in the neglect of the squad from 09-13.

 

[K Stand Knut]

How anyone can defend the Glazers in any way is absolutely beyond me!!!!

Absolute parasites!

 

[united_99]

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

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

 

[Caesar2290]

That's when the PIK debt was paid down. What he doesn't mention is that the owners injected an extra £250 million in equity to cover the cost. Swiss Ramble has always been very selective with his "facts".

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

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

Yeah, but I am trying to be as objective as I can. The facts are, we had a positive net spend between the Glazer takeover in 2005 and the restructuring of the PIK loans in 2010. During that period, we paid £70m per annum in interest on the loans. So, I think it's fair to summarise we were being constrained financially by the Glazer ownership model.

If you're looking at this through the lens of the 'decline of Manchester Utd post-SAF', I would say the lack of spending between 2005 and 2010 was definitely a contributing factor. We should have been aggressively refreshing the side, but instead we let it grow old together.

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

Spending will be reckless when its reactive rather and proactive.

Mistakes were made from 2013 onwards but the foundations were laid in the neglect of the squad from 09-13.

Disagree. Our insane spending was triggered by clowns like LVG and Mourinho who convinced the football naive Glazers that they need their own starting 11. As a result players like Rafael, Evans, Nani, etc were sold. While not WC, they were all good squad players that knew the club DNA and had the winning mentality instilled in them by Fergie. Only to be replaced by dross like Schneiderlin, Darmian, Di Maria, Sanchez, etc

That in itself is down to another flaw that the Glazers have, yet no one mentions. They trust their experts too much.
They trusted SAF when he said that just appointing Moyes should be enough to oversee the transition. They then trusted the 2 clowns in LVG and Mourinho that the players they had at their disposal weren't enough and they both need their starting 11s. So far they've trusted Ole, but unlike the other he seems to be delivering consistent results.

There's a lot of things you can bash the Glazers for, but what you mentioned is simply down Gill leaving at the worst moment possible, SAF seriously not planning past his retirement and downplaying the titanic task it would take someone to replace himself and the Glazers being forced to make footballing decisions despite not being footballing men.

 

[ravelston]

Probably funded by Red and White Holdings wherever they are registered, they'd never afford that much money of their own..

Red and White Holdings were the Usmanov/Moshiri vehicle that owned 30% of Arsenal for a while. Not clear on their relevance here. From our perspective the source of the money has little relevance - it came in as equity and an additional share was issued to the Glazers.