The value of the club has increased because of the explosion in TV and sponsorship money, all external factors. All nothing to do with the Glazer family.
So we agree they haven't completely fecked up a situation despite the poor playing performance post SAF. There are lots of clear cut examples of terrible owners in the Premier League (ask Liverpool fans about Gillette and Hicks) and by comparison the Glazers are tame.
United are not some unique case. Pretty much every club in this country has seen their value rocket. Apart from trying to squeeze every bit of value out of our brand popularity (based on years of dominance that we can thank SAF for and not the Glazers), give me an example where the Glazers have clearly tried to add tangible value to the club internally, ie through long term investments? A stadium redevelopment? Nope. A new state of the art training ground? Nope. An academy stadium? Nope. The list could go on.
You are cherry picking what you deem a good investment. You, nor I, have any idea about the RIO of any of these activities. It's plausible that the board estimated investing in commercial deals and playing staff (over £1b in transfers) were better investments than infrastructure. Regardless, the richest club in football still grew by 3x even though the playing performance has been abject for 6 years.
Great news for the Glazer family, like you say, the value of the club has jumped from 1.2b to 4.12b, however a higher value means nothing for the club.
That's not true. It's easier to refinance that debt (which has already happened) and you can sell shares at the higher value to raise cash.
We'll still need to find money to fund a stadium or training ground development, despite still being half a billion in debt.
Again you're guessing these activities produce either the best RIO or improve the squad. These things don't guarantee anything.
There lies the problem, the Glazer debt remains the biggest barrier to any long term investment that benefits the club long term.The debt has put this club into a stall and allowed other clubs to catch up. The current debt is not going away any time soon and if we decide to start paying it off more quickly, it is money being taken away from other areas i.e. the transfer budget, meaning that we fall behind on the pitch relative to our rivals and their spending.
Again that is not true. The biggest barrier to United are the poor performances on the pitch by a succession of managers who failed at their job. Spurs have a lot of debt and caught up. Liverpool were on a shoe string budget and forced to sell their best players to fund any large purchases but their valuation has skyrocketed. Why? They have good managers and therefore good team who have gained notoriety around the world. Furthermore, as I explained to the other poster United was so far ahead of anyone else that their competitors were bound to catch up.
If you honestly think United have fallen behind their rivals b/c of the lack of stadium or training ground development, I don't know what to tell you.
The reality whether you like it or not, is that the club has wasted vast sums of money (and still are) paying off worthless debt. Money that would've been better investing in an OT stadium redevelopment or a new training ground. Money that would've been generated regardless of whether we had the Glazers as owners or not.
I'm pretty sure the debt was also used to fund operating expenses (ie. transfers, etc)...
In fact, I would say that we would probably be worth more now if the money hadn't gone towards paying off some of the Glazer debt. Over the last 14 years, half of all the money generated by the club has been lost servicing the debt. Imagine if that money had been reinvested back into the club instead? True value is added when profits are reinvested back into club, not when profits are being shipped off to the banks to indirectly fund a Glazer takeover that has provided the club with no benefits and a book full of negatives.
Right now the club is in quick sand and we can thank the Glazers for that.
You should read about the previous majority shareholders. They were actively looking for more investment and even encouraged the Glazer takeover, but somehow you think they would have had the funds to compete in the transfer market and redevelop the stadium/training ground. Where would these magical funds come from?
And yes the club is in quicksand but you should thank the 3 failed managers with archaic tactics post-SAF
He isn't referring to the money borrowed from the banks. He is referring to the amount of money (wasted money) that the club is having to stump up to fulfill its debt obligations, debt linked to the takeoever.
The Glazers borrowed money to fund the takeover. Before the takeover, the Glazers created a new company called Red Football Limited. Red Football Limited (the Glazers) borrowed £500 million from the banks to buy Manchester United and racked up £500 million debt in the process. Once the takeoever happened in 2005, Red Football Limited, with their £500 million of debt became the holding company of Manchester United. Since then Manchester United, using it's own funds have been paying off the debt held by Red Football Limited. As a result, MUFC are indirectly funding the Glazer takeoever, by paying vast sums of money back to the banks, all for the benefit of the Glazers, especially when their asset continues to increase in value. We are literally paying for the privilege of being owned by the Glazers. The Glazers are literally laughing all the way to the bank!
Wasted money the club might not have had...
For the 100th time, they didn't not secure all of the debt on United's assets. It was about half and the other half presumably secured against the Glazer family assets. Secondly, I highly doubt JP Morgan would have been the underwriter if Glazer family attempted to put up 0 collateral of their own.
The key here is to understand the difference between good debt and bad debt.
Good debt = you borrow money to fund something that you otherwise couldn't afford. For example Tottenham are now in a lot of debt. However, it is good debt. They have borrowed money so that they can move to a state of the art stadium (possibly the best in the world). This will allow them to grow as a club, boosting revenues and profits, and over the long term, the returns will eventually exceed the cost of the debt. Once the debt is paid off they will have something to show for that debt. A world class stadium.
Bad debt = the Glazer debt. It has been reported that so far it has cost the club over £1 billion servicing the debt since 2005. To make matters worse the debt still stands at £500 million. What have we got to show for all of this debt? Absolutely nothing! No new stadium, no new training ground. Nothing. For the Glazers they have made billions and for the club we have lost more than a billion (so far). Not only have we got nothing to show for it, OT is now 14 years older and vastly outdated and the training ground is not up to required standard. In the last 14 years, United has probably generated more money than anyone else worldwide but where has a large chunk of this money gone? That's right, straight to the banks, to benefit the Glazers and not the club itself.
No offense, but this is complete nonsense.
"Good debt" is debt that leads to higher ROI (via whatever was purchased) vs the total interest percentage. Not even worth going into this, but what you wrote is gross oversimplification.
Under the Glazer ownership, vast sums of money has been leaking out of the club year after year rather than being reinvested. Whether its money used to pay off the debt and its interest or on annual dividends. Actually, this week the Glazers paid themselves another £19million. Of course, they are free to do that, however it shows where their priorities lie. To cream off as much money as possible in the short term with little care whatsoever for the level of debt facing the club.
The Glazers didn't take dividends for the first 10 years (most likely until they were sure the debt was manageable, which it is). Given the had loans secured against their own assets this is not crazy at all.
The Glazers haven't cared about this club from day one. They don't care about the long term health of the club and where we'll be in 15 to 20 years time. Everything is short term with them and they are more than happy to asset strip the club back to its bones. They want to add as much value to the club with as little investment as possible. Once they have reached a value limit, they will then head off into the sunset with their billions without giving a second thought about the state of the club that they have left behind.
If by care you mean sentimental, then of course they don't care. But name me any owner of PL club (sans maybe Levy) who does. You think City's or Liverpool's owners care about the history of the club?
If by care you mean monetarily, then of course they do. They put their own assets as collateral to buy a nearly £1 billion pound prestigious football club.
Doesn't matter. I'm not going to change anyones mind. If you hate Woodward and Glazers you will hate no matter what they do. The fabricated evidence is annoying though.
