Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by Physiocrat, May 8, 2019.
Hate the Glazers with a passion - doubt they are even fans. Can't stand Woodward either.
It's clear you literally don't know what you are talking about. The money was used to pay off debts used to purchase the club.
You can feck off about my tone.
My position is based on facts. You're just completely clueless about why large corporations refinance. This isn't like owning a home where you refinance a mortgage just to take cash out. The the Glazer family had £200M+ of debt secured against their own assets, some of these high interest loans. They weren't going to just simply pocket any money made from refinancing or selling shares. You're clueless.
The fundamental point remains you are posting a bunch of misinformation and half-truths. Yeah the Glazers suck at hiring managers, but the club is doing fine financially.
Crazy stuff. You are actually trying to argue the unarguable. United are a cash cow for these owners. Dividend payments since, restructured debt, under investment from day one. You really are way off in your position.
The bolded doesn't even make any sense. You're just listing talking points. Like I said you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm telling you verifiable facts, yet you want to bury your head in the sand.
Buddy I don’t have the time or the inclination go get into anymore detail with you. I’m more than familiar with the history of the clubs finances since 2005. You are trying to argue that the Glazers haven’t treated the club as a cash cow, I am trying to argue they have extracted significant cash from the club with relatively little investment over that period. I’m not going to engage with you any further because your position is just obviously wrong. As I say, I really don’t have time to get into this with you. Enough of the ‘you don’t know what you are talking about’ posts please. You are blatantly wrong. The owners are toxic. You are arguing the unarguable.
Lot's of directors, responsible for what exactly ?
Top heavy organization, even lacking a technical director/director of football. Worse even; completely lacking football experience in general.
Could've easily been some sort of Amercian franchise for home appliances, dairy products, farming equipment or life Insurance products.
@MackRobinson rather than continue to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, read this and then feck off.
That pisses me off even worse. Glazers can go feck themselves.
You’re right, better judge them at how good they are in making money from sponsors for themselves while using the club’s history and name for it, because that’s the only thing they’ve done right on the last 6 years.
Two cheeks on the same arse. They should never have been allowed to buy the club in the manner they did. The FA - actually it was the Labour government - that put the kibosh on the Murdoch takeover which, as I recall, didn't involve leverage of any kind. But businessmen who couldn't afford to buy the club themselves were allowed to take a massive risk with one of Britain's great sporting institutions that, had it failed, would have seen the end of it, were seen as fit and proper? If only Fergie had stayed away from that bloody racehorse.
As long as it translates into our wagebill I am happy, yes. And it has. We have the largest wagebill in the PL. If that is not a sign of them committing enough money to the footballing side of things, I dont know what is. As long as we have a wagebill around 50 percent of turnover I could not give a crap who owns the club or how much dividends they take out. That should be well enough to challenge on all fronts.
responsible for taking money out of the club, that is the way it looks.
Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
Not sure if the right place to put this....but worth a look: https://www.gofundme.com/f/glazers-out
Your very first message on this forum is a GoFundMe page for Glazers out, don't know whether to hysterically laugh or be impressed!? Somehow I feel the target of £1000 wont be enough to get them out though.
That would not work in 2019.
He'd claim that he will get good results in 5 years, but we need to put up with poor results until then. Woodie would nod and then fire him.
Haha, yeah I'll admit... i'm not big on participating on forums (but I do like to keep an eye on Redcafe, simply don't trust the emotionless beige marketing from Utd's official social media platforms.. that sound like propaganda).
Indeed £1000 will do probably nowt (and obviously ignore it if you want), but I have to applaud any fans attempting 'something'..anything to potentially mobilise fans to realise it's not madness to criticise the owners who have assembled this mess/potential future American home appliance franchise.
Yeah, there's that (too).
Actually many other Premiership clubs commercial revenue has grown by a much larger percentage than United in the last 6 years.
Good afternoon everyone. Glazers out.
So, can you explain how our self proclaimed worlds richest club is only paying around 3 million a year to alleviate the debt, thus costing around £21 million per year in servicing the debt?
From this source from last year:-
Manchester United earned record revenues of £590m though the Glazers’ debt from buying the club 13 years ago stands at nearly half a billion, according to the latest financial results.
The borrowings of the 20-times champions remain at £487m despite the American family having purchased United in 2005 for a debt of £525m. This means that less than £3m a year has been paid off since, with the cost of serving the debt amounting to £24m a year.
So from this perspective, it would take 162 years to pay off the debt, but accruing total interest payments of around £3,402,000,000.00 in that time frame.
Could you help a fellow clueless poster to understand how this is a model of successful financial management?
Absolute fecking parasites mate. I can’t wait for the day that they feck off for good.
Parasites. The way they took over the club has since been outlawed. Yet some posters are trying to defend it. Either that or the Ed Woodward has opened an alias account.
The decision making has been so poor in regard to transfers. In hindsight most of the players purchased in the last 6 years have been woeful for one reason or another.
We were forced to overpay (Fellaini, Lukaku, Pogba) or take other teams cast offs (Mata, Matic) or buy players who didn’t want to come in the first place (Di Maria, Sanchez). This all comes back to one person who has been here for the duration. Woodward. He has to surely take the blame now.
I don’t mind another reset but the purchase of promising young talent which is being touted hasn’t really made an impact either. To name but a few in recent times. Shaw, Martial, Dalot together with Lingard, Rashford won’t cut it with a few new youngsters. We got rid of Zaha, Depay, Keane and what happened to
What a mess. No way back for a good few years. Talk of becoming the Liverpool of 90s has turned into a self fulfilling prophecy that we are trapped in until who knows when.
Am I missing something ?
Who is : Man Utd Sawhney – Independent Director
Sports broadcasting executive
You expect businessmen with no football knowledge/passion to run the club well?
Man Utd gets auto corrected to Man Utd.
It's like the club itself is not allowing anything these leeches do to work in the hope they just go, every decision they make seems to wrong, & imo we are now broken beyond repair until we rid ourselves of them.
As some wise person said, if all the owners care about is money over the football, then don't expect any different from the players.
HaHa. I see.
Yes, it is very strange why the club is run so badly. Why do they consistently allow Woodword to throw away millions on players. The guy has a great business sense but clearly no football brain at all.
Also, I dont know how they are making any money from the club. The current dividend is 9c per share, which is really low. Maybe they are looking to sell the club in some time?
The current share value is $18.50, Its been up as high as $27.70 and as low as $16.91 in the past year alone.
Perhaps a great time to invest before we announce our signings if one has a few grand to spare?
Remembered I meant to reply to this earlier...
1) A time-value of money
2) Refinancing events have taken place and will take place (i.e. selling shares)
3) (Somewhat related to 2) The value of the club (the asset) keeps rising, making it easier to refinance at lower interest rate
Notice that none of these Guardian articles that are continually posted (including this notoriously shite one by David Conn) never include a breakdown of the debt (how much was secured against United's assets vs the Glazer family), details about the interest rates, nor any refinancing events. Why? Because they are clickbait articles written to scare fans and Woodward is popular scapegoat.
I've gone over this countless times and other people smarter than me on the Caf have said the same thing. United's financial outlook is fine.
Let's put it in simply terms: The Glazers are paying ~£20m/year to service debt used to buy a ~£500m asset that is now worth ~£4 billion. Let that sink in.
Or a great time to short if we are shopping at Aldi
Yes the window is filling us all with hope and trepidation.
I would say the difference is, our current financial outlook maybe fine but global fans are not loyal to clubs like local/national fans are. It would only take a run of relegation battles for the sponsors to drift away and the fan base shrink considerably. So the long term financial outlook is largely dependent upon how we fare in the transfer market and on the pitch over the next two seasons. If Leeds an Newcastle both get bought out as is forecast, then we could find ourselves slipping rather quickly.
I would suggest instead of spending so much time & effort managing the 'debt', perhaps they should try managing the structure of the actual 'club' they bought.
They've been let down by Managers, and some of the players but I don't know how anybody can say the Glazers and Ed Woodward are running the club badly.
Because they have no idea how a global organisation that generates over $750 million should actually be run and think that its like running your mum and dads fish shop on a larger scale.
Anybody looking at United would see a well run commercial business who has seen substantial growth under their ownership without necessarily being hugely successful.
This does not mean the football side has been extremely well run, but the business is very well run.
Also anybody who sees issues with the Glazers controlling the Board of Directors, has very little idea of how these business were run. Would you, if you owned Manchester United, allow a group of individuals to make financial decisions on your behalf where only a portion of the company is share issued? I very much doubt it.
They hired the managers, they also chronically underinvested in players before 2013, then they start spending after 2013 but it is too little too late and they don't get enough players to make up for their previous (pre 2013) underinvestment. Player prices are now much higher so it is harder to play catchup. Strategically they have screwed us.
They also hire managers who require totally different types of players and waste 100's of millions in the process. i.e. going from possesion players with LVG to anti-possesion (counter attack) players with Jose.
Are they running the club badly yet? I could go on...
From their perspective they are running the club spectacularly, the second most valuable sports team in the world, third highest revenues in world football and by far the highest revenues in England. Thats what they care about, when the club stops making the money that they expect the Glazers will sell to make sure they can cash in on the value of the "brand" before its completely destroyed.
Separate names with a comma.