I wonder if this is one of the reasons Roy Keane and Sir Alex clashed?
Keane saw the quality was declining and Sir Alex knew he had to find another way without spending money we didn't have further indebting the club.
Why are the Glazers/Woody running the club so badly?
- Thread starter Physiocrat
- Start date
Keane saw the quality was declining and Sir Alex knew he had to find another way without spending money we didn't have further indebting the club.
Some of you guys are really over the top. Do you think any owner or CEO would like to see themselves as a failure?
Even a 10 year kid become more responsible if you put him in charge for anything in school and he doesnt want to fail
No doubt Ed doesnt come across a footballing intellect but he is the one given more than half a billion by trusting his managers
LVG and Jose might passed their best but they were the top managers available around that time and won many things
I am not a fan of Glazers & Ed but I feel they are being criticized here more than they deserve. They gave us money no doubt and having debt is to save money form taxes and we all know that, same time they can invest that money on something else and make more money. Its not like our owners running out of cash and we dont have money to pay loan premiums or player salaries
Its bad that some players signed didnt do well for us and some wrong decisions made on players choice but when you have LVG/Jose at club you simply have to trust them and I never heard these managers said one wrong thing about ED that he forced a player on them.
If I am ED, I would learn from my mistakes and place a proper structure who can help me in dealing transfers and start planning ahead
Do you think Real Madrid signed all those players by few days negotiations? I dont think so, they might have started the ground work few months back atleast. I am sure Ed might be doing same but he need to react fast and more organised
Even a 10 year kid become more responsible if you put him in charge for anything in school and he doesnt want to fail
No doubt Ed doesnt come across a footballing intellect but he is the one given more than half a billion by trusting his managers
LVG and Jose might passed their best but they were the top managers available around that time and won many things
I am not a fan of Glazers & Ed but I feel they are being criticized here more than they deserve. They gave us money no doubt and having debt is to save money form taxes and we all know that, same time they can invest that money on something else and make more money. Its not like our owners running out of cash and we dont have money to pay loan premiums or player salaries
Its bad that some players signed didnt do well for us and some wrong decisions made on players choice but when you have LVG/Jose at club you simply have to trust them and I never heard these managers said one wrong thing about ED that he forced a player on them.
If I am ED, I would learn from my mistakes and place a proper structure who can help me in dealing transfers and start planning ahead
Do you think Real Madrid signed all those players by few days negotiations? I dont think so, they might have started the ground work few months back atleast. I am sure Ed might be doing same but he need to react fast and more organised
Did you even read that post? That Facebook post is a nothing but a PR stunt, and MUST act like a PR firm for potential buyers. Notice how they throw out numbers with very little context or facts. Of course they omit that some of the debt was secured against the Glazers family assets. They also omit that the appreciation of the value of the club has made the debt extremely manageable, and there is this small thing called the time value of money. A lot of what they are saying nonsense.
They secured a portion of the original debt against their own assets, so they have risk. The only clubs who's owners directly finance transfers is probably PSG and City.MUST said:
The author of this crap posts doesn't realize a JP Morgan was willing to do a LBO because the Glazers have a tons of collateral. This sentence is one of many clueless ones.MUST said:
It wasn't a last minute deal. The bought up shares over the course of 2 years before finally taking control of the club.MUST said:
Hazard chose Chelsea over United (SAF wanted to buy him). Aguero could have signed but United refused to pay the agent fees. Suarez and Coutinho were fairly cheap so they could have been signed. Unless we mistake the Glazers for scouts this critique is weird.MUST said:
I had to stop there. Does this individual not know City is an oil-funded, state-sponsored club? MUST sound like they just want Saudi owners.MUST said:
No reason to go any further. That MUST FB post is a hit piece just like the David Conn article.
I mean Rooney explicitly stated that was his reason in 2010, and I don’t believe he was lying about it just to grab some extra cash like the Glazer sycophants suggested at the time.
Everything points to Gill and SAF closing ranks with the Glazers out of loyalty to the club. Not because they were happy with the situation.
Thanks for that, makes me shudder to think how ill informed someone can be.
The OP title is about running the club and, regardless of any personal opinions, facts are there that the club is in good health and probably it's most powerful economically. Worth noting it's also quite impressive how much we have spent in summer transfer windows when you think since the takeover we must be closing in on £1b in interest repayments.
On your LBO point, assuming JPM would have advised that to transfer full debt into the club and away from Glazer's assets? Whereas I understand they split the debt between the family & the club in reality.
On the football side the Glazers had not done very well at all. But on the business side they have done very well . So they have not run the club badly just failed on one side of the coin when it comes to the club
I’ve worked with a few CEOs in Fortune 500 companies. Frankly, they weren’t geniuses or masterminds. A couple were there by birth and the others had career hopped. Most were completely disconnected from the day to day operations. My point is that just because somebody is in a position or has been doing it for a long time does not make them great or even the best person for the job.
The rare CEOs who are engaged and have vision are usually found deep in the much side by side with their workers.
When you watch shows like Undercover Boss you see how out of touch the CEOs are with the workforce.
Great CEOs don’t let things get to that point because they are obsessed with details and understand that everything the company reflects on him/her.
This bleeds over into how sports franchises are run. The best sports teams treat their employees even the ones who do “low-level” work.
They are also all pulling in the same direction and the club’s direction/mission is clear.
Do you really think that what I’ve outlined is what is transpiring at Old Trafford? I sure as hell don’t.
If you’ve got mates who work at the club as them how they are treated and ask them to be honest and that you’ll keep it off the record.
Money. Glazers/Ed run this financial franchise brilliantly. We’re the ones invested into a financial franchise and not a football club.
Until a seismic change happens in the fan base why would they change their ways?
Until a seismic change happens in the fan base why would they change their ways?
If the club is continuously making money, then that is all that matters.
Money 1st, football 2nd
Money 1st, football 2nd
Yes.
Their problems will start when the football eventually stops them making money.
Ehm, sort of. Motivation not quite nailed, only just, well... sort of.
Before the Glazers took over the club was debt free since the 1930s, over a billion pounds of club generated money has been spent on loan repayments, taxes, and dividends caused by their business model. A billion that could have been spent on our ageing stadium and other infrastructure belonging to the club. Over 800 million pounds of the clubs money has been paid to banks since they took over, 447 million of those were just net interest payments the last decade. So do not think that they are saving money with their business method, it is all about making money for themselves and nothing else.
http://priceoffootball.com/manchester-united-2018-finances-made-of-stone/
I was about to retort with ”well in that case there’s no reason for them to keep quiet now”, but then I remembered the Glazers still keep them around at the children’s table (’Football Board’). Might be a reason for that.
It doesn't really work like that though. Debt isn't a bad thing, it's a very common way for companies to grow and you can't cite the interest paid on loans as money we could have spent elsewhere - it's there because of the takeover, the money wouldn't exist otherwise.
I'm not saying things shouldn't change or be run better (I'm not well informed enough to know) but it's dangerous to read these articles and just make quick conclusions. A poster above also pointed out the fact that during the acquisition the Glazers actually took on some of the debt themselves (which I don't think they had to do) and the club's estimated value now hovers around £3b vs the £800m it was bought for.
I'm convinced their plan is to sell but what they have done since taking over, from a purely commercial perspective, is impressive. Even more so when you think of how results have been on the pitch.
Read the linked article mate, 500 million pounds of the clubs money has been paid in just interests to a debt generated by the way the Glazers took over the club, a method that is today illegal.
We didn’t use the money to grow though. The Glazers used the money to pay off banks.
It would be one thing if we had borrowed money to build a stadium or whatever (for reference, The Emirates cost £390m) but just dumping it straight into banks and lenders as a ’thank you’ for the takeover isn’t really the same thing.
Sorry, what? Where do you think the money comes from? It comes from United and it’s assets.
Exactly, as far as the Glazer's are concerned, the club is being run perfectly. They can't believe their luck, they only planned on being owners for a few years before being forced out. Yet the money rolls in.
This is 100% false and doesn't make any sense. United was valued at £1.2b in 2005. Now it's valued at £4.12b.
Secondly, the borrowed money was not used to pay off banks. It was used to purchase the club. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
It doesn't work like that. The interest payments are directly related to the debt incurred by the LBO and part of that debt was used as working capital to run the club (unless JP Morgan are a bunch of idiots). It's safe to say that working capital had a hand in the increased revenues and valuation of the club. Given that the previous ownership group aggressively looking for investors, I would guess that money would NOT have been available for "other things".
What will they do when the bubble bursts is a better question.
Those are completely unrelated unless you are implying that Woodward and the Glazers through sheer competence caused an increase that wouldn’t have happened at an equal or higher rate anyway.
You know the market has exploded, right? I couldn’t find figures all the way back to 2005, but here are official Forbes percentage growths for major clubs since 2011:
Bayern Munich: 200% growth.
Tottenham Hotspur: 288% growth.
Chelsea: 295% growth.
Liverpool: 298% growth.
Manchester United: 100% growth.
See, that’s the problem when you look at absolute numbers without putting them into any context whatsoever. By the way your valuation of United at £4.12bn is from last year. Now it’s down -8% at £3.8bn.
Microsoft grew under the incompetent CEO Steve Ballmer. Too bad Apple and Google grew much, much more.
Last edited:
I'm actually implying the Woodward and Glazers were competent enough not to completely feck things up and ruin the club's growth prospects. I mean contrast the Glazers to Gillet and Hicks, Blackburn's former owners, Pompey's former owners, Rangers' former owners, etc. and you'll realize it could certainly be a lot worse.
It's called convergence/diminishing returns. United were so far ahead of everyone that others were bound to catch up. For the sake of consistent numbers and to illustrate the varying degrees of growth look at this:
2006 Forbes valuations:
United - $1.3bn
Real Madrid - $1bn
AC Milan - $900M
Arsenal - $841M
Bayern - $769M
Juventus - $687M
Chelsea - $508M
Inter - $504M
Barcelona - $440M
Liverpool - $370M
Newcastle - $306M
City - $222M
Spurs - $214M
2018 Forbes valuations (% increase):
United - $4.1bn (+215%)
Madrid - $4.1bn (+310%)
Barcelona - $4bn (+822%)
Bayern - $3bn (+297%)
City - $2.5bn (+1026%)
Arsenal - $2.2bn(+166%)
Chelsea - $2bn (+305%)
Liverpool - $1.9bn (+424%)
Juve - $1.5bn (+114%)
Spurs - $1.24bn (+479%)
AC Milan - $612M (-32%)
Inter - $606M (+20.24%)
If you look at this list it's pretty obvious most of the movement is due to the financial environment (TV deals, domestic economy, etc), performance and ownership not completely fecking up. (Italy's shite economy in the last decade or so is one of the main culprits for their relatively poor numbers, although by all accounts the Milan clubs were poorly run by their previous owners). The main point is you can't just say "United grew half as less as team XYZ over X amount of time". That statement is completely lacking context.
BTW I misquoted the dollar figure in pounds (I think you did as well). It's $4.12bn for 2018. I see where you got the $3.8bn figure, but Forbes hasn't even released it's 2019 most valuable sports team list yet (should be coming pretty soon), so I'm not sure about that. Regardless, by all accounts United has grown roughly 3X since the LBO. That pretty good given United were already far an away the most valuable club.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...rlds-most-valuable-soccer-teams/#d5e303447621Forbes said:
I'm actually glad you brought up the example of Microsoft and Apple. Like I said before, convergence. United were so far ahead of every other team you listed in valuation that other PL clubs were bound to catch up (especially with the TV deal). Liverpool, the UKs second most popular club, valued at almost 4x less than United in 2005. It's safe to say that gap isn't sustainable. Microsoft was so ahead of every other tech firm (especially in the mid-90s) that the rest of the else was bound to catch up. You couldn't expect United to grow at the same rate of those other clubs, just like you couldn't expect Microsoft to grow at the same rate as tech companies with a far smaller market share.
Last edited:
I can't wait for the Glazers to feck off. Hopefully it's sooner rather than later
Last edited:
Forbes explicitly states the value has gone down by -8% since last year.
https://www.forbes.com/teams/manchester-united/#6b47c9e913f9
The point is Apple and Google overtook Microsoft by a significant margin under Ballmer’s reign from 2000-2014. They got destroyed strategically. Microsoft’s value only started to gain parity with them again after Ballmer was sacked and replaced by Satya Nadella. The change from 2015 onwards has been dramatic.
Really, look up Steve Ballmer if that’s the level of leadership you’re content with for Manchester United. He’s not even on speaking terms with Bill Gates anymore because Bill finally realized what a crock he is.
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.
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.
We are falling behind in many areas because the Glazers have neglected pretty much every area of the club apart from the marketing department. Why, because that's the cheapest way to add value to the club with as little investment as possible. 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. We'll still need to find money to fund a stadium or training ground development, despite still being half a billion in debt. There lies the problem, the Glazer debt remains the biggest barrier to any long term investment that benefits the club long term. Are we going to borrow a billion pounds when are already half a billion in debt? Clearly not. 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.
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.
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.
His point is actually quite simple to understand.
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!
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.
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 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.
Right now, Manchester United is falling behind in all areas both on and off the pitch. Standards and expectations are falling at an alarming rate. Ultimately, the Glazers, one way or another have full responsibility for this. They are the architects of our decline.
I literally detest them.
Last edited:
The Monies they are taking from this club is all down to Woodward. They are raking it in and putting nothing back into the football TEAM.
Maybe it is why we have not brought in a DOF.
Maybe it is why we have not brought in a DOF.
This is the kind of content I want to read in here, bored to bloody death reading financial shit that I can't understand
When are they fecking selling is all I want to know...
If the original aim was to sell us, surely now is the best time to profit. Or is it a likely possibility that they will contine to milk us for years to come?
More than likely milk us for another few years. The Golden Cow.This is the kind of content I want to read in here, bored to bloody death reading financial shit that I can't understand
When are they fecking selling is all I want to know...
If the original aim was to sell us, surely now is the best time to profit. Or is it a likely possibility that they will contine to milk us for years to come?
As each year has passed since SAF left, the club just keeps feeling more and more unrelatable. I'm at a point now were I don't really feel much excitement about the upcoming season or care about any of our potential signings. I've seen it all before.
I almost wonder would it be better for the club in the long-term if things did get worse for us on the field and the house just started to completely burn down on the Glazers forcing them out. I suspect it would be.
I don’t have any problem with Glazers’ ownership of the club, nor the fact that there is debt in the balance-sheet. I, just, am very disappointed with Ed Woodward’s handling of footballing operations. From idiotic transfer acquisitions to hasty appointment of Ole, Ed is a complete failure.
Either they sell now or wait until new EPL and CL deals are in place in 2 years time and wait for the increase in TV-money available. If the "restructuring" of the CL is "finalised" then this would mean even more money into the pockets of the big clubs and potential value of our club would be higher. As long as we are good enough on the pitch to be in consideration of being in this new European superleague that is.
You’re missing the point - Woodward is there because he’s delivering what the owners actually want....money.
People need to start focusing on the source of the problem.
Your opinion could be anything regarding the real source of problem. I am just stating that Woodward's handling of football related stuff is abominable. And, of course, it's his job to increase the value of the club and make money for the club and thereby the shareholders. The real problem is whatever the club is spending is not going in right areas. It's haphazard squad building. And now, he's even fecked the managerial appointment. Because heretofore, Woodward was choosing the best guy available. But in his haste, he has taken a potentially disastrous decision. If he had waited till the end of the season before making permanent appointment, I don't think he would have chosen Ole. So basically, he's a just not capable of taking right decision at the football level.
The root of our problems are down to the owners square and simple - everything else is a symptom...that includes Woodward.
I addressed that.
MackRobinson said:
I'm pretty familiar with the history of Microsoft and Apple, but I'm unsure if you are. In 2001, the antitrust ruling was essentially the writing on the wall for the end of their dominance. Still, that isn't my point.
You can't expect a clear market leader to grow at the same rate as their competitors. That's not how corporate finance works.
Yeah, but look, Fergie regularly didn't get the money he wanted for transfers. Clashes with Edwards were a regular thing. Some deals fell through over the years. So to be told 'this is all we have for new players' was nothing new and unusual to him. The reason might have been - the loans - but the bottom line was the same. Why would he treat it any differently?
United never had a problem attracting sponsors....Even in our position, it's not a big problem because we reach so many. From their perspective yes, if they want to be losers. They should sell.
You tell me? Why would he suddenly not want to sign players? It doesn’t ring true to me that a manager who had seen transfer sums go from £1m to £30m (Rio Ferdinand) in a relatively short period of time would suddenly not believe that there was ’any value in the market’. Especially after having just received £88m for Ronaldo and only re-investing a small fraction of it.
I think every manager in the world wants to sign players, preferably as good as possible. We could see it with SAF earlier as you say.
My guess is as good as yours but I believe the Glazers sat him down, explained the poor financial situation, and really got him on the same page. For whatever reason.
Once SAF knew there would be lean years, he just decided to deal with it instead of throwing a fit that he believed wouldn’t lead anywhere. So he took the hit for them.
That’s a bit misleading imo. Taxes are unavoidable, dividends will always be payable to shareholders or owners whoever they are, otherwise why invest in the business. The loan repayments are the only thing that really matter, and it costs what - £25m a year to service. Meanwhile the turnover and value of the business has grown enormously. We shouldn’t get too hung up about debt, most of the biggest companies in the world carry debt as it’s quite an efficient way of building a business if the business grows faster than the cost of servicing - as is the case here.
What is more alarming is the state of the football side of the operation. Significant funds have been invested in the transfer market, the like of which can only be dreamed about by most of the EPL clubs - Ed was right with that sort of suggestion. Fact is it has been spent very poorly. The guilty party in that, as far as I am concerned, is Ed himself. He needs to get onboard somebody with sufficient experience in football operations to run this for him, that’s what good CEO’s do.
@Sultan Fergie may have been telling porkies, but again, it wasn't the first time his hands were tied. So what was the difference? Maybe when it happened ten years earlier he wasn't asked about transfers as much by the press so he didn't have to cover anything. Or maybe he was covering and was also talking crap, but we weren't so aware of it because media was different.
He was told there was no money and could do two things about it: Accept it or leave. So he accepted it. Like he did previously, whether it was 1995 or 2005.
He was told there was no money and could do two things about it: Accept it or leave. So he accepted it. Like he did previously, whether it was 1995 or 2005.