Manchester United Talk banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

11,207 Posts
It's definitely a worrying situation.

I wonder how the Glazers will manage the debt this year, because I think they expected to make more money than they are.

Last year we had to 80m pounds in debt and interest. That's a big sum of money and money we would have, if it weren't for the bloody take-over.

I'm hoping and praying.


Hammers play down financial fears,16368,2483_4260416,00.html

West Ham have moved to play down concerns the club will be adversely affected by Icelandic bank Landsbanki going into administration.

The Iceland government took control of Landsbanki, the country's second biggest bank, in order to stop it collapsing.

Hammers chairman Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson is a major shareholder in the bank and chaired the company until he was sacked on Tuesday.

Now chief executive Scott Duxbury and vice chairman Asgeir Fridgeirsson have both moved to ease fears there may be repercussions for the Upton Park club.

Duxbury said last night: "The position of Landsbanki has absolutely no effect on West Ham United and Mr Gudmundsson's ownership of the club.

"Mr Gudmundsson is an investor with a large portfolio, of which Landsbanki was just part. He remains as committed as ever to West Ham United and is not looking to sell the club."

Duxbury told the club's official website: "As has previously been stated, Mr Gudmundsson has invested £40million net in the playing squad to create a squad capable of challenging in the top half of the Premier League.

"Since his appointment, Gianfranco Zola has made it quite clear that his first-team squad is too large and needs to be reduced so he can effectively coach the team.

"Once this has happened and if the manager requires further players, then the club will acquire them.

"Mr Gudmundsson remains fully committed to the success of this football club and building on the excellent start made by Gianfranco Zola."

Fridgeirsson backed up Duxbury, saying: "The government has claimed shares in the company which means that the government has claimed control. That means basically that we have lost it," he told Sky Sports News.

"I don't think there's any reason to be too pessimistic. West Ham United is a wonderful club and a well-run company.

"This investment was very important for him, but not his only one.

"It is, of course, a blow for him and his financial strength, but he himself has a number of other investments that are doing quite well at the moment so there is no reason to fear that he will not honour his commitment to West Ham football club.

"He (Gudmundsson) is not absolutely sure how this will directly affect him, but one thing he is sure of is that this will have no implications on the other investments of him and his family."

Last month the Hammers were left with a potential £5million shortfall after the club's shirt sponsor, XL, went bust.

Then, two weeks ago, an independent tribunal ruled against West Ham in the Carlos Tevez transfer affair, leaving them liable to a £30million compensation claim.

The club have since revealed they intend to appeal against that decision.

Newspaper reports last weekend suggested that Indian billionaire Anil Ambani is poised to make a bid for the club.

Fridgeirsson admitted several parties were interested in buying the club, but said Gudmundsson had no plans to sell.

11,207 Posts
I think this will be a much-needed wake up call for club owers.

If we get through this economic downturn well, I guess the Glazers will be worth their salt and if not.....

Well if not, it could be very bad news. very bad. So bad, I don't even want to think about it.

I guess it will be a battle of philosophies.

Prudent management versus gung-ho chivalry 'must win at all cost" mentality.

Anybody remember Leeds? Or in Germany clubs like Eintracht frankfurt and Borrusia Dortmund.

The problem is that clubs like Chelsea and Madrid upped the game, but if there is any sort of pro-longed recession, the clubs with prudent money management will prevail.

Even without recession, UEFA (PLatini) are thinking about penalizing clubs with huge debts. From my point of view, it was getting out of hand.

11,207 Posts
Let's hope they're telling the truth. Then again what else are they supposed to say?

United swerve credit crunch,19528,11661_4264966,00.html

Red Devils remain financially secure

Manchester United's American owners insist the club will not be affected by the credit crunch.

The financial meltdown currently affecting the global economy has already begun to infiltrate the football world, with clubs feeling the pinch after years of over-spending.

Billionaire chiefs such as Chelsea's Roman Abramovich and Manchester City's Abu Dhabi United Group can handle the cash catastrophe, but there were fears that United may struggle.

The club remains £660million in debt following the Glazers' 2005 takeover, but continue to generate enormous revenue around the world.

A refinancing package in 2006 has helped the club to manage their debt and a spokesman for the Glazer family has played down concerns regarding the club's financial health.

"The credit crunch is not having a negative bearing on United," they said.

"We continue to benefit from the sell-out of Old Trafford and the growth in commercial operations.

"We refinanced back in 2006 and that structure provides long-term stability. The debt continues to be comfortably serviced by the club's strong growth in cash flow."

United's shirt sponsors, AIG, have been hit by the credit crunch in the States, with their future remaining unclear.

However, United insist the £14million-a-year deal with the American Insurance Group represents only a small percentage of their revenue stream.

The club remain confident that they could strike a lucrative deal elsewhere should the AIG contract fall through, while they have recently struck a commercial deal with Saudi Telecom and extended their link with Budweiser.

11,207 Posts
There are a couple of figures that strike me.

Compared to the value of Manchester United, the debt figure of 600million does not seem as staggering to me as for example Liverpool's 350m debt and Fulham's 181m debt.

Fulham's debt seems like a HUGE figure to me and I would be more worried being a Fulham fan with a 180m debt than right now as a Man Utd fan with the club having a 600m debt.

Hull looks to be in good financial health. You have to admire them .

The FA should go into receivership and administered by ppl with brains :D
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.