Manchester United Talk banner
21 - 36 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
I don't know that much about the glazers. As i live in Australia and watch the matches on TV I don't have to cough up money. Here we have "Australian rules football" (it's nothing compared to the real football) and the prices arn't that bad. To go and watch a regular season match it's about 25 Australian dollars. That's about 9 pounds. And a season ticket is around 250 Australian dollars or about 100pounds. If i had to pay thousands of dollars to go and watch my team i would boycot the sport all together. SO you FCUM supporters i know where you are coming from.

I read about FCUM on wikipedia, but i would like to know more about them, could some when give a link to a story or something about them.
 
G

·
asaf cohen said:
I don't know that much about the glazers. As i live in Australia and watch the matches on TV I don't have to cough up money. Here we have "Australian rules football" (it's nothing compared to the real football) and the prices arn't that bad. To go and watch a regular season match it's about 25 Australian dollars. That's about 9 pounds. And a season ticket is around 250 Australian dollars or about 100pounds. If i had to pay thousands of dollars to go and watch my team i would boycot the sport all together. SO you FCUM supporters i know where you are coming from.

I read about FCUM on wikipedia, but i would like to know more about them, could some when give a link to a story or something about them.
You have a Private Message, good to see that someone young, half way round the world isn't as blind as some a lot closer to home. :D ;)
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,605 Posts
spellbound said:
and the Glazer shouldnt be there either..they dont belong at OT at all.
of course they do, and legally so. Your blind attitude to what is normal business procedure is incorrect.

Lets look at this from another perspective. Manchester Car Manufacturing Company owns the biggest car plant in the UK, and employs a great many Mancunians. The great American Car Company comes along and offers a ridiculous sum to buy out the plant - the present owner agrees a price and the deal is done. Nobody bats an eyelid; the government do nothing.

When United was bought by the Americans, every man and his dog was up in arms, protest rallies, breakaway units formed a brand new footy club and season tickets were ripped up or burnt.

Result: United is still there. Same fan base, same success ON the field and, as a business, is still thriving but no longer at the beck and call of shareholders who couldn't give a damn about the football club only £££££££.

The Manchester United PLC was dead and the club firmly back in private hands, albeit American. Ownership will change again, it always does, nothing lasts forever.

I am a member of MUST, one of those fans saving for the day when WE can register a legitimate opportunity to try and buy the Club ourselves, the fans. BUT, it does not mean I am being completely anti Glazer either.

The staus quo is being maintained at United, and Fergie, who really runs the club, still reigns supreme and the Glazers know it. I am not sure, but I think LFC might actually owe more now, than United.

When United was a PLC - many of you seem to have forgotten that period in our history. Fans at that time were protesting even then - against the marketting of a business as opposed to a football club; indeed, even the word football club was removed, during that period from the club badge (see my avatar). The fans hated it and most boycotted the megastore; and still do - I know I do. Eric Cantona left United due to them "marketting" him and his name - so blatantly money spinning. He thought it wrong.

Grow up people, the glazers are here, for now. Enjoy the success we do enjoy, and forget about who actually owns the place. The time to worry is when its stops being a success ON the field. We do not have divine rights to win anything, we need to fight for that success.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Devil hits a nail squarely on the head here and in doing so sums up neatly the difference between United fans over Glazer ownership.

Back in 2005, we split into two main groups. Those (like Devil) who see United only as the team on the field and those like me, who see United as a total package of the club as a whole.

There is no right and wrong in this. It's all a question of perception.

Devil has given his. He feels as long as everything is alright on the pitch, we should shut up and enjoy it.

My feeling is different. What I must do at this point is approach from a slightly different angle and from pre-Glazer days and look at the game in England as a whole.

I've always thought and felt that supporting a football club is more akin to religious devotion than a desire to be entertained. As far back as 1973, when I was 7, I stood behind a lad waiting to be treated at Hope Hospital. He was dressed in the uniform of the day, Docs, Oxford bags and a navy and yellow "star" jumper. When asked his religion he said "Manchester United" and that has stuck with me through these last thirty five years.

We get fulfillment from going to games. We feel guilty if we fail to attend. We experience fervour and joy when we score. Thousands of us congregate together in a ceremony which, if it was in a church, we would call worship. I can honestly say, for most of my life I've been more devoted to United than I have to God.

If you approach football from this angle, people suggesting its "just a business" and it's "all about money" is tantamount to Salman Rushdie's perception to your average Moslem. Would Catholics welcome an attack on their religion, or their church any better than we would welcome being deemed "customers" and seen merely as a resource to be exploited?

Perhaps life is not as extreme as I'm painting. However I do feel football deserves to be viewed as something akin to religion and not simply viewed as entertainment to be left to the mercy of market forces.

So my starting point here is that Rule 34, paid Directors, shared league gate receipts and restricted dividends were a good feature of the runnning of the game and they should not have been discarded so lightly. In this way, the FA started the "football is only a business" ball rolling. They then went on to allow the Premier League breakaway without safeguarding the welfare of the rest of the game as a whole. In 1991, TV money was split with 50% going to the first division and the other 50% split between the other seventy league clubs.

Following the breakaway, only 5% of TV revenue was allowed to trickle down to the lower leagues. This was yet another mistake by the game's governing body the FA.

Sky came along and pumped billions into the game, but this only benefitted the highest level, where players and agents saw their incomes increase dramatically. This was not the fault of Sky, but of those set the task of running the game as a whole.

During this time, United became a plc. Stock market flotation made the club £11m which was used for the redevelopment of the Stretford End. Shareholders like Martin Edwards and Maurice Watkins made a bundle out of selling some of their shares. Over the next 14 years as a plc, United never raised money from a rights issue and every player purchase and every brick that went into building Old Trafford after the initial investment in 1991/2 came out of the club's income. Paying £67m in dividends over that 14 years seems a steep price for a club that only benefitted by £11m from the whole plc exercise.

This brings us neatly to the environment for the Glazers. We have a business now, not a sporting club, that manages to just about balance the need for revenue to keep a decent, winning side, against claims of exploitation and over commercialisation. For me MUFC duvets and bedside lamps were a step too far...

It's probable the Glazers bought into United (using borrowed money) thinking they'd send up the share price and sell them on at a profit. They had done the same with Formica and Harley Davidson in the States. However, they ended up in the midst of takeover speculation, which if they came out and said they were not planning, would have sent the share price plummetting and their plans for a quick profit straight down the toilet.

They decided United was a cash ganerator, fans would swallow anything thrown at them and they could basically do what they liked with merchandise, sponsorship and ticket prices. No doubt they also view the opportunity to sell sole-TV rights as the major plum to be pulled out of the pudding in the future. They took over United after the Irishmen agreed to sell to them at £3 per share. This valued the business at £790m. Twelve months earlier, it was worth about two thirds of that. Their interest had pushed up the price they had to pay. Even with increased revenue now, it's debatable whether the business (based on the usual business principles) is worth much more than what they paid for it.

Over the last two years, the price of my last ticket (May 2005) has gone up from £29 to £44, or 51%. There is a total of £755m secured on the assets and shares of Manchester United Limited and the cost of that borrowing is now £86m a year. £53m of that is being paid out of profits and another £23m is being added to the debt each year, compounding at 14.25% per annum.

Sales of players and loan deals have helped the figures and players coming in are signed on instalment and performance deals where previously the business had the cash to buy them outright.

It is true that Ferguson has at best, been left alone to manage which is probably the only thing for which we can truly thank the Glazers; keeping out of something of which they know nothing. At worst, they have saddled a debt-free well-run business with a large, cumbersome repayment of interest that exceeds the record profit announced recently and in generating the cash to do this, have priced out generations of United fans who come from towns around Greater Manchester. This may have been happening before, but not at the velocity it is now in the headlong rush to pay the interest. Heaven help us when Ferguson retires. Champions league qualification every year and quarter final every three years might not be the gimme it has been for us for so long. If that starts to happen, Devil and I will once again be singing from the same hymnsheet as the Glazer legacy begins to be felt where the majority will see it; on the pitch.

I don't care about their religious beliefs. I don't care about their nationality. I simply despise their view of the world from behind eyes that view only the chance of profit, eyes that are blind to the beauty of the simple, but beautiful game... football.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,605 Posts
Crackin' post kingstreet. I too claim my religion as "United" and only recently told someone I go to church on a Saturday!! The thought I was jewish or something but then I said Old Trafford and a light came on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Red Devil said:
Crackin' post kingstreet. I too claim my religion as "United" and only recently told someone I go to church on a Saturday!! The thought I was jewish or something but then I said Old Trafford and a light came on.
Arf! Nice one, mate!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
51 Posts
First post, but I'm going to get stuck right in...

Drew9 said:
the problem is that they have stuck their own debt against our club ... still if they ontinue to back us by buying quality like anderson tevez and hargo then who's going to complain :)
That's a part of the problem - people think that Glazer has been dipping into his own pockets to buy us these players, when it couldn't be further from the truth. Glazer is in it to make money, not to spend money.

In order to buy these players, we've had to sell many more players. We keep hearing about how United spent £50m this summer, but few people mention that we have sold over £31m worth of players this season.

In fact our net spend in the 3 years since the takeover is just £29.2m. An average of less than £10m a year, surely not much different than any club in the league.

The difference is that we have the biggest stadium in the league with gate reciepts of well over £2m per match, we (like all Premier League clubs) recieve a minimum of £20m in TV money, and at least £10m in Champions League money. We got a record £56m deal from a new shirt sponsor and ticket prices increased by an average of about 15%. On top of this last season we won the league, got to the FA cup final and the Champions League semis. Despite all this bringing in record profits, those profits still weren't enough to pay off the £62m interest payments. How on earth will we ever start to pay off the actual loan I've no idea, but I'd hazard a guess at more ticket price increases, kits being replaced every year and who knows what else.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,946 Posts
decorativeed said:
In order to buy these players, we've had to sell many more players. We keep hearing about how United spent £50m this summer, but few people mention that we have sold over £31m worth of players this season.

In fact our net spend in the 3 years since the takeover is just £29.2m. An average of less than £10m a year, surely not much different than any club in the league.
So now Glazer is at fault for selling players.

If a player is not part of your plans - you sell him and replace him with one who is.

The fact United have only spent 29.2 million in three years - and won the Prem
League, got to the Cup Final and the semi of the Champs League is a brilliant
achievement surely ?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
51 Posts
I think you've misunderstood. I'm not saying Glazer has forced the club to sell players, just that the sale of these players is what is actually funding the acquisition of new players. Glazer has put nothing into the club for transfers and in fact we are spending less than we did before the takeover (when we payed C£30m each for Wazza and Rio etc and were still a profitable and debt-free club).

You are right, last year's achievements were very impressive, our best season since the Treble. Unfortunately that still wasn't profitable enough to start to chip into that debt. What will we have to achieve to even begin to pay off that £600m? God forbid we have another few trophyless campaigns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,605 Posts
Like all clubs, the players coming IN get all the publicity and people tend not to notice those leaving to make way. In United's case its mainly players on the fringe of first team but not actually "Big Names". The transfer of 18 year old Fred Scuttlebucket to Accrington Stanley, for example, is not going to make news.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
The just-published United accounts show an £11.3m profit on player trading, so if you get enough Fred Scuttlebuckets, although not big news, the money can be reasonable.

Just for the record, Hargreaves, Nani, Anderson and Kuszczak all signed after 1 July 2007, so they do not appear in the last accounts. We'll have to wait twelve months to see how they were structured.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
A little off-topic, but having some relevance to the thread, someone on another forum asked for an update on the debt and how much if any was being repaid. Here's the answer;-

The debt is increasing. The senior debt with JPM now stands at £575m, with £425m secured on the assets and undertakings of Manchester United. The other £150m is secured on Red Football's shares in Manchester United.

At current LIBOR (6.63%) the interest on the senior debt is £53m a year. This is being paid out of income, although there is no evidence of this in the recent Manchester United accounts. You'll have to wait for the Red Football accounts in April.

In addition to the senior debt, during the restructure, Red Joint Venture repaid some of the interest roll-up debt from the new JPM loan to reduce the amount outstanding. The new figure at 11/8/06 was £138m. This is increasing at 14.25% pa fixed and repayment has to be made before August 2017. If it runs until maturity, the final total will exceed £500m. This debt is secured on the shares in Red Football, which has as its only asset shares in Manchester United.

If things continue as they are at present with no debt repayment programme, the debt will total just under £1.1billion by 2017, with £575m owed to JPM and another £500m to the hedge funds.

As at 30/6/08, the total outstanding debt will be £755m, with an overdraft facilty of a further £50m which may, or may not, have been drawn down.

I do have "horse's mouth" sources for these stats, the accounts of the various companies. None of them show any element of debt repayment from income.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Manchester Boy_nWo said:
I still don't like the Glazers, but i hope this doesn't get into the heads of even more United fans, but i feel it will for some.
I'm sorry, could you clarify what you mean. I'm a bit thick today and don't understand. :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
fergie appears to be happy with the glaziers,he has stated already that it is easier buying a player under them than it was when utd were a PLC,although i still believe that a club should be owned by its fans:D
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top