Man Utd Thread:

Started by full back, November 10, 2006, 08:13:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

GetOverTheBar

Quote from: ONeill on May 02, 2021, 10:57:30 PM
But who asked for the players? I read that Moyes and Van Gaal were given serious war chests that they wasted on crap players.

City and Chelsea are funded by billionaires, Chelsea being in astonomical debt but so what.

So, Utd want a different billionaire?

Chelsea owe nobody a penny. Bar Roman Abramovich.

TabClear

Quote from: ONeill on May 02, 2021, 10:33:56 PM
But I think they've more net spending than any other side bar City in the last 5 years?

Do Utd want a different billionaire owner just?

Seems to be that after years of slagging off City for their Billionaire owner who treats the club like a toy and spends money hand over fist and flouts FFP laws, what United fans want is a billionaire owner who treats the club like a toy and spends money hand over fist...........

Maybe Sheik M could just buy United and merge them into City's operations. Problem solved, no?  ;)

In all seriousness though, I think the fans have lost the run of themselves in thinking they get to dictate how the corporate is run. As someone said earlier, the Glazers own the club and if they want to structure the club however they want they can. They paid the money, its their choice.

If fans have that big an issue with it then they can vote with their feet, stop attending matches and buying merchandise etc. Thats when then value of the club is impacted. The same fans will then have an issue that the club is spending less on players because it has lower revenues so its a vicious circle.

The fans as a collective stopped the ESL because they had the backing of the powers that be in the FA/UEFA etc along with other fan bases. United fans saw how successful their green and gold protest was when its an individual club, it might have been large numbers in absolute terms but as a proportion of the worldwide fan base it was nothing and changed nothing.

thewobbler

Currently we have Arsenal, Spurs and Man Utd fans in open hatred of "their" club's owners. Liverpool too to some extent.

4 of most successful, highest spending clubs in the world. But it's not enough as someone else is spending more.

Imagine they all just spent money without any thought. Would that mean we could then split the title 6 ways so as no fans go home feeling sad? Or would we ensure that they each get win every six years?


Football "fans" who can't recognise this need a good shoeing.

Nanderson

Quote from: TabClear on May 03, 2021, 11:15:42 AM
Quote from: ONeill on May 02, 2021, 10:33:56 PM
But I think they've more net spending than any other side bar City in the last 5 years?

Do Utd want a different billionaire owner just?

Seems to be that after years of slagging off City for their Billionaire owner who treats the club like a toy and spends money hand over fist and flouts FFP laws, what United fans want is a billionaire owner who treats the club like a toy and spends money hand over fist...........

Maybe Sheik M could just buy United and merge them into City's operations. Problem solved, no?  ;)

In all seriousness though, I think the fans have lost the run of themselves in thinking they get to dictate how the corporate is run. As someone said earlier, the Glazers own the club and if they want to structure the club however they want they can. They paid the money, its their choice.

If fans have that big an issue with it then they can vote with their feet, stop attending matches and buying merchandise etc. Thats when then value of the club is impacted. The same fans will then have an issue that the club is spending less on players because it has lower revenues so its a vicious circle.

The fans as a collective stopped the ESL because they had the backing of the powers that be in the FA/UEFA etc along with other fan bases. United fans saw how successful their green and gold protest was when its an individual club, it might have been large numbers in absolute terms but as a proportion of the worldwide fan base it was nothing and changed nothing.
lol

TabClear

Quote from: Nanderson on May 03, 2021, 12:51:32 PM
Quote from: TabClear on May 03, 2021, 11:15:42 AM
Quote from: ONeill on May 02, 2021, 10:33:56 PM
But I think they've more net spending than any other side bar City in the last 5 years?

Do Utd want a different billionaire owner just?

Seems to be that after years of slagging off City for their Billionaire owner who treats the club like a toy and spends money hand over fist and flouts FFP laws, what United fans want is a billionaire owner who treats the club like a toy and spends money hand over fist...........

Maybe Sheik M could just buy United and merge them into City's operations. Problem solved, no?  ;)

In all seriousness though, I think the fans have lost the run of themselves in thinking they get to dictate how the corporate is run. As someone said earlier, the Glazers own the club and if they want to structure the club however they want they can. They paid the money, its their choice.

If fans have that big an issue with it then they can vote with their feet, stop attending matches and buying merchandise etc. Thats when then value of the club is impacted. The same fans will then have an issue that the club is spending less on players because it has lower revenues so its a vicious circle.

The fans as a collective stopped the ESL because they had the backing of the powers that be in the FA/UEFA etc along with other fan bases. United fans saw how successful their green and gold protest was when its an individual club, it might have been large numbers in absolute terms but as a proportion of the worldwide fan base it was nothing and changed nothing.
lol

The Glazers structured the deal as a Leveraged Buyout. The own the shares so they own the cashflows and are quite entitled to use these cashflows to service the acquiistion debt. No different to someone buying a buy to let and using the rent to pay the mortgage.

Ironically enough, the deal is a pretty good example of how to do an LBO. Agree a deal, tout a business plan round a few banks when finance costs are low and secure the maximum amount of debt possible, then put in the smallest amount of your own money possible so the vast majority of the risk rests with the funders. Do the deal, buy the shares, increase the cashflows of the business and as long as you are meeting your obligations to the banks in terms of debt covenants, anything over that is profit to you and you can either take it out as dividends or pay down your debt quicker to reduce overall finance costs.

All the while the original forecast cashflows are paying off your debt eventually leaving you with an asset worth far more than you paid (invested equity in) for it because of both the increased cashflows and it has no debt attached. The Glazers had the wherewithall to put the deal together so the fact that the fans think they shoudl be paying transfer fees rather than interest payments is irrelevant (as long as they continue to buy the season tickets, wear the shirts and watch the matches on TV).

Boycey

Lovely essay TabClear ur still wrong about the highlighted bit though. They didn't pay the money that's still the single most important thing after all these years....

TabClear

Quote from: Boycey on May 03, 2021, 02:24:22 PM
Lovely essay TabClear ur still wrong about the highlighted bit though. They didn't pay the money that's still the single most important thing after all these years....

They will have put down equity (security) that allowed them to get a loan to buy the club.  I do not know whether it was 10% of the purchase price, 20%  or zero but thats irrelevant. So they did pay the money. Take it back to the buy to let analogy, whats the difference between what the Glazers did and someone who buys a house with a buy to let mortgage. Should they not be allowed to buy the house unless they can afford to buy it outright?

north_antrim_hound

Quote from: TabClear on May 03, 2021, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: Boycey on May 03, 2021, 02:24:22 PM
Lovely essay TabClear ur still wrong about the highlighted bit though. They didn't pay the money that's still the single most important thing after all these years....

They will have put down equity (security) that allowed them to get a loan to buy the club.  I do not know whether it was 10% of the purchase price, 20%  or zero but thats irrelevant. So they did pay the money. Take it back to the buy to let analogy, whats the difference between what the Glazers did and someone who buys a house with a buy to let mortgage. Should they not be allowed to buy the house unless they can afford to buy it outright?

If you buy a house then your liable for the Debt and not the actual house. I know business works different like this but the problem with this business model is that Man U is a sporting club first and business second. They have creamed between 1 and 2 billion depending on the the source read and have no personal liability. When your making this kind of profit surely you could fix the roof which has been leaking for years.
There's a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets

TabClear

Quote from: north_antrim_hound on May 03, 2021, 03:49:14 PM
Quote from: TabClear on May 03, 2021, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: Boycey on May 03, 2021, 02:24:22 PM
Lovely essay TabClear ur still wrong about the highlighted bit though. They didn't pay the money that's still the single most important thing after all these years....

They will have put down equity (security) that allowed them to get a loan to buy the club.  I do not know whether it was 10% of the purchase price, 20%  or zero but thats irrelevant. So they did pay the money. Take it back to the buy to let analogy, whats the difference between what the Glazers did and someone who buys a house with a buy to let mortgage. Should they not be allowed to buy the house unless they can afford to buy it outright?

If you buy a house then your liable for the Debt and not the actual house. I know business works different like this but the problem with this business model is that Man U is a sporting club first and business second. They have creamed between 1 and 2 billion depending on the the source read and have no personal liability. When your making this kind of profit surely you could fix the roof which has been leaking for years.

Thats kind of my point hound. Under current company law there is no distinction between them so as a business transaction why should the Glazers have any personal liability. Every limited company in the country benefits from the corporate liability "shield" attached to operating under that structure so why should the purchase of a football club be any different.  The corporate that the Glazers own is responsible for paying the debt and they are repaying it from the cashflows from the asset i.e. the club. It might be nice if they would fix the roof but my point is they are under no obligation to do so. (And they have spent big money on decorating the place in the interim Pogba/Di  Maria etc etc)

I am open to correction but I think thats where the german model of 50%+1 comes in, i.e  to protect the heritage etc of clubs and I would be all in favour of this. If they brought this in I think the valuations of the clubs will fall dramatically so it is difficult to see how this is brought in without some sort of pay off to the current owners.  All these owners bought the clubs under the existing legislation and have invested huge sums. The fact the Glazers have also made a huge return just means they are good business operators.

I have just seen the Sky Sports alert about the new Owner's Charters. No idea what is in it as I have not read it yet but will be interested to see how the United Share price reacts.

Cunny Funt

Quote from: TabClear on May 03, 2021, 11:15:42 AM
Quote from: ONeill on May 02, 2021, 10:33:56 PM
But I think they've more net spending than any other side bar City in the last 5 years?

Do Utd want a different billionaire owner just?

Seems to be that after years of slagging off City for their Billionaire owner who treats the club like a toy and spends money hand over fist and flouts FFP laws, what United fans want is a billionaire owner who treats the club like a toy and spends money hand over fist...........

Maybe Sheik M could just buy United and merge them into City's operations. Problem solved, no?  ;)

In all seriousness though, I think the fans have lost the run of themselves in thinking they get to dictate how the corporate is run. As someone said earlier, the Glazers own the club and if they want to structure the club however they want they can. They paid the money, its their choice.

If fans have that big an issue with it then they can vote with their feet, stop attending matches and buying merchandise etc. Thats when then value of the club is impacted. The same fans will then have an issue that the club is spending less on players because it has lower revenues so its a vicious circle.

The fans as a collective stopped the ESL because they had the backing of the powers that be in the FA/UEFA etc along with other fan bases. United fans saw how successful their green and gold protest was when its an individual club, it might have been large numbers in absolute terms but as a proportion of the worldwide fan base it was nothing and changed nothing.

United don't need or want a billionaire owner. The revenue stream allows to complete with the best what they need is competent owners. City without billionaire owners would be back to where they were which was struggling to retain Premier league status.

While yesterday protests sent out the clear message worldwide that bit in bold will hit these owners the most.

J70

Quote from: Cunny Funt on May 03, 2021, 04:57:05 PM
Quote from: TabClear on May 03, 2021, 11:15:42 AM
Quote from: ONeill on May 02, 2021, 10:33:56 PM
But I think they've more net spending than any other side bar City in the last 5 years?

Do Utd want a different billionaire owner just?

Seems to be that after years of slagging off City for their Billionaire owner who treats the club like a toy and spends money hand over fist and flouts FFP laws, what United fans want is a billionaire owner who treats the club like a toy and spends money hand over fist...........

Maybe Sheik M could just buy United and merge them into City's operations. Problem solved, no?  ;)

In all seriousness though, I think the fans have lost the run of themselves in thinking they get to dictate how the corporate is run. As someone said earlier, the Glazers own the club and if they want to structure the club however they want they can. They paid the money, its their choice.

If fans have that big an issue with it then they can vote with their feet, stop attending matches and buying merchandise etc. Thats when then value of the club is impacted. The same fans will then have an issue that the club is spending less on players because it has lower revenues so its a vicious circle.

The fans as a collective stopped the ESL because they had the backing of the powers that be in the FA/UEFA etc along with other fan bases. United fans saw how successful their green and gold protest was when its an individual club, it might have been large numbers in absolute terms but as a proportion of the worldwide fan base it was nothing and changed nothing.

United don't need or want a billionaire owner. The revenue stream allows to complete with the best what they need is competent owners. City without billionaire owners would be back to where they were which was struggling to retain Premier league status.

While yesterday protests sent out the clear message worldwide that bit in bold will hit these owners the most.

The bit in bold might be true, but how plausible is it that it could be put into practice in any meaningful way?

People give up season tickets? I'm sure there's a queue a mile long waiting to snap them up. If not, the day trippers will snap them up. Same goes at Liverpool and several other of the bigger clubs.

United fan groups know this better than most.

And part of the FSG/Glazer/Perez ESL play was that the worldwide tv fans now matter as much, if not more, than the match-going fans. Does the average supporter in the US or Africa or Asia give two fucks if the Glazers or John Henry are only or mainly in it for the money? They're still going to buy the jersey, pay for the sports subscription and, once or twice in their lives, if they can afford it, take a holiday in Manchester or Liverpool where they'll attend a match, as well as doing the stadium tour and the Beatles experience or whatever.

TabClear

Quote from: Cunny Funt on May 03, 2021, 04:57:05 PM
Quote from: TabClear on May 03, 2021, 11:15:42 AM
Quote from: ONeill on May 02, 2021, 10:33:56 PM
But I think they've more net spending than any other side bar City in the last 5 years?

Do Utd want a different billionaire owner just?

Seems to be that after years of slagging off City for their Billionaire owner who treats the club like a toy and spends money hand over fist and flouts FFP laws, what United fans want is a billionaire owner who treats the club like a toy and spends money hand over fist...........

Maybe Sheik M could just buy United and merge them into City's operations. Problem solved, no?  ;)

In all seriousness though, I think the fans have lost the run of themselves in thinking they get to dictate how the corporate is run. As someone said earlier, the Glazers own the club and if they want to structure the club however they want they can. They paid the money, its their choice.

If fans have that big an issue with it then they can vote with their feet, stop attending matches and buying merchandise etc. Thats when then value of the club is impacted. The same fans will then have an issue that the club is spending less on players because it has lower revenues so its a vicious circle.

The fans as a collective stopped the ESL because they had the backing of the powers that be in the FA/UEFA etc along with other fan bases. United fans saw how successful their green and gold protest was when its an individual club, it might have been large numbers in absolute terms but as a proportion of the worldwide fan base it was nothing and changed nothing.

United don't need or want a billionaire owner. The revenue stream allows to complete with the best what they need is competent owners. City without billionaire owners would be back to where they were which was struggling to retain Premier league status.

While yesterday protests sent out the clear message worldwide that bit in bold will hit these owners the most.

Totally agree with that CF. United, probably more so than any of the other clubs have always the revenue streams to support them at the top level. For years that was driven by the fanbase and the commercial revenues from the stadium relative to the likes of Anfield/Highbury etc. Other clubs have caught up now with the Emirates/TH Stadium and to a lesser extent FSG's redevelopment work at Anfield. The issue they have is that they do have a Billionaire owner and that owner will have to be paid what the club is worth to exit. How does the new buyer get their return on investment as the £Xbn it would take to buy United has to be funded from somewhere? Some investors could take a view that they buy it from "cash" and it will appreciate in value so I will make x% when I sell it on and so I am happy to reinvest all the cashflows into growing the club while I own it. Possible, but  that is a much more risky strategy than buying for £Xbn and then bringing a bank in to pay you half your money back now and spread the risk. To do that however means that some of the cashflow is diverted to pay the debt.


Boycey

1st time I've had a look there but there is absolutely nowhere obvious in the calendar to play a rearranged fixture?

Award the game to Liverpool? Although I've not seen that option mentioned much anywhere.

BennyCake

Quote from: Boycey on May 03, 2021, 09:01:34 PM
1st time I've had a look there but there is absolutely nowhere obvious in the calendar to play a rearranged fixture?

Award the game to Liverpool? Although I've not seen that option mentioned much anywhere.

Might have to move one of Uniteds Wednesday games to a Tuesday, and play Liverpool on the Thursday. United had to do that a couple of times in the 90's. It cost them the league in 92, but already had it won in 97 I think it was.

David McKeown

Quote from: Boycey on May 03, 2021, 09:01:34 PM
1st time I've had a look there but there is absolutely nowhere obvious in the calendar to play a rearranged fixture?

Award the game to Liverpool? Although I've not seen that option mentioned much anywhere.

If the Liverpool v West Brom game was moved forward to midweek when both teams are free then Utd could play Liverpool on the weekend of 15/16 I think.  Not particularly fair on Liverpool or West Brom mind
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner