True, which means that cash flow is, of course, important. It has to be raised to service the debt. Also, you're correct, once you take into account the pref shares (Preferred Stock) that Glazer doesn't actually own, his equity stake isn't as large as it appears. The issue is that he needs to keep growing ManUtd at the rate they have been. But - here's the problem. He's just done a highly publicized LBO with very negative press coverage. He's taking over the club at argubly their lowest point in a decade and for the first time in 15 years they have a competitor who can outspend them. So......why would the value of the club be guaranteed to rise? Its a monumental gamble, and I know for a fact certain financial institutions were glad not to be involved in the deal due to all the ill will it has generated. This are hardly rose here; this is a big gamble. And we've all treated it as such. Disclaimer: to any ManUtd fans - I'm not saying ManUtd can't and won't win. But you had a good deal of money to spend before. Now, its likely much of this money will go to service debt, so new players will be harder to buy. That's why I think any gaps that exist will be harder to make up. Might you come up with another youth class like the Giggs/Scholes/Beckham one? Sure. Is it likely? jri thinks so, because you have all those Americans. Pardon me if I'm a bit less optimistic.
I'm a bit optimistic that we are closer to being there, well, more than the table indicates. Do we need to improve, just as much as our luck needs to improve? Absolutely. Although, the other points you made above also point out how important it is to get rid of Glazer as soon as possible.
Well, the problem is that Arsenal and Chelsea won't be resting on their laurels (whatever the hell that means). Both will be splashing out cash this summer on signings and looking to improve the club. So I'm afraid that if this 8 year old keeper you just signed is your best summer swoop, the club could be in for a tough year.
Not siding w/ jri and not picking a fight with you, but our youth team this year had the best season any English youth team has ever had... 5-6 trophies or something like that... the quality of those players is unquestionable... its just a matter of growth and bulking up before they play bigger roles for this team.
I have been reading through these many pages of discussion regarding Glazer and the evenutal demise of MU but there seems to be a few prevailing arguments made by those against the purchase. 1. There is the argument that Glazer doesn't respect/understand the right brand of football and will destroy all the history of MU. Therefore, for the good of the game, EPL and specifically MU, it is a complete travesty that he should be fought. This, I believe, was one of the first positions taken by opponents to this deal. 2. Now, it appears that the "financial analysts" on this board have decided that they collectively have more wisdom than a billionaire business man when it comes to his decision to buy MU. The rally cry for the last several days has been DEBT..DEBT..DEBT will destroy us all. I honestly don't know what is the TRUE reason for such anger at Glazer's purchase of MU. If appears that judgement and guilt have already been assigned before even getting the chance to review actual results. A former poster asked a simple but direct question (which I believe was ignored) when he stated "....but if a really good sugardaddy would have shown up would we still see groups like Shareholders United". I question the validity of all the arguments against Glazer after thinking about the above question. Would everyone be so upset if an English billionaire purchased control of MU and took them private. Even if the purchase was made without incurring extra debt who is to say that tickets prices still wouldn't be raised or that Old Trafford wouldn't be renamed. Who is to judge or assume that the status quo would remain? It's all speculation with respect to Glazer, MU and this specific situation. I think many of you are arguing simply based on emotion and have not fully given this change a chance at success. No disrepect to anyone's opinion on this topic but these are the issues I have considered.
u are another idiot... why would we not be opposed to a deal which took us from being rich to being in debt? Also, Glazer being smart and making money out of this does not spell United being great... that's what we are interested in... If Glazer defers payment of the debt... raises prices sells the stadium name etc and sells the club for about what he paid for it a few years down the road he'd have made a profit and we'd have gained only debt... the only remotely good news is that now, perhaps someone will offer Glazer 2billion for the club... someone who is a fan and who wont put us in debt that is.
Being a good youth player has never been a guarantee of being a good first team player. Its just not. Until they show anything at the senior level, the whole discussion is moot.
Give or take the anti-American bigotry that makes up a significant part of the anti-Glazer ruckus (it's already been said, if Glazer were English nobody would care), I still think there is reason to worry about MU's near future. MU needs to upgrade its talent on defense, they clearly can't beat the better teams in England or Europe with their back line of the last few years. Silvestre & Brown have had several years to grow into top-quality defenders and are not there yet. I'm not taken with Ferdinand either, although he has only had this year really to perform for them. They need more bite in its midfield; Keane/Giggs aren't getting any younger and they need more depth. They are good but not great overall. If they can hold on to Rooney, Ronaldo and van Nistlerooy then their strike force should be fine. Fulfilling these ends will take money, and while Glazer has pockets I don't know if they are that deep (I doubt it), at least not this year. I read that Ferguson will get $20 million to spend on acquisitions this summer, which I don't think is enough to address all the above issues. Another pressing issue is that Ferguson himself is going into the last year of a 3-year deal he signed in 2003. He is in his mid-60's and is facing a rebuilding effort and significant turnover above him (I would think that at least David Gill is on his way out). It wouldn't surprise me if he chose to hang it up, and replacing him will be a serious hot potato for Glazer. The thing I don't get about Glazer's buying MU is that he isn't a soccer guy & has no exposure to or understanding of European football as far as I know. He didn't get to be a billionaire by walking into a new industry like he knew it all along. Why buy into English soccer, let alone the largest club in English soccer? I understand that MU is a nice trophy for an elderly billionaire's sports portfolio, but with his track record in the NFL (Tampa quickly fell from grace after its champtionship and hasn't been back to winning form since) he hasn't shown that he can return a team to winning much less sustain the quality when it comes. And he supposedly knows the NFL better than the EPL. Does his son Joel have some expertise we don't know about? I don't get it. If it was about profits, the fall in TV revenues this year ought to have brought some reality that he should've considered beforehand. Personally, I'm a Liverpool fan, so MU's demise is fine with me.
Said by whom, exactly? Quite honestly, I think you'd have to be pretty dense to believe that at this point.
Not only was it said, it was laughed at by the vast, vast majority. oh, an aging squad, coupled with tens of millions of pounds sterling to be paid on debt interest alone is not worrying? Odd. Erm, we have one of the best CBs in the world, perhaps the best LB in the world (from a purely defensive standpoint), a very servicable, experiencd and consistant RB along with some good young resaerves (Spector, McShane, Pique, Bardsley & technically O'Shea). Obviously we need a keeper, and maybe a CB (although Brown has looked pretty solid). Otherwise, what the hell are you talking about? Silvestre is 27, I don't see him getting much better. Brown could if he can avoid injuries. What about Pique, Spector & Co? So what happened to 2002-03? The year we had the best defensive record in the Premiership? Or this year, 04-05, where we have been second only to Chelsea's incredible record... all while having no decent keeper and CBs that have not quite been up to it, for the most part. They have been great, but are no great anymore... this is one of thefew areas I will agree with you in. Ronaldo has not played at striker for us, ever (iirc), and you need mroe than 2 strikers over the course of a season. By the sounds of things, we'll be lucky to even get that. Seriously, are you just making this up as you go? He is on a rolling contract, meaning that he always has 1 year left on it. And he signed it in 2004. Yeah, getting top quality managers to Manchester United should prove near impossible. Oh, hey... He wants to make money for himself, even if it as at the ultimate expense of the club. Simple as. Because he seems to think it will make money... but football clubs really are not the best way to do so. Another reason why we are not exactly fond of him taking over the club. Oh yeah, he's an avid Manchester United fan. I mean, he may be a billionaire in his 40s that has never been to Old Trafford, but he is still and avid Manchester United fan. [/quote]I don't get it. If it was about profits, the fall in TV revenues this year ought to have brought some reality that he should've considered beforehand.[/quote]Which could be made a moot point if Glazer can get Man United to break off and have all matches on PPV. Oh, well that's nice. Enjoy the UEFA Cup, and the best of luck to you lot in trying to squeeze Bolton & Everton out of that 4th spot next year.
I was going to respond to this more seriously but I will leave it at... "you can't win anything with kids"
Why didn't the ManU board start buying up their own shares? I know that's a standard tactic when a company is faced with an undesired takeover. Was it illegal for some reason? Could the directors have bought on their own?
This thread has the longest posts on BS. Glazer is 77 years old. Do you think things would be different if he were a younger man. Even if his business plans are successful, he seemingly won't realize the fruit of it during his lifetime. ?
Joel Glazer the 42 year old heir, is the one who probably sparked this idea of "purchasing Man Utd", I guess it was a birthday gift of something, who knows.
I'm assuming you mean the company buying it's own shares? Or do you mean the board members? I can't see how the board memembers would make a difference in that sense. That's a lot money. The club could, but to even buy a 26% would've cost how much? I think we're still looking at the company would need to spend $300m-$400m to get that amount. Anything less than that and Glazer can take the company private. And at that it still doesn't keep him from buying a majority stake. Part of the problem is that the not so lovely Irish duo sold their 28-29% stake to Glazer. Since Glazer had already amassed a similar stake, he got ownership.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headli...=333782&cc=5901 'It could be that he has a trick that we don't know about but you can't conceivably see how he can fund that debt,' Dyke added [Greg Dyke; director general of the BBC; form ManU board member]. 'He's clearly bought this on borrowed money, some borrowed at quite high rates, which require an enormous debt repayment and I don't think the cashflow of Manchester United can sustain that. 'One year or two years out of the Champions League and the cashflow dries up. In five years' time I doubt whether the Glazer family will own Manchester United.'
I have a few questions about Glazer (I can never understand finances): Firstly, Glazer claims that this is a long-term investment. Which would mean that either he needs to eventually get the gargantuan debt cleared, or he needs to be able to sell the club at some point at a higher value than which he bought it at. So at the moment, since we're incurring annual interest payments of about 30m pounds a large chunk of our profits will go into paying off the interest. Is Glazer able to pocket any of the profits? And say he decides to sell the club in like five years time; whoever buys the club would take on the debt, right? So effectively would make a profit on the money he invested into the club from his own profits?
That's right, Joel Glazer is "an AVID Utd fan", in fact he's so avid he won't be anywhere near the Millenium Stadium this weekend to see his new toy play the biggest game of it's season. That should tell you all you want to know about their interest, understanding and commitment.
This whole takeover just doesn't really make sense to me. I mean: WHY? He couldn't suck the club dry, and then sell it, could he? If he did that, then he wouldn't be able to sell it for anything. Thus he would lose money. Seems like he is going to lose money in any way. Unless he has a positive long term influence on the club.
Right heres a thought who will you support when you have destroyed man utd?. The man utd shareholders have got nearly 700 million pounds sterling have they or are they happy to see the club go into administration.What is going on is madness Glazer is in it for the profit correct,right the only way he can get a profit is if 1 He is there untill the debt is repaid 2. He has to make the team succesful or no profit. I also know that man utd have already put the season ticket prices up months before glazer took over. Glazer has put a lot of his own money into it half the debt is not being paid for about 10 years anyway and the interest is only 15 million a year and has most of the profit won't be going to a load of different shareholders he will have plenty of cash to repay the loan,causing this kind of agravation is only going to affect the club you proffess to love,who will buy a club with so much debt and have to pay for the shares aswell,we know about this sort of thing because we have spent so long in debt and been sold so much without the money,that unless utd fans just accept the situation,i can see them going the same way.I really cannot see this affecting the team that much next season{maybe give them an excuse for not winning anything,grey kit time again lol} Alex Ferguson has just signed a three year deal so things are not going pearshaped as much as everyone thought.