A) Look at what he did at Tampa, Malcolm purchased the Bucanneers franchise in 1995 for $192 million. As of 2004 the franchise is valued at around $675 million, having won the Super Bowl in 2003. B) His family were immigrants, he made himself from inheriting a WATCH PARTS store. From that to a billionaire. C) Glazer has owned a diverse portfolio which has included food packaging and food supplies, marine protein, broadcasting, health care, real estate, banking, natural gas and oil, the Internet, stocks, securities and bonds. Let's say he knows a thing or two about marketing. D) The balls to give Limey's the finger and buy their beloved Man U whether they give a good god damn or not. E) LOT'S of his own money invested. The Glazers are too astute to throw their own cash away. What will he do to pay the debt. United makes around 20m and the interest on the debt will be 8m (according to BBC article) 1) Arsenal recently took $100m over 15 years for naming its new stadium after Emirates. That's one way, although expect United's figure to be higher at least 15M a year. 2) Increased merchandising effort's in the US and Asia. 3) Raising ticket prices. At ~£50 a ticket, revenues on matchday are around ~£4m right now. Expect ~25% increase. Not all of that revenue is ticket sales, but expect more revenue in other places as well. Let's guess 19 home games = 10m new revenue at least. 15M + 10M + 3M(New Merchandising guess) = 28m new revenue produced by Glazer. All this could be on the low side IMO. Regardless, the naming rights alone service the debt and bring in more cash to buy players. So, what's the problem again? We live in a debtor's society, the proper use of debt is the most effective way to make money in the world today, period. Glazer knows this.
have you ever thought that someone can be a fan of more than one team? sure, they have a favorite club, such as this man with arsenal, but he can root for other teams. he probably roots for arsenal when they play man u, but if manu are playing blackburn, he can root for manu. you can like a club, and it not be your favorite club.
Well i as a mcfc fan i hate the southern scum that say they are MUFC and hope the Glass blokes kill em off for good,Manchester is blue not red as all English people know...........How can they say the Glass bloke is a billionaire when he has had to borrow hundreds of millions of pounds to put them in massive debt?LMFAO.
Tampa was an underfunded, underperforming franchise with poor marketting. Man Utd are/were the richest "franchise" in soccer, possibly in all world sports. They are not underfunded. There is no comparison. Man Utd are not, strictly speaking, underperforming do any real degree. It's very hard to compete with Chelsea and all their money. There is no comparison. Man Utd are the world leaders in sports marketting. Tampa played in unpopular orange shirts. I doubt there's a huge amount he could teach them. There is no comparison. Other than give them enough money to put them on a level playing field with every other NFL team, Glazers role in the 2003 superbowl win is not clear. Unless Glazer is willing to stump up the cash to put Man Utd on a level playing field with Chelsea, there is no comparison. good for him. Sadly his sons are going to run the club. Their track record is not quite as good. maybe he does, but as I said, he's taking the current world leader. It's almost like saying he could easily get another 20% out of coca cola if could market them. doesn't take balls, just cash, which he didn't appear to have. If it wasn't for the debt, I'd be with you. Man Utd can make more as a private business than as a PLC. I'm 100% sure he has a plan, but with Abramovich at Chelsea and a team at Man Utd which looks like to need major (and expensive) surgery in the near future, now is perhaps not the best time to gamble the club's future. I'm sure I read the other day that the selling of naming rights to Old Trafford has been dismissed, as had selling the stadium and leasing it back. Man Utd doesn't have the long queue of potential season ticket holders it once had. Hiking up ticket prices may work, but it'll also be more disastrous PR for a club that was contastly accused of exploiting its fans even before the take-over. £8 million was the interest on the debt, but the debt itself still has to be repayed. Even over 20 years it's still £25 million a year (I know in practice it doesn't quite work like that but...) Your £28 million figure of extra income would just be keep the team where it is now, not improve it. It needs to be improved or you will get a lot of fans asking why their season ticket has gone up 25% but the team hasn't improved. There are signs already that ticket prices are about as high as people can afford. If, come renewal time, fans just believe they are paying through the nose just to buy the glazers a new yacht each year then some will not renew. Quite how many is part of the gamble. He knows that, but does he know football? Specifically the fragility of financial success and the cyclic nature of rise and decline of team and clubs? And is giving a business debts of over half of the business' value good practice or not?
The naming rights thing will happen sooner or later, mark it down. The 15M will service the debt, not just the interest I think that statement would stir up a heated debate on these boards and elsewhere. I'd say that isn't all that unusual in the business world and in fact is quite common. Emerging businesses sometimes have 4 and 5 times the business value in debt. For example successful healthcare company, Pacific Healthcare (PHS), was purchased today by United Healthcare for about $2.2B in Stocks / Cash. According to their balanace sheet they have $1.1B in long-term debt, $1.7B in accounts payable and $3.3B in total liablities to pay.
Nobody knows. We'll have to wait and see. You could argue that for the amount of money spent on the team, the team is underperforming, but not hugely, but it would be hard to make a case for saying the team is underfunded, or that the club is underperforming in terms of bring in revenue. how much in assets though? A value of a company that is in debt will never be the sum total of its assets, because the cost of taking on the debt drives the value of the business down. I think a limited company here with debts greater than its total assets is regarded as trading illegally.
Two thoughts, In the US companies can have greater debt than assets. The term is debt ratio. This is only dangeous if creditors demand repayment at the same time. They won't because that will force the company out of business and they don't get paid. What about internet stocks? They often have no tangible assets other than intellectual property and are leveraged to the extreme with debt. They trade on "potential" and debt often has little to do with it. In the US, companies can still trade freely when they are in bankruptcy even, by very defintion that is not having enough assets to pay your debts. Notice an Q added to the end of the ticker symbol. Secondly, the Man U situation is a cash flow situation. They want to be able to pay salaries and service the debt without sacrificing quality. In that case you have to eye the CURRENT assets and liabilities (those that can be made liquid within a year) which is measured by current ratio, the Current Assets divided by the Current Liabilities. If greater than 1 then assets are greater than liabilities and vice versa. It's a good indicator of cash flow. I still don't think cash flow will be a problem and obviously neither does Glazer or he wouldn't have made the deal. BTW, I'm not an accountant so if I misused any of the terms I'm more than happy to be corrected
Should we write in Glazer's purchase as one of the Foundation's Top Ten? See www.ussoccerfoundation.org and see whether it's worthy of being included!
the club is ran by ferrgie and will be for a few years.... player aquisitions , tactics , and taking back the prem title will be his doing btw who the !@$#@% is ipswitch haha you'd love an american who owns a team like the bucs be interested in that little club wouldnt you?
where in manchester are you from then? i know plenty of reds all over manchester.. way more than the blues who live in salford and wythnshawe only . manchester is RED... tell you why should i ... coz the most famous FC in the world is situated there , old trafford is the most famous landmark in the north of england , not the city of manchester stadium... the club itself makes manchester RED .. whos going to be representing manchester in the champions leauge? nuff said to add, your club is in debt simply coz its crap.... not coz a millionare took a massive loan out to buy it. knowing as any rich succsesful business man does he will get investment back and then some.