Will Glazers sell for £1bn

Discussion in 'Manchester United' started by 433tom, Sep 2, 2007.

  1. Vermont Red

    Vermont Red Member

    Jun 10, 2003
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't know that the data for that list is released by the team. The three revenue streams are TV, matchday and commercial. The TV figures are public as are most of the commercial streams (kit sponsorship, shirt sponsor, etc.). The matchday revenue can be estimated based on the size of the ground and so on. I'm not sure how much United really contributes to that stuff.
     
  2. Motterman

    Motterman Member

    Jul 8, 2002
    Orlando, FL
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  3. 433tom

    433tom New Member

    Jun 16, 2006
    A bit biased I would say. And as soon as he mentioned Rossi (and the black helicopters started hovering), it lost all credibility for me. I knew Rossi was either going to be in a starting rotation this season or gone before he played his final match at Parma. In an interview in Italy, he was specifically asked if he would be at United next season, and he said that after starting for Parma, he did not want to go back to England to sit on the bench. As far as his future at United. He said he would have to wait and see until he talked with Sir Alex.

    And this is same player who a month before his loan to Parma told the press that the style of play in in Serie A appealed to him. To me that was the first salvo at SAF, saying either play me or let me move on.

    Realistcally, Rossi's not stupid. He was never going to first choice at his preferred position with a 21 year old Rooney in the way.
     
  4. Mac_Howard

    Mac_Howard New Member

    Mar 5, 2002
    Mandurah, Perth, WA
    Like all conspiracy theories there's a certain logic to it but the evidence is a bit thin on the ground and the interpretation stretched to breaking point. Other explanations for the four reasons he gives:

    1) the loan was restructured only 12 months or so ago. There's no reason to believe it would be restructured again now.

    2) Rossi was always going to go once Tevez, Anderson and Nani were coming to OT.

    3) Tevez was bought because he was as good a striker as was available in this past transfer window. That he could be had on loan would no doubt be appealing but there's no reason to suggest that was the only reason for his purchase. He was too good a player to let go.

    4) you don't need to speculate that Utd is being put in the showroom to explain the Glazers increasing ticket prices whether or not some at the club were against it. The Glazers will optimise profits.

    In the end his argument boils down to this: The Glazers have said Utd is not for sale, therefore it is. It begs the question "What would the Glazers have said if Utd truly wasn't for sale?" On his logic they would apparently have said "Yes, Utd are". Now that would have been newsworthy!

    The only thing to be said for this argument is that it suits his agenda ;)

    Let's get real:

    Did the Glazers buy Utd for footballing reasons? Did they hell! Did they buy Utd to make money? You can bet your life they did! Is Utd for sale? At the right price, of course it is! Is 1 billion pounds the right price? We haven't a clue - most people are just realising it wasn't the daft purchase they all claimed, the Glazers perhaps did know what they were doing after all and the financial journalists should stick to playing Monopoly.
     
  5. Achtung

    Achtung Member

    Jul 19, 2002
    Chicago
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't think most realistic people ever thought the Gl*zers were in it to lose money and be driven into bankruptcy along with the club.

    The question has always been whether their decisions, driven from a purely financial standpoint, would be compatible with the desires of the fans, namely to win trophies. So far, the answer is yes, in a time when the popularity and financial power of the English league continues to reach increasing heights. We're seeing a mini transfer boom all over the league amongst many teams, and also coming off of a great season on the field. It's been a good combination for the Gl*zers--some of it under their control, some not so much. Thus far, they've stuck to the most important dictum for an owner taking over a successful club--first do no harm (at least none that we can see for now).

    The truth is, we have no idea what the "real world" value of the club of the club is. But we can assume that were the Gl*zers to sell tomorrow, they'd come away with some profit given the increased revenues over the past few seasons. Then again, they've reiterated that they're not looking to turn a quick buck.

    I'd still consider myself in "wait and see" mode. Mainly because there's not a lot else we can do at this point.
     
  6. Attack Attack Attack

    May 17, 2006
    Syracuse, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    edited your post for you ;)
     
  7. Mac_Howard

    Mac_Howard New Member

    Mar 5, 2002
    Mandurah, Perth, WA
    On the contrary, Achtung, it was difficult to find anyone that accepted that the Glazers had a sensible business plan - we were constantly told that plan would fail and Utd go down with it. This was true of fans, true of sports commentators and true of the financial commentators - the Glazers didn't know what they were doing and should stick to caravan parks and NFL franchises.

    The point I'm making is that, while there's no question that the Glazers are in this for whatever profit they can make and will always put their own business interests before the footballing interest of the club, it is ludicrous to see every event that takes place at Utd as the Glazers setting up the club for a quick sale and profit. Tevez did not come to Utd or Rossi leave because the Glazers wanted to increase the resale value of Utd. They happened for footballing reasons.

    There is a tendancy for some commentators to see something negative about the Glazers in everything that happens at the club. It's typically silly 'conspiracy theory" stuff that only contaminates the support for the club for fans as everything is presented in a negative light (even bringing in Tevez is see as perfidy by the Glazers :rolleyes: ) and dilutes the justified criticisms when the Glazers really do behave in ways that damage Utd.

    It's the crying wolf situation - condemn every action regardless of justification and the justified criticisms get lost in the clammer.

    I have no illusions about the Glazers and their motives in buying Utd - they're in it for the money - but the best we can hope for is that they act in the belief that on the field success is a precursor to financial success and, so far, they have done little to show that that isn't the case.
     
  8. Achtung

    Achtung Member

    Jul 19, 2002
    Chicago
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Er, still don't know about that. I think that the position of most of us who opposed the takeover was not that there was no plan in place, but that the financial stability of the club was tied directly to future performance, a potentially risky proposition. Football is an unpredictable beast by nature.


    Agreed. There is legitimate criticism, and then there is the over the top, tin foil hat stuff. It's important not to confuse one with the other, of course.


    Again, I do agree with this. But, my concern is that regardless of how dedicated they may be to success on the field and resulting success in the finances, there will be years when the trophies do not come, and it is most important to not be dependent on success in order to pay the bills. Of course we won't know for sure until there is a lean year or two, and while I obviously don't hope for such times, I've been a sports fan long enough to accept that it can and does happen.
     
  9. Mac_Howard

    Mac_Howard New Member

    Mar 5, 2002
    Mandurah, Perth, WA
    I think if you look back, Achtung, most people, and not just this board, were arguing that there was no way that the Glazers could increase profits sufficiently to pay the interest on the debts and, consequently, his plan (whatever it was) was doomed to failure and Utd with it.

    I'm not sure that we will learn that unless we have a lean year very quickly. To one extent I agree with the article in that I think the Glazers do not see the present financial circumstances to be permanent ones. They will be looking either to refinance or sell at a profit at some point. To sit with such debts for 20 or even 10 years would be very risky in what is a very risky environment and I do believe there will be a change in this before too long.

    What I do object to, however, is this idea of jumping on anything that can be seen as negative or is vulnerable to a negative spin as indicative of the Glazers impact on the club. When you get new owners there are two concerns: first that the club will see money disappear into the owners pockets and the club starved of funds and second that they will interfere with the footballing aspect of the club (interference with transfers, team selection etc). I've seen nothing so far outside of the original purchase to suggest that the Glazers are doing either. Alex has said the money is available for any player he needs and I think that has been so to this point and, though I don't always see eye to eye with Alex's tactics, I wouldn't suggest that they come from Malcolm Glazer :)

    As you say, if money becomes tight then we may see a different behaviour - that is precisely why I've always argued that, though it sticks in the craw to say it, the best for Utd is that the Glazers' plans succeed, the worst is that they fail.
     
  10. sdotsom

    sdotsom Member+

    Manchester United
    Mar 27, 2005
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=461497&cc=5901

    Another story, this time the MUST (Supporters Trust) is saying our debt is spiralling out of control - Glazers have refuted this statement.

    I personally can't believe the "spiralling out of control" part. I don't see the Glazers making the kind of transfers we did this summer - even if they are backloaded, they have to be paid - if they didn't intend on being able to pay them at the same time as servicing the debt. I like MUST, but I think they may just be hyping up the debt we already knew we had.

    Let's not get it twisted - the debt is huge and is a serious problem. But I think "spiralling out of control" is inaccurate. The best move would be for the club to show some true financial numbers, even though they don't have to, to rest some of our minds.
     
  11. biro

    biro Member

    Oct 3, 2006
    MUST have an agenda, don't think they don't. The Glazers making a success of United is the last thing they wanted to happen.
     
  12. Attack Attack Attack

    May 17, 2006
    Syracuse, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It depends what you deem as the goal of United. Most people's perspective is success equals as many trophies as possible and exciting football which puts people in the seats. MUST would like all of those things, but they would rather see a club owned by the fans, and not a soulless corporation. The ticket price hikes continue to drive out the die-hard fans only to be filled by silent muppets who sit there and let the atmosphere in OT die. MUST would rather see the Glazer's fail and United relegated to the Championship, before a long-term Glazer ownership. As contrary as it appears in sports clubs today most people in Manchester would rather United as a more fan friendly club than a cash cow............
     
  13. biro

    biro Member

    Oct 3, 2006
    MUST are living in a dream world. The fans will never own United, it will always be owned by big businesses or wealthy individuals because it's the biggest club in the world.

    The only way they could possibly get their hands on it would be for United to do a Leeds, which is highly unlikely. Still, I'm sure there's more than one MUST supporter who wouldn't mind seeing such a thing happen
     
  14. sdotsom

    sdotsom Member+

    Manchester United
    Mar 27, 2005
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    I was thinking about that...I don't think this club will ever go back to the fans in terms of ownership, as sad as that is.
     
  15. Attack Attack Attack

    May 17, 2006
    Syracuse, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would agree that the club will probably never be back as a PLC. If the Glazer's struggle they will most likely sell to another rich group of owners, then sell off their shares, reestablishing some form of PLC once more..........

    .......the most likely scenario that the fans would actually enjoy would be if a person or group bought the club, who actually loved United and cared about many of the same things they did such as fair ticket prices and keeping a great atmosphere in the stadium, not just $8 pies and luxury boxes
     
  16. sdotsom

    sdotsom Member+

    Manchester United
    Mar 27, 2005
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Yeah, that's what I believe as well. The best this club will see from here on out is a "benevolent" owner. But it will always be the property of one person, or a consortium, from here on out.
     
  17. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Karo Viertel
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    While I understand your frustration, it is impossible to have a sensible discussion about such complex issues with people who don't have a detailed understanding of the business issues.

    People adopt extreme view points. Black helicopters or doom and gloom.

    Neither is correct.

    The issue was always one of risk. Which is why the board rejected the initial advances. PLCs are conservatively run as you know. LBO's are high risk. This is what your chairman said.

    The level of risk was not appropriate.

    That didn't mean it couldn't succeed.

    The valid point the match going fans always had was what's in it for us?

    High prices is what.

    For the global fan, who has less interest in ticket prices, and less emotional investment, the perception of risk is completely different. Do they even understand the risk?

    The debate on this on the arsenal board has followed the exact same lines. Match day fans generally against (high vested stake, and subject to high prices = high risk), foreign fans more in favour (lower vested stake, not so price sensitive).

    Finally - it has always been a myth that Glazer's being successful would come up roses for Utd. Any new owner is going to repeat the same process all over again. Potentially with even more debt.

    People here are saying that the latest player acquisitions show that everything is fab and debt is under control. Yet anyone with business experience also understands the concept of window dressing. As usual the views presented by each camp are too extreme.

    But one thing is true. Sooner or later Glazer must address the debt, either by selling out, or by refinancing. It can't continue as is because the hedge fund debt will eat up the gains. The whole point of an LBO is that it is not a long term strategy.
     
  18. Mac_Howard

    Mac_Howard New Member

    Mar 5, 2002
    Mandurah, Perth, WA
    I don't underestimate the risk at all - in fact the reason I argue that the worst that can happen is that the Glazers' business plan fails is that the consequences for Utd will be far worse than merely dropping into the Championship and being picked up by a consortium of fans. That's positively utopian. What happened to Leeds will be a day at the beach by comparison.

    We owe (and it is WE not the Glazers, unfortunately) roughly 300 million to the regular banks and that loan is secured by Utd's assets. If the Glazers default on that loan then the assets will be sold by the banks to recover the loan. The obvious assets, but not the only ones, are the Old Trafford ground and the players. These would be sold to the highest bidder. Our saleable assets apparently are around 300 million pounds (hence the loan).

    But Utd also owe another 300 million plus to the hedge funds - the financial world's equivalent of the loan shark. And exactly what they would do to recover their money is anyone's guess. They begin by taking over the board.

    The fact that Utd also owe 300 million plus to the hedge funds is a real problem for the secured loans. One would hope that the banks would try to find a buyer for OT and the Utd club who is interested in continuing to run Utd as a soccer club (rather than OT going to property developers etc). But who is going to pay 300 million for a club that has other loans of 300 million plus at exhorbitant interest rates when it's failing financially?

    There simply wouldn't be any buyers. Utd could well be split up and sold off in pieces with the hedge funds holding whatever remains.

    It would be a disaster of monumental proportions.

    Lets get rid of this idea that the fans can own the club.

    If you were to ask ever single one of the 76,000 fans that come though the OT gates at the next home game to hand over 1000 pounds each you would still only have 76 million pounds. That's a long, long way from 1 billion pounds and most fans have no ability whatsoever to hand over 1000 pounds.

    Fans cannot hold a 1 billion pound financial entity. It just isn't on. Utd's value will have to fall an awful long way before fans can come anywhere near owning it. And long before its value falls to that level the banks would have split up the club and sold off the assets, including OT and players, to recover what they can of their loan.

    That Utd would simply slip down a league and the fans would pick up the pieces is cloud cuckoo land.

    We simply don't know the sequence of events that would occur if the Glazers defaulted on the loans but you can bet your life that it would be disastrous for Utd because they're not Glazers' loans anymore but Utds and thus Utd's responsibility.

    On the other hand if Glazer's plan succeeds then at some point he will call in his investment and take his profit. That could be to another investor - albeit a very rich one - and there's simply no knowing what he will be like. However, at a value of a billion pounds or more it will be a financial investment not someone who merely wants to boost his ego. The days when a local butcher could own Utd have long gone.

    Alternatively he could refloat the company and return it to PLC status. In my view that will probably be the best to happen. Fans could get their share - probably about 2% of the club - and thousands of other shareholders would hold the rest. There'd no doubt be major shareholders holding larger chunks - the Glazers themselves could retain significant shares (sell off 700 million pounds worth of shares to pay off the debts and keep perhaps 3 to 5 hundred million themselves - not a bad deal overall for them). That's a feasible option if profits are raised and Utd is genuinely worth a billion or more.

    The truth is, as has been said above, at this valuation Utd will continue to be run as a business concern no matter who owns the club. It is simply too valuable to be run with sporting priorities. Hopefully the owners will see that financial success and sporting success go hand in hand but it is financial failure not success that would first threaten that link. That's why success is imperative.

    Financially there are safeguards in a PLC that do not exist in private ownership and that is probably the best, if not a particularly appealing, situation for us.

    But that will only happen if the Glazers' business plan, whatever it is, succeeds.
     
  19. MtP07

    MtP07 BigSoccer Supporter

    Jan 3, 2005
    But we bought Tevez, so everything is ok...no need for alarm or worry at all.
     
  20. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Karo Viertel
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Yes - sorry - didn't mean to imply that you personally weren't across it.

    Generally Joe Public is a very bad judge of risk. People over estimate upsides and under estimate downsides. When there is less than a full set of info in the public domain, and a very complex and murky commercial outlook, is hard to say how fans can be expected to make reasoned judgements IMO.

    Thus they tend to instead judge it on what's in it for them
     
  21. sdotsom

    sdotsom Member+

    Manchester United
    Mar 27, 2005
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Bit of good news. We managed a 245 million pound turnover this year (Including shirt sales). This is a pretty hefty increase from years past, as the TV deal and our success in the EPL (plus FA Cup final and CL Semi appearance). Hopefully we can continue in this fashion and help bring the debt down.

    http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=496204&cc=5901
     
  22. Motterman

    Motterman Member

    Jul 8, 2002
    Orlando, FL
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes! Even higher ticket prices and the continued gutting over our support staff, youth and reserve team systems! Party time! :D
     
  23. rochester rhinos

    rochester rhinos New Member

    Aug 10, 2007
    under a pipal tree
    Dude y did you choose Utd to be a glory hunter from ur couch in Maryland.Choose a club that you actually have something to do with.
     
  24. Motterman

    Motterman Member

    Jul 8, 2002
    Orlando, FL
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Is Rochester a new suburb of Orlando?
     
  25. rochester rhinos

    rochester rhinos New Member

    Aug 10, 2007
    under a pipal tree
    Dude I remember seeing Carlos Bocanegra punch one of the Rhinos in the face on our own field.First soccer match I ever went to friendly between Fire and Rhinos at RedWing stadium.
     

Share This Page