Friday 12 February 2010

Why the Glazers Should Not Be Forced Out

Early last month, Manchester United (the corporation) announced that they had refinanced the infamous Glazer Takeover debt, spreading it over a longer period of time (until February 2017) thus decreasing the annual interest payments from around 60M GBP to around 45M. One would've expected that such an announcement would spring a positive reaction from the anti-Glazer supporter groups (mainly MUST and IMUSA), but the turn of events since the announcement seems to prove that no matter what Glazer may do or what the team may win under his ownership, some supporters will always look for the negatives. The question that needs be asked, however, is not necessarily whether the refinancing in and of itself is a positive or a negative sign, but whether a better alternative for Glazer exist. Despite that, I wish to first address the first question.

A Wider Perspective on Refinancing
It needs not be said that football corporations, especially those of Manchester United's caliber, are strongly linked to the business and economic environment. The refinancing must then be analyzed within the economic context. And the economic environment in the UK at the start of 2010 is a harsh one. Companies in all fields of business are struggling to pay their debts and refinancing is hardly an option for most of them. Corporations that only yesteryear displayed profits and promising balance sheets and cash flow reports, have a "Going Concern" note staining their financial reports, meaning that their accountants fear that their financial situation is dire, to the extent that it is very doubtful whether they can survive the next 12 months. In that atmosphere, where the credit market has yet to return to its pre-crisis conditions, for a corporation to refinance a loan of 509M GBP is quite the feat. It shows the lenders' great confidence in the corporation, in its stability, the quality of its management, the product that it offers (the football team) and in its overall condition.

The Way it is at Manchester United
And there's a reason why Manchester United's lenders believe in the corporation. Since Glazer took over in 2005, Manchester United won three consecutive League Titles, one European Cup as well as reaching the Final and the Semi Final of the competition and won two English League Cups. The squad is being strengthened each season, and the management does not involve itself in the football side of business, which leads to greater stability and increases the belief in the corporation's ability to remain a leading business. While businesses may display misleading data in their financial reports – such as profits produced by re-evaluations of a company's asset(s) that weren't realized – Manchester United's income is real and their assets, by and large, are not exposed to significant risks, other than, perhaps, injuries to key players (even these, due to the method in which players are incorporated into the balance sheet, do not have a direct significant influence on the profit). Indeed, debtors who read Manchester United's financial reports must surely be smiling, confident that the return of their loan is secured. But what about the supporters? How should they feel, knowing that these loans, which were effectively meant to cover the takeover expenses of the club owner, are coming from their pockets, as the situation is portrayed by the MUST-IMUSA-FCUM coalition? The real question is, to what extent is that the situation.

The Rise in Ticket Prices, the Transfer Market and the Loan
According to Wikipedia, since Glazer took over in 2005, Old Trafford has seen a rise of 42% in ticket prices. This number is the cause to much of the anti-Glazer criticism, especially when taking into consideration the fact(?) that this rise is largely due to the load on the club's balance sheet, caused by the aforementioned loan. The truth is that we supporters can't ever distinguish what part of the corporation's income is used to cover the loan and what part was used, for example, to bring the likes of Carrick and Berbatov to Old Trafford. No-one can really know, and the notion that the supporters' money is used to cover Glazer's debt is not only hypocritical, it is ungrateful. Because while other Premiership clubs that went through some rough financial periods, such as Arsenal and Liverpool, cut back on the transfers, United not only brought in players worth over 100M GBP since the Glazers took over, they did not release a single player to improve the corporation's financial situation. So in reality, just as much as one could claim that the supporters' money was used to cover Glazer's debt, one could also claim that the rise in ticket prices was made to ensure that the club can maintain its status. Furthermore, any rise in the price of any product must be analyzed within a context, such as the inflation rate in the UK over the years of the increase and a comparison to similar businesses. The rise in RPI in the UK since Glazer finally gained control of the club in May 2005 amounted to 11%. Although the RPI isn't a clear cut index of prices, it represents the general economic environment and count for at least part of the increase. As for the comparison, even when comparing the prices at Old Trafford to clubs of the same caliber, one should keep in mind that Old Trafford is a highly modernized stadium, which provides for a special hospitality experience that cannot be matched by Stamford Bridge, and definitely not by Anfield. The only club stadium in England that can really be compared to Old Trafford is the Emirates. Still, I provide you with the data in the following table:








I must admit, when I came up with this data I was extremely surprised. I was prepared to discover that Chelsea are the only team with prices that are higher than those at Old Trafford. And, in all fairness, Anfield only has three pricing categories which make for this average. When taking into account that these numbers are after a 42% increase at Old Trafford, in a period which saw United win three League titles in-a-row, one could hardly complain about the prices. But let us assume, for argument's sake, that all that has been written above is irrelevant, that the refinancing did not improve the situation, that Glazer did not invest in the club and that the increase in ticket prices was unfair, and was used to cover the debt. There are still a number of issues to address, which make Glazer, at the very least, the lesser of any number of evils.

"Change Your Heart, Look Around You…"
For the first three years after Roman Abramovich took over Chelsea, he hardly made any errors. He splashed out money, brought in a strong manager and allowed that manager the professional freedom necessary for success. In the whole of the 2004/5 season Chelsea conceded only 9 goals, an amazing statistic representing less than 1 goal for every four games. The second title was effectively won by February, a late and short-lived comeback by United notwithstanding. But then Abramovich started to make some fateful mistakes. The first was the selling of Huth and the landing of Shevchenko and Ballack, all of which were against Mourinho's wishes. Then, Abramovich started to meddle with the football side of the business, because it was not enough that Chelsea won titles, they needed to do that by playing beautiful football. The result of Abramovich's meddling with the professional side was that Chelsea failed to defend their title and haven't won the Premiership since. In Liverpool, Benitez had to wait until last summer – the end of his sixth season there – before he was handed given an open hand in the transfer market by Gillette and Hicks, and in Man City Hughes was replaced by Mancini for no apparent and have only slumped in form since. All this without discussing clubs that have been taken over and that are in more dire conditions, such as Pompey, Leeds, Newcastle, and the Israeli basketball team of Hapoel Tel-Aviv, who slipped from the top tier to the third tier and saw their court demolished before their supporters set up a new club, Hapoel Ussishkin, who have been promoted in each of their three years of existence, and look certain to climb into the second tier of Israeli basketball this year. And they are mentioned here for a reason. THIS is what lies out there. This is the new basis of ownership in football. And Manchester United are very lucky in the sense that their owner doesn't want to change anything at the club, doesn't want to meddle with the footballing side, just wants to run the club and – yes, make money off of it. Some supporters claim that Glazer wants to "milk' the club and leave when it has been destroyed, but that is a paranoid fear which shows either lack of understanding in business or pure hatred, or both. Obviously, it would be in Glazer's best interest for the club to succeed and continue to profit long after the takeover debt had been paid off.
But anyway, putting United back on the stock market is not necessarily a good thing. The supporters coalition want the supporters to run the club, but do they have the funds to buy out the hundreds of millions of shares? And who will run the club under the coalition's reign? It seems to me that if Glazer was really after "milking" United, he would put it on the market now, with the debt. Obviously United's market value has increased since 2005, and he could make a considerable profit from selling it now. Another point that needs be addressed is the situation that existed in United in the final few years of its trade in the LSE; some of us may have hurried to forget the whole McManus/Magnier affair which even dragged Fergie into the fray, and anyway even back in those years the supporters had little influence on the going bouts at the club, and the best evidence is the existence of IMUSA – what reason would an independent organization have for existence if the club management were open to hear the supporters' criticism? The corporation didn't spend any more money in the transfer market than Glazer does (quite the contrary), ticket prices were an issue back then as well, and the sheer fact that United were listed in the stock exchange constantly put them under unwanted pressure as to whether someone was going to take over, and everyone will remember how for most of the Treble season the football took a secondary position to the BSkyB takeover bid, and how between 2002 and 2004 United's main shareholders bickered between them, fighting for control over the club.
Those who want United back on the market should also know that the listing in itself costs hundreds of thousands of GBP annually, in payment to the auditing accountant, implementation of inter-company auditing and control demands, the hiring of external Directors, etc.

Conclusion
Perhaps the most important issue of those that I raised is the fact that if Glazer goes now, the debt will still be there. The demise in recent years of Glazer's American Football team turned Manchester United into his most prized possession. If Glazer was in it just to "milk" United, he would've sold them now. I'm not saying he's suddenly a supporter and will stick with the club through thick and thin, but he has shown that he has every intention to keep investing at the club to keep it at par with the very highest level in Europe. We hadn't had that kind of investing ownership in Martin Edwards when United were listed in the market.
The data presented above shows that most of the supporters' criticism is due to either lack of knowledge or spite towards Glazer. The supporters' money cannot be separated from other income that the club has in paying the debt. In 2009, for example, Ronaldo's fee alone could've covered for the debt.
Everyone's scared that United will turn into Leeds #2. But Manchester United isn't Leeds United. Should the club collapse financially, there will be many takers who would love to buy the club and keep it at the top. The days of 1901 and the 1930's, when United's future hung on a balance, are gone. Even in this extreme scenario, Glazer's debt will not cause the demise of Manchester United.
The bottom line is that Glazer is here, he is probably the best owner Manchester United could have at the moment, and in my opinion the debt is a small price to pay. Just ask a debt-free Chelsea supporter who saw his team lose out on the Title for the past three years.
I'm not asking anyone to love Glazer, I'm just asking everyone to try and look around you, think about the situation that we're in, think what alternative there is, and whether things are really that bad.

45 comments:

  1. Posted by Dilardo (on Facebook).


    JK: Early last month, Manchester United (the corporation) announced that they had refinanced the infamous Glazer Takeover debt, spreading it over a longer period of time (until February 2017) thus decreasing the annual interest payments from around 60M GBP to around 45M. One would've expected that such an announcement would spring a positive reaction from the anti-Glazer supporter groups (mainly MUST and IMUSA), but the turn of events since the announcement seems to prove that no matter what Glazer may do or what the team may win under his ownership, some supporters will always look for the negatives.

    Dilardo: Spreading it over a longer period of time does not take the debt away. It’s a ‘bury your head in the sand’ attitude, living on the never never. The interest payments are still there and at £45m, it’s £45m which should not be going out of the club.

    A positive reaction? What for delaying the more than likely inevitable? As for what Glazer may do – he has not done anything positive at our club; and for what the team may win – it’s not all about winning.


    JK: The question that needs be asked, however, is not necessarily whether the refinancing in and of itself is a positive or a negative sign, but whether a better alternative for Glazer exist.

    Dilardo: Yes, there clearly is. A new owner; The Red Knights in a takeover; fans raise the capital (with or without The Red Knights) and have a structure similar to that of FC Barcelona.


    JK: “…Since Glazer took over in 2005, Manchester United won three consecutive League Titles, one European Cup as well as reaching the Final and the Semi Final of the competition and won two English League Cups. The squad is being strengthened each season …”

    Dilardo: Again, it’s not all about winning trophies. The great success we have had over the past 20 years will come to an end, or slow down at least, at some point. Team success is cyclical, nothing goes on for ever, for a real-life case see Liverpool FC.

    The squad is not being strengthened each season. Take this season for example; as good as Valencia has been and the goals Owen has scored, they, at present, aren’t quite the replacements for Ronaldo and Tevez. Take away the attitudes of Ronaldo and Tevez and ask any United supporters at the end of last season would they want to keep those two, or get rid and get Valencia and Owen, you would have a large majority in one camp – and I don’t need to tell you which one that would be. There was £80m from the Ronaldo sale that we keep being told is available for players, but it was clearly used to pay off the interest on the debt that the Glazers have placed around the neck of our club.


    JK: According to Wikipedia, since Glazer took over in 2005, Old Trafford has seen a rise of 42% in ticket prices. This number is the cause to much of the anti-Glazer criticism, especially when taking into consideration the fact(?) that this rise is largely due to the load on the club's balance sheet, caused by the aforementioned loan.

    Dilardo: A 42% rise in 5 years is huge. You question whether it is a fact that the rises are due to the debt? You come across as an intelligent person, you surely don’t need me to tell you that it is. Anything that can line the Glazers pockets more so than when their mugs first surfaced will be put into action.


    JK: The truth is that we supporters can't ever distinguish what part of the corporation's income is used to cover the loan and what part was used, for example, to bring the likes of Carrick and Berbatov to Old Trafford.

    Dilardo: If there was no loan, then there would be no question about where the money is going. Clearly prices have gone up to service the debt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JK: No-one can really know, and the notion that the supporters' money is used to cover Glazer's debt is not only hypocritical, it is ungrateful.

    Dilardo: Hypocritical? Ungrateful? Please expand. If we were to disappear, how would Glazer cover his debt?


    JK: United not only brought in players worth over 100M GBP since the Glazers took over, they did not release a single player to improve the corporation's financial situation.

    Dilardo: So the players that we released didn’t bring money into the club???


    JK: The only club stadium in England that can really be compared to Old Trafford is the Emirates. Still, I provide you with the data in the following table:

    Dilardo: Regarding your table - who cares what other clubs charge. Two of the clubs mentioned are London clubs where everything is more expensive; from a pint to the purchase of a house. Liverpool, a northern club, have their most expensive ticket at £10 cheaper than ours. What you need to recognise if the increase in ticket prices over the past 5 years rather than how we compare to other clubs.


    JK: When taking into account that these numbers are after a 42% increase at Old Trafford, in a period which saw United win three League titles in-a-row, one could hardly complain about the prices.

    Dilardo: Again, it goes back to winning trophies. So, taking that into account, after the Treble season, it would have been fair to increase the ticket prices by 90%?


    JK: But let us assume, for argument's sake, that all that has been written above is irrelevant, that the refinancing did not improve the situation, that Glazer did not invest in the club and that the increase in ticket prices was unfair, and was used to cover the debt. There are still a number of issues to address, which make Glazer, at the very least, the lesser of any number of evils.

    Dilardo: Are you related to Glazer? Seriously.


    JK: Then, Abramovich started to meddle with the football side of the business, because it was not enough that Chelsea won titles, they needed to do that by playing beautiful football.

    Dilardo: Yes, it’s not just about winning trophies, which some supporters seem to be happy with, it’s about doing it in the right way. At United there is a tradition of how the game should be played and how things are done. Albeit failing with the players he brought in, even Abramovich got the attractive football element right.


    JK: In Liverpool, Benitez had to wait until last summer – the end of his sixth season there – before he was handed given an open hand in the transfer market by Gillette and Hicks

    Dilardo: Really – are you unaware of the millions Benitez has frittered away on ordinary players?

    ReplyDelete
  3. JK: “…without discussing clubs that have been taken over and that are in more dire conditions, such as Pompey, Leeds, Newcastle …”

    Dilardo: And take a look at the healthy state that Portsmouth, Leeds and Newcastle are in due to their takeovers by people who had no idea …


    JK: “This is the new basis of ownership in football. And Manchester United are very lucky in the sense that their owner doesn't want to change anything at the club …”

    Dilardo: Very lucky? Doesn’t want to change anything? He just wants to increase prices, make staff redundant and pile us into debt. But apart from the, hey, everything’s rosy, what’s the fuss about eh?


    JK: “…just wants to run the club and – yes, make money off of it.”

    Dilardo: Nail. On. The. Head.


    JK: Some supporters claim that Glazer wants to "milk' the club and leave when it has been destroyed, but that is a paranoid fear which shows either lack of understanding in business or pure hatred, or both.

    Dilardo: You have evidence to prove he doesn’t want to? Because he’s doing a great job of destroying the club as things stand today. Supporters don’t need to be up on ‘business lingo’ that tries to make this whole episode sound a natural and healthy state for the club to be in. People can see what’s happening and are reacting as a result.


    JK: The supporters coalition want the supporters to run the club, but do they have the funds to buy out the hundreds of millions of shares? And who will run the club under the coalition's reign?

    Dilardo: The supporters can run the club, as happens at Barcelona. The funds can be raised, it’s a case of how it will be administered. You say at the end of your piece "Should the club collapse financially, there will be many takers who would love to buy the club and keep it at the top."

    Those ‘takers’ you mention, some will have way better intentions than Glazer, or be United supporters themselves – such at The Red Knights. It’s better this happens now rather than when the club ‘collapses financially’.


    JK: And who will run the club under the coalition's reign? It seems to me that if Glazer was really after "milking" United, he would put it on the market now, with the debt. Obviously United's market value has increased since 2005, and he could make a considerable profit from selling it now.

    Dilardo: The supporters can run the club, as happens at Barcelona. There would be a board and people elected for periods of time.

    Glazer could put us on the market now, but why would he when there are millions more to be made from us?

    ReplyDelete
  4. JK: Perhaps the most important issue of those that I raised is the fact that if Glazer goes now, the debt will still be there.

    Dilardo: The debt would go as part of the takeover. Part of the payment would be to pay off the debt and the other part would be Glazer’s profit.


    JK: The demise in recent years of Glazer's American Football team turned Manchester United into his most prized possession.

    Dilardo: He makes way more from us than from his American football team, so it doesn’t take a genius to work out why we are his most prized possession. Normal people look after prized possessions – maybe someone forgot to mention that to Glazer.


    JK: “…but he has shown that he has every intention to keep investing at the club …”

    Dilardo: This has to be a mistype? Taking 75p from every pound does not sound like 'he has every intention to keep investing at the club'


    JK: The data presented above shows that most of the supporters' criticism is due to either lack of knowledge or spite towards Glazer.

    Dilardo: You've 'followed the Premiership since 1996' - a lack of knowledge? I think you will find there are many United supporters who are against Glazer that have plenty of knowledge and have followed United for decades. Spite towards Glazer - are you surprised?


    JK: The supporters' money cannot be separated from other income that the club has in paying the debt. In 2009, for example, Ronaldo's fee alone could've covered for the debt.

    Dilardo: We have a Ronaldo to sell every year? Shot self and argument in the foot.


    JK: Even in this extreme scenario, Glazer's debt will not cause the demise of Manchester United.

    Dilardo: It can if he stays as owner.


    JK: The bottom line is that Glazer is here, he is probably the best owner Manchester United could have at the moment, and in my opinion the debt is a small price to pay.

    Dilardo: This has got to be a joke. Taking 75p in every pound, making payments to himself - not coming to matches (Abramovich does at Chelsea) wonder why Uncle Malcolm doesn't? Small price? Our future in the balance for a few pieces of silver (league titles, cups). The club may be better off if we never won anything again - at least those who put winning things above everything else would go and support another team and leave the real supporters to enjoy their club.


    JK: Just ask a debt-free Chelsea supporter who saw his team lose out on the Title for the past three years.

    Dilardo: It really is not all about trophies. Club staff are being made redundant, free refreshments stopped for club workers, stewards getting sacked for returning banners to supporters, fans having season tickets confiscated for flags brought into the stadium or singing songs. I would suggest that doesn’t happen down at Stamford Bridge.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JK: Think about the situation that we're in, think what alternative there is, and whether things are really that bad.

    Dilardo: The situation couldn't really be much worse. Alternatives - Glazer off and new owners with an interest in the club aligned with that of the supporters; the Red Knights takeover; or fans buy the club and run it as at Barcelona.

    There really can be no other outcome if United are to survive, let alone prosper in the long term – Glazer has to go. NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interest on the senior loan £41m has increased to £45m on the bond not decreased from £60m. The PiK loan is due to incur another £30m in accrued interest by August taking it up to £230m.The Glazers are desperate to reduce this debt.How anyone can justify the Glazer's ownership as being a good thing is mystifying.
    Steve S

    ReplyDelete
  7. i can't be bothered to read this all the way through.
    if you think the glazer's are good for united though, you are an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The sheer fact you openly state you have only followed the premiership since 1996 and that secondly you live in Tel Aviv, would make give your comments no relevence at all, as clearly you are 'fan' spoilt by success and trophies who has no idea of what a match going fans goes through in support of his club. That your views on Glazer are so positive because of 'the trophies won since his takeover' are frankly appalling. This whole article is so full of inaccuracies, contradiction, greed and stupidity that it makes me think You and Gill, and Malcom would get on superbly. You utter idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You must be joking with that blog mate.

    Look at the longer term picture, what happens when ferguson retires and the team goes through a few seasons of winning nothing and possibly not qualifying for europe? What happens when the bonds have to be paid out with interest? The longer term outlook for united is not good and it's thanks to the glazers. Why should united fans accept this? It's simply a fact that an expceptionally large amount of money is going out of united because the glazers never had the money to buy the club in the first place.

    You can rationalise it all you like but the facts are all in the prospectus and are undeniable which is why we get nothing but radio silence from the glazers - they cannot defend the indefensible, so Old Trafford is now full of discontent and basically revolution is in the air. About time too.

    ReplyDelete
  10. are you insane? are you 7 years old, have you ever been a game, are you glazer?

    go away and comment on something you might have a clue about

    ReplyDelete
  11. the glazers are doing fine, its all these FC scum stirring it up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Idiot.

    The Glazers are a Cancer on this club.

    LUHG

    ReplyDelete
  13. You utter tool. £340M sucked out of the club since 2005. Just how is that acceptable?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yep, £1/2 billion out of the club by 2017 is great news.

    You utter, utter, JCL bell-end.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Betty the raving lesbian13 February 2010 at 23:03

    i like didges

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jonathan (if that is your real name), I hope you have been paid for your pro-Glazer P.R. (although bearing in mind their impoverished state, I can understand if they prefer not to).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Betty makes Alan Carr look straight.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. There are no followers yet.

    I'm not f*cking surprised, you f*cking idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You sir are a twat if you believe what you have written, how you can compare a London club with a club from Manchester doesn't make sense much like your actual mathamatical figures

    peace and love biddulphs clunge

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Glazers run the club like a business, and the only reason the debt of the club is of any interest is because of the state of the global economy (and perhaps the media). I hate to say it, but MUFC is not just the city of Manchester's club anymore. Its arguably the biggest and richest club in the entire world, meaning that there are supporters far an wide, not just in Manchester. I wouldn't be surprised if half the people that posted have ever taken an accounting class, much less know how an actual business is run. I think its time some people to pull their head out of their ass!

    ReplyDelete
  22. You people know very little about how to manage a huge corporation such as Manchester United FC. I am amazed about how you seem to expected the owners to care about anything other than the profit they make. These people are businessmen, not dedicated supporters. so what is the problem? Please buy the club and prove to me that you could run it in a better way. It seems to me that you put your nose where it doesn't belong. I'm saying that the supporters of a footall club has very little to do with the economics of the club. You are saying that because of the fact that the club has a debt, it is not properly run by its owners. Why do you think that you know more about these things than the Glazers?! Did they win a trillion on the lotto and just buy united for fun?! I'm guessing they saw a opportunity to make some money over time. It there something wrong with that? If yes, take it up with the capitalism society that we all live in today...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well JK u have highlighted the actual situation with MUFC,of course if u look t the dangers it could frighten the hell out of u.But still lots of the supporters dont realise that if they think they can ruin the glazers, they effectively ruin MUFC, then we r finished. They also will never be happy with any owner(oligarch, arabs, americans,asians or sum british billionare)If the Red Knights do take over the club , the complexity of management could make or break the club.Who decides on club matters? How many times have u seen half or more of old traaford demanding players be sacked or the manager be sacked? And later realise thier mistake? The glazers have kept thier promise not to meddle in the running of the club, the partnership of David Gill n Ferguson has been brilliant,long may it continue.Both of them have guided us thru all this crap n look t us now.The only solution for the fans is dun destroy the thing u love, spend yr time with MUST,IMUSA figure out how to effectively takeover via Red knights, make sure the system u put in place does work for the better of the club.Somehow i fear this fans who spout venomous shit will never be happy and will start a campaign of hate agaisnt the Knights if they dun like sumthing.JK excellent article, shows u know sumthing about busines.Take care n get n armour protection from all the shit lots of idiots r going to throw t u.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Johnathan Kahn?

    Johnathan Khan't know a thing about what he's talking about, is more like it!
    You deluded bufoon.
    Please cease and desist in 'supporting' Manchester United Football Club (if you even do, and aren't just a shit stirrer).
    Also, please make attempts at losing the ability to draw breath, if you'd be so kind.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well guys, all I've learned from your comments thus far is there is a lot of hate here. I know this is an issue WE ALL feel deeply about, and as I mentioned in my fiest comment, I would LOVE to be proven wrong by someone - I didn't say that Glazer is good, I said he is the lesser of any number of evils. If you beg to differ, please prove me wrong and tell me who is it that wants to buy this club?
    Because all I've seen so far is a group obscuring their real identity with the name "Red Knights", which makes me suspect what they have to hide that makes them want to remain in the shadows while it's obvious that they'll have the support of the supporters.

    One more thing - I REALLY don't want to delete comments here, but so far there were two of them that were really too much. No matter how much you disagree with me, keep it at a level that we can all live with.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  26. P.S.
    Those who are so amazed by the ticket prices data, and wonder how it is that with all this rackett a Stretford Ender still pays 10 Pounds less than a Koppite, I invite you to check up each and every one of these numbers on the sites of the respective football clubs. While you're at it you can also check Spurs, who also have a higher ticket pricing policy.

    ReplyDelete
  27. FANtastic opinion. I know that ManUtd are a working class club. But if I'd have to chose between local fans and Glazers running the club. I'd chose Glazers everyday. Debt is good for any business if it leads to making more profit. And in here, it does. So go to school and learn. I bet, most of you never had mortgage, and are still paying of my loan. IDIOTS!!!!!
    A Pole.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Comparing ticket prices with other clubs doesn't prove the Glazers are doing a good job at running the club because most of the increased revenue is going towards interest payments and Pik debts.
    United are first and foremost a football club ot a business asset. Of course it has to run professionally and in a business-like manner.
    The money that has been wasted by th Glazers so far could have been used to expand the South Stand by another 18,000 seats. Prices could be reduced, more fans would be able to watch the team and tghe clubs' revenue would not be affected.
    People on here claiming football is "just a business" are seriously deluded and I doubt they are serious football fans.

    Steve S

    ReplyDelete
  29. £41m on the bank debt. Back up to £45 Million with the bond. PIK Debt is still there building up and in the summer the interest rate on the PIK Debt goes up again. Tell me again why the Glazers shouldn't be forced out?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Firstly, you should NEVER yous wikipedia as a source of information as its easily edited and is false!

    Easily said pal you are an idiot, fine everyone is open to there own opinions on the glazers i respect that but you are an idiot, why?

    1. The glazers bought United with borrowed money, Borrowed money which us the fans will pay off until the books are even and every profit that comes into club there after they can take LEECHES!

    2. Ticket prices have risen considerably since the takeover to service this debt, not to buy the likes of carrick and berbatov

    3. On that note, The glazers have put £0 into United's transfer budget, They have been able to buy players like berbatov due the funds from these sales, yYou do realise we sell players yes? not just buy them! moron

    4. we have never sold a player to help the financial situation? two words - Ronaldo, 80 million

    5. 3 league titles in a row is worth ticket rises? funny, there wasn't a ticket rise when we did it back in the 90's..

    I could go on for ever but its late and im tired,

    So dont go around trying to tell us otherwise,

    Heres something for you to think about Johnathan, in Andy mittens of UWS words, When the glazers are done milking our club and have put us to the brink of financial disaster, its not a case of if, but when, "it wont be the glazers picking up the pieces but us fans who made the club so attractive to them in the first place"

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is a wind up FACT

    ReplyDelete
  32. Please stop using the word "corporation" to describe what i used to consider my football club

    ReplyDelete
  33. MUFC is a corporation, and its not just "your" football club. There are people all over the world that support Manchester United, so get over it. I believe Sir Alex even stated that a takeover by someone such as the Glazers was a necessary evil. If Manchester United was run by some of the idiots posting on this blog I highly doubt United would still be able to be successful.

    ReplyDelete
  34. corporation, global brand? its a fucking football club,


    Fergie was fully behind shareholders united saying it was a good thing for football so stop coming out with your ridiculous facts, you know fuck all,

    if United was run by the idiot who wrote this blog we'd be in the same boat as pompey, United fans owning the club would incourage safe standing, fuck all you plastic twats and corporation fucks out, lower ticket prices and fully invest in the squad not the banks

    ReplyDelete
  35. To say that the club is better off now than it was as a publicly-owned company is just ludicrous. In its last year as a PLC, United paid its shareholders a dividend of £7 million. Since the takeover, it has paid out an average of approx. £60 million per year to service the mountain of debt taken on by the Glazers. Explain to me how we are better off?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Okay. First of all, I want to thank each and every one of you who took the time to read this post and comment on it, I am really happy to have started this discussion, especially since in the last 24 hours all the hate messages have pretty much died off and the people who post comments now are people with proper opinions.
    I'm sorry in advance, but those of you who didn't take the time to read the whole post and wrote a comment based on one or two paragraphs, are not going to be answered here, as most of your claims are answered in the post itself.
    Steve S – I never said the ticket prices table proves Glazer is doing a good job, I just tried to put some perspective into the claim. Even Man City, a club that knows not the word glory and who's trophy cabinet has been dusting up for three decades now, have ticket prices that are very similar to those at the home ground of the European Cup Runners-Up and 18 times Champions of England. And you cannot ignore the wider picture. Here in Israel, three years ago 1kg of rice cost 5 NIS, now it costs double. Is part of this increase just the markets trying to make more profit off the inflation in its price? Sure. But worldwide the price of rice has increased due to a rise in demand and decrease in supply. Ticket prices nationwide have increased since the TV deal of 2007, so Old Trafford is just a part of that, and supporters have to consider that. As for expansion of Old Trafford, I read that Glazer is now planning another expansion (remember they have already expanded the quadrants) which would bring Old Trafford's capacity to 96,000. I don't know if the South Stand will be expanded, because I understood that there's a railway track behind it, plus all the infamous "prawn sandwich army" sit there, so perhaps the Stretford End will be added another tier, anyway that's almost 20,000 more seats. Finally, you would be happy to hear I certainly DO NOT consider United to be only a business, they are not even primarily a business, but they are a business. The business of football. And like it or not, we have to adjust ourselves to the business world of today to succeed.
    Chris M, how can you say you respect me and then, without even separating it with a comma, call me an idiot?... Maybe us fans are paying for the players' wages, and the money from winning trophies and transfer money goes for the debt? As I wrote, the income this club has is vast. Just so you get a feel of exactly how vast, according to United's audited financial report for the year between 1/7/05-30/6/06, a year in which we were knocked out of the Champions' League at the group stage having won just one match and won only the League Cup, United's income amounted to 167,751,000 GBP. After expenses – including financing expenses caused by the infamous loan, United's retained profit amounted to 21,603,000 GBP. This, in one of our worst years over the past two decades, and with 0 GBP drawn out as dividends throughout the year. By the way, of the aforementioned income, less than half was gained due to match day turnover, which includes gate receipts, sponsorships etc. Unfortunately I don't have the financial report of 2007 or 2008 but you can imagine our income was higher by far in each of the years.

    ReplyDelete
  37. As for transfer money – in 2006 we disposed of players worth 10.2 million Pounds. We brought in Carrick for 14 million, and of course earlier on Vida, Evra and Park were bought at a total of 15 million. That's 29 million of players bought against 10 million of players sold. In 2007 we brought in Nani and Anderson for 30 million and sold players for around 16 million. Again, we spent more than we gained. And after 3 years of heavy spending (4 if you count Rooney's signing although Glazer didn't decide on that), this year we gained more than we spent, and only because Ronaldo insisted upon going. Because if Glazer was after selling him to make the profit, he would've done it 12 months earlier. Maybe there wasn't a ticket price rise in the 90's but there were plenty of other problems, which supporters seem to have forgotten. But let me remind you that the likes of SU and IMUSA have existed long, long before Glazer came into the picture. I have the utmost respect to Mitten and have read his Northern Soul column for years, but I fear that his assessment is a worst-case scenario one, a scenario which I don't believe will happen. Or, to put it better, could just as well happen if the supporters run the club.
    Anonymous who made the comment about the corporation, I fully agree with you. But as I wrote earlier, in this day in age there must be a distinction between the business and the business of football. I tried to make that distinction by using the word corporation, but I apologize if it offended you or anyone else here.
    Chris M, your second comment was answered brilliantly by james0309. Please, stop using obscenities here, it does not become you…
    I would just like to clarify this point again, that I am not in favor of Glazer owning the club, and back in 2004-5 I was against the takeover. But now that he's here with all of the takeover's implications, him being here is the lesser of any number of evils.

    Cheers to all.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @JK
    Thanks for your reply.I disagree but at the same time repect your opinion.

    I underestand that prices have to go up, that's natural but the Glazers have put prices up by 48% when inflation for their period of ownership has amounted to 14%. Fair enough if that money was re-invested back into the club. It hasn't, its gone to pay interest and pik loans and other bank fees.
    Secondly the quadrants were built and paid for by the Plc not by the Glazers.
    Thirdly Man City's prices are lower than Utd's. You can buy an executive seat for as little as £42.
    Regarding transfer spend the net balance up to 2009 was around £8m. Stoke City have spent more than us and they've only been in PL for 18 months. Do you believe the Ronaldo money will be
    spent this year? I certainly don't but I will wait and see until the summer.

    Steve S

    ReplyDelete
  39. J. Kahn, your lack of knowledge on the real issue is beyond believe, you know nothing, your from israel for fucks sake, ticket prices and atmosphere dont enter your mind cause your an arm chair supporter! why dont you go support your local team. you people dont have loyalties just sky sports on an internet stream...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Posted by Dilardo (on Facebook)

    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/manchester_united/s/1192613_1bn_bait_for_glazers?rss=yes

    "Only the world record £80m sale of Cristiano Ronaldo enabled the club to post pre-tax profits of £48.2m, despite a record year in which turnover was up from £80m to £91m.

    Repayments of £42m on the £509.5m loan taken out by the Glazers to buy the club have proved a massive drain on resources."

    ReplyDelete
  41. Actually Chris, I don't really care for internet streaming...
    And your "point" may have been somewhat valid if every one of the match-going United supporters were against Glazers. But comments here and the messages I've been getting to my fb inbox since I posted this suggest that that is clearly not the case.
    And besides, you're conveniently relieving yourself of dealing with the real issue by writing a bunch of meaningless populistic comments - like a true politician.
    Tell me, Chris, if "The Red Knights" reduce ticket prices and increase transfer spending, where will the money be coming from? Eventually, the supporters will have to pay... Like they do at Chelsea. And will they really be running the club? How exactly would that work? Who would get a vote? And what would be voted on? Will the general assembly have to gather every time we'd want to buy or sell a player or expand the stadium or sign a new sponsorship deal or replace the kits? And what if an agreement cannot be reached regarding an issue? Have any of you even considered these questions or are you just mad with hate and blinded with romanticism to the point that you just don't consider the alternative - you just jump on it?!
    If the supporters have one voice, why are three organizations needed? And that's just those who are against Glazer... What about the rest?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Kahn, United take in income from sponsors, tv rights, money from playing a competition and above all match day tickets, concessions, programmes etc, 75p of every £1 from this income has gone to the glazers in efforts to pay off the interests and the debt, if this money wasnt going in to the banks ticket prices would be reduced, you go on that they have rocketed due to inflation, have you read the bonds? the club has gloated the fact that they have been able to raise ticket prices above the level of inflation. Im not going bollock on about fan ownership because id be only wasting my time because you dont get the point.

    Why is the support divided at the ground because only 50% of the attendence in old trafford are proper reds, the rest is filled with corporate junkies and day trippers and glory hunters! these muppets werent around in the 70's and 80's wont be around when we fall out of the "big 4" by the way that 50% at the ground were all wearing green and gold! We will succeed, the was a thing said when the glazers finally took over after all our heartaches and protesting, "our time will come" It finally has

    ReplyDelete
  43. Chris, believe me that I would be a very happy man if the club was debt-free, could pride itself with successful supporter ownership and had the funds to continue being the leading force of English football and on the fromt line of European clubs, as it is today.
    I just don't believe that will be the case - I accept your opinion and perhaps unlike you, I accept the fact that I may be wrong - just as we can all be wrong on anything in this life.
    All I want is what's best for this club, whether it means Glazer running it or the supporters. I am sure you feel the same and just can't see how Glazer running the club could ever be good for it, and I accept that.
    What I do not accept is the lack of respect you show to someone who doesn't share your opinion, and who you know just about nothing about. I hope that in real life you are not that arrogant, or you would be denying yourself of so many different and valid views of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I told you i respect your opinion but you have no knowledge of the subject at hand,so its nul and void, u have contradicted your self countless times over your article compared to your comments, you are undecided on the subject and your words show it, Why should any of us trust the glazers? if they havent given us a reason to do so!... id love to see the brothers and gill take a quick walk down the road from old trafford and have a word with duncan from must. There reasons for owning us are still unsure and they have to go... End off,

    ReplyDelete
  45. @JK
    The club is paying £45m in interest payments and the Glazers can now take half of cash profits plus as eries of other payments eg £6m pa for admin expenses and £3m for general purposes so where is the money for transfer going to come from their ownership? I explained there is a way to maintain profits without ripping off fans in a previous post above ie increase the stadium capacity by 25% and lower ticket prices by 25%. You constantly fail to come up with any concrete reasons why the Glazers are good for United apart from pointing to our trophy haul.

    Steve S

    ReplyDelete