http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4550141.stm
It's the end of the world as we know it :rolleyes:
[SIZE=1]But I feel fine....[/SIZE]
Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4550141.stm
It's the end of the world as we know it :rolleyes:
[SIZE=1]But I feel fine....[/SIZE]
whats the big deal companies are bought out ever day , you wouldnt hear fans of dell's footy team moaning if dell were bought out , same difference
yeah, it's exactly the same :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
What are you on about ??????????Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Glazer is going to put United nearly 300 million in debt by buying the club, talks of him even changing the name of old trafford. This deal is only good for 1 person - Glazer. One one else remotely attached to the club wants this to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roo69
well that is what you get for supporting a company ! ! its a serviceable debt same as chelsea are 200 mill in debt , he has to make money the only way he can is if united are successfull , that means winning things .
he turned tampa bay from a joke of a team into one that won the super bowl ,he brought in the best coach's best players etc . or are utd fans happy with players like carrol ,silvestre ,brown, fletcher, fortune, kleberson ,saha etc etc .
as for changing the name of old trafford, its a sponserchip thing does any one call the riverside the cellnet stadium ? no !it make s no difference if its the vodafone stadium every one will still call it old trafford
no one wants it to happen coz they dont know what they are on about , probibly the same people that said floating it on the stock market would ruin the club see how badly that worked out for them ,now they are the biggest club in the world with champs league ,fa cups and a bucket load of premiership tittles behind them .
any way when you are a company ( manchester united PLC ) instead of being a FOOTBALL CLUB ( check your crest !!) ye can be bought out its ye re own fault
From an executive perspective it's bad for Man U. If I were Magnier or McManus I would have sold but the guys in the day to day operations know this isn't good for the company. As wealthy people go Glazer isn't that wealthy, he's not worth a billion and a debt of half a billion is not healthy for a club that doesn't have someone with the financial power of Roman Abramovich to invest in them.
That's the big difference between the two, Chelsea can afford to invest more because their investors can too. Glazer is by no means a bad businessman but he isn't worth enough frankly to be good for Man Utd.
.... and back into a joke, check where the holders of the Super Bowl finished last season :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
As for it being a servicable debt.
The yearly repayment is likely to be just over £40m per annum, United's profit last season was £19m. Glazer is not Abrahmovich, how is that £21m shortfall going to be addressed?
The debt that the club will have to service isn't being taken to improve the club, like Arsenal's where they're at least getting a large stadium, it's just to change owner. Why should a club that runs debt free suddenly be hit with a huge debt just to get a new owner? There's no obvious revenue increase likely from having Glazer on board.
United have been running debt free for years, there are few improvements that can be made to get more money out of the club, this isn't like Tampa who were a joke.
If you're going to comment on something, at least do a little background reading first ffs :rolleyes:
Extract from Locker Room, today's Irish Times:
"The modern day supporter is like an extra in Braveheart: good for authenticity but expendable. The money comes from Uncle Rupert and from various other slick generators of cash. Does anyone really think they were shaking in the condo in Florida when news came through that some United supporters were burning their season-ticket books? Think the Glazers were wondering if they would ever be able to fill those few seats in Old Trafford again?
It would be no bad thing if Malcolm Glazer came in and began the process of dismantling Manchester United brick by brick, player by player, spiv by spiv. Manchester United fans, for all their dewy-eyed romanticism about the heart and soul of soccer, have never given a hoot about equity or fairness so long as their club has the money to continue spending big.
Manchester United fans have never gathered outside Old Trafford and protested that it wasn't right to spend £28 million on a teenager discovered and raised by another club. They burned no effigies of Rio. They've never launched a campaign to spread the wealth of the top clubs around the league so that the Premiership might become genuinely competitive. They've never howled in anguish because the fact that Fergie is a bully and a tartar offends their sense of fair play. They shed no tears when Manchester United stomped all over the romance of the FA Cup.
They've never gathered outside Old Trafford and had vigils for the league to introduce a salary cap system so that every team has the same sized squad and the same sized wage bill.
Thus the rich teams wouldn't hoard all the good players while the other teams spent their time acting as fodder on Saturdays and raising starlets for sale in the ring during the rest of the week.
Manchester United and their fans have grown accustomed to a world that is unfair but which up until Friday suited them just fine. Now that Chelsea have a deep-pocketed Russian and United have a tight little American they have been forced to re-evaluate all they knew about the world.
So these are dark days. Civilisation as we know is threatened by a little man in a sky-blue leisure suit.
It's probably safe to presume that Malcolm Glazer is basically just another little business bandit on the make. He'll milk Manchester United for a while and then he'll die or he'll get bored. Manchester United will have a season or two of the kind of ordinariness that other clubs can only dream of and then it will be business as usual.
Soon everyone will cringe at the memory of how they wailed and howled when they thought that last Friday was the day the music died."
United kept a wage cap a lot longer than most other Premiership clubs did (and way way longer than other big European clubs did). They lost players because other clubs could offer better terms. It's only in the last four to five years that they've gotten stupid with wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donal81
No reason to check facts though when Lazy Fcuking "journalism" can still sell newspapers.
While it does look bad for United, I think what people are forgetting is that it's in Glazer's own interests to make sure that the club does well both on and off the pitch.
Here is a guy who is a self made billionaire (on paper anyway), nobody knows yet whether he will pass the debt onto the club or have it as private debt and I'm sure if he does he won't have been naive enough not to have thought how to cover it.
He is hardly going to want the club to go downhill and therefore lose value for when he comes to sell again.
[QUOTE=tiktok]
As for it being a servicable debt.
The yearly repayment is likely to be just over £40m per annum, United's profit last season was £19m. Glazer is not Abrahmovich, how is that £21m shortfall going to be addressed?
QUOTE]
he will just charge the jap tourists twice as much as they pay now simple !
What are you talking about? They may have kept a wage cap but fans didn't protest when they got rid of it but they'll protest now that the big money approach has come home to roost. I think that's a fair point.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
Spot the Everton fan - the Dundalkkk of the epl...Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
The reason the fans didn't protest about the removal of the wage cap was because at the time, that wage-cap was causing us to lose out on players to Continental clubs, the removal of the wage-cap meant we could catch-up with other clubs, not neccessarily overtake them. Why would fans protest that? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donal81
The 'big money approach' is not what's been protested against. It's the person behind the takeover and the manner in which it's being carried out. (If you had a spare room to let in your house would you be happy if the person moving in got a bank loan for the deposit and made yopu pay it off?) The way the deal is being made will mean that financially united will be strangled until the debt is paid.
It's still an ill-informed 'opinion piece' abnd lay fcuking journalism.
From the United We Stand website...
Quote:
Malcom Glazer is here to stay and United fans are going to have to get used to it.
Or so we are told by the vast majority of the uninformed and near-sighted media.
The general consensus in the press and among City types eager to preserve a society where one rich man can override the wishes of thousands is that United are a publically listed company and while it may be sad, the supporters will just have to accept that market forces rule and get on with it.
If you give up your season ticket or stop attending matches, the maxim goes, then there is a 'waiting list' of 'thousands' waiting to take your place.
Is anybody on or does anybody know of anyone on this mythical 'waiting list'?
Or is it not just the convenient excuse of armchair supporters who cannot be bothered to attend games, that 'you can't get tickets' - ignoring the fact that since the latest expansion of the ground it has been extremely easy to gain access to Old Trafford for all but a handful of big games for a number of years now.
Just ask the touts that struggle to get less than half the face value of their spares for many home games that have kicked off, while disinterested Reds sit in pubs around the ground.
But lazy journalists who never pay to watch football and would baulk at the prospect of forking out £30 for 90 minutes entertainment from their own pockets, and have no idea about the realities of supporting a team, would not know that.
See if these thousands of faceless 'fans' and tourists we are continually warned about rush to fill an already overpriced Old Trafford after a couple of lean years.
The club are already worried about filling the new 75,000 capacity, why else would they have offered thousands of new LMTBs in the ridiculous North Stand Tier Three?
The club's policy is clearly to get the money up front rather than worrying about the laborious task of off-loading tickets for West Brom and Portsmouth when the part-timers just aren't interested.
Without discussing the rights and the wrongs of the issue, If United's hard-core support of 40,000, the people who went during not so distant leaner times and those subsequently priced out, did shift support to a breakaway club, the club would not sell those seats every week.
Without support from the local community, the people who built and maintained the club, United would be and will be nothing, just another team.
Fans who 'can't get tickets' now, the hangers on to the lifeblood of the club, it's core support, will not be interested in watching a side that isn't winning every week.
A team that wins silverware does matter to the fans but the press are misguided in thinking that ultimately the only thing that matters is success on the pitch and that if Glazer can bring it, (relatively speaking we were doing alright thanks) then no-one will care who owns the club.
That no-one will care if tickets prices go over their already ridiculous levels and that no-one will care if the club continues to whore itself across the world like some cheap tart in search of further excessive profit as long as 'ManU' lift a tin pot or two at the end of the season.
But success is not and never has been the be all and end all for United supporters.
United didn't average 48,000 in the old second division because they were a great team and we haven't consistently been the country's best supported club because we've won the most trophies. We didn't get better gates than Liverpool in the 1980s beacause we were finishing above them in the league.
For United's hardcore following the club is about a sense of community, identity and belonging.
The sense of attachment Reds have to their club may often be masked, distorted and even mocked by fans of other clubs but the fact is that we have the largest hardcore following of any team in the world.
Go to a bar in any town United are playing from Sunderland to Seattle and you will see hundreds of the same faces week in, week out, anywhere in the world, regardless of the importance of the fixture.
It's not to say we are the most clued-up or even the most loyal as some claim, we just have more of every type of fan than any other club.
More day-trippers, more barmies from Devon, more hooligans, more women and more ordinary lads who have followed their club home and away for years.
Success wasn't the most important thing when United enjoyed perhaps the greatest period in their history under Ferguson in the 1990s - a time that saw the fans get organised and begin to fight against unwelcome changes being made to the club and it isn't the most important thing now.
IMUSA didn't form when United were relegated in 1974 and there wasn't such dissent when fans felt the club was more accessible to it's supporters.
From stewarding at Old Trafford, to the distribution of tickets, to ticket prices and to the ownership of the club the supporters, through the fanzines, IMUSA and latterly Shareholders United have grown in influence and political know-how over the past decade.
United fans didn't like the fact that the club was a plc, exisiting to make money for shareholders, but it was the lesser of two evils compared to the prospect of an American parasite using our football club to increase his personal wealth.
Success may come under Glazer, but it will be even more of a by-product than under the current administration.
United don't have to win any trophies to make the club profitable - qualification for the Champions League by coming third in the league with full houses every week is easily enough to satisfy the current lot.
But with the amount of debt he has taken on it won't be enough for Malcolm Glazer.
The media tell us that this means he will ensure the team is successful to keep the money rolling in and to meet his repayments. But success is relative and if Glazer can squeeze profit margins from us he isn't going to care whether United win anything or not. He's banking on blind loyalty to make his business plan work.
He's counting on your money to make his profits.
Yes, he's here and he's here for the forseeable future, but if the media think we are going to accept it then they are wrong.
And if that means hurting the current team and the club in their pockets through lawful means such as boycotting sponsors or through militant tactics like getting the club thrown out of the Champions League or cutting Glazer's head off with an axe in order to force him out then that's what the fans will do.
We don't have to accept anything and if a few years of pain and a lack of success on the pitch means that we move closer to the day that United is run democratically for it's supporters then again it is the lesser of two evils.
To give up now is to betray the legacy of the workers of the Lancashire and Yorkshire railway, of James Gibson, of Matt Busby, of the martyrs of Munich, of the Red Army, of Alex Ferguson, of Eric Cantona and of the thousands of fans who have built and maintained the club, who fought off Murdoch and are working tirelessly to put Manchester United Football Club finally into the hands of it's rightful owners.
Us.
We, the supporters ARE Manchester United.
We are the soul of the club and it belongs to us.
Don't let anyone, least of all the media, try to convince you any different.
Because it's a business, a public company. Taking over a debt free company and then using its assets it to leverage the takover is common practise in business.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
Fair enough, but as Donal81 was discussing United fans 'hypocrisy' in protesting, how I should have phrased it is....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotsy
Why should the fans of a club that runs debt free be happy that the club is suddenly hit with a huge debt just to get a new owner?
I'll disagree with you on the article, I think it makes a number of decent points.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
Man Utd have never bought a title in the manner of Blackburn or Chelsea but the club has won everything there is to be won in football as the money has been there to buy world class players and keep homegrown players with big wages (Scholes, Neville, Beckham for a long time, etc). Money, in another way, has bought them success. They didn't do it all at once and Fergie is an excellent manager but money played a gigantic part in the club's domination.
You or me could buy Man Utd if we had the money and someone wanted to sell shares. That's life, that's business, and that's what made money for Man Utd for years. You and me could never buy Dunnes Stores, no matter how much cash we had, because the Dunnes and their relatives keep it private, missing out on an even bigger fortune in the process, but keeping the ownership where they want it.
And all the talk of McManus and Magnier being traitors...Give me a break. Money has given Man Utd success for well over ten years and fair play to them. That success has now attracted a buyer. Everything has been above board so far, there's nothing illegal about a leveraged buy-out. This is what happens when you play with sharks...
Football is notoriously fickle. If Man U happen to win a few games on the trot in September and go on a run in the Champions League, I'm sure most fans will no longer give a toss.
So Scholes, Neville, Giggs etc weren't to do with a great youth system, but were because of money? :confused: :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donal81
All those players came through the academy :confused: and they only started to make decent money once United lifted the wage cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donal81
I never called them traitors, sure one of them is an Arsenal fan and the other couldn't give a rats arse about football, let alone Man Utd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donal81
Just because nothing illegal has been done, doesn't mean the fans have to like it.
I thought he made the point quite clear that they bought big but kept homegrown players like Scholes, Neville etc on big wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Well to me it's not clear, because as recently as Nicky Butt they've left United on bigger contracts. The ones that stayed could've got more elsewhere if they'd been inclined - Only goldenballs was, Butt was well on the downward slope when he left. False assumption by the journalist and/or Donal...Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkfeckarse
Everton had a great youngster on their books. His name was Wayne Rooney. Unfortunately, they lost him to a much bigger club who could offer him wages they could never match and who have won everything over the past ten years with the best players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Would that happen to a Man Utd player? Would Man U lose a youngster to Everton? No they wouldn't. I thought I made it clear what my point was...Man Utd could afford the record signing of Roy Keane, they could afford Veron, Ferdinand, Van Nistelrooy but they could also keep world class players like Scholes and Giggs (well, when he was Rooney's age) at the club for life. I thought that was quite obvious in my post.
fwiw,
giggs & howard signed 2 year deals today
yes but the reason united could/can afford all of those players is that they get 68000 at every home game big or small (excluding a couple of league cup matches that only attract around 55000), and the likes of everton only get about half that. united are(were) rich simply because they were the most supported - not because of a rich owner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donal81
the inequities of current football means that money follows money, which has seen united getting richer and richer, but the base was always the support - every other club could have become just as rich, if only they had as many fans
A very good quote from a united fan "He's not turning up with a suitcase full of his own cash. He is, in effect, asking Manchester United fans to pay for his takeover, to pay for increased ticket prices and increased merchandising."
Sums the whole thing up really
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColinR
utds wealth is down to sky when the premiership as we know it was started sky owned a large share in utd , there for showing utd more earned them more money ( 1.5 mill per game last year sky showed utd around 15 times while teams like everton got shown 4 or 5 thats an extra 15 mill into utds pocket ) . due to this increase in exposure and turnover and mainly down to peter kenon's extreamly good bussiness sence they created the global brand that is utd today . sky flogged there share s making a killing .
this myth that utd got wealthy winning stuff is rubbish they were made wealthy so that they would win stuff and make sky a huge profit .
so does every club! at chelsea you can pay upto £1200 for a season ticket and even though there owner is worth billions chelsea still have massive debts(200 mill) that means chelsea have to be successfull on the pitch and it has to come from fans pockets !to pay off this debt it does not come from romans pocket .Quote:
Originally Posted by Roo69
Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
wrong wrong wrong.
sky got interested in united's shares in 1998, when they tried to takeover, when shareholders united won that battle, they bought approx 9.9% which was the max they were allowed under the competition laws in the uk. they also bought shares in a number of other premiership clubs in anticipation of an attempt by clubs for a free for all on tv rights - the logic being, as they have shares in certain clubs, they could obtain tv rights for them clubs, and still provide a comprehensive coverage.
the reason united are shown more than the likes of everton on tv. again back to my original post - popularity. more people want to watch united than everton, so again its united's fanbase which is the income driver. if united did not have the largest support base they wouldn't have been the richest or most profitable - fullstop
Yes they would. His name was John O'Kane and he was a promising full back, just couldn't get Irwin out of the side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donal81
Blackburn offered Roy better terms, he chose United because he wanted to play there. Jesus, at one stage Phil Babb was a record transfer fee for a defender, Stan Collymore too. In any event, who could argue that £3.75 million for Roy Keane wasn't a brilliant signing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donal81
By the same token they could not affordQuote:
Originally Posted by Donal81
Alan Shearer (twice, the first time as far back as 1994)
...........countless others...........
up to last summer and Ronaldhino.
The Fact is, United only ever paid what they could afford, unlike countless other clubs who over stretched their budget. The handled their money well unlike countless other clubs. Their popularity, then their success meant they had more money than most, but the club isn't (for another twenty days at least) debt free because Sky got on their knees before us, it's because the club was well run.
That's different and you know it. I don't know why you bothered writing that, actually. Man Utd would never lose a promising youngster as a result of wages. That was my point, as you well know. If you're going to make points like that, I'm already losing interest in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
What's that got to do with it? They had the money to buy him and continue to pay his wages, that's my point...Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
Don't know about that. Fergie himself said that the only reason Man Utd didn't get Ronaldinho was because Peter Kenyon didn't do his job. Shearer wanted to play for Newcastle, end of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
And how high was that cap?Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
Even now, about 5 or 6 years after the cap was lifted, how many teams pay that amount to ONE player, let alone a squad?
United are a PLC (well, were). If you were happy enough to enjoy the benefits that came from being a PLC, you can't really complain about the flipside.
And FWIW, United could afford Shearer. It was Shearer that turned down United to go to Newcastle, not Blackburn.
the whole happy to be a plc is a myth. most united fans are glad that the club's board has run the club well over the last 15 years but that sould be the way of every board - be it plc, supporters trust, private company, or a martin edwards/ doug ellis type ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan K
the benifit of united going plc was also relatively small - i'm not sure the exact figures, maybe 10/20 million, which apparently was needed to pay for making the stretford end all seater. it also created a vehicle for martin edwards to make a fortune by selling off his shares bit by bit.
unfortunately back then, the average person/fans knowledge of the stock market was no where near today's understanding. unfortunately, it wasn't until murdoch & co came calling in 1998, that united fans got into gear. even still, shareholders united has only grown relatively strong in the last twelve months or so - which unfortunately has proved too little too late
Just a thought passed through what's left of my mind but, yeah, Glazer now has control and Edwards had control etc etc but what's control IF United fans carry out their threat and boycott Old Trafford, sponsors, shops and all money making avenues. IF, repeat IF, a boycott is even 40% successful then Glazer is up to his neck in debt and won't be able to service the payments owed.
Y'know a club can be listed on the stock market, can be a private company, can be anything it wants, but if the fans don't come and buy, then the club is nothing.
Someone said that fans are, by their SUPPORT, the most important sponsors. If United fans are really serious, then carry out the boycott. The club might crash but there might be a possibility that a prospective new owner might have to be a genuine football fan AND provide the supporters with a say in the control of the club. OK OK a long shot but could happen.
What do you think??
I'm afraid that if current fans boycott there'll be thousands of others only too happy to take their places in Old Trafford as some other footieperson has already stated.
Not very optimistic about the whole situation and I'm not even a United fan.
The club floated in 1991, right around season ticket/LMTB renewal time, and just after the Cup Winners Cup Final. The main beneficiary was Fartin Martin.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColinR
Peter Kenyon was only there a few years, and whilst he can claim credit for some good sponsorship deals, he was terrible in the transfer market. Mind you, you'd wonder now whether that was deliberate seeing as several of the signings he fooked up for United ended up at Chelsea.
ColinR - IMUSA started a share club way back, that's how I got my shares. Shareholders United only came into existence around Murdoch, and IMUSA were happy to hand over the share buying reigns.
As already stated, Sky only brought shares in United around the bid. They weren't shareholders when the premiership started. Sky own or owned shares in several clubs (as do ITV).
As ever the ABU's think they know everything about United, when infact they just lazily believe the myths.
Role on FC United, and the true spirit of United can be reclaimed. If MUFC die, I wonder what all the obsessive myth peddlers will do then? They might actually concentrate on supporting their own team instead of bullshítting about another club...