No, £10m of the football clubs money.
Manchester United on the US stock market
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
No, £10m of the football clubs money.
Cant remember where i saw this quote but i thought it was quite humourless.
'the purchase of manU by the glazers was a sort of divine intervention in football, can you imagine what Utd would have been like if they had 500mill more than they did in 2005'.
The whole situation has been a god send for the premiership.
Love football, love the glazers
'the purchase of manU by the glazers was a sort of divine intervention in football, can you imagine what Utd would have been like if they had 500mill more than they did in 2005'.
The whole situation has been a god send for the premiership.
Love football, love the glazers
Did you mean humourous or humourless?
I did think that the other day after reading a few articles about the debt. All of them were saying that its cost us 500m over the last few years. We could have peed money up the wall on players with that amount of money.
Can someone explain nice and quickly how the Glazers were allowed to move the debt from buying United onto the actual club. Its seems just a little strange how you can buy stuff with the item as collateral.
Last edited:
No different from anybody buying a house; you take out a mortgage and the loan is secured against your home. They bought the club and (legally speaking) can do with it more or less as they please.
In other business's there's no issue; Tom Hicks (one of Liverpool ex owners) once spoke about his purchase of Weetabix and said that every time somebody bought a box of Weetabix they were effectively paying for his purchase of the company. I don't think Weetabix eaters gave a damn.
The problem is football clubs aren't normal business's; the cost of supporting a top tier football club is getting ridiculous and supporters don't want to spend a fortune following a club, only for that money to used to pay interest on loans that allowed investors to buy the club rather than being invested in the team.
So yes, their money, as they own the football club.
Just the same as if i take money from my business or one of my houses, its my money.
No, they work the same as any other entertainment industry.
Provide rubbish, expensive entertainment, and people stop going.
Where football is different is unlike a crap cinema or theater, is even if you ARE providing rubbish expensive entertainment, you'll still get a percentage of mugs still turning up willing to pay for it.
When United have a run of not winning anything, and they exhaust their supply of people round the world who are willing to buy every piece of Red Devil branded tat they churn out, and the amount of mugs turning up through the gate prepared to pay top class prices for second rate rubbish dries up, then they have a problem.
Last edited:
Even if you're going to try to be pedantic, you're still wrong. A company and it's shareholders, whether they're the largest shareholder or even the only shareholder are very separate.
It was the football clubs money.
I'm not saying that they can't be run in a similar way but that supporters don't see them like they do any other business. There wasn't campaigns against Tom Hicks for the way he bought Weetabix but we are seeing Utd supporters campaigning against the Glazers. Customers of other business's don't care where their money's being spent, football supporters on the whole do.
You only have to go in the transfer threads on here for the last few years to see supporters calling for money to be spent on the squad. Because supporters are loyal (or mugs as you say) and because a large percentage are oblivious to whats going on, they'll still pay to watch their team though.
So the Glazers don't own the club?
Because in the real world when somebody owns a company, they can do what they like with the money.
The only difference is because they want to raise cash now (by releasing the IPO) much more detail of the profits etc etc have to become available for public scrutiny
As everyone knew the real damage was done in 2005
Where have I said they don't own the club? I actually said that they can more or less do as they please with the club - you responded to my reply to Dan where he commented on the Glazers not taking cash out of the club, which they did.
Whether they're the largest or only shareholder, they've taken cash out of the club.
And it's very simplistic to say that in the real world owners can simply do what they want with their company's money. What was the reason for Utd's bond issue? To give the Glazers more freedom because previously there was huge restrictions on what they could do with Utd's money.
Last edited:
I know you were referring to the IPO - I was simply pointing out that they'd taken £10m of the clubs money a few months earlier as you seem to gloss over the fact that they're raping the club. That then lead to atpbx claiming it's their cash and they can do as they please.
edit: Here's a blog that Utd fans should read to get a better idea of the extent that the Glazers ownership have cost you:
http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/an-apology-to-sir-alex-and-restatement.html
edit: Here's a blog that Utd fans should read to get a better idea of the extent that the Glazers ownership have cost you:
http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/an-apology-to-sir-alex-and-restatement.html
Last edited:
Andersred has his heart in the right place but people shouldn't expect an unbiased or entirely accurate level of analysis or prediction. He has been incorrect on a fair few matters in the past. Read it but just be aware that for a true balanced analysis it's also worth looking at other perhaps less well publicised sources.
Again, your points are loaded and variable to suit your needs Baz, you pulled atpbx on using your posts out of context while referring to something that I didn't, in fact, say. When that was brought up you've shifted again to say you knew I didn't say it but you were merely illustrating a point as I gloss over the Glazer's are 'raping' the club.
My only comment is that the IPO will have a net benefit for the club. I haven't commented on the overall costs to the club.
I've got my own views on where we are but I'm hardly going to any lengths to force them on people.
Again, your points are loaded and variable to suit your needs Baz, you pulled atpbx on using your posts out of context while referring to something that I didn't, in fact, say. When that was brought up you've shifted again to say you knew I didn't say it but you were merely illustrating a point as I gloss over the Glazer's are 'raping' the club.
My only comment is that the IPO will have a net benefit for the club. I haven't commented on the overall costs to the club.
I've got my own views on where we are but I'm hardly going to any lengths to force them on people.
Regardless what you think of his opinions or predictions, the piece linked points out simple facts. Even after taking into account the savings from no longer being a PLC, the club is already £350m worse off and even after the IPO, will be another ~£350m still in debt.
I've not shifted anything. You mentioned the fact that the IPO doesn't take any cash out of the club but chose to ignore the note in the prospectus that confirms that the Glazers took £10m of the clubs cash a few months ago. And you're saying Andy Green gives a biased anaylsis?
atpbx has then decided to debate the difference between their cash and the clubs cash.
You're right that there's a difference between the IPO in isolation and the Glazers ownership as a whole. I don't mean to be argumentative but I'm genuinely surprised by the attitude you take whenver the Glazers are brought up (as I said, we've had this debate before).
Had I not already have known, I wouldn't have thought you were a Utd fan going by your post immediately after the news broke that the full proceeds of the IPO weren't actually going to the club as initially claimed.
It's not something I particularly care to go into at the moment. I do recommend people read a variety of sources if they are interested and, importantly consider the motives behind claims, as there are some disingenuous arguments and mischief makers out there.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,507
- Location
- LU7
£360m odd over 7 years works out to £50m a year or so. Is that right? £50m?!
No wonder the Chevrolet director got sacked if those figures are right. 
Still can't believe it though. What else are they getting for their £50m?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,507
- Location
- LU7
Yep. I was thinking the deal would have been for something over £30m a year. Perhaps £35m. But £50m?! That's ridiculous. Either the figures are wrong, Chevrolet want to get rid of their money, the Glazers have pictures of Chevrolet executives up to no good or Utd's marketing team are worth their weight in gold.
Just need Nike to match Chevrolet's faith in us.
