[Archived] Glazer Set For Utd

[stuwilky]

Interestingly when you look on Man Utd's website the section we are in (E230) is priced at £34, so it looks like the thieving gits are charging us more than they would charge their own fans.

They give a members discount of £5 per ticket to members of "One United" which they charge £28 per year for.

You also need to be a member to be able to apply for the ballot on league tickets.

[philipl]

The Independent Man U supporters have used the Freedom of Information Act to look at Government reaction to the proposed Glazer takeover of Man U. It appears there was considerable concern and amendment of legislation which would have enabled a referal of the bid for Monopolies Commission review contemplated.

However, an assurance by the Glazers they wouldn't raise prices headed that off....

[thenodrog]

The Independent Man U supporters have used the Freedom of Information Act to look at Government reaction to the proposed Glazer takeover of Man U. It appears there was considerable concern and amendment of legislation which would have enabled a referal of the bid for Monopolies Commission review contemplated.

However, an assurance by the Glazers they wouldn't raise prices headed that off....

Why should the govt even get involved? 92 other clubs (+FC United) hardly constitutes a monopoly. I can't see the govt bothering if we get sold.... or is that just the usual BRFC supporters ingrained persecution complex showing itself?

[philipl]

United's Finanancial results published.

£58m loss, total creditors £764m, borrowings up to £666m, debt charges £81m of which £42m was paid and the rest put into increased borrowings. When you are posting numbers this bad, the chances are that all the judgement calls every business makes in making provisions etc. will have been taken by United to make the numbers look as good as they can be reducing room for manoeuvre in the future.

They are probably going to be OK- just.

However, as £92m income through gates receipts remains the largest single item in their turnover, the Glazers remain heavilly dependent on Mancs paying higher prices which have yet to be charged and media/marketing deals which have yet to be struck.

United also owe £56m in transfer fees not yet paid and it remains to be seen whether the rest of the football world will continue to lend to United so that United can beat them on the football field.

The biggest risk on the horizon has to be the transition to the post-Ferguson era. A dip in performance for just one season on the field (such as finishing 5th and not having a good CL campaign) is going to make this financial high wire balancing act precarious.

Edited May 6, 2008 by philipl

[thenodrog]

United's Finanancial results published.

United also owe £56m in transfer fees not yet paid and it remains to be seen whether the rest of the football world will continue to lend to United so that United can beat them on the football field.

The biggest risk on the horizon has to be the transition to the post-Ferguson era. A dip in performance for just one season on the field (such as finishing 5th and not having a good CL campaign) is going to make this financial high wire balancing act precarious.

Although they say that it will not happen they could square a chunk of that up by selling Ronaldo ..... but then maybe one or two would begin to question the cost of admission. Whatever with a severe recession looming close on the horizon those figurs must be making a few people (starting with their bankers) a little nervous.

[Hughesy]

With such a massive global brand they will be fine.

If they wanted they could quite easily make e millions more each year by going playing special matches like the one in saudi. They have the biggest brand in football and will always make whatever money they want.

[philipl]

Good point 'drog.

Leeds' precipitate fall in footballing terms came with out of the blue big priced sales just as it looked like they had made the big time.

United are hardly going to sell Ronaldo or Rooney whilst Ferguson is still there and they are challenging for the two biggest prizes but a new guy could find himself inheriting less than he thought he was getting.

The RFW retirement timing and succession is a huge huge issue for them. The guy still has his destructive/vindictive side undimmed and it could easily turn nasty.

Hughesy, what you say is true .. to a point. The Glazers have probably already mortgaged the brand and its potential for more than they would be able to in the current financial climate and possibly for more than can be squeezed out of it within the timescale of their loan deals.

Edited May 6, 2008 by philipl

[ABBEY]

what prices are match tickets and season tickets there next season?

[Eddie]

Good point 'drog.

Leeds' precipitate fall in footballing terms came with out of the blue big priced sales just as it looked like they had made the big time.

United are hardly going to sell Ronaldo or Rooney whilst Ferguson is still there and they are challenging for the two biggest prizes but a new guy could find himself inheriting less than he thought he was getting.

The RFW retirement timing and succession is a huge huge issue for them. The guy still has his destructive/vindictive side undimmed and it could easily turn nasty.

Hughesy, what you say is true .. to a point. The Glazers have probably already mortgaged the brand and its potential for more than they would be able to in the current financial climate and possibly for more than can be squeezed out of it within the timescale of their loan deals.

Turn nasty? Ferguson has a job for life and will no doubt be offered a position on the board if/when he decides to leave.

[philipl]

Sure Eddie, and which Manager of the calibre Man U are likely to want is going to be happy with RFW still around. Remember what happened when Sir Matt stepped down?

And the timing of RFW's retirement- his decision or the club's? That could turn nasty.

[Eddie]

A couple of seasons ago I would have said the club's, but now that he has rebuilt that team and put together a side that could win everything for several seasons to come I think it is his. It could turn nasty, but it's fairly unlikely. Let's put it this way, I view our situation in a fairly negative light, but if we all judged Rovers by the same standards that you are judging United's financial and managerial situation then we would all be topping ourselves.

[philipl]

Agreed- Rovers have huge issues over what happens when Sparky moves on as any in-coming Manager will need a pot of spending money and his own people.

But thankfully we are not in the position of needing a major corporate finance transaction to stop a Hedge Fund from exercising its contractual right and walking in to take the keys off the current owners 30 months from now with a track record of having failed to restructure the loans when the financial climate was much more forgiving than it is now.

Those published numbers are not what the Glazers had in mind to be showing 30 months into their tenure at OT. There is a pretty clear admission they cannot fund debt obligations out of current income and the gap which was narrow last year has widened horribly.

All they can do at the moment is sit tight, keep talking and hope for the best. Deals which could be funded at 18% (what they are paying for the most expensive money) are simply unfundable now whilst the 11% interest rate deals which covers a lot of their loans would probably cost north of 15% on their risk profile now. The Glazers might be lucky in having interest charged in devalued dollars (that would partly explain the reduced interest charge compared with the previous year) but they are hardly in a strong position to call the FX shots against the lending institutions next time round.

Edited May 6, 2008 by philipl

[Eddie]

...I think they'll be alright

[Fife Rover]

...I think they'll be alright

More's the pity. I think that for the sake of Football as a sport and for the long term good of all who have a genuine interest in football as sport and entertainment, the best thing that could happen would be if Utd simply implode and disappear (hopefully to rise again in a more acceptable form). Also it would be helpful to the good of the game if Abramovich suddenly decided to pull the plug on Chelsea and disappear taking all his cash with him.

[Eddie]

Let's remember folks that we were once what they are now. Maybe slightly more loveable as our Abramovich was a local and long-time supporter, but the results for other teams were the same. Unlike United we simply weren't good enough to keep it going.

[American]

Abramovich has spent less on/with Chelsea than the Glazers (adding up purchase price and player costs), and he also has some prime London land. Chelsea will not implode if he leaves.

People don't recognize that buying up all of the talent for a London club on the fringes of the big time was the same as paying that much for a club with a larger profile. Chelsea is now a huge brand worldwide.

As for United, weren't they already supposed to have gone under with the loans by now? Looking at the capital appreciation, the Glazers would make a tidy profit if they were to sell tomorrow. They haven't even started to touch on the internet earnings potential of the club, as well.

[b12_simon]

More's the pity. I think that for the sake of Football as a sport and for the long term good of all who have a genuine interest in football as sport and entertainment, the best thing that could happen would be if Utd simply implode and disappear (hopefully to rise again in a more acceptable form). Also it would be helpful to the good of the game if Abramovich suddenly decided to pull the plug on Chelsea and disappear taking all his cash with him.

Some imagination you've got there Fife

[Fife Rover]

Some imagination you've got there Fife

Like the man once said: "I have a dream!"

[philipl]

I have consistently said that Abramovich has been onto a winner financially at Chelsea almost irrespective of how much cash he pumps into the club because of the underlying property values of 14 acres in Chelsea.

Been interesting to look back at this thread and no, at no point did I say Man U would have gone under with their loans by now.

The indebtedness on the books of Man U has grown from £530m at the time the Glazers bought Man U to £666m last summer. Annual interest costs have gone from £64m to £81m so the average cost of borrowing has gone up despite the expectation that the borrowings would be restructured to dramatically reduce the average cost of debt.

The hedge fund position is the interesting one. They will have the rights to appoint 25% of the board members of both Red Football and Man U if, as seems likely, Man U missed the target of £74m EBITDA in the 2007 numbers- the terms of the funding were disclosed when Man U was still publicly quoted.

£58m loss, add back £81m interest means they would have had to have charged £51m in tax and depreciation for EBITDA to be £74m. I think the tax and depreciation charges are likely to be considerably less than £51m bearing in mind there were two years with a £20m transfer spending cap that Man U kept within.

The Hedge Fund have the rights to appoint all the Directors and to seek a buyer for the club if their £235m loan plus the rolled up interest is not repaid by May 2010.

An interesting point of course is that Tevez is still on loan from MSI and according to that agreement, Man U have still to find another £35m over the next three years after which ownership will pass from MSI to Man U.

These are facts, not my opinion.

Edited May 6, 2008 by philipl

[philipl]

As the build-up to the Champions League final begins with Ronaldo giving an ambiguous interview, I couldn't help but reflect how grateful the rest of football should be to the Glazers.

The combined cost to Man U of the Glazer intervention is already going north of £250m

- interest charges of over £200m in the three years' published accounts to date

- transaction costs (the cost of buying Man U) by the Glazers of £42m (admitted publicly)

- defence costs by the plc (the costs to Man U of trying not to be bought by the Glazers) of £25m

Set against that, the total additional revenue to Man U because of the Glazers is certainly much less than £100m

- the amount the AIG sponsorship exceeds the next highest sponsor bidding price (that is assuming the Glazers made that happen)

- the rest is made up of ripping off the Manc fans in higher seat prices, MUTV fees and merchandising costs.

There are two realities:

1) Apart from ripping off the Manc fans, the Glazers had no magic marketing formula and shown no innovative skills whatsoever in extending the reach of the Manc empire that the plc was not already involved in (even the extension of OT to 76,000 was already in build) whilst other stadium expansion plans have been shelved indefinitely.

2) The world has been spared from the RFW running round with an extra £200m in his pocket which would undoutedly have funded the most formidable football squad ever assembled.

For that the rest of football has every reason to be truly thankful that the Glazers have crippled the Mancs. And in true cash terms, MUFC has to spin off another £billion+ in interest and repayments before its balance sheet is restored to the strength it had as a plc.

[Billy Castell]

So in short, the Glazers' buy-out has probably kept Man U's financial growth in check with debts, intrest payments etc.

Is that an accurate summing up?

[T4E]

As the build-up to the Champions League final begins with Ronaldo giving an ambiguous interview, I couldn't help but reflect how grateful the rest of football should be to the Glazers.

The combined cost to Man U of the Glazer intervention is already going north of £250m

- interest charges of over £200m in the three years' published accounts to date

- transaction costs (the cost of buying Man U) by the Glazers of £42m (admitted publicly)

- defence costs by the plc (the costs to Man U of trying not to be bought by the Glazers) of £25m

Set against that, the total additional revenue to Man U because of the Glazers is certainly much less than £100m

- the amount the AIG sponsorship exceeds the next highest sponsor bidding price (that is assuming the Glazers made that happen)

- the rest is made up of ripping off the Manc fans in higher seat prices, MUTV fees and merchandising costs.

There are two realities:

1) Apart from ripping off the Manc fans, the Glazers had no magic marketing formula and shown no innovative skills whatsoever in extending the reach of the Manc empire that the plc was not already involved in (even the extension of OT to 76,000 was already in build) whilst other stadium expansion plans have been shelved indefinitely.

2) The world has been spared from the RFW running round with an extra £200m in his pocket which would undoutedly have funded the most formidable football squad ever assembled.

For that the rest of football has every reason to be truly thankful that the Glazers have crippled the Mancs. And in true cash terms, MUFC has to spin off another £billion+ in interest and repayments before its balance sheet is restored to the strength it had as a plc.

Just an observation Philip, but I find it very difficult to take your posts in this thread seriously, as your writing style gives the impression that you are biased against United, and looking to represent as bleak a picture as you possibly can. I do not know enough about it to know whether or not what you say is accurate - and I have no other reason to doubt it - but the way you make your points screams of 'ABU', and undermines the 'facts' that you mention.

[philipl]

95% of this board is ABU.

The facts are the facts.

So Man U win the Premiership and reach the final of the CL. Even if they win the CL the fantastic double they will have achieved will earn them £80m combined from and the EPL and UEFA and be .......

NOT ENOUGH TO PAY THIS YEAR'S INTEREST BILL

[T4E]

Hey don't get me wrong - nothing wrong with being ABU, but it doesnt lend itself to creating credible sources does it?

I've got no doubt what you say is true, just don't think you express it as well as you could. Maybe that's a by product of preferring numbers to words

[broadsword]

What's the other way of expressing that Man Utd are living on the never-never and will be looking for a life-saver if ever their income drops?

It's all their in black-and-white, they have to be mega-successful just in order to service their debts. Philip is hardly a lone voice in saying this.

People like the Glazers are parasites, living off the host, not caring if it dies aftwards. They haven't put in a penny of their own money.