[Archived] Glazer Set For Utd

[Guest Kamy100]

Manchester United:

[PABBY]

[smug Mode on]

It couldn't happen to a nicer club! !

I can't wait to walk into the Woolpack tomorrow evening - I can hear them moaning already! It's just a pity they've had their last home game of the season. Or was that merely a wise move by the Yank?

[broadsword]

Will this actually be a bad thing. Some incredibly rich chap is going to buy the world's richest club.

He's an incredibly rich chap with incredibly large liabilities.

I wouldn't say that he has the same business strategy of Abramovich.

I should imagine he'll be looking to maximise profits, and then sell the club on a few years down the line for more than he paid for it.

[Alex Rover]

Will this actually be a bad thing. Some incredibly rich chap is going to buy the world's richest club.

He's an incredibly rich chap with incredibly large liabilities.

I wouldn't say that he has the same business strategy of Abramovich.

I should imagine he'll be looking to maximise profits, and then sell the club on a few years down the line for more than he paid for it.

Well said Bryan, that's most likely what he'll do. However will he be able to maximise profits without results on the pitch, which will mean a fair bit of spending?

[broadsword]

I don't know, perhaps he's relying on the brand name, ie fans will still turn up without any further transfer spending.

I think he'd have to be a prize chump to demand that players eg Rooney are sold off.

But I guess we'll find out.

[American]

2 things: Ste, he will pay back the loans by finding other markets, such as internet TV to make money on. Right now I'm sure rovers do OK with just radio and highlights, imagine how a company, er I mean club, with the reach of United will do with the full matches live on internet TV.

Moose (TAFKACJ): Yes, he scrapped tradition, but it was a losing tradition, and it isn't like when you thought football and traditional uniforms that the Bucs were one of the first teams you thought of. Before Glazer - poor crowds, so much a laughingstock that Bo Jackson switched sports rather than play for them. After Glazer - consistently sold out and super bowl champs.

[des]

I think money wise utd will be ok, some fans might not go but has there are more fans then seats that will not bother him

still should be fun to see if AF stays and which players move on

[Hasta]

I found the quote by United fans that they "feel completely betrayed by Magnier and McManus" on the BBC report quite amusing.

It wasn't long ago that United fans were threatening to disrupt the Cheltenham festival because of the Irish duo.

PMSL

[allan]

Very bad news indeed for the smaller clubs in the Prem as Glazer will sell TV rights independently and the sale of rights for other clubs particularly those with only local support will plummet. Rovers would be lucky to raise

?1m from a sale of its own rights - compared to

?25m under the Sky deal. Stop celebrating.

[cn174]

The first thing I knew of the Glazer bid was some weirdo man running into my shop up to the counter and shouting 'UNITED AREN'T FOR F'ING SALE!! F'IN GLAZER IS GONNA F'IN DIE!!! DO YOU F'IN HEAR ME???'

and with that he run out again

I think the main problems with the deal is that ticket prices and merchandise will increase massively. Many people are threatening to boycott the games, but Glazier will be relying on the fact that there are plenty more stupid people more than happy to fill thier seats. The argument that 'but they aren't proper united fans' that many hav been on the telly saying today, will be irrelivant because Glazier wont care who sits there.

Also he will put Man U into a large debt, but if he ever does make any profit, the fears are that it wont be spent on improving the team, improving the stadium etc etc, it'll just go straight back into his pocket.

But it looks like whatever imusa/shareholders united say/do, he's gonna have control. It will certainly be interesting what happens. If it was any other club I'm sure most people would be against it, but seen as its Man United people are sitting back and enjoying it in a bitter kind of way

The best quote i've heard all day about it was from some guy on the telly this aft: 'The team Manchester United belongs to the people of Manchester'

[Tris]

Very bad news indeed for the smaller clubs in the Prem as Glazer will sell TV rights independently and the sale of rights for other clubs particularly those with only local support will plummet. Rovers would be lucky to raise

?1m from a sale of its own rights - compared to

?25m under the Sky deal. Stop celebrating.

The TV rights question - IMO - is more likely to swing in the opposite direction.

As was illustrated last night, there is a frightening gap between Arsenal / Chelsea / Manchester United ... and Everton / Liverpool / the rest of us.

It is said that the league table never lies, especially the definitive table at the end of a season. Rovers fans have to trot that one out more than most.

Look at this league table today. It is full of pointers as to why the gap which already exists must not be allowed to widen. The points deficit from Chelsea (1st) to Liverpool (5th) equates to 13 WINS for Liverpool ... Everton's goal difference (with or without last night) is a joke ... the unholy scrap to stay IN the PL is an illustration in itself as to why unbridgeable "gaps" in the league structure are a bad idea.

That's the emotional argument.

The practical argument is this. Manchester United will never sell their own TV rights because they need a league to play in.

I cannot see one single club in the PL which would want to further reduce the integrity of the PL by widening the already significant split in income.

Arsenal have a stadium to pay for, and Chelsea are exempted from this petty squabble. The rest of us just need Sky's cash to compete or survive.

Glazer can dream of doing what he wants with MU, but TV rights - bizarrely - may well scupper his plans. There is a substantial movement within the PL clubs to REDUCE the differentials between the clubs at the top and the clubs lower down.

And the real leveller is that Sky TV have to be able to broadcast a competitive league - of 20 clubs, not 3 clubs.

If Glazer tries to go it alone on TV rights, watch Sky threaten to remove 1/2 a BILLION quid per season from the game, and watch the other 19 PL clubs tell Man Utd exactly where to go.

[cn174]

I thought of a situation and was wondering if anyone knew if there was any possibility it could happen.

Just say that over the next season Old Trafford stops selling out because of the ticket prices. But they find that they could easily sell out a stadium in London at those prices, say Wembley for arguments sake. Given that Wimbledon moved and later changed into MK Dons, could Man U also move cities? Wimbledon were able to do it, is there anything really stopping Man U from doing it?

[colin]

I drove past The Theatre Of Merchandising today at 16:30 today. There were a few hundred glory-hunters milling about like sheep all a-bleating.

Must have cost them a lot of money to travel up from Essex to moan about an American taking over "their" football club and do whatever he is going to to do to it.

Tractor-tugs pre-match. Fireworks!

"And in deeeefencetoday is Riiiiiiiooo Ferdnannnnnnnd"

"Buy your dogs now. ?5. Free mustard, onions ?1 extra."

" Sorry sir, your seat has been taken for the day by one of a conglomerate of visiting Japanese businessmen."

"Would you like the sound of the crowd turning up in your executive box sir? Oh dear it's already at maximum."

"And after the game today everyone is welcome to free entry at the Manchester United Super Casino just across the road.*"

* They've applied for planning permission

[modes98]

from bbc: Nick Towle, chairman of fans' pressure group, Shareholders United, claimed he has ripped up his season ticket.

Seeing as there are no home games left is that really an issue? good old manure!

[neekoy]

I hope they fall into a heap

I still see a BIG difference between this and the Chelsea buy out. Abromovich is having success on the field, the Mancs are not. This is what makes a brand to the rest of the world and with David Beckham the only reason Mancs have had such commercial success.

Let all the greedy pigs eat and eat and eat till their gullets are stuffed full of money and it chokes them

[Tris]

I think money wise utd will be ok, some fans might not go but has there are more fans then seats that will not bother him

This is a crucial point.

United (as they are) have identified a problem - on match days, the merchandise outlets are doing sh!t business.

The reasoning behind increasing OT capacity from the current 67K to 76K is not to increase Season Ticket sales, it's to increase day trippers (mostly from abroad) who will frequent the Megastore and spend their holiday budgets there.

Edited May 13, 2005 by Tris

[Radagast]

I don't think there was much complaining when the club was turned into a plc, funding all those expensive players (not that United ever bought success) and the nice refurbrished stadium. Bunch of deluded bloody hypocrites thinking their club is in some way untouchable.

[philipl]

There are two guilty parties responsible for the sale of Man U to Glazer:

The Edwards family- in pursuit of their own wealth they managed to flog off all their controlling shareholding piecemeal for ?93m with no regard for the future of the club or business they previously owned. They have set a "good" example for Glazer to follow.

Ferguson- in pursuit of greed/personal pleasure, he caused the Magnier/MacManus reaction whereby the two Irish racing men built up their personal stake in ManU to force Ferguson to compromise over Rock of Gibraltar without having to go too public about the affair- which they did not want. Once Cubic showed how vulnerable ManU were to take over, any chancer could have done what Glazer did. Ferguson compounded the problem by his muted opposition to the takeover effectively disarming any attempt to generate a blocking 25%+1 shareholding by "Shareholders' United"- with RFW muttering about being opposed, it was difficult for them to act whereas if RFW had spoken out clearly or said nothing, the takeover probably would have been stopped. As Cubic have made ?80m out of their sale to Glazer, no doubt there was a clause in the Rock of Gibraltar agreement which obliged Ferguson not to damage Cubic's interests.

The Indeperndent neatly sums up the situation for the Mancs as follows (in its business commentary):

"The reason this is thought to be good news for other top tier clubs is that Mr Glazer plans to make the club partially pay for itself by loading it up with debt. This is what private equity players do with their purchases and most of the time it doesn't much matter. If the financial alchemy doesn't work and the company goes bust, there will soon be another company to take its place, its market and its employees.

"Ah, but a football club is no ordinary business. It's a tribe, it's a lifestyle, a culture, a way of life ... you get the picture. Sport is different. Loaded with debt, the club might not be able to afford the eye-popping sums that have to be paid to the world's top players. It might even have to start selling players just to stay solvent and thereby begin the process that took Leeds United from hero to zero in just two short seasons.

"According to insiders, Mr Glazer's business plan is a particularly aggressive one. It has to be to service and pay-off the ?550m of debt and quasi-debt Mr Glazer is taking on to buy the club. The mystery is that the world's best known football club was unable to attract an owner with deeper pockets, for Mr Glazer is no Roman Abramovich.

"He may know a little bit about sports clubs, but there is no open cheque book here to underwrite the club's continuing success in the game. They are both chancers, but whereas one can afford to splash out hundreds of millions in "money no object" bids for the world's greatest football talents, Mr Glazer will be rushing around the place turning out the lights just to save the odd copper."

The good times at Arsenal and Chelsea are set to roll.... (and Liverpool quite possibly)

[bob fleming]

Just say that over the next season Old Trafford stops selling out because of the ticket prices. But they find that they could easily sell out a stadium in London at those prices, say Wembley for arguments sake. Given that Wimbledon moved and later changed into MK Dons, could Man U also move cities? Wimbledon were able to do it, is there anything really stopping Man U from doing it?

Makes a lot of sense to me, save the majority having to travel so far.

Well I'm not getting too excited just yet. Will this really mess them up long term? Sure they're going to lose a lot of Season Ticket holders but so what? I'm sure there are plenty more sheep queuing up to replace them. MUTV is the most watched Television Station in the world (even more than Channel 5 ) perhaps they could pay a little more over in Japan and Outer Mongolia for the priviledge of watching it?

Why would the fella (who looks like a villain from a Scooby Doo episode) buy the club and then run it completely into the ground? (Other than to cheer me up). Surely he still needs some level of success to protect his investment? Maybe I'm just being naive.

Anyway, surely it's better for them all to start supporting Chelsea now at this stage by way of "protest"?

[philipl]

What has happenned with Man U was going to happen eventually.

Glazer has to support GBP550m of borrowings (in the quaint world of corporate finance, only some of it is called "debt").

That means they have to find GBP20m to GBP30m a year in interest and fees just to support it- never mind pay it off. As an American raider, Glazer has foreign currency exposure somewhere in the mix as well, no matter how well it might be hedged and matched- Man U might sneeze if the dollar has a bad day. All that before starting to repay GBP550m and no doubt the lending institutions want their money back in a reasonable time frame.

So whilst the Walker Trust unfailingly drops GBP3m a year to Rovers in subsidy every year, United's new owner probably needs to WITHDRAW GBP100m A YEAR.

That is going to come from two sources-

Smash the collective TV rights agreement and

Turn G14 into a European Super League

They are going to have to move quickly as well with that amount of borrowing round their necks- as Chelski have found out, increasing merchandising revenue from football is relatively slow.

There are three hopes for football as we know it:

1) Glazer is an unlovely (American) outsider. In the clannish corrupt world of pro-soccer nobody loves him and everybody wants him to fail. It also helps that outside of the tribes of Manc, nobody likes ManU either. So what if ManU do a Leeds? Nobody has any interest in Glazer succeeding except Glazer himself. In the dog-eat-dog world, any mistake by Avi Glazer (and there are bound to be some) will be siezed upon.

2) Abramovich can single handedly wreck ManU and save soccer as we know it- albeit at the cost of Chelski world domination. I strongly suspect that Abramovich would find it politically very much to his advantage to be seen as the saviour of the football league system which Glazer needs to destroy. Kenyon is on a personal mission to eclipse Man U and this 18 year old Nigerian from Oslo is an interesting example of what Chelsea can do. No doubt, Chelsea waved some ridiculous numbers in front of Rio (and A.Cole) at least in an attempt to increase wage costs of their opponents.

3) The other 19 Prem clubs can simply outvote the Mancs and face them down. The FA Cup survived without Man U in it sfor a season- so could the Premiership. For Man U to have a (TV) product to sell, they have to have a meaningful game against opponents in a competition which has instant brand recognition- in this sense, the Premier League, FA Cup, Champions League are THE brands given credibility by the competing clubs; the Man U Asian Cup in August is not a brand and would cost a fortune to build up to be anything other than a spin-off from the main football competition brands. Man U as a brand only has value to the extent that it is in a credible competition. If Man U get bolshy as they will, the other clubs have to be willing to boycott games against Man U and act collectively against Glazer IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS. So Rovers should be willing to refuse to run out at Old Trafford at 2.45 on a match day unless a very large cheque from the MUTV receipts is handed over. In extremis why not?

I do not believe there is any likelihood of an effective boycott of Man U by their own fans. All this angst is pointless and futile- they couldn't even organise a demo at the West Brom game (cancelled due to apathy). A few head cases will not renew their STs and the Glazers will be very happy not to see them at Old Trafford.

Edited May 13, 2005 by philipl

[Manchester Blue]

I think money wise utd will be ok, some fans might not go but has there are more fans then seats that will not bother him

This is a crucial point.

United (as they are) have identified a problem - on match days, the merchandise outlets are doing sh!t business.

The reasoning behind increasing OT capacity from the current 67K to 76K is not to increase Season Ticket sales, it's to increase day trippers (mostly from abroad) who will frequent the Megastore and spend their holiday budgets there.

Actually the club have taken away a section of tickets usually sold to day-trippers and created a whole new section of LMTB holders for next season. Why? Because demand has been decreasing and they didn't want to risk having unsold seats when they can guarantee money for the season that way.

[stuwilky]

100m a year?

Thats a hell of an interest rate......

[philipl]

Read the post- interest of GBP 20 to 30m a year and then repayment of the GBP 550m borrowed.

Very much doubt if any of that loan money is there for longer than five years.

So you never pay off your mortgage Stu?

[stuwilky]

Capital repayment of 70 - 80mill a year? I wish I paid my mortgage off that quickly - the bloody thing never goes down!!

Im not all that worried about this situation as some people are. And I might be wrong to be feeling this way, only time will tell.

I suspect that we will see Glazer making very few changes (and I have a feeling that the ones he does make the fans will actually like - he needs to keep them on board).

What was United profot last year? about ?53m (and yes I know the interims fell to what ?12m ish?

That profit cover the interest, and that is even with the circa ?40m they parted with in transfer fees last time round. Obviously he needs to start to repay the capital....naming rights to the stadium is surely high on the agenda, not sure what else, but I cant see him alienting all the fans. In fact, as I say, Ive got a feeling hes going to make all the huff and puff SU come out with look very very stupid.

[ChicagoRover]

Just say that over the next season Old Trafford stops selling out because of the ticket prices. But they find that they could easily sell out a stadium in London at those prices, say Wembley for arguments sake. Given that Wimbledon moved and later changed into MK Dons, could Man U also move cities? Wimbledon were able to do it, is there anything really stopping Man U from doing it?

Makes a lot of sense to me, save the majority having to travel so far.

Well I'm not getting too excited just yet. Will this really mess them up long term? Sure they're going to lose a lot of Season Ticket holders but so what? I'm sure there are plenty more sheep queuing up to replace them. MUTV is the most watched Television Station in the world (even more than Channel 5 ) perhaps they could pay a little more over in Japan and Outer Mongolia for the priviledge of watching it?

Why would the fella (who looks like a villain from a Scooby Doo episode) buy the club and then run it completely into the ground? (Other than to cheer me up). Surely he still needs some level of success to protect his investment? Maybe I'm just being naive.

Anyway, surely it's better for them all to start supporting Chelsea now at this stage by way of "protest"?

They call him Leprechaun in Tampa.

He is quite short.

One thing - he has it real easy in the American football. The revenues are shared (mostly tv and merchanding) and negiotated by someone else who are more business saavy than him.

Not to mention the NFL also operates under a salary cap structure so there wouldn't be any pressure to overspend on players.

It'll be a different experience and approach for the Leprechaun over the pond.

CR