An interesting explanation in the Tampa Bay Tribune. Note the assumption that Glazer wants to set up an NFL equivalent for soccer in Europe. A rather less incisive Business Week report

American, your argument about the relative values of companies is wrong- the BBC has an index setting a global representative set of blue chip company values in 2000 at 100 and it is still in the low 90s- many sectors including entertainment have fallen far further. The internet bubble in equity values has not worked its way out of the system yet. Buying Man U on a p/e of 30+ (Glazer's price on the last six month's results) is over-paying on anybody's basis. Nicholson makes many valid points in his article. Where Nicholson completely falls down is in failing to consider the ratio of the rich man's wealth to the extent of his involvement in the target football club. Abramovich has twenty times as much capital as money ploughed into Chelsea, Whelan at Wigan a ratio of four to one, Jack Walker at Rovers was a similar four to one, the tightest ratio which has been a success is probably Gibson at Boro with a ratio of two to one. Against that, clubs have run into problem where the rich investor has taken on a proposition which is worth/costing something more equal to their personal wealth as the sometimes rocky finances of Rangers and Celtic and any number of English examples have shown- Wimbledon under the Norwegians, Cardiff under Hamman, Burnley under their guy etc etc. Glazer probably has a ratio of one and a bit to one at best. The other issue is that all previous examples have taken the clubs on with a motivation other than simple money-making. On the current model, Glazer cannot make money out of Man U. This is a comprehensive report of the retiring Board's (not unexpected) critique of Glazer's plans. Understandably unhappy but equally sufficiently legitimate that a squadron of lawyers and financial advisers will have signed off on this statement. Glazer has to change the business paradigm and make Man U at least four times more progitable than it was as a PLC (which was itself geared up to make profits and optimise dividend payments). That may or may not be a threat to Man U but my gut feel is that he is gambling big with insufficient resources to ride out failures. Whilst the supporter resistance will be a marginal nuisance, Glazer's calculations might be so tight that they could upset his plan. Obviously Glazer wants to buy continued sporting success but sporting success does not follow money automatically- ask Wolves about an example of a Bahamian-based investor (not that far from Florida) not succeding. Even if Man U spend £20m on transfers this summer (a number he wouldn't even confirm to the board currently running Man U), it looks like he will be outspent by Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Wigan and possibly Everton, Newcastle and Spurs. The rates of interest Glazer is paying plus the terms under which he effectively will forfeit his own shares to the hedge funds in five years' time show that his backers are not sharing his risk or have any particular confidence in his secretive plans- their money has entered on sceptical "good luck to you mate but we've made sure you won't lose our money" terms. However, in trying to change the business paradigm, Glazer is a massive threat to Blackburn Rovers. That is why as a Rovers supporter I hope he fails.

1) Back in '99 hundreds of companies were worth very much more than they are today 2) Glazer is spending £812m to buy Manc shares 3) The weakness in the dollar makes buying non-dollar assets more expensive in dollar terms. 4) I am not looking at this in sporting terms but financial and political ones. Man U not winning the FA Cup weakens them financially. Liverpool winning the European Cup means that Man U have relatively less clout within the English game or in speaking for English club interests in Europe. Arsenal were only rivals to Man U over the past decade whereas for the two decades before then Liverpool were unambiguously the leading club in England. With Chelsea financially now massively ahead of Man U following Glazer's appearance and Liverpool European Champions, Man U's leadership of the English game has slipped away which will make any Glazer grab of the football pie for himself even more selfish.

My issues with the Glazer takeover of the mancs has nothing to do with his nationality or my 40 years' abiding dislike for that particular football club, but everything to do with the threat to competitive football and the well-being of the football club I love- Blackburn Rovers. Glazer now has the Board recommendation he sought from the Manc Chairman- with a barb in the tail: rather disingenuously the outgoing Chairman sought legal assurances on a range of issues pertaining to the future operation and conduct of the club from Glazer and received none whatsoever. At least Sir Roy must hope that will prevent unwanted pizza deliveries to his home and office courtesy of disaffected Manc supporters. An American news service perhaps puts this thing into perspective for American readers. If Glazer is so utterly uncaring of Manc supporters, there is no hope for the rest of football being spared from his rapacious behaviour. Glazer's existing sporting interest is in a cosy rich man's collective where there is no relegation or promotion. I am sure he does not expect Man U failing to qualify for the Champs League Group stages, let alone countenance relegation from the top division which is what happened seven years after their first European Cup triumph. As joey big nose has commented on another thread, six English Premiership Clubs (Chelsea, Arsenal, Mancs, Everton, Liverpool, and Spurs) are geared up with the quality of management as well as the transfer budgets to target the top four places- two will inevitably fail. Not forgetting that, at a guess, nine other Prem clubs are working on their own versions of "doing an Everton" and a tenth, Newcastle, probably shares Glazer's belief they should be in the Champs League by rights because they are "massive". I doubt Glazer's business plan countenances such a failure and he will seek to remove that massive downside sporting competitive risk of his Manc business as rapidly as possible. It could be that UEFA will be even more at risk from Glazer than the Premiership in the near future. It will be interesting to see what Abramovich will do but I wouldn't be surprised to see him put an unfriendly impediment or two in the Mancs' way whilst Glazer is trying to absorb his acquisition of Man U and restructure his debt away from the high cost vehicles he had to use to achieve the open market purchase. Perhaps a cheeky bid for Rio Ferdinand and more Obi- style raids on Manc transfer targets?

I don't normally do this sort of thing but I sent the following e-mail to [email protected] under the heading "European Champions League without the European Champions???" Hello, I am astonished by the assertions by M Gaillard that Liverpool are to be excluded from defending the Trophy they won outright last night. I fully understand why the FA are reluctant to bend their rules about the top four Premiership clubs qualifying and believe that UEFA should accommodate Liverpool even if it means they enter the competition in the first qualifying round and perhaps the other English clubs give up a bye into the third round to accommodate them. You have to remember that Everton and Liverpool are city rivals and that Everton have already paid once before in terms of European competition for their neighbours. When the European ban on English clubs came in following Heysel, Everton had just won the UEFA Cup with probably the best side in Europe at that time and would have been heavy favourites to win the European Cup the following season. There is no way that the FA and UEFA can punish Everton again for events on the other side of Stanley Park. Surely, Istanbul in which the Liverpool supporters turned the Final into a Liverpool home game show how massive a club Liverpool is and it must be in UEFA's self-interest to change the rules this season rather than next. After all, Ford, one of the sponsors of the Champions League have a major car plant in Liverpool and are certain to come under significant PR and commercial pressure to back the campaign for Liverpool to be given the right to play as European Champions in the otherwise so-called "Champions League".

The Liverpool supporters are continuing their mayhem here in Malta. I am delighted because: It makes the Prem number 1 in Europe again (with our fifth best team) The English League is again the most successful in Europe historically. Man U/ Glazer can really choke on this. The Italian coverage of Berlusconi was priceless!

Do you think Crespo has played his way back into the Chelsea first team squad after tonight's performance? No sleep tonight- the Liverpool supporters are carcading round Malta and the fireworks are going off! It is going completely crazy out there at the moment. The Britannia Bar in Gzira was oddly quiet- the regulars had gone to Istanbul. Besides the scheduled flights, Air Malta laid on four charter flights- the unknowing Turks assumed they were all Milan supporters so four plane loads of boozed up Maltese Liverpool supporters landed at the airport reserved for the AC Milan supporters all with tickets for the AC section!

Irrespective of Abbey and Whittle's feelings, I cannot see anything stopping PNE getting promoted and West Ham certainly aren't going to. Sheff Weds and Southend to win the other two play-off finals. And then the season will finally be over. Thank goodness none of our players are off on meaningless end-of-season internationals. Of course, there's a chance to see the European Totty at Ewood.

There is a huge gulf in class on paper between AC Milan players and their Liverpool opponents. If Benittez pulls the team together to outsmart AC, this could be one of the most remarkable achievements ever by a manager of a British club. On the field, Steven Gerard could achieve a form of imortality tonight. Have to say, rationally, I haven't yet come up with anything other than an AC Milan win.

Yes it was the seventh as Revidge described it in the 7-0 against Forest. It was great to see it in the flesh but unlike Shearer's howitzer against QPR the previous season, the cameraman caught it beautifully and it looked even better on TV!

This MB is getting boring. Le Saux should not have been in our team ahead of Newton and Eckersley. But as the third best left back Rovers have ever had, that still makes him one hell of a player and undeserving of the jim garbage. The seventh he hit against Forest was European goal of the week and I don't think we have had many of those. Saux crossing to Shearer was probably an even more potent combination than Ripley to Shearer. Sauxy was always a favourite of mine and I wish him all the best in his new media career.

I don't know what the latest moaning about Brum playing him in the Reserves was about. A warning to Sparky because he sees his position under threat from The Axe if the forwards signings result in Rovers playing 4-4-2 again? An attempt to unsettle some "stars" at Brum as they extend the size of their squad. A journalist stuck a microphone in front of him so he said something? Unless there has been a dramatic ageing or loss of desire for the game, I saw enough of him in a Brum shirt to know he is a hugely effective player when fully fit.

Glazer faces stinging interest rates Paul Murphy Tuesday May 24, 2005 The Guardian Malcolm Glazer has a window of three years between May 2007 and the summer of 2010 during which he will be forced to refinance Manchester United, his official takeover document reveals. The group of three hedge-fund investors who put up £275m of the £790m required by Glazer to seize full control of the club have imposed special terms whereby the owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers will have to pay a special penalty charge if he buys the hedge funds out within two years. Similarly, these investors will win special rights over Glazer's shareholding in Manchester United unless he has paid them back in full - and with interest - by August 2010. Red Football, Glazer's acquisition vehicle, published a formal bid document yesterday which highlights the burden Glazer is taking on, with £265m of core debt, a £19m bridging loan due to be repaid in less than a year, a £50m loan for working capital and then a £50m facility earmarked for "capital expenditure". Much of the debt carries an annual interest bill of 8% - compared with a typical mortgage rate of 6.5% in Britain - and £85m of the money raised by Glazer will cost him a stinging 11.5% a year. The interest rates revealed are higher than had been suggested. In other words, the 2007 broadcasting rights negotiation will be a battle to the death. Glazer's or football's

Go for the Apple but Chesh is right about Dells being built to last.

These two concluding paragraphs taken from "The Economist" article on the Glazer take over of Man U spell out what a menace this man is to Blackburn Rovers and the game we know today: "True, United fans may have some reason to worry about the debt that Mr Glazer is piling on to the club's hitherto healthy balance sheet. Exactly how much of a purchase price that values United at £790m ($1.5 billion) will be paid by borrowing is unclear. His use of a high-risk financing technique known as a “PIK” (pay in kind) loan that is now worryingly popular in private-equity deals is not encouraging. Nor is the example of Leeds United, a team that only a few years ago was briefly among the best in Europe but has since been relegated amid a financial crisis brought on by excessive debt and whizzy financing techniques such as making asset-backed securities of its top players. The trigger for this disaster was the failure of Leeds to qualify for the hugely lucrative annual Europe-wide Champions League—a fate that Mr Glazer must ensure never befalls his new team. "To boost revenues, Mr Glazer is expected to try to end joint negotiation of television rights by the top English teams that play in the Premiership, instead negotiating separately the right to screen United games. That sort of rampant individualism, after all, is what American capitalists are famous for. In fact, American team owners tend to profit by suppressing, to some extent, their individualism, points out Stefan Szymanski, co-author of “National Pastime”, a superb new book that compares the economics of the sport business in different countries. American sports leagues—above all the National Football League, in which the Bucs play—tend to be cartels, with fewer teams than there would be in a free market, protected by the absence of relegation, and often using socialistic practices such as salary limits for players and a centralised sharing out of young players to stop any team becoming too hopeless. As the Premiership evolves, and, above all, as Europe's top soccer teams, with United to the fore, debate how to take Europe-wide competition to the next even more profitable level, Mr Glazer's knowledge of American sport's anti-competitive collectivism may prove priceless."

Paul, I am repeating the Independent's assertion about £812m of borrowings which presumably has passed through the libel lawyer's office before being published. The Glazers undoubtedly have some cash- buying seven mansions etc. but The Independent is probably correct in concluding they didn't have the £272m lying around with which they built up their initial Man U stake before they took the bridging loan to buy out Cubic. So that is probably privately borrowed money as well. If the Glazers are worth £700m as reported, then assets such as the Buccaneers, the fish oil factory, the air bag factory, the trailer parks (if they have any left) and the mansions are no doubt counted in the ownership total but those are asset values and largely not cash. Even if the Glazers had a cash mountain, it is highly improbable they used/risked their own cash to any great extent. In trying to rationalise what Glazer is up to, some commerntators are guessing he leveraged (used little of his own cash backed by masses of other people's money) to make a quick return. In other words, lets say only £50m of Glazers' own money were involved and they sell Man U on for £900m, then they stand to take the difference between the buying and selling price less costs as their own profit- and would take it in cash after tax. That way £50m turns into £100m for the Glazers very quickly. The problem with this idea is that the transaction costs- bankers, lawyers, borrowing fees and interest must already be enormous- Glazer has been stalking Man U for a long time and had to change advisers so I would guess he is already over £10m out of pocket on those sorts of costs at the very least- probably more like £30m. The second difficulty is that he has already paid a huge price for Man U. If recent half year results continue into the future, it would take Man U 24 years of profits to generate income to cover the £800m purchase price before allowing for interest etc. so it is hard to see who would pay more than the Glazers for Man U in the short term. The reason why everybody (including, eventually all the fans) is selling at £3 per share is that price is more than anyone can reasonably foresee getting back from holding Man U shares in any other circumstances. Returning to the question about the preference shares, the exact nature of those shares will be revealed in the offer document expected later this week. It is highly probable that they will carry a fixed premium (ie an interest payment) and will be secured over assets. In other words, they will have all the characteristics of being debt but not technically termed as such. In corporate finance, this sort of paper is often referred to as "mezzanine finance"- half way between debt and equity. If things go well, it becomes regarded as equity, badly and it is often more painful than ordinary debt because the holders already own a chunk of the enterprise as well as being able to call in the security. Finally, the point about expulsion from the Premiership- I probably did not explain this well enough. In my opinion, the Premier League members have plenty of means with which to fight the Glazers if they try to make a grab for moneys which at present are going into the other 19 clubs. Make no bones- a redistribution of TV income is robbing Rovers to pay Glazer United. Quite apart from a straightforward 19-1 vote against the idea (or even 7-13 in favour and it still fails), the Premiership has a number of other options to keep Glazer under control: - there will at some point be an Inspectors' report into Leeds United. Even without the Glazers running around, the FA and Premiership would no doubt come under political pressure to tighten up the rules of governance and debt finance in football. On any basis, the Glazers dumping their debt onto Man U would put Man U in trouble when the Leeds report is finally issued. - UEFA have already issued a consultative document which will make the level of club indebtedness a licensing issue from 2007/8. In other words, clubs with more than a rather restricted level of debt would not be granted a license to participate in any UEFA competition. UEFA has looked at Leeds, Lazio, Borussia (even Real and Barca) and been alarmed at the way irresponsible management can borrow on the never never and create successful football clubs against the interests of more responsibly run clubs. Surely it is in the Premiership's interest to adopt those proposals itself to avoid any of its clubs being barred from European competition and potentially losing a place for Premiership clubs? - The Premiership is no doubt intrigued by the NFL's behaviour which the Glazer involvement has brought to their attention. The NFL is a collective of franchise owners far more socialistic and controlling than anything yet envisaged in Europe (but could be a model for a European Super League). In order to participate in the closed collective, the franchise owners are clearly interested in the other franchise holders abiding by the rules which is why the NFL is a relatively strictly governed members' club. Hence, the Glazers are being investigated by the NFL over the Man U purchase to see if: 1) The Buccaneers have exceded the borrowing limits for a franchise ($100m). 2) They have contravened NFL rules against pledging a franchise as security in borrowings. 3) To get assurance that the Man U dalliance will in no way harm the management of the Buccaneers or the interests of the NFL- the idea of setting up a Man U team to compete in the American Soccer League might be seen as inimicable to obligations as a franchise holder. Some of those ideas could well find their way into the Premiership's thinking in deciding how to deal with the Glazer threat. I would imagine the Premiership and their lawyers are actively considering giving notice of intended rule change on indebtedness being put to a vote of the Premier League clubs before the Glazers dump their debt onto Man U. At some point, the Glazers and the Premier League will inevitably clash. Expulsion of Man U from the Premiership would be a last step but it is undoubtedly an option and it would be better the Glazers go out on the League's terms than on their own. Was the FA Cup that devalued being without Man U for a season?

There has been a distinct shift in sentiment about the Glazers on this side of the Atlantic in the last few days. The BBC World Service finance editor has shifted his position from believing the Glazers would make a success of the deal to now expecting they will fail. There is a very interesting article in The Independent here. The nub is: The Glazers have borrowed every penny of the £812m they are paying for Man U The interest payments are at huge rates including a bridging loan they have taken out to buy out McManus and Magnier The banks have taken out security over all the Glazer assets except the Buccaneers. The NFL rules prevent their franchises being used as bank security but even so the NFL has launched an enquiry into the Glazer take over of Man U. Therefore the banks will hold Man U and the fish oil company when Man U sinks under the debt. Interestingly, the share holding Man U supprters are being very sensible. Rather than be heroic holders of worthless pieces of paper, it looks like they are all going to sell out and take Glazer's £3 per share (perhaps a few token shares will stay in to obtain information) and transfer their £50m into a fund ready to pick up the pieces once Glazer fails. For Glazer to succeed he needs: Berlusconi to come on board with him to set up a franchised European Super League. Premiership and UEFA bosses to be stupid even by their own standards of ineptitude. Somehow, make interest payments of at least twice the level of the Mancs' profits for him even to make it to 2007 to have a one in 20 voice in the renegotiation of the Sky deal. I think there could be a realistic possibility of the Premiership expelling Man U at some point in the future- a simple device of adopting the rules on indebtedness proposed by UEFA would achieve the expulsion without resorting to bringing the battle onto TV rights but it would be Man U being greedy over TV rights which would precipitate the vote. Lets see what the reaction of the other 19 clubs is when Glazer finally isues his delayed offer to buy the 24% of the shares he does not already hold. The delay in making the offer must be painful as it is extending the period over which the bridging loan is running. Here's hoping the Mancs lose the FA Cup and are thereby denied the winner's £1m prize money. It would be nice to see the Mancs exit the Premiership into the Coca Cola Championship League rather than the European Championship League.

Ok, a somewhat more serious post this time. Had a little trawl through the Newcastle site to see what's going on and picked up Fat Freddie saying he "wants to clear the decks" before Souness starts signing anyone. Obviously FF knows very little about his Manager's track record at Ewood. Apart from his first two summers, Rovers were left without: - a left back - a left winger - and most recently, a centre forward who is neither unlucky nor stands taller than 5' 6". When the window closes on 30 September it will be interesting to see where the gaps in the bar codes' squad are! As it is, FF proudly announced he was going to Lisbon for the meeting of the G14 this week (in as loose a sense as any of us can say we are going to London for the Cabinet or Bank of England Monetary Policy Meeting- unless you happen to be Jack Straw reading this!) when he was in reality begging Sporting Lisbon to give him as much of his £8.5m back for Hugo Viana as he could possibly get (probably not a lot). Then Kluyvert is definitely out (Big Sam's misfits seems to be the favoured destination). Hughes has gone, Bellamy won't even cross the threshhold for the start of Intertoto training next week whilst Robert seems certain to be on his way. Brum want Butt (Savage replacement but they are in the market for so many midfielders I wonder if they are preparing for life without Dunn). Given seems certain to go. Then the heavenly twins, Bowyer and Dyer, are still around to spread harmony on Tyneside both having received so many final warnings that the term is utterly meaningless. So much for FF's clear out.

Well they've had their transition. Next season there's a full-on relegation battle to look forwards to.

BBC Interview. Hope he plays football better than he talks! With Man U complaining to FIFA, this case still has the possibility of causing changes to the way Agents are allowed to operate.

This is good news for Rovers! If Glazer is planning to steal TV revenue from the other Premiership clubs, he is going to get no help from the EU Commission to do it.

No news about additions to the G14. I found this story hard to believe because: 1) Chelsea haven't applied 2) Newcastle fulfill virtually no criteria for admission apart from having a gobby chairman. 3) If Newcastle AND Chelsea had been admitted, at least another six clubs around Europe would have to be admitted and another twenty would cry foul. Back to Souness and Newcastle- The latest is that Shay Given has criticised Newcastle's performance last season as unacceptable. As close to saying get me out of this madhouse and into a proper football club as he dare. Owen is going nowhere near the St James' mad house. So Souness is back up at Ibrox supporting the Murray charity basket case. Having already sent £18.8m to the cause from Rovers and Newcastle, he is going to swell the coffers with an over-priced bid for Dado Prso.

A very good analysis by the ever-excellent Will hutton in The Guardian

I don't know whether that interview was a stitch up by an unsympathetic journo but if it isn't, Souness has lost his marbles. He makes no sense whatsoever if you read the extended version on the sky site. What is all this "I rest my case nonsense"? Andy Cole- second highest goal scorer in the history of the Prem whom Souness singularly failed to motivate/manage when Kegan and Ferguson had no problems getting him to play. David Dunn- is Souness saying he foresaw Dunny's injury problems which the Birmingham medical didn't detect or is Souness claiming credit for inflicting Dunn's problems? Craig Bellamy- seems that Martin O'Neill and Mark Hughes have a different opinion. Bellamy certainly showing he can play and score at a lower level and no doubt can still hack it back in the big time. Andy Todd- well and truly burying Souness' case against him and long may it continue. Over the second half of last season, showed himself to be a vastly superior defender to the £8m Boumsong signed by.... Dwight Yorke- which misguided Manager paid £2m for him when Ferguson had already binned him as demotivated and therefore no good? Perhaps worth asking why Souness ONLY fell out with him once in a training session when most Rovers fans would have fallen out with Yorke EVERY training session.

Very smart new look - well done! Unfortunately the board rejected me when I tried to post this message and I had to log in again! One suggestion re navigation - would it be possible to go direct between the MB and ICBNF without having to go up one step to the menu to move across?