Question to EPL fans regarding American owners

MuPpItJoCkEy

I posted a comment on in the Newcastle United Transfer Rumours And General Discussion 2008/2009 regarding the possibility of more Americans buying a Premiership club whilst quoting the rumours which are surfacing about Mike Ashley supposedly in talks with the possibility of selling up the club.

In that comment I said that I felt that the Americans had done alright with United so far.

Now Mr Alan left me the following comment

The Americans havent done alright with Utd.

Talk to real Utd fans about their opinions on the glaziers and you'll find they fall right in line with Liverpool fans feelings.

In fact its the one thing the two groups agree on.

To which I replied

Well personally I've been a United fan for 16-18 years. Couldn't pin point a date but a long time and I consider myself a real United fan and I feel that the Americans have done alright at United for the moment.

They have contributed to United. They have backed the manager in the transfer market, there has been success on the pitch and trophies well earned added to the trophy cabinet bringing joy to fans all over the world. On that note, I'm a happy real Manchester United supporter.

Not sure this should be in this thread so I am going to leave it at that.

This made me wonder how other Man United fans felt regarding the Glazers ownership of the club now as at the begining, there was a lot of contraversy. A lot of fans were against the idea. Do they still feel the same now?

And the opinions from supporters of other clubs views on how things have worked out for Manchester United under the American ownership is more than welcome.

I'm interested in knowing peoples general feeling regarding this subject.

Mr Alan

this was my response to you:


you are very wrong, you club is poised a cliff edge, unlike any other club in the world, the level of debt on the club is totally unsustainable without success year upon year upon year, which NO club achieves. IF one of CQ,Ronaldo,SAF leave Utd could be in very real danger. Your americans have introduced ticketing schemes which rip off your fans. Their net spend has gone down every year.

I'll leave it at that, but i hope someone like PHB who is more aware of all the facts involved is able to talk you around, cause as it stands at the moment you're are blinded by success.....off the pitch your club is crippled beyond belief.

_blank_

It doesn't really bother non-regular match going fans tbh.

It's the locals, the real fans, who will have the different view.

Priced out of tickets, not able to get to games because of OOTs coming from every corner of the globe, alienated from the club they no longer recognise as the one they grew up supporting in the shadow of the stadium.

Like, it won't matter to you if you have to pay £25, £30 or even £50 quid for a match ticket, it's a one off expense for you, part of a package deal probably, and it's no bother to you to spend a couple of hundred euro for a day trip, or a weekend jaunt.

But it matters to the local fella who has to shell out for himself and a couple of sons. It's unaffordable for the real football fans. Forget the day trippers, they aren't the club, they didn't build the club, they didn't stick by the club in the dark days of the 1970s and 1980s.

So, I bet if you go to Manchester and poll the people of Salford, you will get a much bigger majority saying they think the Merkins are bad for the club. VERY FÚCKING BAD.

They've turned the club into a cash cow for their own personal monetary gain.

It's not about the football any more. The club has no connection with the fans.

Iago

Des, I agree with some of that and disagree strongly with some of it. I don't have time for a detailed response now, but I'll come back to the thread later today.

leninbenjamin

DesF wrote: »

It's not about the football any more. The club has no connection with the fans.

was it ever? remember when the Edwards floated the club? or that wee controversy when the club logo went from Manchester United Football Club became Manchester United (as in PLC).

fiscally the Glazers are playing a dangerous game, but they are in a much better position than the Liverpool co owners and some other clubs... remember the game isn't about the nominal size of debt, but one's ability to repay. No one better placed for this than Utd.

_blank_

leninbenjamin wrote: »

fiscally the Glazers are playing a dangerous game, but they are in a much better position than the Liverpool co owners

Great, another potentially interesting debate is going to descend into a fúcking liverpool versus united farce now.

Nice one.

estebancambias

Des:

It's unaffordable for the real (Insert Club fans)

Des there is no such thing as a 'real' football fan. If a real football fan is someone who heads to the local before a game to get wasted, then I'm glad Im not this real football fan.

Actually I'd argue a real football fan would have no preference for any team and just watch/go to random games.

I agree with what you say, but I disagree with this.

leninbenjamin

DesF wrote: »

Great, another potentially interesting debate is going to descend into a fúcking liverpool versus united farce now.

Nice one.

DONT MENTION THE WAR

Kildarered

At the moment the Glazers have balanced their off field problems for example ticket prices with success on the field so it hasnt raised its head that much lately

Jivin Turkey

DesF wrote: »

It doesn't really bother non-regular match going fans tbh.

It's the locals, the real fans, who will have the different view.

Priced out of tickets, not able to get to games because of OOTs coming from every corner of the globe, alienated from the club they no longer recognise as the one they grew up supporting in the shadow of the stadium.

Like, it won't matter to you if you have to pay £25, £30 or even £50 quid for a match ticket, it's a one off expense for you, part of a package deal probably, and it's no bother to you to spend a couple of hundred euro for a day trip, or a weekend jaunt.

But it matters to the local fella who has to shell out for himself and a couple of sons. It's unaffordable for the real football fans. Forget the day trippers, they aren't the club, they didn't build the club, they didn't stick by the club in the dark days of the 1970s and 1980s.

So, I bet if you go to Manchester and poll the people of Salford, you will get a much bigger majority saying they think the Merkins are bad for the club. VERY FÚCKING BAD.

They've turned the club into a cash cow for their own personal monetary gain.

It's not about the football any more. The club has no connection with the fans.

You'd swear this was exclusively happening at United. It is happening every where, and would have regardless of American involvement.

The American's have come in and United have shed out loads of money on players. I don't know where figures for net spending decreasing are coming from considering United have bought about five players in and around the £20M mark in the last 24 months without selling anyone of note (or am I missing someone? RVN maybe?).

The club being "saddled with debt" is a scare mongering tactic used by the anti-brigade. It is not as desperate as most make it out. United will never cease to operate as a going-concern.

I'm sure the people of Salford were celebrating the night of the CL final. Just like all the other fans regardless of their place of birth. Lat season, one of the most successful in an illustrious history, was directly as a result of how the Americans have run the club.

_blank_

Jivin Turkey wrote: »

You'd swear this was exclusively happening at United. It is happening every where, and would have regardless of American involvement.

I do apologise for it seeming as if I was singling out United.

That was NOT my intention with that post, at all.

estebancambias

Everything of course has gone wrong, they're Americans......duh:rolleyes:

Jivin Turkey

DesF wrote: »

I do apologise for it seeming as if I was singling out United.

That was NOT my intention with that post, at all.

But it's happening at every level, Eircom League and even below.

I watch and play for a LSL team, our first team is in the top division of Major Sunday. We now have to pay as much as €5 (generally €2) to go stand on the touchline and watch them.

It's all about paying the bills at every level.

Mr Alan

Jivin Turkey, read the OP, he is looking for opinions on the takeover at Utd. Of course is happening everywhere, but thats not wat this thread is about.

Jivin Turkey

Mr Alan wrote: »

Jivin Turkey, read the OP, he is looking for opinions on the takeover at Utd. Of course is happening everywhere, but thats not wat this thread is about.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56459047&postcount=10

Mr Alan

i read your post originally, just pointing out that no one is pretending this is happening at Utd only. Only discussing the topic at hand.

Helix

DesF wrote: »

It's the locals... who will have the different view.

from a villa pov, i doubt id have bought a season ticket holder if it wasnt for lerner

OhNoYouDidn't

A load of Irish people arguing about whether foreigh ownership of a foreign club is desirable.


You really, really, really couldn't make it up.

grahamo

All I know is before the Glazers took over I could get a ticket for around £25. Now its an average of £40 (Depending on where your sitting of course)
Even at £25 I thought that was expensive. When I was a kid the Juniors tunstile in the corner of the Stretford end was £1.50 (around 1980)
The Glazers seem to be under the impression that tickets are undervalued. They are pricing the fans that built the club out of their seats and using the lame excuse that compared to Chelsea or Arsenal its still much cheaper to watch a Premiership game at Old Trafford.
I'd rather have Manchester United minus the Glazers but I should also say the moneygrabbing and ripping off the fans started when Edwards floated United on the stock market. Thats when people should have started protesting.

Charlie

The things is, nationality has nothing to do with it. Plenty of Brits have fcuked up as owners and chairmen. Ridsdale, Bates, yer man from Gretna.

However, what does worry me, is when equity firms, or big money men like the Glaziers or Hicks/Gillet, buy a club by basically taking out a massive loan at a club. They are buying and selling clubs looking to turn big profits, and often too quickly. It's no secret that alot of club owners are in it for the money. But these recent takeovers, imo, are very fragile, and susceptible to reeking havok with club. Both on and off the field. The rely on the club to achieve year in, year out success. If it all goes wrong, they're not fcuked as the club is saddled worth the debt and they can walk away, with a few years takings, and no debt attached to them. Meanwhile, the club could implode ala Leeds.

I would be saying the same thing if British or Irish companies/money men were doing the same thing, but for whatever reason, it seems to be fairly exclusive to the yanks.

OhNoYouDidn't

so basically what you are saying grahmo is that you want Man Utd to compete with the cream of Europe but don't want to pay for it.

Right so.

_blank_

Sunderland.








































oh but that's different. :rolleyes:

estebancambias

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

A load of Irish people arguing about whether foreigh ownership of a foreign club is desirable.


You really, really, really couldn't make it up.

Agree.

Mitch Connor

I hate the glazers.

IMO we have been succesful in spite of them and not because of them. The money we have spent on players could ave been spent by the club previously without having to get a loan to do it.

United on the pitch, for the moment, are fine. Off the pitch things are bleak. 600million in debt, a figure which rises everytime we refinance, and which is going to get harder to pay off as interest rates rise. United are a couple of 'bad' seasons away from imploding financially, and even continued success isn't guaranteed to keep us afloat - given the PIKs will becoming ever more problematic as the glazers can't refinance them away in the current climate.

grahamo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

so basically what you are saying grahmo is that you want Man Utd to compete with the cream of Europe but don't want to pay for it.

Right so.[/QUOTE
I'd still be a United fan whether they won European cups or not. Unfortunately, the money men in football know this and take advantage by milking fans loyalty for every penny. Should I be happy about ticket price increases well above the rate of inflation? All to help pay off the debts of some businessman who has absolutely no interest in football?

estebancambias

DesF wrote: »

Sunderland.








































oh but that's different. :rolleyes:

Sunderland is a good club for Irish players. I don't like the bandwagon fans, but Keane respects the Irish League. Example paying the proper value of O'Donavon.

_blank_

estebancambias wrote: »

Irish League

You obviously don't.

estebancambias

The league takes place on the Island of Ireland...it is the Irish League. I see no reason for :rolleyes:

_blank_

Exactly

OhNoYouDidn't

estebancambias wrote: »

The league takes place on the Island of Ireland...it is the Irish League. I see no reason for :rolleyes:

Schoolboy error EC. Schoolboy.

Iago

Right I have some time to dedicate to this so here goes, Des not particularily targeted at you but you've had the most detailed response so far!

DesF wrote: »

It doesn't really bother non-regular match going fans tbh.

It's the locals, the real fans, who will have the different view.

I have a problem with the premise that the only real fans are local fans. I understand (especially from an eircom league point of view) that it can be galling for some that people support teams from different areas/countries. In my view that doesn't make them any less a fan than someone who grew up in the shadow of the stadium.

To me a real fan is a fan that shows a real and enduring interest in the club, that goes to games whenever possible. That follows them through thick and thin and regardless of success or failure is proud to wear the shirt (figuratively speaking).

I live in Dublin, but I've always been a Man Utd fan. I've travelled around europe watching them play and I've been to some of the biggest games they've had over the last 15 years. I've also been at Old Trafford to watch them play the likes of Stoke City in the League cup when I was around and able to go to the game.

I would like to think of myself as a real fan of the club, not because I've gone to the games, not because I've spent money following them but because on a daily basis I'm reading up on the club, what their plans are, how the reserves are getting on, who the next big player is etc.

DesF wrote: »

Priced out of tickets, not able to get to games because of OOTs coming from every corner of the globe, alienated from the club they no longer recognise as the one they grew up supporting in the shadow of the stadium.

Like, it won't matter to you if you have to pay £25, £30 or even £50 quid for a match ticket, it's a one off expense for you, part of a package deal probably, and it's no bother to you to spend a couple of hundred euro for a day trip, or a weekend jaunt.

But it matters to the local fella who has to shell out for himself and a couple of sons. It's unaffordable for the real football fans.

If you think spending a couple of hundred euro every second week to watch your team play is no bother and doesn't matter then you're getting paid far too much in your job Of course it matters, and of course it's a bother. The fact remains that I'd rather spend money on that than anything else. I take my holidays in weekend increments, so that I can get to as many games as I can afford. I sacrifice holdiays abroad and nights out so that I can do it, and in my case I generally have to shell out for my wife and son as well or face their wrath when I get back!

Anyway, put all that aside. The price of tickets is increasing because the price of everything is increasing. It has nothing to do with American owners, but with football as a whole and it's worth noting that the most expensive ticket at United is only number 9 in the premier league cost table.

An earlier poster mentioned having to pay to watch his own first team play in LSL. I've played intermediate LSL in teams where half the players were being paid to play for the club. It's a discussion better suited to humanities to be honest, because the greed and drivers behind these price increases are a global problem not a football one.

DesF wrote: »

Forget the day trippers, they aren't the club, they didn't build the club, they didn't stick by the club in the dark days of the 1970s and 1980s.

I beg to differ, and again I know I'm only one person but I've been a united fan since '82, I've been travelling to Old Trafford since '87. Granted the first few years was out of my control and was down to someone bringing me, but I wouldn't have changed my behaviours regardless of the success of the team.

DesF wrote: »

So, I bet if you go to Manchester and poll the people of Salford, you will get a much bigger majority saying they think the Merkins are bad for the club. VERY FÚCKING BAD.

They've turned the club into a cash cow for their own personal monetary gain.

It's not about the football any more. The club has no connection with the fans.

When the glazers first came in for united I wasn't sure, but when I thought about it I realised that if they were willing to buy into the club then they were going to have to run it as a successful business in order to succeed and make money. I'm not blind or naive enough to think that everything is going to be rosy all the time, and as has been alluded to earlier there is a significant debt round the neck of the club at the moment. As long as the team are successful that won't be too big an issue, but a couple of lean years could see major upheaval as a result and yes that is entirely possible.

To reflect on your last point, I don't think it's been about the football for a long long time now. I remember when Baggio signed for Juventus in 1990, a 3-year deal worth $1m and a Ferrari....it was huge, an incredible amount for a footballer to be paid.

Now we have Ronaldinho hinting that he's "insulted" that Man City were only offering him £300k a week. Average players in average premiership sides picking up £40-£60k a week in wages and I know of at least two players who were playing Div 3 football and getting paid £5k a week. You have players tearing up contracts and moving around trying to get sign-up bonuses, players rolling around on the ground trying to get others sent off and players who believe they can do whatever they want off the pitch without consequences.

It doesn't matter who the owners of football clubs are anymore, the whole thing is out of control. The benefit of having foreign investors is that they want to make money, which means they'll support the manager in the transfer market so as to protect their investment. The negative side of that occurs when success is missing, and debt interest piles up and you end up like Leeds United. Nobody is too big to avoid that but I think for the time being United are in a better position than they were 4 years ago. How long that lasts is anyones guess though.

Mitch Connor

Iago wrote: »

Nobody is too big to avoid that but I think for the time being United are in a better position than they were 4 years ago. How long that lasts is anyones guess though.

600million in debt, no matter what way you dress it up, can't result in a better position, imo.

Chong

Iago wrote: »

Right I have some time to dedicate to this so here goes, Des not particularily targeted at you but you've had the most detailed response so far!



I have a problem with the premise that the only real fans are local fans. I understand (especially from an eircom league point of view) that it can be galling for some that people support teams from different areas/countries. In my view that doesn't make them any less a fan than someone who grew up in the shadow of the stadium.

To me a real fan is a fan that shows a real and enduring interest in the club, that goes to games whenever possible. That follows them through thick and thin and regardless of success or failure is proud to wear the shirt (figuratively speaking).

I live in Dublin, but I've always been a Man Utd fan. I've travelled around europe watching them play and I've been to some of the biggest games they've had over the last 15 years. I've also been at Old Trafford to watch them play the likes of Stoke City in the League cup when I was around and able to go to the game.

I would like to think of myself as a real fan of the club, not because I've gone to the games, not because I've spent money following them but because on a daily basis I'm reading up on the club, what their plans are, how the reserves are getting on, who the next big player is etc.



If you think spending a couple of hundred euro every second week to watch your team play is no bother and doesn't matter then you're getting paid far too much in your job Of course it matters, and of course it's a bother. The fact remains that I'd rather spend money on that than anything else. I take my holidays in weekend increments, so that I can get to as many games as I can afford. I sacrifice holdiays abroad and nights out so that I can do it, and in my case I generally have to shell out for my wife and son as well or face their wrath when I get back!

Anyway, put all that aside. The price of tickets is increasing because the price of everything is increasing. It has nothing to do with American owners, but with football as a whole and it's worth noting that the most expensive ticket at United is only number 9 in the premier league cost table.

An earlier poster mentioned having to pay to watch his own first team play in LSL. I've played intermediate LSL in teams where half the players were being paid to play for the club. It's a discussion better suited to humanities to be honest, because the greed and drivers behind these price increases are a global problem not a football one.



I beg to differ, and again I know I'm only one person but I've been a united fan since '82, I've been travelling to Old Trafford since '87. Granted the first few years was out of my control and was down to someone bringing me, but I wouldn't have changed my behaviours regardless of the success of the team.




When the glazers first came in for united I wasn't sure, but when I thought about it I realised that if they were willing to buy into the club then they were going to have to run it as a successful business in order to succeed and make money. I'm not blind or naive enough to think that everything is going to be rosy all the time, and as has been alluded to earlier there is a significant debt round the neck of the club at the moment. As long as the team are successful that won't be too big an issue, but a couple of lean years could see major upheaval as a result and yes that is entirely possible.

To reflect on your last point, I don't think it's been about the football for a long long time now. I remember when Baggio signed for Juventus in 1990, a 3-year deal worth $1m and a Ferrari....it was huge, an incredible amount for a footballer to be paid.

Now we have Ronaldinho hinting that he's "insulted" that Man City were only offering him £300k a week. Average players in average premiership sides picking up £40-£60k a week in wages and I know of at least two players who were playing Div 3 football and getting paid £5k a week. You have players tearing up contracts and moving around trying to get sign-up bonuses, players rolling around on the ground trying to get others sent off and players who believe they can do whatever they want off the pitch without consequences.

It doesn't matter who the owners of football clubs are anymore, the whole thing is out of control. The benefit of having foreign investors is that they want to make money, which means they'll support the manager in the transfer market so as to protect their investment. The negative side of that occurs when success is missing, and debt interest piles up and you end up like Leeds United. Nobody is too big to avoid that but I think for the time being United are in a better position than they were 4 years ago. How long that lasts is anyones guess though.

Absolutely excellent post imo.

Iago

Tauren wrote: »

600million in debt, no matter what way you dress it up, can't result in a better position, imo.

and I get that, I really do but...

In an ideal scenario we'd have someone like the Glazers who could afford to buy the club outright and not have any debt associated with it. At the same time, there's no way they took that level of debt out unless they had their brightest brains crunching numbers and worked out that it was still going to make a profit overall. There's an argument that all they have to do is cover the interest and take a steady profit each year, but given the level of expenditure they've authorised since taking over that seems unlikely.

Without the Glazers we were going to struggle to compete finanically with the likes of Chelsea, and signing players was a real chore. Emphasised by losing out on Duff, Ronaldinho & Robben to name just 3 when getting the go ahead took so long under the old system.

To be honest if it wasn't the Glaziers it would have been someone else, only a matter of time.

Charlie

Iago wrote: »

and I get that, I really do but...

In an ideal scenario we'd have someone like the Glazers who could afford to buy the club outright and not have any debt associated with it. At the same time, there's no way they took that level of debt out unless they had their brightest brains crunching numbers and worked out that it was still going to make a profit overall. There's an argument that all they have to do is cover the interest and take a steady profit each year, but given the level of expenditure they've authorised since taking over that seems unlikely.

Without the Glazers we were going to struggle to compete finanically with the likes of Chelsea, and signing players was a real chore. Emphasised by losing out on Duff, Ronaldinho & Robben to name just 3 when getting the go ahead took so long under the old system.

To be honest if it wasn't the Glaziers it would have been someone else, only a matter of time.

But you see the Glazers have saddled the club with the debt, not themselves. Had they saddled themselves with debt (and had the Club pay them back over the years), then yeah, you would be guaranteed that they would want to make a success of United and ensure it doesn't go balls up.

However, that's not my understanding. The way I see it, they took over a club, using the clubs own assets as collateral, and have saddled the club with the necessary debt. In effect, they have inherited a football club for free. If it goes balls up, they walk away without any debt to their name. This is a dangerous situation imo, as it's not as if United is the Glazers only responsibility. They also own the Bucs, and run multiple companies from real estate to healthcare and much more. Should one of these commitments require the Glazers full attention and financial commitment, what's hodling them back saying fup United, it's not like we have anything of substance to lose, and take their eye off of Old Trafford, pulling their resources away as well.

Jivin Turkey

Mr Alan wrote: »

i read your post originally, just pointing out that no one is pretending this is happening at Utd only. Only discussing the topic at hand.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56459047&postcount=10

Please ensure to direct your criticism for steering the thread to the correct party.

bohsman

estebancambias wrote: »

The league takes place on the Island of Ireland...it is the Irish League. I see no reason for :rolleyes:

It does indeed but O'Donovan never played in it, also if Fulham hadnt been in for him they wouldnt have paid that much.

Jivin Turkey

This "saddled with debt" is so misunderstood.

The club is now private, so instead of paying dividends to shareholders it pays interest. Instead of what essentially are loans from shareholders it's loans from a bank. Not as simple as that I know but many people on here don't have a simple understanding of how a business works.

United may have £XM amount of debt on its balance sheet but what it doesn't have is the real value of the iconic brand that is Manchester United. It rivals McDonald and Coca Cola as one of the biggest in the world. They'll never follow the same fate as Leeds because of this.

If the Glazier's run into trouble they'll have their arms bitten off when offering to sell the club.

raido9

MuPpItJoCkEy wrote: »

I posted a comment on in the Newcastle United Transfer Rumours And General Discussion 2008/2009 regarding the possibility of more Americans buying a Premiership club whilst quoting the rumours which are surfacing about Mike Ashley supposedly in talks with the possibility of selling up the club.

In that comment I said that I felt that the Americans had done alright with United so far.

Now Mr Alan left me the following comment



To which I replied



This made me wonder how other Man United fans felt regarding the Glazers ownership of the club now as at the begining, there was a lot of contraversy. A lot of fans were against the idea. Do they still feel the same now?

And the opinions from supporters of other clubs views on how things have worked out for Manchester United under the American ownership is more than welcome.

I'm interested in knowing peoples general feeling regarding this subject.

Dont worry about Mr Alan, his anti-Utd/pro-Liverpool glasses blind him from seeing anything the way it is.

The Glazers have not been bad for Utd. They've continued to invest (pumping money into an already winning team) and they are staying out of the football side of things.
What more can you ask from them?

raido9

Mr Alan wrote: »

this was my response to you:

you are very wrong, you club is poised a cliff edge, unlike any other club in the world, the level of debt on the club is totally unsustainable without success year upon year upon year, which NO club achieves.

Can you back up this claim with any sort of fact or proof?

Mr Alan

Good man Radio.

And people who share the same opinion as me, like thousands of Utd fans, the waiting list for season tickets that has now disappeared, the people who broke away from the club and formed their own club, Tauren, PHB.....people like that....its their Anti-Utd glasses blinding them is it?!

Cop yourself on.

Mitch Connor

Jivin Turkey wrote: »

This "saddled with debt" is so misunderstood.

The club is now private, so instead of paying dividends to shareholders it pays interest. Instead of what essentially are loans from shareholders it's loans from a bank. Not as simple as that I know but many people on here don't have a simple understanding of how a business works.

United may have £XM amount of debt on its balance sheet but what it doesn't have is the real value of the iconic brand that is Manchester United. It rivals McDonald and Coca Cola as one of the biggest in the world. They'll never follow the same fate as Leeds because of this.

If the Glazier's run into trouble they'll have their arms bitten off when offering to sell the club.

Yeah, and the interest payments, which are getting higher, are already way above the amount we paid out in dividends as a PLC (United were known for paying relatively small dividends to its shareholders) so it isn't just a case of swapping one for the other.

United would have people willing to buy them, but those people would also need to find a way to pay off the massive debt (could be well over 600million by the time we new owners come to the 'rescue') and still hope to keep United successful. At this point, we'd need an Abramovic to come and just wipe the debt away; and i can't see that happening.

Also, what if Platini carries through on his threat to stop debt riddled clubs competing in the CL - United would be royally, and completely screwed.

Iago

The season ticket waiting list is far from disappeared (unfortunately) as I'm still sitting on it. It has reduced, mainly due to the provision of single season tickets in the last couple of years. The breakaway fans all left prior to the takeover effects been seen and as such had jumped ship before a true reflection could be given.

All that aside, I do think that there are genuine concerns around saddling a club with a large debt and effectively squeezing as much juice out of it as you again. This is no different to the business world where companies are bought with the sole premise of getting some short term boosts in revenues and earnings before selling them off for a profit.

Do I think the Glazers will sell if the right offer comes in? Absolutely, and that's a million miles away from the traditions of all the proudest football clubs. At the same time the world is moving on, and football has to change with it. I'm not overly concerned with the debt at the club because the dynamics of football and the English league in particular have dramatically changed.

While it's entirely possible that United "may" struggle for a few years, the reality is that the gap between the haves (United, chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal) the wannabees (Spurs, newcastle, Everton, City) and the also rans (everyone else) gets bigger every year. You'll always see upsets on an individual basis but I think it's unlikely you'll see any of the big four have a couple of seaons in a row where they don't win a trophy, or finish in the top four, or qualify for the group stages of the champions league. As a result there will always be significantly more money coming in than for the other teams.

Of the top four liverpool and united are best prepared for any drop in form due to their worldwide brand and marketability.

raido9

grahamo wrote: »

The Glazers seem to be under the impression that tickets are undervalued.

Basic economics would point towards them being right, the seats are undervalued.

PHB

There's so much wrong with some ideas in this thread that its staggering. The idea that it's anti-Utd agenda is as stupid as people who said I was dissing the American owners or DIC because of my anti-Liverpool agenda. Grow up and realise the situation we are it.

Let's break it down:

Ticket Prices:

Shocking, shocking shocking increases. Priced out thousands of lifelong fans from Old Trafford, replacing them with plastic fans who won't give a **** about the club when we're not challenging for the quadruple every year.

But it goes beyond that:
So desperate to shift season tickets that they wouldn't let people who went to every single Euro away this year even apply, even ****ing apply, for the final.
So desperate for money, that they charged youth players, who had actually played for United in the league cup that season, for their tickets to the final!

These things aren't as important to Irish fans. Why? Because we're a lot richer than the average Manchester person. If these hikes happened 20 y years ago, we'd feel the same.

Also, the idea that its all economics and supply and demand. Screw that ****e. A Football is about more than just blooding winning.

Transfers:

Net spend since the Glaziers came has been 10 million a year. Before they same was 30 million a year.

We have gotten better at transfers.
First, Fergie, when on a restricted budget, ups his game. A restricted budget brings out the best in him. So in a round about way, the Glaziers are the cause of that.

Second, we have done it on the down low. However, that was starting to happen anyway. This was just United learning how to deal with Chelsea. Also Kenyons knowledge of our targets doesn't exist anymore.

Youth Team:

Because of the financial pressure, discussed below, the youth team has become basically a cash cow. The club are trying to keep wages as low as possible which means smaller numbers of youth players. Also the pressure for instant success means we can't blood young local lads like we used to. Hell we can't even blood Rossi or Pique. If Rossi or Pique can't be risked, who the **** can?

Financial Situation:

United are in a better position than they were 4 years ago. How long that lasts is anyones guess though.

They are not. Plain and simple.

Right now, we have operating profits to cover the interest payments. We are not eating into the debt. We are not paying it back. We are covering interest.
Our transfer fees have been selling players and going into more debt.

We are a house of cards. If somebody drastic happens, we will not be able to cover the interest on our debt. If that happens, we will need to sell to cover the debts.

Now I know people have said, it's happening everywhere, it's not just Americans. What I'd say to do is, it wasn't as bad before they came?

It's to do with how they do things business wise. UK and Irish investers tended not to borrow to buy, since they didn't see it as financially viable.

The Americans on the other hand, thought it was. The thing is, they were utterly ****ing wrong. The Americans are the problem because the Americans are the ones that ****ed up.

Utd was massively overvalued, and the Glaziers bought it for a massively inflated price. The level of debt they took on meant that they could never realistically be able to pay it off. It was an utter miscalculation, one which IMO a UK or Irish person would not have made (or more accurately had not made in the past). It's different to a Leeds style situation. They borrowed to invest in the team. This was just borrowing to buy.

Right now, The glaziers have no way out. Nobody who understands the situation knows what their long term plan is.
At best, they are hoping for a rich invester to come in and make them a profit.
The only feasible way they could make United profitable to cut into the debt would be increase the stadium size (going further into debt) or push for individual TV deals (something which they haven't tried yet, probably because it'll never happen)

United is in dire, dire, dire straights. Luckily Fergie is one of the best managers of all time and we've maintained out success on the pitch. We won that in spite of the debt, in spite of their management. But don't let that fool you. United are in serious trouble, and for that, I blame the footballing authorities and the government. It's something I'll never forgive them for. The Glaziers are out to make a buck, everybody knows that, but the the FA and the governments were warned by the fans, but they didn't listen. They are a disgrace.

Mitch Connor

Iago wrote: »

a

Without the Glazers we were going to struggle to compete finanically with the likes of Chelsea, and signing players was a real chore. Emphasised by losing out on Duff, Ronaldinho & Robben to name just 3 when getting the go ahead took so long under the old system.

The United that spent 29million on Ferdinand? 27million on Rooney? 12million on an unproven Ronaldo? Yeah, we missed out on Robben and Ronadinho - both screwed up by bad management from United, not convinced we were in for Duff at the time (though i felt we should have been)

We still aren't competing with Chelsea or the top clubs, not really, or at least not more so then we were - our net spend under the Glazers is LESS then it was before them.

raido9 wrote: »

Dont worry about Mr Alan, his anti-Utd/pro-Liverpool glasses blind him from seeing anything the way it is.

The Glazers have not been bad for Utd. They've continued to invest (pumping money into an already winning team) and they are staying out of the football side of things.
What more can you ask from them?

They have continued to invest by taking out massive loans to buy players, which has increased the debt. Anderson, Nani, Hargreaves,Tevez - all bought with loans (wouldn't have happened that way under the PLC - we actually had a bank balance back then....) It has all been seen in the accounts of both United and the holding company. They may continue to take out loans for players and thus 'continue to invest' but in the end it is neither the Glazers paying for it (not a penny) nor particularly good for the long term health of the club.

Mr Alan

Iago wrote: »

The season ticket waiting list is far from disappeared (unfortunately) as I'm still sitting on it. It has reduced, mainly due to the provision of single season tickets in the last couple of years.

you may want to ring the club asap. The club was cold calling people whos info they had on file right up until the start of this season trying to sell season tickets.

raido9

Another quality post Mr Alan :rolleyes:

Mr Alan wrote: »

this was my response to you:

you are very wrong, you club is poised a cliff edge, unlike any other club in the world, the level of debt on the club is totally unsustainable without success year upon year upon year, which NO club achieves.

So are you going to back this up in any way? Or should we just take your word for it?

Mitch Connor

raido9 wrote: »

Another quality post Mr Alan :rolleyes:


So are you going to back this up in any way? Or should we just take your word for it?

You could look it up yourself, as you may or may not have already done. Plenty of people have already shown how United are in terrible shape and need to perform miracles to keep going as they are. Don't ask to be spoon fed everything.

raido9

Tauren wrote: »

You could look it up yourself, as you may or may not have already done. Plenty of people have already shown how United are in terrible shape and need to perform miracles to keep going as they are. Don't ask to be spoon fed everything.

Couldn't find anything.

Could you please post a link, I'd be interested in reading it?

Mitch Connor

Tauren wrote: »

You could look it up yourself, as you may or may not have already done. Plenty of people have already shown how United are in terrible shape and need to perform miracles to keep going as they are. Don't ask to be spoon fed everything.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/06/manchesterunited.premierleague

With Manchester United powering to a probable second successive Premier League title and ready for a Champions League final, it appears that life at Old Trafford could hardly be rosier, but the club's accounts, now published in full, detail a significantly bleaker picture of the club's finances under the ownership of the Florida-based Glazer family.

Before the family's 2005 takeover, United prided itself on being the only Premier League club regularly to make a significant profit, to have cash in the bank and, unlike all the others, no debts. After the leveraged takeover, the Glazer family loaded their borrowings on to the club and the position has changed. The accounts for the company that the Glazers use to own United show total borrowings, in the year to June 30 2007, were up to £666m, by far the highest of any English football club, ever. The total owed to all creditors, including the banks, was up to £764m and includes £56m that United owe to other clubs in transfer fee instalments on players Sir Alex Ferguson has signed.

The total interest payable by the club on its borrowings was £81m, although only £42m was actually paid. The rest, which accrued on the millions owed to hedge funds, is allowed to roll up until the whole amount has to be repaid in 2016, or, alternatively, until the Glazers can refinance it. A total of £152m is currently owed to hedge funds, at 14.25% interest a year - £22m from 2007-08. Last year the Glazers tried to refinance but were unable to strike a deal with financial institutions, and a spokesman acknowledged that the credit crunch is making it more difficult now.

David Gill, United's chief executive, announced the headline results back in January, stressing that United's phenomenal money-making power, with 76,000 crowding into Old Trafford and the Premier League's huge TV rights deals, had produced record income of £210m and operating profits of £75m. The full accounts show, however, that even though United made a further £11m profit from buying and selling players, the interest and other accounting provisions pushed United into recording an overall loss of £58m.

The accounts also reveal that by far the highest proportion of income, £92.5m, is still generated on home match days, and although the club has announced more modest ticket price rises for next season than for the previous two, supporters groups continue to protest that they are paying the debts of a takeover they opposed. "It is outrageous that supporters are paying the huge interest on these borrowings, which are worrying for the club's future," said Sean Bones of the Manchester United Supporters Trust. "Our money is pouring out to pay the Glazers, while they have not put a penny into the club."

The spokesman for the Glazer family pointed to the club's success on the field, and in generating income off it, as evidence of the family's competent management. "The family continue to run United as a business," he said. "Their model is to encourage success on the pitch by backing Sir Alex Ferguson, and to grow revenues off it. The interest payments are more than covered by the cash generated."

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/01/16/price_not_right_for_united_fan.html

The government was told that Malcolm Glazer's sons were promising not to raise ticket prices at Old Trafford when the family took over Manchester United in the summer of 2005. Ministers were briefed that the assurance had been given in a meeting by Joel, Avi and Bryan Glazer, and partly in consequence the government was advised not to intervene in the United deal or introduce a requirement that those taking over football clubs prove they are doing so "in the public interest".

Yet since the takeover United's average ticket price has increased 11% in each of the two seasons the Glazers have been responsible for pricing, on top of a 12% increase in 2005-06 which came into force before they took charge. Those hikes, combined with the new automatic cup scheme, which forces season ticket holders to buy a seat for every cup match, have become the most resented features of the new regime, with many fans saying they can no longer afford the prices.

In written advice to the then sports minister, Richard Caborn, in July 2005, released by the government after a request by a United supporter under the Freedom of Information Act, an unnamed civil servant, believed to be a senior adviser in the department for culture, media and sport, wrote that "the Glazers ... have indicated that ticket prices will not be raised". Summarising the background to the takeover, the adviser said that in meetings in early July 2005 with the FA, Premier League and government "the Glazers took the opportunity to offer reassurances ... that ticket prices will not automatically rise".

That advice on ticket prices, combined with the Glazers' promise to keep United within the Premier League's collective arrangement to sell TV rights and to make "significant funds" available to buy players, persuaded Caborn not to push for a "public interest" rule.

United, however, reject the government's record of that meeting. "It would be unthinkable for any business to promise not to raise prices at all," said Phil Townsend, United's spokesman, who was at the June 2005 meeting Caborn held with the Glazer brothers and David Gill, United's chief executive. "Our notes show that ticket prices were mentioned only in passing. The main thrust was collective selling of TV rights and the maintenance of community programmes, and the owners gave reassurance on both."

Townsend added that the discussion on ticket prices had been similar to the comments Joel Glazer made the following day on United's in-house channel MUTV - still the only interview the Glazer family has given to explain its purchase of United.

"This club's ticket prices will always be competitive with other ticket prices in the Premier League," Joel said. "We are not looking to outprice the supporters because if you do that you have lost the lifeblood of this club ... The game has to remain affordable for everybody and we'll continue to carry on that tradition."

United argue that the 76,000 sell-outs at Old Trafford demonstrate they have honoured that commitment, and that tickets, despite the increases, remain affordable to most. At £25-£44 they clearly are competitive with other Premier League clubs.

"For the quality of football, we believe £25 is a very good deal," Townsend said. "We're proud of the spread of ticket prices, with juniors paying only £10."

The civil servant who gave the advice to Caborn has since left the DCMS, which was unable to confirm precisely what had been said at the meeting. Caborn himself, who was succeeded as sports minister by Gerry Sutcliffe last June, agreed that ticket prices had not been discussed extensively but said he was "very disappointed" that United had since increased them so steeply. He regards the price rises as a betrayal of the political support he gave the Premier League in its battle with the European Commission to maintain collective selling of its TV rights.

At the time there were genuine fears that the EC would succeed in banning the 20 clubs, on competition grounds, from selling their matches together as one league, then sharing the money out. Instead each club would sell their own matches, meaning the big clubs would make much more money than the rest, destroying the sharing which maintains the 20 clubs at least on the same financial planet, if far from on a level playing field.

Many in football then feared the Glazers would break United out of the collective arrangement, to keep all the money, and Caborn pressed them for a commitment not to do so. They agreed, saying they were happy with the Premier League's system, and the UK government backed the Premier League at the highest level in Brussels, ultimately successfully. The EC climbed down, allowing the clubs to sell their rights collectively, with only limited competition to BSkyB's monopoly required. The Premier League then reaped its staggering £2.7bn 2007-10 deal, worth £40m on average per season to each club. Caborn argued that the bonanza should help subsidise ticket prices to families and younger people who, paying full price from the age of 16 at most clubs, have largely been priced out of the grounds.

Several clubs who were struggling to fill their grounds did reduce prices; some, including Chelsea, froze them, but United imposed double-figures increases.

"I felt it was my duty to challenge the Glazers on collective selling," Caborn said. "They gave an absolute assurance they would maintain it. The clubs received a windfall and I said the money should enable them to reduce ticket prices to people who couldn't afford it. I am disappointed that was not followed as vigorously as it could have been."

Sutcliffe, himself lambasted after criticising United's ticket prices last November, says he stands by his comments, including that "ordinary working people face being priced out".

Supporters' groups who opposed the takeover argued that the Glazers would load United with the debts the family took on to buy the club and would increase prices to fans to help pay the interest. Despite the success on and off the field at Old Trafford now, they believe they have been proved right - £525m debt is secured on the club. Gill, announcing record income of £245m last week, accepted that, from the £62.5m post-tax operating profit, £42m was paid out in interest. A further £135m debt, rolling up annual interest of 14% (£20m) a year, is secured on other Glazer assets, but they are seeking to load that on to United too when market conditions enable them to refinance.

Gill argued that a prime benefit of the takeover had been to speed up decisions, so that players such as Owen Hargreaves, Carlos Tevez, Nani and Anderson last summer could be signed quickly rather than having to be approved by two boards as when United were a plc. United, football's powerhouse commercial machine, are clearly making enough money from TV and their fans currently to service the interest, but many fans, paying 38% more for tickets than three seasons ago, plus the ACS, still struggle to accept the takeover.

In the advice to Caborn his civil servant wrote: "There is a great deal of work for the Glazers to do in terms of winning over the fans." For all the exuberant brilliance of Sir Alex Ferguson's team, that remains a work in progress.

Owners under scrutiny

The advice to Richard Caborn and Gerry Sutcliffe, then a minister at the Department for Trade and Industry, reveals that civil servants were adamantly opposed to a new rule subjecting club buyers to more stringent checks on their financing and intentions. The DTI said any such measure would "raise difficult questions," including having to justify "why sport is special compared to other industries". Yet a growing body of campaigners argues that clubs should be treated differently from purely commercial companies. Philip French, the chief executive of Supporters Direct, said: "The authorities deserve credit for introducing 'fit and proper person' tests for owners and directors. But consideration should now be given to requiring greater transparency on who owns a club, its debt and potential owners' commitments and ambitions for a club."

david.conn@guardian.co.uk