Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

Degag

Eli Manning wrote: »

Manchester United is a football club first, company second.

It just isn't though. You are living in an ideal world.

Samich

Eli Manning wrote: »

Manchester United is a football club first, company second.

Fergie and David Gill must step down.

Why would they have bought Utd then? Because of their love for football?

Paul Tergat

Degag wrote: »

It just isn't though. You are living in an ideal world.

Sadly this is true. We as fans our biased and obviously see it as our club. The reality is its a business that can be exploited by such people as the Glazers.

Sickening what we are seeing here

kryogen

FutureGuy wrote: »

Sorry guys, where does it say that SAF is getting a cent?

Under the part where it talks about the 2012 Equity Incentive Award Plan

It mentions senior management, selected employees, consultants and non employee directors

Red Crow

Degag wrote: »

It just isn't though. You are living in an ideal world.

Ideal? No, Manchester United should not be used as an entity for people to make money off. Obviously the club exists as a company but the manner in which the Glazers have handled Manchester United is a disgrace.

Also plently of clubs around the world are run for more than just financial gain so I wouldn't consider that comment to be idealistic.

Mitch Connor

MagicMarker wrote: »

Guys, Fergie can't do anything but support the Glaziers. The second he comes out and criticizes them he makes his position practically untenable.

Whether he supports them or not, openly criticizing them makes no sense.

Don't rock the boat imo.




Total over-reaction.

Yeah, and? So what if he has to give up the job. How is being party to the destruction of United on the basis of him getting a nice pay off better for United. Calling the Glazers the club destroying c*nts they are and becoming a voice against them would be far more powerful. He wants their money, and they are happy to give it to him to keep the majority of United fans blind to their raping of the club.

MagicMarker

Eli Manning wrote: »

Ideal? No, Manchester United should not be used as an entity for people to make money off. Obviously the club exists as a company but the manner in which the Glazers have handled Manchester United is a disgrace.

Also plently of clubs around the world are run for more than just financial gain so I wouldn't consider that comment to be idealistic.

The whole purpose of Man Utd is to make money, money is what drives football.

kryogen

Samich wrote: »

Why would they have bought Utd then? Because of their love for football?

When the IPO was brought up initially it was said that the money would be going toward paying off the debt, they have now u turned on that and decided to keep half the cash raised for themselves.

From a business perspective it is not the smart move at all and I dunno how you can't see that

If you owned a business that was heavily in debt, could pay off most if not all the debt in one swoop and continue to reap huge rewards by owning one of the most profitable clubs in world football that is now actually debt free and all the benfits that come from that, why would you not do it?

What is your reasoning?

Red Crow

Samich wrote: »

Why would they have bought Utd then? Because of their love for football?

To make money, obviously, I'm not disputing that. What I'm doing is pointing out that a club should not exist as an entity to just make money for the owner and sadly in this case it does. Especially when the club is burdened with £423 Million of debt.

MagicMarker

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Yeah, and? So what if he has to give up the job. How is being party to the destruction of United on the basis of him getting a nice pay off better for United. Calling the Glazers the club destroying c*nts they are and becoming a voice against them would be far more powerful. He wants their money, and they are happy to give it to him to keep the majority of United fans blind to their raping of the club.

You have absolutely no idea what he wants.

And SAF leaving Utd is not going to help matters at all.

Paul Tergat

First thing we should note is we dont know what if anything Fergie will get from this. Hold fire before going off on one

Mars Bar

The speed which with this thread went from to to :mad: is depressing.

Ugh, we wouldn't be in this mess if Fergie didn't fight over a horse would we?

Mitch Connor

Samich wrote: »

Or maybe the people who actually run some of the biggest companies in the world actually know what they're doing.

You do know the Glazers companies are, by and large, failing.

The Bucs doing fuc all. They Malls mostly unused, their medical stuff making low 6 figure profits on MASSIVE operating costs.

They are good at making money for themselves, their businesses are NOT all that good.

It is the same with United. the health of the club is destroyed, it is dying. but they are making money for themselves.

But sure its grand, eh?

Degag

Eli Manning wrote: »

Ideal? No, Manchester United should not be used as an entity for people to make money off. Obviously the club exists as a company but the manner in which the Glazers have handled Manchester United is a disgrace.

Also plently of clubs around the world are run for more than just financial gain so I wouldn't consider that comment to be idealistic.

Why? Because it's the Manchester United? It's a company in every sence of the world, to make money for the owners, it should be run as such also. Financial disasters are far more prevalent in this day and age and therefore there has to be prudence.

Not saying the Glazers are prudent or anything, or not agreeing with how the Glazers conduct their business, just a comment on the above statement.

Samich

kryogen wrote: »

When the IPO was brought up initially it was said that the money would be going toward paying off the debt, they have now u turned on that and decided to keep half the cash raised for themselves.

From a business perspective it is not the smart move at all and I dunno how you can't see that, it is possible you just like to take the opposite side to whatever the majority here may think of course?

If you owned a business that was heavily in debt, could pay off most if not all the debt in one swoop and continue to reap huge rewards by owning one of the most profitable clubs in world football that is now actually debt free and all the benfits that come from that, why would you not do it?

What is your reasoning?

Well if you gradually pay off the debt you'll clear the debt.

Also on the bolded part. I take a loan for 10k from the bank. I have it to pay off over 12 months. I have enough on the 10th month to clear it but instead I use the extra cash to buy things and continue to pay off the loan over the 12 months.

Once the money goes into the debt you can't get it back. Who's to say the money they're "lining their pockets with" isn't going into buying players?

Al Capwned

Lads I think some of the reactions to the disappointing news that the IPO funds wont be ploughed straight back in to the club are excessive, tbh.

Now I will in no way profess to be a financial expert, or anything close to it, and my undertanding of the financial implications of this situation stem entirely from here, and from links posted here. I can however understand the disappointment and frustration of people on here about the news emerging this evening.

However, talk of this being the end of the club, or it signalling it's destruction, are way, way over the top.

Bottom line is regardless of whether you agree or disagree with how the Glazers are running the club, it is their business, they have shown incredible business ability, and are not going to run the club into the ground.

Mitch Connor

MagicMarker wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea what he wants.

And SAF leaving Utd is not going to help matters at all.

You're right.

Fergie saying how great they are in the build up to them giving him millions is a coincidence.

Fergie sticking around while the club is slowly bled dry isn't all that great. His support of the Glazers actively keeps them strong and the fans onside.

kryogen

Paul Tergat wrote: »

First thing we should note is we dont know what if anything Fergie will get from this. Hold fire before going off on one

Why do you think he will not be part of the share scheme?

DM_7

Re the Glazers making money,

is them using the IPO to raise money for themselves really that differant to:

the glazers paying off debt and then taking the money they no longer have to use for paying debts directly out and paying it to themselves.

either way its messed up but not really a big change from the PLC that existed before.

Red Crow

MagicMarker wrote: »

The whole purpose of Man Utd is to make money, money is what drives football.

Of course but I don't get your point. Manchester should make money for Manchester United it's assets (stadium, training ground) and the purchase of assets (players, staff etc.). Not for the Glazers.

Jame Gumb

Ix Deadmau5 wrote: »

You'll have to excuse my stupidity.

Can someone explain what all that means to me? I'm lost.

Say the Glazers own 100 shares representing 100% of the club.

Say the club's worth £1b.

Say the club has debts of £400m.

Say the plan is to raise £400m.

The hope was that new shares would be issued in exchange for the £400m investment and that the club would use the £400m to repay its £400m of debt.

What's actually happening is the Glazers are effectively taking (say) £300m for their shares and the club's getting only (say) £100m to repay some of its debts.

(*The above amounts are obviously incorrect)

Basically, it ain't good...

Paul Tergat

kryogen wrote: »

Why do you think he will not be part of the share scheme?

Until I know I dont want to jump to conclusions. Same on all things, e.g. transfers until they are confirmed.

We, as most people are doing, are just guessing at what the stupidly named term for the scheme entails. Im just saying dont assume

Samich

The way I see it is, if all the money went towards the debt we'd have no money to sign players.

kryogen

Samich wrote: »

Well if you gradually pay off the debt you'll clear the debt.

Also on the bolded part. I take a loan for 10k from the bank. I have it to pay off over 12 months. I have enough on the 10th month to clear it but instead I use the extra cash to buy things and continue to pay off the loan over the 12 months.

Once the money goes into the debt you can't get it back. Who's to say the money they're "lining their pockets with" isn't going into buying players?

I would just advise you to read the document I put up already for some answers.

I had a big long post written up for you but I just don't wanna get into this tonight, I have a lot of reading to do!

Suffice to say I disagree with your line of thinking on the matter.

Mitch Connor

DM-ICE wrote: »

Re the Glazers making money,

is them using the IPO to raise money for themselves really that differant to:

the glazers paying off debt and then taking the money they no longer have to use for paying debts directly out and paying it to themselves.

either way its messed up but not really a big change from the PLC that existed before.

Yes.

The IPO lining their pockets means United's best hope for dealing with the debt is ruined, while the debt remains basically as it was so United are pissing money away on debt while also making it harder to ever get away from it.

Had the Glazers used the IPO AS THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO, we could have paid off a good chunk of the debt. It could have had a significant impact. Had they paid off the debt they could have taken 20million or more out every year, still leaving United in profit and with money for transfers.

Right now we are a loss making company with massive debts and no real way to pay them off.

650million over the next 5 years. That is the task at hand.

But Fergie, Gill and the Glazers are sharing the the guts of 140million, so all is well cause they know what they are doing, they are succesful business men. Like Sean Quinn. Like Sean Fitzpatrick. Like Bernie Madof. Like the Enron guys.

Samich

Originally Posted by kryogen
When the IPO was brought up initially it was said that the money would be going toward paying off the debt, they have now u turned on that and decided to keep half the cash raised for themselves.

From a business perspective it is not the smart move at all and I dunno how you can't see that, it is possible you just like to take the opposite side to whatever the majority here may think of course?

If you owned a business that was heavily in debt, could pay off most if not all the debt in one swoop and continue to reap huge rewards by owning one of the most profitable clubs in world football that is now actually debt free and all the benfits that come from that, why would you not do it?

What is your reasoning?

Being accused of being a troll...again!

kryogen

DM-ICE wrote: »

Re the Glazers making money,

is them using the IPO to raise money for themselves really that differant to:

the glazers paying off debt and then taking the money they no longer have to use for paying debts directly out and paying it to themselves.

either way its messed up but not really a big change from the PLC that existed before.

The time for when the debt has to be paid off or re negotiated (costing more) is fast approaching, so yes there would be a difference in them clearing the debt now and taking 50mil a year out of the club for themselves if they like, no more interest would be getting lumped on the club for example.

titan18

From a business perspective, it doesn't make that much sense imo. It doesn't look good for potential investors that the owners aren't willing to back the club with their own money, by saying United will receive no proceeds from their sale.

On the eradicating loan part, I don't know the structure of the loans but it could be a case that they can only pay off a certain amount of them. The loans that aren't being paid off could have a penalty on them for paying off early, as interest would be lost, or else all interest due would have to be paid aswell. Whilst not ideal that they're there, it might be better to leave them alone if they aren't too dangerous.

However, I do think they should put all money raised back into the club. It would look better for potential investors that the club has extra money to compete for transfers if the loans couldn't be paid off

lordgoat

The level of ignorance displayed by some fans on here is disgraceful.

Get a clue. Look into your club. Everything you need to know is online. Posters on this thread (Kry, Mitch and a few others) Post actual links to sources as well as giving opinions. Give a **** about your club. Don't just turn on the tv or the stream on a sunday.

Some of the posters on here sicken me tbh. There's more to this club than the current team and manager. If we keep going fully expect to end up like Leeds. And in a way if it does happen, the one thing I won't miss are fair weather fans that wander in here and say - oh the people in charge know what they're doing. Idicoy of the highest order.

Care about your club now. We have no divine right to survive when the current owners are bleeding us dry at every turn. Right now after floating we are currently making a saving of 4M a year. Profits for 6 members of the Glazer family are 25M (26?) each.

Ask yourselves one question. How is that good for the club.

Manchester United is bigger than David Gill.

Manchester United is bigger than SAF.

But right now

Glazers > Manchester United.

Red Crow

Degag wrote: »

Why? Because it's the Manchester United? It's a company in every sence of the world, to make money for the owners, it should be run as such also. Financial disasters are far more prevalent in this day and age and therefore there has to be prudence.

Not saying the Glazers are prudent or anything, or not agreeing with how the Glazers conduct their business, just a comment on the above statement.

Explain how this is prudent? What is prudent about the club issuing shares and the Glazers profiting from it? Obviously Manchester United is a company, let's not get bogged down to a stupid arguement here. But it shouldn't be treated like any company, plently of clubs aren't used with leveraged takeovers to make cash.

I hated Rafa Benitez, but at least he stood up for what he saw was a bunch of cowboys milking the cow for what it's worth. Who is standing up for us within the club? Fergie never stops talking about how great the Glazers are.

Samich

lordgoat wrote: »

The level of ignorance displayed by some fans on here is disgraceful.

Get a clue. Look into your club. Everything you need to know is online. Posters on this thread (Kry, Mitch and a few others) Post actual links to sources as well as giving opinions. Give a **** about your club. Don't just turn on the tv or the stream on a sunday.

Some of the posters on here sicken me tbh. There's more to this club than the current team and manager. If we keep going fully expect to end up like Leeds. And in a way if it does happen, the one thing I won't miss are fair weather fans that wander in here and say - oh the people in charge know what they're doing. Idicoy of the highest order.

Care about your club now. We have no divine right to survive when the current owners are bleeding us dry at every turn. Right now after floating we are currently making a saving of 4M a year. Profits for 6 members of the Glazer family are 25M (26?) each.

Ask yourselves one question. How is that good for the club.

Manchester United is bigger than David Gill.

Manchester United is bigger than SAF.

But right now

Glazers > Manchester United.

What will we do? Stage a protest after mass or something?

lordgoat

Samich wrote: »

The way I see it is, if all the money went towards the debt we'd have no money to sign players.

So fuc king what? Do you think any of us give a **** about signing players when our club is in danger.

This is not about signing players. Get a clue.

lordgoat

Samich wrote: »

What will we do? Stage a protest after mass or something?

You know what. I'm done with you. Don't bother asking me anything. I don't have the patience yo deal with you. And you're not worth a ban.

Degag

Eli Manning wrote: »

Explain how this is prudent? What is prudent about the club issuing shares and the Glazers profiting from it? Obviously Manchester United is a company, let's not get bogged down to a stupid arguement here. But it shouldn't be treated like any company, plently of clubs aren't used with leveraged takeovers to make cash.

I hated Rafa Benitez, but at least he stood up for what he saw was a bunch of cowboys milking the cow for what it's worth. Who is standing up for us within the club? Fergie never stops talking about how great the Glazers are.

Did you not read my post? I specifically said

Not saying the Glazers are prudent or anything

kryogen

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Until I know I dont want to jump to conclusions. Same on all things, e.g. transfers until they are confirmed.

We, as most people are doing, are just guessing at what the stupidly named term for the scheme entails. Im just saying dont assume

But we know it entails 16million shares being given to senior management, selected employess, consultants and non employee directors. We know the total value of said scheme is thought to be $288million

I think Fergie will surely fall into the catagory of selected employees if not senior management. Can't see how he would not be to be honest

Red Crow

The penny wil only drop for some people when we get into serious trouble and by then it'll be too late.

Red Crow

Degag wrote: »

Did you not read my post? I specifically said

Yes, but what was the point in using the word 'prudent'. Cumbersome to say the least.

kryogen

Samich wrote: »

The way I see it is, if all the money went towards the debt we'd have no money to sign players.

So you would be completely ignoring the 70million in cash the club has (after it had paid 50million in interest)

Without the debt on the club money would actually be no object, it is a cash cow.

Blatter

Samich wrote: »

The way I see it is, if all the money went towards the debt we'd have no money to sign players.

You think the Glazers are going to buy players with some/all of their proceeds from the IPO? Do you not think if that was the case, they'd mention that in the prospectus?

Samich

Eli Manning wrote: »

The penny wil only drop for some people when we get into serious trouble and by then it'll be too late.

What are ya gonna do so? Glazers will do what they want. Protests outside of OT when they took over, they'll do what they want.

If the club goes bust then no one will buy it, how does this appeal to the Glazers?

Jame Gumb

Isn't it worse than some people are saying?

Plan is to raise 383m...141m to be paid of the debt...therefore Glazers etc pocketing 242m.

In the interest of balance, the club will be better off post IPO, but this is definitely a missed opportunity.

Samich

Blatter wrote: »

You think the Glazers are going to buy players with some/all of their proceeds from the IPO? Do you not think if that was the case, they'd mention that in the prospectus?

They shelled out 50 million last summer. If they were just lining their pockets they wouldn't give fergie any money.

Degag

Eli Manning wrote: »

Yes, but what was the point in using the word 'prudent'. Cumbersome to say the least.

I'm not sure i follow but it's a relatively mute point in any case. I think in essence, we both agree with each other on the fundamentals.

kryogen

Samich wrote: »

Being accused of being a troll...again!

No thats called a persecution complex bud.

You tend to go against the grain in most situations, I simply theorised that you might like that position, it is not trolling to play devils advocate or to simply disagree with the majority.

Issues with posts report them

lordgoat

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Isn't it worse than some people are saying?

Plan is to raise 383m...141m to be paid of the debt...therefore Glazers etc pocketing 242m.

In the interest of balance, the club will be better off post IPO, but this is definitely a missed opportunity.

Thing is we will be so marginally better off it's not worth doing it. (If you are thinking of the best interests of the club)

What I see happening is the Glazers doing a series of share sales until they level of profit they make is not worth it anymore and then selling the whole thing where the fans will step in eventually and buy some of the club for one massive final Glazer pay off.

It's a horrible day to be a united fan. One of the worst. Give me a debt free club over trophies any day of the week. I want to be able to go to OT when I'm old. I want there to still be a team left. After days like today, the posibility that there might not be a team around is a stronger possibility.

Samich

kryogen wrote: »

No thats called a persecution complex bud.

You tend to go against the grain in most situations, I simply theorised that you might like that position, it is not trolling to play devils advocate or to simply disagree with the majority.

Issues with posts report them

No I don't, you've since removed that part of your post so you obviously think it could be seen as accusing me of being a troll.

Paul Tergat

Samich wrote: »

What will we do? Stage a protest after mass or something?

Mate, next time you wonder why you reckon some of the posters on this thread appear to take a different tone with you read back over this post as a response.

kryogen wrote: »

But we know it entails 16million shares being given to senior management, selected employess, consultants and non employee directors. We know the total value of said scheme is thought to be $288million

I think Fergie will surely fall into the catagory of selected employees if not senior management. Can't see how he would not be to be honest

Its disgusting that so much is going to the high ups but again my point is simple, we are guessing and dont know. I agree with the general tone in the thread but like everyone else im not privy to what that means yet.

The interest paid from the start until now is sickening and will clearly keep going while we are bled. We make these big deals and money is going straight back out.

DM_7

kryogen wrote: »

The time for when the debt has to be paid off or re negotiated (costing more) is fast approaching, so yes there would be a difference in them clearing the debt now and taking 50mil a year out of the club for themselves if they like, no more interest would be getting lumped on the club for example.

Interest is paid each year and the original bond is paid at the end. So either way, interest or dividends to themselves takes money out of the club.

anyway what i'm getting at is this. Debt or no debt these guys are only interested in making money from every avenue possible and will use it to make themselves richer.

(Of course I see that the paying off debt option is the best so my is it really that differant question maybe wasn't prhased right)

The Glazers really don't give a **** about the fans which is bizarre considering its the fan base that makes them the money.

kryogen

Samich wrote: »

No I don't, you've since removed that part of your post so you obviously think it could be seen as accusing me of being a troll.

I removed it pretty quickly afterward because I figured you may jump on it and misinterpret or misrepresent it. It was simply not worth it, or needed in the post after I re read it.

Mitch Connor

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Isn't it worse than some people are saying?

Plan is to raise 383m...141m to be paid of the debt...therefore Glazers etc pocketing 242m.

In the interest of balance, the club will be better off post IPO, but this is definitely a missed opportunity.

those figures are dollars.

in pounds....

73-80million (estimated) to be raised to pay off debt.

The other half will go to whatever the Glazers want to use it for.

That 73million or so will equate to about 4.4million in annual debt repayment savings. The IPO cost 7.7million.

It is utterly insignificant in terms of debt repayments.