Manchester United Superthread 2014 mod warning #8081

Sheepy99

Sad to hear, didn't look old at all.
Gladly it doesn't affect how your club will be run.

dubmick

TheDoc wrote: »

Helped forge the club into a behomoth of international recognition and still provided the manager resources.

The payoff from the clever risks and expansion will be reaped for decades.

Absolute nonsense

Headshot

dubmick wrote: »

Absolute nonsense

1+

I just cant believe I read it tbh

Lucas Hood

Rip Mr Glazer.
Can't imagine he's had much to do with running the club for awhile given his age but still interesting to see if anything changes after his death

Mitch Connor

Will be interesting to see if the glazer kids desperate to sell will more easily sway the others, who are a little more reluctant right now, now the father is gone.

Mitch Connor

Will be interesting to see if the glazer kids desperate to sell will more easily sway the others, who are a little more reluctant right now, now the father is gone.

kryogen

For better or for worse he was a member of the United family and he will have the proper respect shown I hope.

He has been semi retired for years anyway, the sons have control of the business interests and have had for a while now iirc. From a United perspective shouldn't make a bit of difference tbh.

A bastard who saddled the club with huge debts? A gambler who took a big punt and got lucky? A shrewd business man who had a model and knew how to work it? None of that matters right now, a man has died. Someones father, grandfather etc thoughts go to them at this time.

RIP

newballsplease

The club havent even acknowledged his death yet??? Lack of respect in that.

irishfeen

newballsplease wrote: »

The club havent even acknowledged his death yet??? Lack of respect in that.

Yes they have - running a ticker across MUTV wishing the family the best in their difficult time for about 45 min now.

Steel Dog

newballsplease wrote: »

The club havent even acknowledged his death yet??? Lack of respect in that.

http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Club-News/2014/May/malcolm-glazer-passes-away.aspx

Aidric

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Will be interesting to see if the glazer kids desperate to sell will more easily sway the others, who are a little more reluctant right now, now the father is gone.

how naive

Technophobe

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Not sure why you are rolling your eyes, it was fairly obvious he made a mistake.

Yes and I asked him. Not you:)

glued

TheDoc wrote: »

Sport really is irrelevant here. Sad to hear the news.

Helped forge the club into a behomoth of international recognition and still provided the manager resources.

The payoff from the clever risks and expansion will be reaped for decades.

That is quite the butchering of history. Obviously it's very sad that Malcolm Glazer has passed away but I would have rather particular disdain for the man and his wholly abusive use of leverage to take the club over. Manchester United is a cash asset for the Glazers. Let's not forget that Mr. Glazer's family own 90% of the club. They have invested nothing, taken zero risk and yet they reap all the rewards. The manner in which this man took over the club was a disgrace. All the loans he used to buy the club were secured against the club. They have been terrible owners and without them we could have possibly won another European title had we not had such burdensome debt over our heads.

Clever? Yes. Good owners? Most certainly not. Good owners don't spend relatively fúck all in comparison and then raise the prices of season tickets.

LostBoy101

glued wrote: »

That is quite the butchering of history. Obviously it's very sad that Malcolm Glazer has passed away but I would have rather particular disdain for the man and his wholly abusive use of leverage to take the club over. Manchester United is a cash asset for the Glazers. Let's not forget that Mr. Glazer's family own 90% of the club. They have invested nothing, taken zero risk and yet they reap all the rewards. The manner in which this man took over the club was a disgrace. All the loans he used to buy the club were secured against the club. They have been terrible owners and without them we could have possibly won another European title had we not had such burdensome debt over our heads.

Clever? Yes. Good owners? Most certainly not. Good owners don't spend relatively fúck all in comparison and then raise the prices of season tickets.

Agreed, I despise him for this reason and I see the rest of the Glazer family acting the same way.

Vic Vinegar

Aidric wrote: »

how naive

How so?

Ed The Equalizer

Cool video from the new sponsors...

kryogen

Bombleswizzum wrote: »

How so?

Probably to think that Malcolm had much say/control/interest in the actual running of the club the last while, pretty much since he bought it in fairness. It was made pretty clear at the time the family would control it, he would be appointing his sons/daughter to positions at the club to run it. It was always Brian and Joel you would see

Cantona's Collars

Anybody want a job at United?

http://www.thepfa.com/thepfa/jobs/regional-and-european-recruitment-officer

Rayne Wooney

Anybody selling a UEFA A badge cheap?

NeVeR

Updated Paid list.


--- Player --- |--- Paid --- |--- Team ---
1: NeVeR | Yes |
2: Gadge | Yes |
3: keane2097 | Yes |
4: Donnielighto | |
5: LightOfTruth | Yes |
6: Vertigo100 | Yes |
7: s.welstead | Yes |
8: duffman13 | |
9: irishfeen | Yes |
10: bucketybuck |Yes |
11: astradave | Yes |
12: RasTa | Yes |
13: ManofStraw | Yes |
14: LostBoy101 | |
15: glued | Yes |
16: Thepoet85 | |
17: Timmyctc | |
18: KevIRL | |
19: scudzilla | Yes |
20: collie0708 |Yes |
21: Liam O | |
22: markc1184 | Yes |
23: Blatter | |
24: bennyl10 |Yes |
25: stankratz | |
26: Thatsfootball | |
27: Iago | Yes |
28: bren2001 | Yes |
29: ninja900 | Yes |
30: yermandan | Yes |
31: Saucy McKetchup | |
32: Will I Amnt | Yes |




I've decided that this is the final prizes list.

World Cup winner €150
Runner Up €70

1st Most yellow cards in group stages €20
1st Red Card €20
1st OG €20
1st Peno €20
Worst goal difference in group stages. €20

People where asking for 1st Man U player to score to get a prize.. but it's too one sided for certain teams. With the above it's open to nearly all teams.

Mitch Connor

kryogen wrote: »

Probably to think that Malcolm had much say/control/interest in the actual running of the club the last while, pretty much since he bought it in fairness. It was made pretty clear at the time the family would control it, he would be appointing his sons/daughter to positions at the club to run it. It was always Brian and Joel you would see

But I never said Malcolm was involved in day to day running.

It is, however, possible that Malcolm retained some influence over the business dealings of his kids - and that if he was against the selling of United that it would strengthen the position of the kids that don't want to sell over the ones that do.

kryogen

I was explaining what the other chap meant, imo anyway.

As to the kids, where have you seen a divide? Which kids want to sell?

Mitch Connor

kryogen wrote: »

I was explaining what the other chap meant, imo anyway.

As to the kids, where have you seen a divide? Which kids want to sell?

Just what I read in the fanzines - obviously I don't have an inside track on it.

Apparently Darcy wants to sell, badly, and at least one of the others is with her on that. The others, apparently, just don't want to sell quite yet. Another track of the story is that there was supposed to be another stock float this year (to raise money for the kids, not the club) as an appeasement for the ones that want to sell, but that has been shelved as the stock market conditions aren't right, apparently.

homerjay2005

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Anybody selling a UEFA A badge cheap?

Roundy may not need his anymore...



wonder where that set play book went to?

kryogen

Probably in the bin as a new dossier with situational stuff would have been prepared for the next game and would not have used the same info as that one

Leftist

TheDoc wrote: »

Sport really is irrelevant here. Sad to hear the news.

Helped forge the club into a behomoth of international recognition and still provided the manager resources.

The payoff from the clever risks and expansion will be reaped for decades.

wow.

kstand

"Since being owned by the Glazers, United have spent almost £700m on interest payments and financial costs connected to the debt – a figure which exceeds the money pumped into Manchester City by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan for new players."

Source:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/glazer-death-unlikely-to-affect-united-plans-for-200m-spree-30313689.html

I see the morons on Red Café tripping over one another to offer condolences to the family of a man they never met or people they know nothing about. I'm not celebrating his passing by the way, far from it.

newballsplease

irishfeen wrote: »

Yes they have - running a ticker across MUTV wishing the family the best in their difficult time for about 45 min now.

Nothing on the twitter page.

Mitch Connor

newballsplease wrote: »

Nothing on the twitter page.

In fairness, it was probably well past the fellas bed time by the time it was announced.

homerjay2005

kstand wrote: »

"Since being owned by the Glazers, United have spent almost £700m on interest payments and financial costs connected to the debt – a figure which exceeds the money pumped into Manchester City by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan for new players."

700m is less than 2 years turn over, they are in their 10th year....our turnover is doubled since 2005 when they took over.

its all relative of course to the TV money, but in terms of a business the club is in a much better position than when they took over.

£2.6billion in revenue since 2005 season makes the interest payments relative especially when you consider that dividends would probably be topping £30million or £40million a year anyway if we were remaining in the previous ownership, though i am open to correction here.

newballsplease

Mitch Connor wrote: »

In fairness, it was probably well past the fellas bed time by the time it was announced.

Or facebook ! Still seems they put up news about past players anniversrys etc but nothing about the owner.

MagicIRL

De Gea: I'm trying to get Fabregas to join Manchester United

The Barcelona midfielder snubbed a move to Old Trafford last summer but the Spain goalkeeper has not given up hope of convincing the 27-year-old to make the switch to England
Manchester United goalkeeper David de Gea has revealed that he is attempting to convince Barcelona midfielder Cesc Fabregas to join him at Old Trafford.

Fabregas's future at Camp Nou is uncertain following a difficult 2013-14 campaign for the Catalan club, with new boss Luis Enrique refusing to confirm the Spain international will definitely stay put for next season.

United openly pursued Fabregas last summer only for the former Arsenal star to reject a move to England but with the 27-year-old a potential target for new manager Louis van Gaal, De Gea insists he is trying to get him to join him in the Premier League.

When asked about Fabregas, De Gea told La Sexta: "I've tried to convince Cesc to join United but it's difficult. He feels great at Barca, it's his home."

Former Atletico Madrid goalkeeper De Gea could win his first cap for Spain in their World Cup warm-up fixture against Bolivia on Friday and insists he cannot wait to be given the chance to make his first appearance for his country.

"We don't know who's going to play against Bolivia, but we have to be ready in case we get the nod," he said. "I'm raring to make my debut. There's a lot of competition in goal, but I'm enjoying myself and pushing myself to the max in training.

"There's a lot of speculation about who will go to Brazil and who won't. A few players are carrying fitness issues and we just have to wait for the gaffer to make his decision: it's as simple as that."

Vicente del Bosque has delayed announcing his final 23-man squad for the tournament in Brazil partly due injury concerns around Chelsea-bound Diego Costa and De Gea agrees that the Atletico striker should be given us much time as possible to recover.

"Of course we should wait for Costa, he's a top player. I played alongside him for several years at Atleti and he's really blossomed this year. We have to wait and see how he progresses and hopefully he'll be 100%."

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2892/transfer-zone/2014/05/29/4847136/de-gea-im-trying-to-get-fabregas-to-join-manchester-united?CMPID=FBUK_140529_DeGeaFabregas

homerjay2005

would be excellent to see DDG get his debut before the World Cup. i assume the Real players will have a week or two off, so its an ideal chance for him now to stake a claim.

newballsplease

Id say Fabregas is saying likewise to DDG !!

ericzeking

Walking through hotel lobby there yesterday and there was a copy of AS (in Spain)...the front page was claiming United offered del Bosque the managers job in April...I googled and translated the headline and the article is saying the shortlist was del bosque, simeone and lvg...that del bosque was first choice but he rejected and re-signed with Spain for the Euros as he doesn't want to work abroad again.

Sure this all probably BS but looks like news is gonna be slow for a while yet.

WRT Glazer...he took a step back a good while ago so I imagine no impact to United.

Every decision the Glazers make will be financially motivated, its not like he personally was a lifelong fan who was dictating that the investment should remain.

homerjay2005

ericzeking wrote: »

Walking through hotel lobby there yesterday and there was a copy of AS (in Spain)...the front page was claiming United offered del Bosque the managers job in April...I googled and translated the headline and the article is saying the shortlist was del bosque, simeone and lvg...that del bosque was first choice but he rejected and re-signed with Spain for the Euros as he doesn't want to work abroad again.

Sure this all probably BS but looks like news is gonna be slow for a while yet.

WRT Glazer...he took a step back a good while ago so I imagine no impact to United.

Every decision the Glazers make will be financially motivated, its not like he personally was a lifelong fan who was dictating that the investment should remain.

wasnt there some talk yesterday that apparently Fergie offered the Job to Ancelotti before Moyes last year?

this came from Real president.

ericzeking

homerjay2005 wrote: »

wasnt there some talk yesterday that apparently Fergie offered the Job to Ancelotti before Moyes last year?

this came from Real president.

The way I would see that now is they are keeping him now that he won the CL so president is just bigging himself up..."look we are keeping the coach who won la decima and who Ferguson tried to steal from us, amnt I great?"

Although I wouldn't b surprised if it happened, they seemed to get on well when CA was at Chelsea.

The football world as a whole is just one clustetf*ck of BS!!

Crimson King

Christ the transfer news is disheartening. So many rumours with nothing manifesting.

I am normally a 'glass is half full' kind of guy when it comes to transfers but the last few years have been so bad I was convinced Woodward wanted to make amends and have deals in place already. Not to be it seems.

RichFTW

homerjay2005 wrote: »

700m is less than 2 years turn over, they are in their 10th year....our turnover is doubled since 2005 when they took over.

its all relative of course to the TV money, but in terms of a business the club is in a much better position than when they took over.

£2.6billion in revenue since 2005 season makes the interest payments relative especially when you consider that dividends would probably be topping £30million or £40million a year anyway if we were remaining in the previous ownership, though i am open to correction here.

Turnover doubling has no relevance in discussing the huge debt the club was forced to take. Yes the club is performing better financially because of increasing revenue but it doesn't change the fact that a ridiculous amount of money was spent on a debt that is only there because the Glaziers took over.

The £700 million is for interest payments, not payment of the loan principle. If you want to talk relevant figures, compare the interest payments of £700 to the original price they paid for the club of £790 million. The interest payments are so high because of the increased risk the Graziers took by using the club as leverage against the loan. They have nearly spent as much on interest as the original loan cost with £350 million still left to be repaid.

I admire the Glaziers as business men as they are clearly excellent at increasing revenue streams and making crazy deals to buy football clubs and they will have made a huge profit once they sell on the shares. Doesn't change the fact that the club has been forced to spend money to finance an outsider's takeover of the club.

Anyone defending their takeover is insane IMO.

Maximus Alexander

RichFTW wrote: »

Turnover doubling has no relevance in discussing the huge debt the club was forced to take. Yes the club is performing better financially because of increasing revenue but it doesn't change the fact that a ridiculous amount of money was spent on a debt that is only there because the Glaziers took over.

The £700 million is for interest payments, not payment of the loan principle. If you want to talk relevant figures, compare the interest payments of £700 to the original price they paid for the club of £790 million. The interest payments are so high because of the increased risk the Graziers took by using the club as leverage against the loan. They have nearly spent as much on interest as the original loan cost with £350 million still left to be repaid.

I admire the Glaziers as business men as they are clearly excellent at increasing revenue streams and making crazy deals to buy football clubs and they will have made a huge profit once they sell on the shares. Doesn't change the fact that the club has been forced to spend money to finance an outsider's takeover of the club.

Anyone defending their takeover is insane IMO.

Is it not fair to say that over that period they have led to the club earning more than £700m over and above what it would have otherwise, thus the interest payments are moot? I mean, I don't know because I haven't pored over the finances in detail, but I understood this to be the case.

ie. You can complain over the loss of £700m to interest, but it's £700m the club wouldn't have otherwise had anyway?

RichFTW

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Is it not fair to say that over that period they have led to the club earning more than £700m over and above what it would have otherwise, thus the interest payments are moot? I mean, I don't know because I haven't pored over the finances in detail, but I understood this to be the case.

ie. You can complain over the loss of £700m to interest, but it's £700m the club wouldn't have otherwise had anyway?

I don't think so. You could also say that United could have brought in another CEO who could have increased revenue in the same way the Glaziers did but without the massive debt.

I'm sure there are other CEO's that could have achieved the past few seasons revenue growth without a price tag of £700m plus whatever salary/dividends the Glaziers have received so far.

homerjay2005

RichFTW wrote: »

Anyone defending their takeover is insane IMO.

No more insane than the people who keep saying the club has lost £700m due to them when its nowhere near that - people keep forgetting our profits were subject to dividend payouts. do you think that under McManus and Magnire, we'd be turning over £400million? no way - the Glazers have grown out global brand in relation to the debt they put on the club.

i dont see anybody defending the take over either, im just looking for a bit of realism and balance against actual. weve been hearing for 10 years how they were going to damage the club, yet all we see is the clubs finances growing and growing.

the Moyes reign and very poor (and expensive/well paid) footballers did/are doing more damage to the club than them. people obsess over our transfer spend, but ignore the fact that we were outlaying almost as much as City over the past 3 years, but wasted the majority of it.

TheTownie

RichFTW wrote: »

I don't think so. You could also say that United could have brought in another CEO who could have increased revenue in the same way the Glaziers did but without the massive debt.

I'm sure there are other CEO's that could have achieved the past few seasons revenue growth without a price tag of £700m plus whatever salary/dividends the Glaziers have received so far.

and lets face it, a lot of the success off the pitch has been underpinned by the success on the pitch.

The other club to attempt such a highly leveraged buyout were Liverpool and look how that turned out.

Utd were never guaranteed to be successful on the pitch. Highly leveraged buyouts of football clubs are incredibly risky but thankfully Utd got through it.

No way am I going to thank the Glaziers for taking such a risk with the club.

keane2097

homerjay2005 wrote: »

No more insane than the people who keep saying the club has lost £700m due to them when its nowhere near that - people keep forgetting our profits were subject to dividend payouts. do you think that under McManus and Magnire, we'd be turning over £400million? no way - the Glazers have grown out global brand in relation to the debt they put on the club.

i dont see anybody defending the take over either, im just looking for a bit of realism and balance against actual. weve been hearing for 10 years how they were going to damage the club, yet all we see is the clubs finances growing and growing.

the Moyes reign and very poor (and expensive/well paid) footballers did/are doing more damage to the club than them. people obsess over our transfer spend, but ignore the fact that we were outlaying almost as much as City over the past 3 years, but wasted the majority of it.

Great posting homer.

Leftist

the reason why the glazers are making so much money, is because they are selling united off to everyone and anyone. Over 50 advertisement partners as of last summer.

That may not mean anything to a lot of people, but for others it looks like the club has been turned into a whore for money. the club used to have a soul.

RichFTW

homerjay2005 wrote: »

No more insane than the people who keep saying the club has lost £700m due to them when its nowhere near that - people keep forgetting our profits were subject to dividend payouts. do you think that under McManus and Magnire, we'd be turning over £400million? no way - the Glazers have grown out global brand in relation to the debt they put on the club.

i dont see anybody defending the take over either, im just looking for a bit of realism and balance against actual. weve been hearing for 10 years how they were going to damage the club, yet all we see is the clubs finances growing and growing.

the Moyes reign and very poor (and expensive/well paid) footballers did/are doing more damage to the club than them. people obsess over our transfer spend, but ignore the fact that we were outlaying almost as much as City over the past 3 years, but wasted the majority of it.

I'm basing the figures used off that article linked which are in line with what I've seen before from actual business newspapers. I don't understand your dividend point, as far I as aware the Glaziers still take a dividend on top of the club paying the interest on the loan they took out to buy the club.

I agree with you that McManus & Magnire wouldn't have had the same success with revenue growth but I think another CEO could have. The Glaziers are not the only business men with experience in growing a global brand.

Revenue is growing and growing yes, but people seem to keep forgetting about the level of debt! You can't just ignore the debt just because revenue is going up. The risk to the club was massive at the beginning of the takeover and could have gone horribly wrong if United hadn't have been as successful on the field.

Julez

Leftist wrote: »

the club used to have a soul.

Who really cares though, its football, its something to watch and enjoy at the weekend, something to talk about with friends, at the end of the day, its just a game. I'm saying this a a very passionate fan, I watch every single game, and genuinly get angry when we lose, but I'm sure if United went belly up and died we'd all manage to survive. Despite what Sky Sports would have you believe, there is more to life than football.

NTMK

Leftist wrote: »

the reason why the glazers are making so much money, is because they are selling united off to everyone and anyone. Over 50 advertisement partners as of last summer.

That may not mean anything to a lot of people, but for others it looks like the club has been turned into a whore for money. the club used to have a soul.

how do you propose the club stay competitive when top players are commanding wages of 250K+ and we dont have oil baron backing us.

there isnt a single club that has maintained its "soul" and stayed competitive (except RM but their entire club culture is poison)

kippy

I think if any of us had the wherewithal to do what the glaziers did, we'd have done the same.
A relatively risk free cash cow investment - stuff dreams are made of.

Relative to a lot of other owners in the same time period, they were far from the worst.

Cookiemunster

Leftist wrote: »

the reason why the glazers are making so much money, is because they are selling united off to everyone and anyone. Over 50 advertisement partners as of last summer.

That may not mean anything to a lot of people, but for others it looks like the club has been turned into a whore for money. the club used to have a soul.

The club was floated on the stock market and dropped the words 'Football Club' from the crest a long time before the Glazers took over.