Malcolm Glazier: Here he goes again

AthAnRi

Oiginally Posted by PORNAPSTER
By putting the club into debt.

Oiginally Posted by Big Ears
why would he want to lose money............???

That's the thing Big Ears, He doesn't care about United he just cares about his own pocket. In order for Glazer to take over the club he has to take out personal loans. Inorder to pay off these loans he needs to generate money from Man United. In his original proposal he had planned to sell old trafford, to a major comapny like Nike, or Vodafone and have them lease it back to the club. United would no longer be in debt but they would also be without a permanent home.

In the short term Glazers interests would be to make sure that united are profitable, but in the long term, when he decideds that he has made his money the club would be in ruins, as he would have exploited all avenues for making money, which will be resting in his back pocet as apposed to in Man Uniteds Tranfer Funds. So the possibility is he takes over a thriving buisness that are one of the richests clubs in the world and when he leaves with all there assets no longer owned by Man Utd, they will be lucky to be in the black.

Overall it would be a disiaster to see. Hopefully the JP and John will come to our rescue to allow Shareholders united a chance to cough up the extra 10 % they need in order to block a bid.

Posted by rooster.
while of course there will be small minorities from a variety of countries. I think the reality is that Shareholder Utd and the others don't want any new owner - and a foreign new owner would be the worst kind in their opinion. I dont think there's anything wrong with that opinion.

2500 supporters are from Norway and Ireland alone, I'm not sure of the figures but I'm giving an educated guess that there are at least 2500 from the rest of Scandanavia and Asia together. Thats a total of 5000 from approx 20,000. Thats hardly a small minority. Thats over 20% of the group. Hardly nit picking i think. Just one question, Why are you so determined to let everyone know that Shareholders United is controlled by "Brits", It's hardly ground breaking news considering Manchester is, believe it or not, in Britain.

Finally Your statement is partly right, Shareholders United do not want any new owner. Thats where the buck stops. If the owner is british, Irish, Israeli, it's irrelevant. They do not want a new owner simple as.

Big Ears

I beleive the plans were to sell the name of Old Trafford not the ground .

5,000 of 20,000 = 25%(I know you said over 20%)


'Shareholders United do not want any new owner. Thats where the buck stops. If the owner is british, Irish, Israeli, it's irrelevant. They do not want a new owner simple as.'

well the idea is that they want to run the club , and the only owner they want is shareholders United , that is their final aim right , to own the club ?

So obviously they're against all takeovers no matter what the persons intentions are , infact they might even try and decieve people of someones real intentions to help stop them buying the club .

cournioni

Big Ears wrote:

why would he want to lose money............???

He won't if he owns the club and pays off the debt by selling United's assets.

Big Ears

PORNAPSTER wrote:

He won't if he owns the club and pays off the debt by selling United's assets.

he won't if the club is making a massive profit , and what he gets from dividends pays off his loan , and this is a long term source of finance obviously much better for him .

cournioni

If... If... Do you think that us United supporters are willing to take that risk? What if United don't make massive profits?

BolBill

Most people don't want him to takeover because of what he'll do with the club - thats fine and agree with them.

Personally, I'm no fan of Man U but I don't want him to take over because I've already seen enough of his very dislikeable punchable head Seriously, just the look of him makes me angry as hell.

SteM

Big Ears wrote:

he won't if the club is making a massive profit , and what he gets from dividends pays off his loan , and this is a long term source of finance obviously much better for him .

What age is he? 74 so something isn't it? Can't see long team profits being high on his list of priorties!

Big Ears

SteM wrote:

What age is he? 74 so something isn't it? Can't see long team profits being high on his list of priorties!

I thought he was in his fifties .

SteM

Big Ears wrote:

I thought he was in his fifties .

No idea but if he is then he doesn't look to good for a man in his 50s.

Pornapster is right though, it seems that anyone that doesn't care whether he takes over comes out 'if, if, if' and don't seem think anything can go wrong in the future. United fans can't just be concerned about this season or next season, they have to think about 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years from now. When I have a kid in a few years I want to be able to bring him/her to Old Trafford. Will it still be there, will it still be owned by the club, will it still be called Old Trafford, will I still be able to afford tickets or will he have hiked the $hite out of prices in order to help pay back this HUGE loan (£250 mill to £300 mill are the latest estimates, not a small amount) - these are just a few of the questions Glazier's proposed takeover raises. Non-United fans don't care about any of these issues, they just say stuff like 'ah sure the dividends will pay off the loan' and 'it's in his interest to keep the club profitable' like these things are foregone conclusions and will definitely happen.

The Rooster

SteM wrote:

Non-United fans don't care about any of these issues, they just say stuff like 'ah sure the dividends will pay off the loan' and 'it's in his interest to keep the club profitable' like these things are foregone conclusions and will definitely happen.

Ste, the only way he can get money from the club is through dividends. He cannot take loans or anything else out of the club, or if he does they will become re-categorised as dividends. The only way he can pay himself dividends is out of post-acquisition profits. Anything more than that is illegal.

If things go badly wrong, there is no possible way Manchester United will have to, or even be allowed to, stump up the 300m (or whatever the real figures is) that he gets in loans. The last course of action the banks will have to collect their money will be to go after Glazer's assets, not MUFC assets.

And nice lie about selling Old Trafford. Shareholders United would be proud

There are plenty of good reasons to knock Glazer and his bid. There is no need for Shareholder's group to make up lies!!

SteM

The Rooster wrote:

The last course of action the banks will have to collect their money will be to go after Glazer's assets, not MUFC assets.

United would be one his assets if he owns the club. If he needs the money how do you know he won't raise ticket prices or sell off United assets which he will own? You don't know.

And nice lie about selling Old Trafford. Shareholders United would be proud

Are you trying to wind me up? Show me where I said that - quote me.

Big Ears

well if Glazier does buy the club , he could rise ticket prices and have the stadium sponsored , and if United fans don't boycott games this would reward the club with massive profits , and who is going to gain the most out of these profits...why the majority shareholder of course so that is one bad point I can see from United fans view , but on the other hand the more United earn the more that is likely to be but back into the team , thus improving the squad and possibly bringing them more money through winning trophys or becoming more attractive a sponsorship option to companys and businesses , which means more profit .Which means more money for Glazier and even more money going back into the team repeating the process of money into team =prize money+sponsorhip=more money into team+Glazier .

This is how I expect Glazier would run United .

downpoints:increased ticket prices , renamed stadium , uppoints:a stronger team , more sponsorship money .

SteM

Big Ears wrote:

downpoints:increased ticket prices , renamed stadium , uppoints:a stronger team , more sponsorship money .

Aye, there's the rub.

downpoints:increased ticket prices , renamed stadium

And United fans are supposed to be happy about either of these?

uppoints:a stronger team , more sponsorship money

We're buying players for £30mill now FFS, it's not like we're paupers! More sponsorship money, that'll make me a proud United supporter in years to come I'm sure. :rolleyes:

Big Ears

SteM wrote:

And United fans are supposed to be happy about either of these?


We're buying players for £30mill now FFS, it's not like we're paupers! More sponsorship money, that'll make me a proud United supporter in years to come I'm sure. :rolleyes:

no of course not , thats why its a down point .

Well it means more profit and it makes it guarenteed that money will be given to improve the squad , keep players happy and improve facilities .(this includes stadium expantion) , making it easier to buy tickets , theres another plus .

SteM

Big Ears wrote:

Well it means more profit and it makes it guarenteed that money will be given to improve the squad ,

It guarantees nothing of the sort (again it seems that some people can see the future!) - he's in this deal for profit you know.

keep players happy and improve facilities .(this includes stadium expantion) , making it easier to buy tickets , theres another plus .

United have one of the most stable squads in the Premiership, how often do you read stories of have players wanting to leave?

We've already got the go ahead to expand the stadium by an extra 7,500 the work will start before the end of the season IIRC. There's nowhere else to extend at that point except for the South Stand and I can't see that being extended because there's a train track and a load of houses behing it!

cournioni

I don't it is possible to expand the stadium any bigger than it has already been planned. The South Stand doesn't look like it would get any sort of permission from the local planning authorities because of all of the houses behind it... And even if they do expand that part of the stadium, it isn't going to be any easier to buy tickets.

Lets face it Big Ears, this takeover won't make United any better than they already are. All it does is, it puts a question mark over everything involved with the club. And that is not a good thing.

Big Ears

It guarantees nothing of the sort (again it seems that some people can see the future!) - he's in this deal for profit you know.

Well if money isn't put back into the team the club would definetly lose money , so he would therefore lose money .

Ive heared many stories of United players wanting to leave .If they make more profit it will give them a chance to compete more in the transfer market , as at the moment they may be the richest club in the world(minus Abramovich's bigspenders) but they aren't prepared to pay that bit more to get players : Ronaldinho , Robben .

cournioni

Big Ears wrote:

they aren't prepared to pay that bit more to get players : Ronaldinho , Robben .

Because of that twat Kenyon. :mad:

Big Ears

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Because of that twat Kenyon. :mad:

He seems to have no problem with money anymore .

LegacyUser

Big Ears wrote:

He seems to have no problem with money anymore .

Ye and wonder why?

SteM

Well if money isn't put back into the team the club would definetly lose money , so he would therefore lose money .

So you can guarantee that that money will go back into the team can you?

Ive heared many stories of United players wanting to leave .

What from your inside souces? Wanna let us in on your inside scoops? You're not mixing us up with Arsenal are you? All those 'many' stories you've heard have obviously been true because the core of players that have made us succesful have really been jumping ship the last few seasons haven't they.... actually no, you probably made that bit up didn't you?

If they make more profit it will give them a chance to compete more in the transfer market , as at the moment they may be the richest club in the world(minus Abramovich's bigspenders) but they aren't prepared to pay that bit more to get players : Ronaldinho , Robben .

They had the money for these players already and for whatever reason didn't feel they wanted to pay the money - I'm not saying the board were right not to push for them but that's football, some you sign some you don't. Can you guarantee that if Glazier was involved we still would have signed them? Like I said before signing players like Rooney and Ferdinand proves we're not paupers so why is this money needed again? Really, I don't care about Chelsea and Abramovich - what they do is up to them - we're UNITED and we have a history. We don't need or want to mortgage it on a future based on ifs.

Big Ears

SteM wrote:

What from your inside souces? Wanna let us in on your inside scoops? You're not mixing us up with Arsenal are you? All those 'many' stories you've heard have obviously been true because the core of players that have made us succesful have really been jumping ship the last few seasons haven't they.... actually no, you probably made that bit up didn't you?

I didn't make it up , maybe the papers did but I didn't . Players want to play first team football and theres a lot of players at United who don't get that but could at other Premiership clubs , monet is not the only important thing to some players , they just love playing the game and some player don't feel their getting to do that . players ive heard who might like to leave : O'Shea , Brown , Kleberson , Djemba x2(but he did go so...) , I never said they were the core either .

'So you can guarantee that that money will go back into the team can you?'

as I said if it isn't United will lose money .(maybe Glazier wants to lose money , im not sure)

'You're not mixing us up with Arsenal are you?'

what do Arsenal have to do with:Malcolm Glazier: Here he goes again ?

'I don't care about Chelsea and Abramovich - what they do is up to them -we're UNITED and we have a history.'

Every club has a History .

The Rooster

SteM wrote:

United would be one his assets if he owns the club. If he needs the money how do you know he won't sell off United assets which he will own? You don't know.

You obviously don't know the first thing about company law, and very little about business.

AthAnRi

Big Ears wrote:

I beleive the plans were to sell the name of Old Trafford not the ground .

5,000 of 20,000 = 25%(I know you said over 20%)


'Shareholders United do not want any new owner. Thats where the buck stops. If the owner is british, Irish, Israeli, it's irrelevant. They do not want a new owner simple as.'

well the idea is that they want to run the club , and the only owner they want is shareholders United , that is their final aim right , to own the club ?

So obviously they're against all takeovers no matter what the persons intentions are , infact they might even try and decieve people of someones real intentions to help stop them buying the club .

No his intention was to sell old traffors, not just rename it. Sharholders United's aim is to gain a 25% stake of the club and prevent any type of takeover. They have no intention of taking over the club and are realistic enough to know that they have no hope of raising enough money in order to take over the club, especially considering they are struggling to mak 15%.

Of Course their against takeovers. While it may be beneficial to the club no single person can garuntee the safety of the club as well as it can be garunteed at the moment. Anyway is that not what I said?

AthAnRi

The Rooster wrote:

You obviously don't know the first thing about company law, and very little about business.

Obviously you are no Donald Trump yourself.

The Rooster wrote:

the only way he can get money from the club is through dividends

Now I do not hold a National Cert in business Like yourself, but If you were reading the papers(not the tabloids) or listening to the news you would know that Glazers plans is not to keep Manchester United Floating as a PLC but he wants to takeover the club and keep it off the stock market. It then becomes a Private Comapany. No more shareholders to think about, no board, just Glazer to do as he pleases.

Also before you go brandishing anyone a liar, I would like to clarify that, Glazers original plan, i.e. bid attempt 1, included the intention of SELLING oldtrafford and having it leased back to the club. This was the main reason the bid was thrown out.

The Rooster

No his intention was to sell old traffors

I cant believe you believed whoever told you that!

Sell the ground, and pocket the cash. A great way to make a quick buck.
Or maybe build fancy new houses on the sacred turf and move the club to a lovely stadium in Tampa Bay

The Muppet

The Rooster wrote:

I cant believe you believed whoever told you that!

Nobody told him, If you read his post you would have seen he said it was part of Glazers first bid. Maybe you should try reading the information being given before replying.

SteM

The Rooster wrote:

You obviously don't know the first thing about company law, and very little about business

Nope, I'm a football fan and that's why I'm posting on the soccer forums. What's your excuse for spouting rubbish?

The Rooster wrote:

I cant believe you believed whoever told you that!

Sell the ground, and pocket the cash. A great way to make a quick buck.
Or maybe build fancy new houses on the sacred turf and move the club to a lovely stadium in Tampa Bay

Mods, if you're reading through this thread I'd suggest that its is closed now. The Rooster is obviously just using it to wind people up.

AthAnRi

The Rooster wrote:

I cant believe you believed whoever told you that!

Sell the ground, and pocket the cash. A great way to make a quick buck.
Or maybe build fancy new houses on the sacred turf and move the club to a lovely stadium in Tampa Bay

Just read paragraph 4 you spanner. Some business man you are Donald.

http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/man_united/story.jsp?story=611191

The Muppet

SteM wrote:

Mods, if you're reading through this thread I'd suggest that its is closed now. The Rooster is obviously just using it to wind people up.

I agree but why should United fans not be able to discuss this very important issue without being wound up. If we were discussing any other club such crap would not be tolerated.

Big Ears

The Muppet wrote:

I agree but why should United fans not be able to discuss this very important issue without being wound up. If we were discussing any other club such crap would not be tolerated.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

talla

Ok, thread locked, theres a couple of people here sailing very close to a banning and not only for just this thread.