|
What's your suggestion then?
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Man Utd fans have to go on strike, form a picket line around OT and beat the gently caress out of anyone who tries to go past them to attend a match.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 08:37
|
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:Man Utd fans have to go on strike, form a picket line around OT and beat the gently caress out of anyone who tries to go past them to attend a match. They do the last part anyway if they have at least 300 of their mates at their back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 10:25
|
|
|
Shocking developments!quote:The Red Knights group of wealthy supporters mulling a takeover of Manchester United has shelved plans to make a bid for the club. Apparently they will make a bid at a later date when the price is right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 10:31
|
|
|
When man u are finishing 6th and the gold mine's gutted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 10:40
|
|
|
calcio posted:Bullshit, they are backing down after being told the team is not for sale no matter what. And why would they even have access to the books? i was wrong etc etc etc regardless it looks like its going to get much much worse for united before anything gets better are we likely to see more player sales to stay afloat?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
partipo posted:are we likely to see more player sales to stay afloat? I heard that Barça wants to start Rooney up with Villa and Ibra, along with a midfield of Iniesta/Fabregas/Xavi/Messi and a back line of Pique/Puyol/Alves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 18:24
|
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:When man u are finishing 6th and the gold mine's gutted. Well, pretty much. It's hardly in their interest to pay twice what the club is actually worth in order to reward intransigence on the part of the Glazers. Again, either the club can meet its debts or it can't. If it can't, then on no basis is it worth £1.5bn. Major player sales would be a death spiral. Financial prudence, certainly, but you can't make £50m a season selling players as an absolute, let alone do so and protect existing revenue streams. You'd be more likely to see something involving sale and leaseback of assets. To be honest, though, I don't know where Taff is getting his e-mails from, because I've had three e-mails from MUST recently, two of which were discussing the status of the Red Knights project, and one was flogging Green & Gold scarves. Nothing about renewals whatsoever. And manuttd.com doesn't redirect anywhere, as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:Well, pretty much. It's hardly in their interest to pay twice what the club is actually worth in order to reward intransigence on the part of the Glazers. Again, either the club can meet its debts or it can't. If it can't, then on no basis is it worth £1.5bn. It's hard not to argue that they have gone about their business in entirely the wrong manner however. The Glazers have no onus to sell - (as yet) no banks are breathing down their necks and trying to force supporters to avoid renewing etc is hardly the way to win over people you are going to be facing across a negotiating table. I wonder how many really wanted to take over United and how many just went in for the publicity...
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
New Guardian article. "Revealed: truth about Glazers business empire beyond Manchester United"quote:• US shopping centres are mortgaged to £392m
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 00:48
|
|
|
randomdumbnick posted:New Guardian article. "Revealed: truth about Glazers business empire beyond Manchester United" Owners hold on to property because it earns them more than the market value of the property. News at 11?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:Owners hold on to property because it earns them more than the market value of the property. You heard it here folks, ManU is worth £22.9m.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 05:34
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:It's hard not to argue that they have gone about their business in entirely the wrong manner however. The Glazers have no onus to sell - (as yet) no banks are breathing down their necks and trying to force supporters to avoid renewing etc is hardly the way to win over people you are going to be facing across a negotiating table. I wonder how many really wanted to take over United and how many just went in for the publicity...  I'd say the glory seekers outnumbered the combat wounded by a fair margin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 07:00
|
|
|
Panorama disciver man utd are in fact more than £1.1bn in debt. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/uk/10237268.stm I guess the real reason they want to keep hold of man utd is cos they can keep transfering their personal debts to the club, safe in the knowledge that if it folds they will owe creditors nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 08:21
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:To be honest, though, I don't know where Taff is getting his e-mails from, because I've had three e-mails from MUST recently, two of which were discussing the status of the Red Knights project, and one was flogging Green & Gold scarves. Nothing about renewals whatsoever. And manuttd.com doesn't redirect anywhere, as far as I can tell. I can post the emails if you dont believe me? Maybe its because when I signed up I put that I go to games and have been or are a one united member. When I signed up to the MUST campaign I also did one of those "send an email to your local counciller" things they were plugging at the time, which sent an email to all local candidates about bringing in measures for football teams. I sent this to see what I would get, and I got an email reply from Hazel Blears asking for my address. Saturday I recieved a letter from her, all about the investment the council had made in the regions local football teams, which was nothing to do with my letter about ownership of teams
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 09:30
|
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:Panorama disciver man utd are in fact more than £1.1bn in debt. The Panorama special "Manchester United - Into the Red" is on at half ten tomorrow on BBC1, btw. Hopefully it will be pretty interesting  That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the stuff they bring up has already been discussed to death in this forum. The FA and the Premier League refused to be interviewed lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 11:45
|
|
|
The Perfect Element posted:The Panorama special "Manchester United - Into the Red" is on at half ten tomorrow on BBC1, btw. Hopefully it will be pretty interesting Next season's MotD Interviews will be with a ball boy!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 14:32
|
|
|
DickEmery posted:Next season's MotD Interviews will be with a ball boy! Nope, from next season managers are obliged to give interviews with all rights holders, no more sending the assistant 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 17:14
|
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:Panorama disciver man utd are in fact more than £1.1bn in debt. That's the owners of the club, not the club itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article7144803.ecequote:June 6, 2010 Well, I suppose there might be some small consolation for Liverpool fans in that the club could probably have been in fairly bad shape no matter which owner was in charge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 19:16
|
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:When man u are finishing 6th and the gold mine's gutted. If that's what it takes to get rid of that revolting garden gnome and his subhuman sons, I'll welcome it with open arms. gently caress, I'll take a decade of midtable obscurity if that gets the club better owners. Shaman Tank Spec fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jun 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
Der Shovel posted:If that's what it takes to get rid of that revolting garden gnome and his subhuman sons, I'll welcome it with open arms. gently caress, I'll take a decade of midtable obscurity if that gets the club better owners. Glazers will sell to whoever can put the most money into their pocket, and that is likely another shady businessman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 23:37
|
|
|
w00bi posted:Glazers will sell to whoever can put the most money into their pocket, and that is likely another shady businessman. They rejected £1.5bn, it seems at this point they are desperate for a revenue stream and United is their only business with the potential to provide that (which they are then squandering by owing massive amounts of interest). The part that pisses me off above all else about this is that both the Glazers and H&G know they can still turn a profit by holding out because at the end of the day there are enough supporters with enough money who will end up working something out to meet unreasonable demands just because they can't let their club die. My only hope regarding the Glazers at this point is that the banks repossess the club in the end and they can't afford to pay the interest on the loans secured against their other businesses. If they ever successfully sell the club directly they will most likely turn a profit, which is undeserved but I could live with as long as it meant we get our club back. If they insist on driving United towards a financial crisis though the only way justice will be served is if they are bankrupted themselves in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 00:30
|
|
|
How much money did the Glazers themselves spend to get the team? My understanding is that they took out loans which were then transfered to the club itself, so they should be out $0 right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 01:03
|
|
|
The bulk of the money was borrowed agains the club and then transferred to the clubs books, but I think they did put in £200m or so of their own money. The new part of the news is that that cash wasn't hard, it was borrowed against their other businesses. It doesn't seem like any of the money involved was actual cash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
Scikar posted:The bulk of the money was borrowed agains the club and then transferred to the clubs books, but I think they did put in £200m or so of their own money. The new part of the news is that that cash wasn't hard, it was borrowed against their other businesses. It doesn't seem like any of the money involved was actual cash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 01:10
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:So if they sold the business for £500m they'd make a poo poo load of money right? That's what I'm confused about. Yeah, but buying the club isn't as simple as giving the Glazers a bunch of money. The buyer still has to deal with the debt the club owes to the banks and that naturally will reduce how much they're willing to pay. My understanding isn't exactly crystal clear (I'd ask my dad who's an accountant but he's on holiday at the moment), but as I see it buying the club from the Glazers has to be weighed up against buying it from the banks if the Glazers defaulted on the loans. Paying the Glazers £500m gives you a club with £700m of debt. Instead you could (maybe, I don't know if this part is possible) get the banks to call the £700m loan in, the Glazers default making the banks the owners, then you pay the bank the same £500m with the remaining £200m secured against the club. Now you own the same amount of the club but with a fraction of the debt and the Glazers leave empty handed. Even if that isn't possible, any valuation of the club is still going to be made against the debts, and if the business model proves to be unsustainable that value plummets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 01:35
|
|
|
Scikar posted:Yeah, but buying the club isn't as simple as giving the Glazers a bunch of money. The buyer still has to deal with the debt the club owes to the banks and that naturally will reduce how much they're willing to pay. This is how Monopoly always ends.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
Scikar posted:My understanding isn't exactly crystal clear (I'd ask my dad who's an accountant but he's on holiday at the moment), but as I see it buying the club from the Glazers has to be weighed up against buying it from the banks if the Glazers defaulted on the loans. Paying the Glazers £500m gives you a club with £700m of debt. Instead you could (maybe, I don't know if this part is possible) get the banks to call the £700m loan in, the Glazers default making the banks the owners, then you pay the bank the same £500m with the remaining £200m secured against the club. Now you own the same amount of the club but with a fraction of the debt and the Glazers leave empty handed. With a £1.1bn debt, I wonder how much a bank would sell it for if Glazers do default. I doubt a bank wants to have, say, £500m worth of debt still on the club, but I also doubt anyone is willing to spend more than that on United.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 02:02
|
|
|
Der Shovel posted:If that's what it takes to get rid of that revolting garden gnome and his subhuman sons, I'll welcome it with open arms. gently caress, I'll take a decade of midtable obscurity if that gets the club better owners. This might be crazy, but what exactly makes you think that United (or Liverpool in a more recent example) would ever be able to rise to the top again? You can't sustain a top club on local academy players anymore, or hell, even players from your own country. Much of their money comes from their global brand and spending a decade in mid table, outside of the CL and with only the occasional cup run to highlight them, would probably cause a huge crash all around their revenue stream (just like it will for Liverpool). Lose the prestige of winning the league and going deep in the CL each year and you lose some of those millions of replica kits sold each year, the 67k person statdium has fewer games and fewer sold out games, lower ticket prices, less demand for luxury/corporate suites, less lucrative sponsorship deals, etc etc. Essentially what I'm saying is if a team like Liverpool or United lost their 5 or 6 best players and then were forced to spend in a financially responsible way, what evidence is there that they would ever win the league or even make the CL again? I'm afraid I don't see any reason that Liverpool will ever be dominant again if we have to sell of Torres/Gerrard to balance the books and then cap our transfer fees at -15m a year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 02:06
|
|
|
The kicker for United is Old Trafford. Even if you set aside the plastic fans and assume they go to watch City instead, United had the highest average attendance in the country every year bar two (in which they were second) of the '70s, and again all but two (where they were second) of the '80s. In 74-75 when we were relegated to Division 2 the average attendance went up. The maximum capacity of OT has always been the limiting factor, the expansions were made because the club finally had the money to afford them - the demand had already been there even when we were less successful. You can't directly compare then and now of course - seasonal results were a lot more volatile throughout the league and there was a much smaller gap between title challengers, mid table mediocrity and relegation fodder - and even through the '70s and '80s United were a bit more successful than just mid table with the odd cup run. Even so I firmly believe that as long as we still have the academy and Old Trafford we can break back in. Bear in mind as well that in the 10 year time frame we're talking about we could see even harsher financial fair play rules brought in as well as possibly our own 50+1% rule in response to the situation of United and Liverpool. If that bursts the bubble and things calm down then not only does it make home attendance more important (always an advantage for United) but it makes reaching the top again easier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 02:38
|
|
|
800 million? you're having a laugh RBS should pull the loving plug already. I'd rather see the team gutted to pay off RBS than to enrich those lying bastard owners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 08:02
|
|
|
I'd like to point that although Old Trafford is a massive asset for Manchester United having a stadium with a huge capacity doesn't protect you from financial ruin. Borussia Dortmund regularly have an attendance that almost fills out their 81,000 stadium but still managed to become bankrupt twice in the last decade. I'll admit that they don't utilise it in the same way United use Old Trafford but it's still example of a club which had a steady matchday income being almost led to ruin because of poor financial management.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 10:39
|
|
|
Aren't ticket prices in Germany reasonable rather than ridiculously high like in England so match day revenue is far lower?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 10:42
|
|
|
Jose posted:Aren't ticket prices in Germany reasonable rather than ridiculously high like in England so match day revenue is far lower? Yes - that's why I said they don't utilise it like United. I think it costs just over £10 but when you consider that no club in the Bundesliga is really charging a huge amount and that you are filling the stadium with 80,000 fans it means they should have a significant advantage over the majority of the league in terms of matchday revenue. While we are talking about more modest revenue we are also talking about more modest debts compared to United. Im not looking to draw a direct comparison anyway I'm just pointing out that having a stadium which should give you a steady and good flow of cash isn't always going to save you. I'm pretty sure Dortmund ended up having to sell their stadium at one point or at least considered it so there are lots of things that need to be considered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 10:50
|
|
|
Stim posted:Yes - that's why I said they don't utilise it like United. I think it costs just over £10 but when you consider that no club in the Bundesliga is really charging a huge amount and that you are filling the stadium with 80,000 fans it means they should have a significant advantage over the majority of the league in terms of matchday revenue. While we are talking about more modest revenue we are also talking about more modest debts compared to United. Im not looking to draw a direct comparison anyway I'm just pointing out that having a stadium which should give you a steady and good flow of cash isn't always going to save you. I'm pretty sure Dortmund ended up having to sell their stadium at one point or at least considered it so there are lots of things that need to be considered. Dortmunds shittastic management at one point actually sold parts of the stadium to rake in a bit of short term cash, and then continued to pay horrendous sums per month to continue using those. The manager in question doesn't work there anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 11:05
|
|
|
Healbot posted:Dortmunds shittastic management at one point actually sold parts of the stadium to rake in a bit of short term cash, and then continued to pay horrendous sums per month to continue using those. Sound familiar? Clubs do some really stupid things when they find themselves in trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 11:11
|
|
|
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs are voting against taking Pompey out of admin as they're only offering 25p per pound, but in the same breath saying they'll spend to make Pompey a mid-table Championship team this season. They were £119 in debt when relegated, up from £60m in Feb when poo poo first went off the boil. By next season's start they could be in horrific debt if not removed from admin and creditors don't accept like 27p per pound owed, but no one's going to take it. Rather than let it drag out another eight months, see them get two point deductions then slump into non-existence after finally being unable to finish their fixtures and accruing tens of millions of further debt, how about they set a deadline which actually means something? If nothing's fixed by that time then the club's liquidated and everyone can get on with their lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 11:12
|
|
|
Stim posted:Sound familiar? Yeah, luckily for Dortmund the current management has found ways to consolidate their debt and even buy back the stadium, though it means midtable obscurity for a couple of years to come with the occasional EL-spot. Edit: What I'm saying is ManU is probably hosed, 300m for OT? Which dumbfuck would pay that much for a stadium? Healbot fucked around with this message at 11:22 on Jun 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 11:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Healbot posted:Yeah, luckily for Dortmund the current management has found ways to consolidate their debt and even buy back the stadium, though it means midtable obscurity for a couple of years to come with the occasional EL-spot. gate receipts are about 2.5m per game I think, 300m seems low for a revenue stream like that considering you can take in about 75m per year
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 11:30
|
|
