Football Finances, come laugh at portsmouth

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Ray Parlour > Football Finances, come laugh at portsmouth

«‹›194 »

Loving Africa Chaps: Dec 3, 2007; We had not left it yet, but when I would wake in the night, I would lie, listening, homesick for it already.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/06/sheikh-mansour-manchester-city-investment

looks like citys situation is exactly like chelseas after all, owners huge loans being cancelled/converted to shares.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 02:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 03:07

straight up brolic: Jan 31, 2007; After all, I was nice in ball,
Came to practice weed scented
Report card like the speed limit

I'm a bit daft and don't really understand what will actually happen this season if Pompey are declared bankrupt in feb, will they be able to finish the season as normal then have all of their players released? or will they just stop playing their fixtures and have their games forfeited? Its hard to imagine players being willing to play if they arent getting paid.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 03:21

Sad Billionaire: Mar 31, 2009; What a twist; Fan of Britches

I think Valencia had a stretch last season where they couldn't pay their players' wages and it didn't have much of a negative effect. But Valencia and Portsmouth are two very different clubs.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 06:20

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Was this already shared here?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2010/jan/06/manchester-united-glazers-debt

Given the article that Lyric Proof Vest just posted, it seems a bit sensationalistic.

The Guardian posted:

One thing at Manchester United isn't going downhill: their debt
Manchester City, rather than United, are entering the new decade with the cocksure strut of a financial powerhouse

by David Conn

Apart from the snowfall which smothered the Carling Cup semi‑final between Manchester's two clubs, 2010 has dawned to wildly contrasting fortunes for City and United. Sunday's 1-0 FA Cup humbling by Leeds was accompanied by reports that United's owners, the Florida‑based Glazer family, are trying again to refinance the �700m debts which their 2005 takeover has imposed on the club. For City, Saturday's 1-0 Cup victory at Middlesbrough has been followed by the solid news that Sheikh Mansour, City's Abu Dhabi owner, has personally invested �395m in the club since he took over 17 months ago, converting all of it into shares, not loans.

In simple terms, the lottery of English football clubs being companies up for sale on the open market has delivered a winning ticket to the Blues, not the Reds. Mansour has made an enormous financial investment in City, while the Glazers, since they bought United in their bitterly contested takeover, have given the club not one penny to spend. Quite the opposite; their ownership has drained the club of huge sums of money. In only three years up to 30 June 2008, the closing date of their most recent published accounts, United became liable to pay a staggering �263m in interest alone. Despite that, the capital lump sum which United owe to banks and hedge funds has actually snowballed by �159m, from �540m in 2005, to �699m in 2008.

That increase is accounted for partly by the very high interest charged on the �275m the Glazers borrowed from three hedge funds to buy United. When the entire debt was refinanced only 15 months later in August 2006, the hedge fund debt had risen by �79.1m, which included �13.2m for "early redemption". The refinancing paid that off, leaving United with �525m owed to banks and �138m owed to hedge funds. An estimated �29m was paid in professional fees then, principally to bankers, lawyers and accountants. Reports that the Glazers have appointed two banks,JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank, to seek refinancing again with bank bonds should be understood in that context: huge fees will be charged, there are likely to be early repayment premiums again on the �175m hedge fund debt United now owe, and the refinancing is likely to increase the total debt owed.

The Glazer family's spokesman refused to comment this week on those reports, and both JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank issued no comments. However, City sources indicated the reports are correct, and the refinancing is thought to be concentrating on the hedge fund debt, which is accumulating interest at 14.25%. The interest is rolling up: �38m interest was payable to the hedge funds in 2006-07; �23m in the year to June 2008; �25m to June 2009. By the time the capital is due for repayment, in August 2017, if it has not been refinanced and already paid off, the accumulated capital will have risen from an initial �138m borrowed from hedge funds, when the Glazers refinanced in August 2006, to �580m. That is in addition to the �524m of bank and other borrowings which United owed at June 2008.

The club and the Glazer family's spokesman have insisted that despite the interest payable, �69m in the year to 30 June 2008, which helped push United from an operating profit of �80m to a �43m loss, Sir Alex Ferguson has money to spend. Ferguson has maintained since the summer that he has not done so because United-calibre players are not available, and there is not "value in the market". He argues that players are overpriced, partly because of Mansour's intervention.

After United lost the Champions League final in May, Ferguson might have been expected to substantially strengthen his squad, but instead, Cristiano Ronaldo was sold to Real Madrid for �81m, and the manager signed only Antonio Valencia, for �17.5m from Wigan, Michael Owen, on a free transfer, and Gabriel Obertan, for �3m from Bordeaux. Whatever their protestations that money remains available, United's weakening through injury, occasional underperformance and Ferguson's dismissive approach to buying players means United are simply not carrying themselves as proud, cash-rich, Premier League champions with the Ronaldo money still in the bank. Time is surely running out for the argument that the debts � now, with interest, certainly more than �700m, vastly more than any other English club � are not financially constraining.

The Glazers have overseen a period of sustained success at Old Trafford, winning three Premier League titles and the Champions League in 2008, and Ferguson has always spoken supportively of their regime, which he finds easier to deal with than the regulated stock market-listed entity United were before. United insiders credit the Glazers with bringing in some of the roster of sponsors whose lucrative deals reflect the club's global presence and popularity. However, by far the largest proportion of United's record �257m turnover was still earned in the UK in 2007-08, and the largest proportion, �101.5m, came from match days at Old Trafford.

There, ticket prices have been increased significantly since the Glazers took over, a policy presented as a commercial virtue when they sought the refinancing in August 2006. Although United still boast awesome near-76,000 full houses for Premier League matches, and 74,526 witnessed the Leeds crash on Sunday, tickets do now remain on sale for most matches. United's spokesman, Phil Townsend, confirmed this week that bookings of corporate hospitality packages are down in the recession, and a third-round FA Cup exit will not have been in Ferguson's plan for the season or the Glazers' financial projections.

Stories have seeped out of United this season about rounds of quite meagre cuts, and Townsend acknowledged that the club has indeed been looking to cut costs. Twelve staff have been made redundant recently, he said, although he pointed out that this was from around 550 people employed in various departments.

"Like all other businesses in the current financial climate we have been looking to keep costs down," he said. "The demand for match-by-match corporate hospitality packages has gone down, depending on the fixture, but our 55,000 season tickets are sold out. We present a stable business model, the interest payments are serviced from the operating profit, and the club has said there is money for the manager to spend."

It is difficult to decipher how far the Glazers' own fortunes have been affected by the economic downturn, because they operate principally as private investors in the US. The family's charitable foundation says of Malcolm Glazer on its website that he "owns, has owned or has been the largest shareholder" of companies including Harley Davidson, Formica, Tonka, and Omega Protein, but some of those interests were sold off several years ago. The US property industry, in which the Glazers are significant investors, particularly in shopping malls, via their First Allied Corporation, is one of the sectors most pulverised by the economic typhoon.

The family's NFL franchise, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, enjoyed sustained success under the Glazers, winning the 2003 Super Bowl, yet have just concluded a miserable season, finishing bottom of their division with three wins from 16 games. Media reports, never denied, consistently said the Bucs were spending $30m (�19m) less than the permitted $100m under the NFL salary cap; the system allows franchise owners to take surplus money out for themselves. In January last year, the Glazers replaced the veteran, Super Bowl-winning coach Jon Gruden with Raheem Morris, who at 32 was the youngest coach in the NFL. The Glazers are still hailing that as a "bold decision", but the series of defeats have led to profound disillusionment among Bucs fans, who have also endured ticket price rises, and crowds at the Tampa Bay stadium have declined.

With a United squad looking suddenly threadbare, and a vintage manager due for retirement himself before too long, United supporters cannot help but see parallels between Stretford and Florida. Duncan Drasdo, chair of the Manchester United Supporters Trust, said this week: "We warned from the beginning that the Glazer takeover would saddle the club with huge debts and now we can see them biting. If it were a race, then United are dragging their owners behind them like a tractor, while City's owners are providing rocket fuel."

Before the Glazers arrived in 2005, nobody could have foreseen this bizarre reversal in Manchester. United, then the world's richest club, are lurching into the new decade with punishing debts, while City, of all clubs, are being roundly criticised after the sacking of their manager for being too ruthless, driven and improbably rich.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 06:59

The Croc: Dec 19, 2004; A-well-a everybody's heard about the bird!

OH YEAH!

1. David Conn is an awesome bloke who did alot for Mansfield Town when we were exposing Keith Haslam for the money grabbing oval office he was.

2. The fact that the FA will sit idelly by and let so called owners throw heaps and heaps of debt onto a club shows you how hosed up/out of touch they are.

3. United will be in the championship or lower by 2020 if not sooner.

Although I actually think if say United did go bust it would finally wake the FA up into chaning the owwner vetting process. And lord help the English game if Sky decide to scale back the amount they're willing to invest in tv rights.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 10:12

Huckert: Aug 1, 2007; For the love of the game

Raptor Jesus posted:

I'm a bit daft and don't really understand what will actually happen this season if Pompey are declared bankrupt in feb, will they be able to finish the season as normal then have all of their players released? or will they just stop playing their fixtures and have their games forfeited? Its hard to imagine players being willing to play if they arent getting paid.

If they are actually declared bankrupt, I imagine they'll be thrown down a few divisions, maybe even out of the official league system? For this season, it would most likely mean that all fixtures involving Pompey will be annulled, and anyone that played against them will have points deducted accordingly. I have a hard time seeing a PL team going bankrupt though as they should have a high enough stature to attract some loan agreements, investors or other financial help(Over here in Norway we've had one team in particular balancing on the verge of bankruptcy for 6 months or so, but they just won't loving die). It's more likely to see Pompey get points deducted for their sloppy financial planning, though.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 10:29

MrBling: Aug 21, 2003; Oozing machismo

Trunderstruck posted:

If they are actually declared bankrupt, I imagine they'll be thrown down a few divisions, maybe even out of the official league system? For this season, it would most likely mean that all fixtures involving Pompey will be annulled, and anyone that played against them will have points deducted accordingly. I have a hard time seeing a PL team going bankrupt though as they should have a high enough stature to attract some loan agreements, investors or other financial help(Over here in Norway we've had one team in particular balancing on the verge of bankruptcy for 6 months or so, but they just won't loving die). It's more likely to see Pompey get points deducted for their sloppy financial planning, though.

The way it works in the danish leagues is that if a team goes bankrupt in the middle of the season they forfeit the remainder of their games 0-3 and they're relegated 2 tiers down (3 if they finished in the relegation zone). Results from before the bankruptcy stands.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 11:04

Huckert: Aug 1, 2007; For the love of the game

That sounds oddly unfair to whoever had to actually play against them..

Edit: Oh well, it just proves people do stuff differently. I don't actually know how it would work in the PL, I naively assumed "our" way was "the" way.

Huckert fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Jan 6, 2010

# ? Jan 6, 2010 11:07

The Croc: Dec 19, 2004; A-well-a everybody's heard about the bird!

OH YEAH!

I believe they just remove the games they've played from the record so in effect a 36 game premier league season. Which is why Liverpool will be secretly hoping for it as it gives them 3 points on alot of the team ahead of them.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 11:53

peanut-: Feb 17, 2004; Fun Shoe

The Croc posted:

1. David Conn is an awesome bloke who did alot for Mansfield Town when we were exposing Keith Haslam for the money grabbing oval office he was.

2. The fact that the FA will sit idelly by and let so called owners throw heaps and heaps of debt onto a club shows you how hosed up/out of touch they are.

3. United will be in the championship or lower by 2020 if not sooner.

Although I actually think if say United did go bust it would finally wake the FA up into chaning the owwner vetting process. And lord help the English game if Sky decide to scale back the amount they're willing to invest in tv rights.

I really doubt the FA could have done anything about it. United were a Plc, and the Glazer's buy-out was a fairly standard private-equity transaction - all totally routine and above-board, in spite of being pretty despicable. The FA doesn't have the power to change the law or the way the market works - the only stick they'd really have to wield would be to exclude the club from competition which would bankrupt it just as effectively as the buy-out, and would lead to a legal nightmare.

Getting financing directly from hedge funds is more than a bit weird though. They must have been totally unable to raise the money any other way to borrow from organisations that would never lend in that way unless they knew they were going to rape you.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 12:17

Scikar: Nov 20, 2005; 5? Seriously?

The Croc posted:

Although I actually think if say United did go bust it would finally wake the FA up into chaning the owwner vetting process. And lord help the English game if Sky decide to scale back the amount they're willing to invest in tv rights.

I don't think United would actually go bust, more likely that if the Glazers default on the loans then the banks would become the owners (since they're secured against the club), and the banks aren't paying interest to themselves so that can be wiped off and you're left with a profitable club again. It would be pretty daft to liquidate the club at that point. (edit: I would expect the transfer kitty to be quite bare and some players to be sold off though.)

And yes, reading the rules on Bundesliga clubs designed to stop exactly this scenario from happening makes me feel very jealous. Martin Edwards was a bit of a oval office too so I can see why Ferguson doesn't see much difference, but there isn't anything the Glazers have done that isn't scummy as gently caress. Liverpool are facing the same issue - have there been any successful American takeovers or are they all the same sick story of buying with loans and then paying themselves huge salaries?

Scikar fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Jan 6, 2010

# ? Jan 6, 2010 12:27

Jollzwhin: Oct 13, 2004; Just like watching Brazil

Randy Lerner is doing ok.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 12:33

Vando: Oct 26, 2007; stoats about

Jollzwhin posted:

Randy Lerner is doing ok.

A huge understatement. Guy is probably the best owner a club could wish for, if you're including the long view.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 12:35

irlZaphod: Mar 26, 2004; Kiss the Joycon to Kiss Zelda

Apparently City have posted losses of �92.6m, up to May 2009. So it doesn't even include anything from silly season. :aaa:

Linky

# ? Jan 6, 2010 12:53

Jose: Jul 24, 2007; Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer

The Croc posted:

I believe they just remove the games they've played from the record so in effect a 36 game premier league season. Which is why Liverpool will be secretly hoping for it as it gives them 3 points on alot of the team ahead of them.

I'm wrong, nevermind.

Jose fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Jan 6, 2010

# ? Jan 6, 2010 12:57

irlZaphod: Mar 26, 2004; Kiss the Joycon to Kiss Zelda

I would have much preferred if we had not been poo poo and just beat Pompey in the first loving place.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 13:11

Dudley: Feb 24, 2003; Tasty

The Croc posted:

3. United will be in the championship or lower by 2020 if not sooner.

Not impossible by any means but it would certainly be a Man City or (probably) Newcastle style "bump" rather than a Leeds or Wimbledon/MK style plummet.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 13:53

Mickolution: Oct 1, 2005; Ballers...I put numbers on the boards

The Croc posted:

And lord help the English game if Sky decide to scale back the amount they're willing to invest in tv rights.

Not really. With ESPN now in the Premier League, Sky can't afford to cut down on their spending because they'll just be outbid by a company with Disney's backing. So much of Sky's business is built around football that they couldn't afford to lose the amount of customers they would if they didn't have the football or had to cut prices because they had less.

# ? Jan 6, 2010 15:24

Literally Lewis Hamilton: Feb 22, 2005

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/07/manchester-city-chelsea-uefa

More UEFA posturing on making clubs break even. If this ever comes to play, watch Man City buy another team in the UAE, buy poo poo players from City for massive transfer fees. Look, Man City just broke even from buying 180m in players by selling two youth teamers for 90m a pop. :haw:

# ? Jan 7, 2010 04:10

Akileese: Feb 6, 2005

Teddy Picker posted:

The owners of Derby County at the moment are being very clever, in that they're not spending outside of their means at all, and have reduced the club debt to not much more than the mortgage on the stadium. A lot of fans are getting irate about mediocre players etc, but I think at this rate everyone seems set to go bankrupt and we'll end up in the Premier League regardless. Cardiff are in the news today about rumours they're getting wound up, planning to be the last club standing doesn't seem overly silly now.

Cardiff had a winding up dismissed back in mid December because the debt had already been repaid or refinanced. Maybe something like �15 million?

Unless you're talking about something completely new which is possible.

# ? Jan 7, 2010 05:37

ephex: Nov 4, 2007; PHWOAR CRIMINAL

dailystar.co.uk posted:

TROUBLED Portsmouth last night put their whole squad up for sale.

And Starsport can reveal that the cash-strapped outfit are so desperate for money they even asked the Premier League to guarantee a loan so they could pay their players.

Source

# ? Jan 7, 2010 11:11

peanut-: Feb 17, 2004; Fun Shoe

Bovine Delight posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/07/manchester-city-chelsea-uefa

More UEFA posturing on making clubs break even. If this ever comes to play, watch Man City buy another team in the UAE, buy poo poo players from City for massive transfer fees. Look, Man City just broke even from buying 180m in players by selling two youth teamers for 90m a pop.

How can Platini come out and say this stuff with a straight face without mentioning Real? And while I don't like sugar-daddies, why is it somehow worse if a club runs up losses with money from a single wealthy backer, as opposed to clubs running up losses using other sources of finance? The wealthy owner is going to be a far more stable and cheap creditor than a consortium of banks.

I don't understand what grounds they could find to suspend them, without also having to suspend clubs making sustainable losses that are a normal/accepted part of running a business. "If you're running up losses and we reckon your owner looks a bit dodgy then you can't play"?

# ? Jan 7, 2010 11:40

Shaman Tank Spec: Dec 26, 2003; *blep*

peanut- posted:

How can Platini come out and say this stuff with a straight face without mentioning Real?

Because he is a massive, shitfaced hypocrite who loving HATES English football. This isn't new, it's basically been his entire platform since the elections.

# ? Jan 7, 2010 11:42

Jollzwhin: Oct 13, 2004; Just like watching Brazil

Wiping out losses will take an unknown amount of time, getting into the Champions League and a bunch of top-4 finishes in the league will help a ton though. I don't believe Platini's threats are anything to worry about.

# ? Jan 7, 2010 12:19

Fat Turkey: Aug 1, 2004; Gobble Gobble Gobble!

Der Shovel posted:

Because he is a massive, shitfaced hypocrite who loving HATES English football. This isn't new, it's basically been his entire platform since the elections.

Waaaaah waaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2009/06/11/1319165/michel-platini-slams-real-madrids-excessive-pursuit-of-cristiano-
http://www.goal.com/en/news/11/transfer-zone/2009/07/17/1386968/michel-platini-real-madrid-have-wrecked-transfer-market-new

He's already mentioned Real and, rather than being hypocritical (do you even know what that means?) has been consistent in his vision of how he would like to see the European football model changed; to a fairer and more competitive system. He really is the only hope of any meaningful change in UEFA. You read about it when he mentions English clubs because the English-speaking press will print every word, but they don't give a gently caress when he mentions non-English clubs. And you may have noticed that England are is where all the 'unfair' money is being pumped in. So stop reading your Daily Mail.

# ? Jan 7, 2010 21:05

Mickolution: Oct 1, 2005; Ballers...I put numbers on the boards

Fat Turkey posted:

Waaaaah waaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2009/06/11/1319165/michel-platini-slams-real-madrids-excessive-pursuit-of-cristiano-
http://www.goal.com/en/news/11/transfer-zone/2009/07/17/1386968/michel-platini-real-madrid-have-wrecked-transfer-market-new

He's already mentioned Real and, rather than being hypocritical (do you even know what that means?) has been consistent in his vision of how he would like to see the European football model changed; to a fairer and more competitive system. He really is the only hope of any meaningful change in UEFA. You read about it when he mentions English clubs because the English-speaking press will print every word, but they don't give a gently caress when he mentions non-English clubs. And you may have noticed that England are is where all the 'unfair' money is being pumped in. So stop reading your Daily Mail.

You and your facts :rolleyes:

Don't let a silly thing like the truth get in the way of "lol Platini"

# ? Jan 7, 2010 22:33

generally I prefer: Apr 17, 2006

Came across this in the Guardian today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/08/arsenal-arsene-wenger-transfers

It seems a bit of an odd arrangement on the part of the banks, to be honest. Maybe Russ knows more about this sort of thing, but isn't it more typical for lenders to want their money back sooner rather than later? If it is true, I'd have to say it's pretty good work on the club's part to earmark how revenue will be spent in the loan agreement.

# ? Jan 8, 2010 08:50

duggimon: Oct 19, 2007; If I had a horse I'd buy it oats and fuck it

Guitar_Hero posted:

Came across this in the Guardian today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/08/arsenal-arsene-wenger-transfers

It seems a bit of an odd arrangement on the part of the banks, to be honest. Maybe Russ knows more about this sort of thing, but isn't it more typical for lenders to want their money back sooner rather than later? If it is true, I'd have to say it's pretty good work on the club's part to earmark how revenue will be spent in the loan agreement.

As long as they're sure of getting it back and the bank doesn't have cash flow problems then they will prefer to wait as this means more interest for them, more interest more profit.

# ? Jan 8, 2010 10:15

Dudley: Feb 24, 2003; Tasty

Man Utd make �48m last year but that hides that it includes the �80m for Cronaldo, it's -�32m other than that, �11m bigger a loss than last year. Interest payments were �41.9m.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8451848.stm

# ? Jan 11, 2010 14:34

Cuban Chowder Factory: Jun 3, 2002

I know it might be of little interest to the average footie fan but the American Needle v. National Football League case about to go down in the US Supreme Court is a very interesting look at how the intertwinings of a sport league and financial deals currently (subject to change) go down.

In a nutshell it revolves around the NFL's exclusive apparel contract with Reebok but its outcome has major implications with individual teams' ability to compete over licensing deals, etc. within a league (AKA a major contrast between the EPL and NFL).

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3251505

# ? Jan 11, 2010 17:40

Fat Turkey: Aug 1, 2004; Gobble Gobble Gobble!

Dudley posted:

Man Utd make �48m last year but that hides that it includes the �80m for Cronaldo, it's -�32m other than that, �11m bigger a loss than last year. Interest payments were �41.9m.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8451848.stm

I'm surprised there's not more discussion about this.

In a year when you win your national league, a league cup, the World Club Cup and come 2nd in the Champions' League, and STILL come out with a �32m loss, and require selling off your capital assets to pull a profit, then it smells like there is something hideously wrong with your business model.

That's a fantastic season in anyone's books. For it to be not enough to keep you profitable, something is broken.

# ? Jan 11, 2010 19:56

Scikar: Nov 20, 2005; 5? Seriously?

Fat Turkey posted:

I'm surprised there's not more discussion about this.

In a year when you win your national league, a league cup, the World Club Cup and come 2nd in the Champions' League, and STILL come out with a �32m loss, and require selling off your capital assets to pull a profit, then it smells like there is something hideously wrong with your business model.

That's a fantastic season in anyone's books. For it to be not enough to keep you profitable, something is broken.

It's not "something", we know exactly what it is - the club is paying for its own takeover by greedy American cunts. The big problem is finding a way out - the Glazers bought United believing they could later sell it on for a profit. The only way they will be gotten rid of is either an oil baron buying the club with his own cash (not really something that I think we should have more of in the EPL and certainly not an objective any club should be hoping for to balance the books), or the Glazers default on the loans and we become owned by a consortium of banks and investors who all want their money back (bye bye squad!).

I'm beginning to think it might be a good thing if the club did a Leeds. The EPL and FA would be forced to act to stop such hosed up takeovers happening to clubs and I'd be able to afford to go to matches again if I moved back to the northwest.

# ? Jan 11, 2010 20:05

Noxville: Dec 7, 2003

Scikar posted:

I'm beginning to think it might be a good thing if the club did a Leeds.

Me too! But only because I want to see United get proper hosed.

# ? Jan 11, 2010 20:16

duggimon: Oct 19, 2007; If I had a horse I'd buy it oats and fuck it

Scikar posted:

It's not "something", we know exactly what it is - the club is paying for its own takeover by greedy American cunts. The big problem is finding a way out - the Glazers bought United believing they could later sell it on for a profit. The only way they will be gotten rid of is either an oil baron buying the club with his own cash (not really something that I think we should have more of in the EPL and certainly not an objective any club should be hoping for to balance the books), or the Glazers default on the loans and we become owned by a consortium of banks and investors who all want their money back (bye bye squad!).

I'm beginning to think it might be a good thing if the club did a Leeds. The EPL and FA would be forced to act to stop such hosed up takeovers happening to clubs and I'd be able to afford to go to matches again if I moved back to the northwest.

I don't think the FA could act to stop it, it is a perfectly legitimate method of buying a business and as long as football clubs are companies they have the same rules as any company.

# ? Jan 11, 2010 21:56

Jollzwhin: Oct 13, 2004; Just like watching Brazil

Scikar posted:

It's not "something", we know exactly what it is - the club is paying for its own takeover by greedy American cunts. The big problem is finding a way out - the Glazers bought United believing they could later sell it on for a profit. The only way they will be gotten rid of is either an oil baron buying the club with his own cash (not really something that I think we should have more of in the EPL and certainly not an objective any club should be hoping for to balance the books), or the Glazers default on the loans and we become owned by a consortium of banks and investors who all want their money back (bye bye squad!).

I'm beginning to think it might be a good thing if the club did a Leeds. The EPL and FA would be forced to act to stop such hosed up takeovers happening to clubs and I'd be able to afford to go to matches again if I moved back to the northwest.

I've said it before, I don't want United to do a Leeds because no derbies would suck. The best thing might be actually to get shot of your owners soon, take the administration and restructure, because the loss of 10 points isn't going to mean poo poo to United for a season.

Also your posts on United are fantastic by the way :glomp:

# ? Jan 11, 2010 22:00

duggimon: Oct 19, 2007; If I had a horse I'd buy it oats and fuck it

I doubt there's any man u fans who wouldn't gladly take a 10 point deduction to get rid of the owners, the problem would be what would need to be sold off as part of the administration

# ? Jan 11, 2010 22:11

Hashtag Banterzone: Dec 8, 2005; Lifetime Winner of the willkill4food Honorary Bad Posting Award in PWM

duggimon posted:

I don't think the FA could act to stop it, it is a perfectly legitimate method of buying a business and as long as football clubs are companies they have the same rules as any company.

Thats the thing, they can stop it because they are the FA. You think the rule on administration has anything to do with the law? The FA could say that any club that undergoes a leveraged buyout will be immediately docked 50 points.

# ? Jan 11, 2010 22:14

K U N T Z: Dec 29, 2008; The Lot Of You...

Fat Turkey posted:

I'm surprised there's not more discussion about this.

In a year when you win your national league, a league cup, the World Club Cup and come 2nd in the Champions' League, and STILL come out with a �32m loss, and require selling off your capital assets to pull a profit, then it smells like there is something hideously wrong with your business model.

That's a fantastic season in anyone's books. For it to be not enough to keep you profitable, something is broken.

We already knew, the Glazers have taken out retardedly stupid loan deals to finance the buy out, and now the club have to pay huge interest on them.

As soon as they get these PIKs covered with lower interest loans they will be fine.

I don't think selling Ronaldo has much to do with turning a profit, it's a drop in the ocean as far as the debt is concerned and even if we hadn't sold him we would have lost less money than Chelsea, it was just too good a price to turn down.

# ? Jan 11, 2010 22:16

duggimon: Oct 19, 2007; If I had a horse I'd buy it oats and fuck it

willkill4food posted:

Thats the thing, they can stop it because they are the FA. You think the rule on administration has anything to do with the law? The FA could say that any club that undergoes a leveraged buyout will be immediately docked 50 points.

I suppose they could but like with bosman the courts could come in and cancel anything that they see as an overly harsh restriction on free trade. I don't know enough about the legalities of this to know for sure which way it'd be likely to go.

# ? Jan 11, 2010 22:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 03:07

Shaman Tank Spec: Dec 26, 2003; *blep*

duggimon posted:

I doubt there's any man u fans who wouldn't gladly take a 10 point deduction to get rid of the owners, the problem would be what would need to be sold off as part of the administration

They could sell the Glazers as lawn ornaments.

# ? Jan 11, 2010 22:20

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Ray Parlour > Football Finances, come laugh at portsmouth

«‹›194 »