|
Der Shovel posted:They could sell the Glazers as lawn ornaments. they could have a carnival game where you pay a quid for three goes to knock them into a pit of crocodiles
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
Scikar posted: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. Difference is Leeds had no assets so they could pay pennies in the pound to their creditors (such as St Johns ambulance) and start a new club. If United did the same they'd probably have to sell everything including Stadium, training ground, intellectual property etc
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 23:00
|
|
|
I can't find it now, pretty sure I read it on F365, but the £500m bonds than Man Utd want to raise, guess which other club also did the same thing. Newcastle United. You should be loving making GBS threads yourselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 08:26
|
|
|
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. Well they already don't. Normal companies don't have their business directly affected by administration (the 10 point penalty), nor are people allowed to not give them money they're owed but instead hand it to whomever the gently caress they like and call the debt paid off (Chelsea being paid for Johnson directly out of Portsmouth's TV money). So the FA could certainly make it part of a fit and proper style test (another thing normal companies don't have in general). Humuhumu posted: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. Although if you ignore Ronaldo, you should ignore Chelsea compensating Scolari, which actually means Man utd lost more despite having the kind of success you just can't bank on every single year. Even without that the figures last year were 20 vs 60. Now it's 32 vs 44. Not to say Chelsea are remotely sustainable but very soon, it'll be worse for Man Utd unless something is done. Go out in the next round of the CL, lose the league and that's what, £20m right there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 09:46
|
|
|
It seems the taxman also wants some cash off United, although it is from The Sun:The Sun posted:Manchester United are in a tax battle that could end up costing the club - and players - millions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 11:13
|
|
|
Dudley posted:Well they already don't. Normal companies don't have their business directly affected by administration (the 10 point penalty), nor are people allowed to not give them money they're owed but instead hand it to whomever the gently caress they like and call the debt paid off (Chelsea being paid for Johnson directly out of Portsmouth's TV money). These are entirely different examples to what we are talking about and really have no bearing on the discussion. There are football rules and there are market rules and the two are totally seperate, the FA wading in to change how shares in a company may be transferred is different to them saying "well if you don't run yourselves properly and run out of money then there are penalties and we will deal with things in the best interests of the game". Despite their massive debt Man U are not yet in real trouble and are more than capable of generating the required revenue, if there's no reason for the FA to charge in now and start penalising them for things then why should they have stopped it in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 11:33
|
|
|
Went poking around to have a look at how much the Fa cup and The champions league are worth to clubs financially. Especially given United's figures which are absolutely terrifying for any fan of theirs.FAcup prize money posted:3rd round_____£27,000 This doesn't include tv and radio money as i could only find it of the first 4 rounds (£160k for 3+4, £260k 5+6) or ticket revenue but small clubs can clear £1,000,000 for a 3rd round tie against one of the top four clubs. Now onto the big one, The Champions league. I was pretty stunned when i found out just how much money this is worth, no wonder clubs gamble their existence on making it there. Champions League posted:Qualification______£2,136,000
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 11:39
|
|
|
Would the top clubs really revolt if the FA cup winner was given an automatic champions league berth? All that effort for £2 million is ridiculous frankly. Pompy wouldnt have imploded at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 11:49
|
|
|
MoPZiG posted:Would the top clubs really revolt if the FA cup winner was given an automatic champions league berth? All that effort for £2 million is ridiculous frankly. UEFA wouldn't allow it, currently. Besides, they'd just do an Everton and go out of Europe altogether in four games, losing money in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 11:54
|
|
|
MoPZiG posted:Would the top clubs really revolt if the FA cup winner was given an automatic champions league berth? All that effort for £2 million is ridiculous frankly. Yeah they would because at the moment qualification is judged over a full season and not a cup setting where you can have a bad day, part of the reason i was so annoyed everton didn't get CL football. The £2 million is prize money though, the total for prize money from each stage plus TV money would make it several times higher.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 11:56
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:Went poking around to have a look at how much the Fa cup and The champions league are worth to clubs financially. Especially given United's figures which are absolutely terrifying for any fan of theirs. United can sell out pretty much any game and ITV are guaranteed to show the cunts, I imagine the losses of getting Leeds'd are pretty huge - you get a lot of money for TV rights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 12:12
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:Now onto the big one, The Champions league. I was pretty stunned when i found out just how much money this is worth, no wonder clubs gamble their existence on making it there. You should've seen what it did to a little league like ours(Norway). Just by managing to qualify for the group stages of the CL, Rosenborg became the pimps of Norwegian football, buying the most talented footballers for money noone could compete against, and selling them off for even more to bigger clubs once they'd been showcased in the next Champions League. We've begun the tendency again now thanks to the financial troubles everyone else is in over here, and if we don't qualify this summer it's gonna mean a world of trouble for us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 12:36
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:Yeah they would because at the moment qualification is judged over a full season and not a cup setting where you can have a bad day, part of the reason i was so annoyed everton didn't get CL football. The £2 million is prize money though, the total for prize money from each stage plus TV money would make it several times higher. It's not like Everton weren't allowed into the tournament as they wouldn't be now, they hosed up the qualification.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 14:20
|
|
|
FT Alphaville has been going through the United notes issue prospectus if anyone is interested in the heavy finance: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/01/11/123486/football-finance-man-utd-edition/ http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/01/11/123811/piking-apart-the-man-utd-refinancing/ This is interesting: quote:In other words, it frees up some cash: the Glazer family will be able to take £70m out of the club’s resources of £116.6m and use it to repay some of the £200m PIK notes they personally used to finance the £780m buyout of the Premier League champions. What really interests me is the hedge funds. The Glazers financed the takeover by personally taking out loans directly from hedge funds at punishing interest rates, at a time when debt was plentiful and cheap. Why the hell did they do that? Whilst it was probably just a short-term measure that the credit crunch disrupted their ability to offload, I want someone to find out who the chief investors in those hedge funds are - because it really wouldn't shock me if it was the Glazers themselves using it as an avenue for taking more money out of the club.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
If anyone thinks some oil baron is going to take over utd you are having a laugh. The price the glazers will want, coupled with the debt means its a far far cheaper prospect to take over a club that's potentially going to challenge for the top four, buy a new squad and a stadium if they need it. Realisticly the prime target in the premiership is spurs due to the plans for a stadium, uefa football and relatively high profile of the club.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 15:16
|
|
|
Spurs are a good bet, Newcastle are too actually. No money man in their right mind will go near United as it stands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:Spurs are a good bet, Newcastle are too actually. No money man in their right mind will go near United as it stands. Newcastle still have debt of around £100m so could cost around £200m getting rid of that and buying the club. We already have the stadium in place though so would save poo poo loads of money there. However I have a feeling we'd get the retard of the oil barons if they were to buy Newcastle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 15:30
|
|
|
Nah, we're going to get some cash strapped fucker who can barely afford the club, let alone a transfer budget. That or the supporter's trust will buy a stake and do piss all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 15:32
|
|
|
Bovine Delight posted:Nah, we're going to get some cash strapped fucker who can barely afford the club, let alone a transfer budget. I don't think you quite understand. The glazers could give the supporters club utd and utd would still have to win the treble every year to keep losses under £33 million. Its some lunatic baron who wants to own utd and no other team or administration in 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 15:39
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:part of the reason i was so annoyed everton didn't get CL football. they did, they were just poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:If anyone thinks some oil baron is going to take over utd you are having a laugh. The price the glazers will want, coupled with the debt means its a far far cheaper prospect to take over a club that's potentially going to challenge for the top four, buy a new squad and a stadium if they need it. Realisticly the prime target in the premiership is spurs due to the plans for a stadium, uefa football and relatively high profile of the club. Not an oil baron perhaps but certainly a Southeast Asian billionaire (of which there will soon be many) would take a punt on owning United to improve their standing and prestige in their part of the world particularly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 16:05
|
|
|
Next new big bucks EPL chairman is going to be Indian
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 16:06
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:Realisticly the prime target in the premiership is spurs due to the plans for a stadium, uefa football and relatively high profile of the club. I think once we've built our stadium we may get a new owener, no buyer is going to want to buy us until we've got the new ground as they'd have significantly lower matchday income and would have to finance the stadium. This is Liverpool's problem too, without the larger ground they are losing out on money compared to Arsenal and Man United
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
Jose posted:However I have a feeling we'd get the retard of the oil barons if they were to buy Newcastle. lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 16:15
|
|
|
JingleBells posted:It seems the taxman also wants some cash off United, although it is from The Sun: I'd just like to point out that if HM Customs get Man Utd on this, it'd be a) Brilliant and b) going to gently caress over a lot more clubs harder than it would just Man Utd. If I remember correctly a lot of Newcastle United salaries are by and large made up of these "non-taxable" image rights (I believe joey barton gets 50k a week from said image rights). Can you imagine Newcastle getting another few million in tax claims dumped on their lap right now ?  I imagine this also applies to a lot of other top footballer salaries at clubs like Chelsea and Liverpool. Looking forward to this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 16:18
|
|
|
MoPZiG posted:Not an oil baron perhaps but certainly a Southeast Asian billionaire (of which there will soon be many) would take a punt on owning United to improve their standing and prestige in their part of the world particularly. Yes but they are going to have to be willing to throw away the lions share of a billion pounds and it's going to have to be cash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 16:22
|
|
|
luvd posted:lmao Would still take some beating for portsmouth's owners though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 16:24
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:
Apparently the TV is so skewed that the big clubs clean up regardless of how far they go, For example when Porto won it, United got more TV money than Porto even though they were knocked out in the round of 16. quote:It's not like Everton weren't allowed into the tournament as they wouldn't be now, they hosed up the qualification. Made difficult but our first UCL qualifying round being Vs eventual semi finalists Villareal instead of FC Moldova or whatever. Adnar fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jan 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:It's not like Everton weren't allowed into the tournament as they wouldn't be now, they hosed up the qualification. I wouldn't say they hosed it up exactly, they got probably the hardest possible draw and then only went out due to an absolutely abysmal refereeing display
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 16:38
|
|
|
Adnar posted:Apparently the TV is so skewed that the big clubs clean up regardless of how far they go, For example when Porto won it, United got more TV money than Porto even though they were knocked out in the round of 16. Isn't that because the money for the country is split between the clubs? So that season, you would have had United getting to the round of 16, Arsenal to the quarters, Chelsea to the semis with Newcastle going out in the qualifying round. I could have this wrong, so please correct me if I do. MrL_JaKiri posted:I wouldn't say they hosed it up exactly, they got probably the hardest possible draw and then only went out due to an absolutely abysmal refereeing display Fair point. Though I was replying to someone saying they were annoyed that Everton didn't "get to play in the CL". They got a chance to qualify and failed. I don't think they'd even get that chance now, would they?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
Adnar posted:Made difficult but our first UCL qualifying round being Vs eventual semi finalists Villareal instead of FC Moldova or whatever. That's because of their European coefficient and nothing else. Admittedly still a very nasty draw.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:Spurs are a good bet, Newcastle are too actually. No money man in their right mind will go near United as it stands. Last time Spurs were talked about as being up for sale (before the new stadium plans were approved) the price quoted was around £400m. Of course, I guess that's small money in todays football world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:Yes but they are going to have to be willing to throw away the lions share of a billion pounds and it's going to have to be cash. That was the price before Glazer, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Fair point. Though I was replying to someone saying they were annoyed that Everton didn't "get to play in the CL". They got a chance to qualify and failed. I don't think they'd even get that chance now, would they? Don't think so, pretty sure they changed it that year so no country would get more than their allotment so if it came up again it would be the top 3 plus the defending champion
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 19:32
|
|
|
duggimon posted:Don't think so, pretty sure they changed it that year so no country would get more than their allotment so if it came up again it would be the top 3 plus the defending champion Yes
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
duggimon posted:Don't think so, pretty sure they changed it that year so no country would get more than their allotment so if it came up again it would be the top 3 plus the defending champion Or to put it another way, Man City fans really didn't celebrate Liverpool's exit from the competition nearly enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
Dudley posted:Or to put it another way, Man City fans really didn't celebrate Liverpool's exit from the competition nearly enough. They will take the Europa league less seriously and it's good to have one of our rivals getting tied up in games, so I was actually fairly disappointed they got knocked out. It doesn't matter how much money Liverpool make from the Champions League - it's the league we are currently fighting them in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 20:06
|
|
|
If they'd won it and we had got 4th, well the odds on that would be ridiculous because there was no way Liverpool were going to win it this year but that's one of those "welp, it happens" situations, we'd have been setting out the stall for next year anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
Humuhumu posted: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. I might be wrong but from reading this paragraph, I get the idea that you think the idea of the club having debt is bad. This is not true. The debt a football club can have needn't be any worse than the debt you enter when you buy a mortgage. They don't NEED to sell off capital assets to pay off the debt ASAP in a perfect world, because the business is financed to gradually pay off or at the very least maintain the level of debt+interest. The problem stems from the fact that Man Utd can have a fantastic seaosn and still be £33m in the shitter. Also, it didn't lessen your debt at all, it just made you more liquid. Currently reading peanut-'s interesting links, thanks for the info, may post on it later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:I might be wrong but from reading this paragraph, I get the idea that you think the idea of the club having debt is bad. This is not true. The debt a football club can have needn't be any worse than the debt you enter when you buy a mortgage. They don't NEED to sell off capital assets to pay off the debt ASAP in a perfect world, because the business is financed to gradually pay off or at the very least maintain the level of debt+interest. The problem stems from the fact that Man Utd can have a fantastic seaosn and still be £33m in the shitter. That was pretty much my point, saying that we had to sell Ronaldo to cover debt is dumb, 'cos it doesn't even come close. Getting a mortgage to buy a house is not bad debt, as long as you can afford the payments, we can't right now, that's why they are trying to cover these high interest PIKs, which will escalate from $100m to $500m with lower interest loans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 22:37
|
|
