• Manchester United Message Board

  • Mick Mick Mar 23, 2011 18:15 Flag

    Debt and the Glazers

    The Glazers have been around for a long time. They are in the business of making money. They have weathered the recession better than most.

    I think they know a lot more about their business than the ABU's posting on here. It would not be in their interests for United to fail. The Champions League especially is important to them. Selling players for money is only good if the player sold is looking to move (Ronaldo) but selling players like Rooney just for the fee is not good business sense. Berbatov may go because he is reaching the end of his career, however, I wouldn't be surprised if he stayed another year or two.

    Important point. Glazers=savy business men. Abu's= Idiots!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • ...when it comes to idiots look no further than the Man U supporting knobheads who post on this board.

      Hardly the brightest sparks on the planet, are they?

      Yes, I'm sure you'll be under some daft impression that the Glazers are not in the slightest bit worried nor bothered about suffering a £100 million pound loss since they've 'weathered the recession better than most' as you put it?

      You're a perfect example of a typical braindead Man U supporting knobhead who knows sweet FA!


    • Mick I'd suggest you don't take the bait from every wind up merchant that posts on this board, nor equate every non Utd supported as just another abu.

      Bottom line the Glazners do not like having their financial dealings out in the open, so I'd suggest you trust them at your own peril. You may well be right and every thing is fine, but assuming it is on face value smacks of sticking your head in the sand.

      But just to give you some food for thought they may have survived the downturn better than some, but they have taken a significant hit against their property portfolio. But they also have a proven track record of taking a sports franchise, invest for glory and then milk significant profit. Whether they are or will do the same to Utd time will tell, but where you are right is they are savvy businessmen, but that does not mean they are football men, and what is good for the bottom line is not always the same thing as what is good for the supporters.

      btw, I do have an axe to grind with Utd, I'm a Liverpool supporter, so feel free to pass me off as just another abu. But my axe is on the pitch, not in seeing a football institution being asset stripped.

      • 2 Replies to dsteer_lfc_68
      • The Abu comment was directed at the dim wits that post here. You know who they are as well as I.

        "Savy Businessmen" do not kill the Golden Goose. Manchester United make them a lot of money and once the debts are settled (or moved elsewhere), they will make even more.

        It is not in their interest to asset strip. Either they will stay and make money or they will sell to the highest bidder and make money. The one thing they will not do, is sell the best players for the sake of a few million pounds. This is what the Abu's (the Idiots that post) fail to see.
        If they are waiting for the Glazers to detroy Manchester United so their team can win something, they will be waiting a long time.

      • It drives me mad that this needs repeating everytime because the media reporting on this issue is so poor.
        The 'loss' is the P&L account and is predominantly one-offs and depreciation. Its numbers on a piece of paper. The Balance sheet tells the real story, United throw off more free cash than any other football club in the world ( even though Bayern, Madrid and Barca receive far more in TV rights).
        The 'debt' is now entirely the Bond which is about GBP500m with an 8% coupon., thats GBP40m per year. As United's operating profit is significantly higher than this, from now on it does not represent a unmanageable burden, indeed as I often said, its less than what would probably be paid out in dividends on a stock valued at over GBP1bn.
        Of course you don't get much of this in the media or from ABUs.

    • You lot can dress it up all you want but the fact remainds, that manure are HALF A BILLION IN DEPT, now thats NO windup its fact, or are you all dopes.

    • " they are in the business of making money"! what a REDICULOUS remark about the glaziers, did you think they made lollypops .

    • The only thing the Glazers have been doing is milking you. All the money you generate goes to service the debt and their pocket...there are a few crumbs left for new players.

      Just imagine what you could have done with all that money, had the leprechauns not bought your club, it's frightening. Being a Chelsea fan, I hope they stay for as long as possible.

    • Lovely comments but you are actually saying ;
      United fans are too thick to realise what the Owners are doing, unlike us clever Scousers
      United's worldwide appeal to corporate sponsors is actually a desperate attempt to make ends meet.
      Why don't you just say what you mean, and stop trying to be 'clever'.

    • Jim, I'm not saying that at all. I have no idea what the majority of Utd fans know, or what they think, but judging by many on this board it seems there are plenty who are automatically defensive if something that does not praise "MU" is posted by a non utd supporter. I maybe exaggerating by saying that is the same as having your heads in the sand, but ignoring certain facts or casting them off as just wind up talk from so called "clever" scousers is not far off that characterization.

      As for the corporate sponsorships, did you actually read anything on the link I provided? This was not written by a "clever' scouser, but a manc who seems to have done a little digging and decided to start a blog on the subject (looks like he comments on other financial news that goes beyond utd as well). The point on the sponsorships is that it’s the only part of your business that is growing. But it’s unlikely you can expect that growth to continue year after year at the same rate. How many times can you sign a new ION deal? How many corporate sponsorships can you sign before you diminish the value of each. There are only so many hoardings around the pitch you can print some companies name on. But without a business model of sustainable growth where does that leave you, and how does it help you in paying down your huge debt which is the main obstacle to actual investment that would lead to sustainable growth.

      It seems to me your actually currently in not such a bad position, but a declining one relative to other clubs. The question is do your owners care about real investment (that might actually cost them money now) for the future, or just skimming off the profits from their golden goose. But based on the reaction, it also begs the question, how many mancs, at least on this board even care?

    • I tend not to look at links , I prefer obtaining information at source.
      I think you know exactly what I meant by my comments.
      As United will be easily the most profitable club at Operating level this year as has been over many recent years I find it difficult to give much credence to your views. The 'huge debt' is a £500m Bond with a fixed coupon representing less than 40% of OP. Where exactly is the onerous burden? The Bond will never need to repaid in cash it will be rolled over into a new 7year Bond, probably with the majority of the same holders. As I tire of repeating, its probably less than what would be paid in dividends to stockholders of an entity valued at over £1bn.
      United are increasing commercial revenue faster than any other EPL club, you try to make that sound 'bad'. As the TV income is more or less fixed , the ground is not being increased in size, and its rather difficult for the club to gain more 'success fees' from winning things, unsurprisingly its the commercial revenue growth which is the current driver. Now if TV rights became individually negotiable, as perhaps the ex-UK ones may soon become, guess which club would exceed all others by a significant margin? More wailing and knashing of teeth from the ABUs.

    • Has anyone considered the possibility that the Glazers themselves hold these bonds/loans/whatever. What better way to carry off cartloads of profits from the club and not have to explain and justify themselves. Anyway, I had tolerated them up to now but frankly I'd rather they PISS OFF - the sooner the better for us. I'm afraid they're leading Utd down a very slippery path.

    • I understand not going to any link some stranger has provided, however unless what your saying by only looking at source material is actually companies house information, I think you maybe limiting the full scope of your information. The blog was referred to me by a reputable source and is actually written by a Utd supporter (Green and Gold member) so I thought it might be enlightening.

      While I understand that Utd are a very profitable club when it comes to gross revenues, I think there are two things to consider.

      One what is an onerous level of debt. While the absolute number 500M, is a very big number looking at it as you are as a percentage of turnover or other performance metric is the right way of looking at it. You may not think 40% of OP is much, but I think you'll find many others would, and that it is considerably larger than not just other clubs, but many businesses.

      Second I think you should look at what Utd situation is relative to other clubs that you compete with, and the opportunity cost of operating as you do. Other clubs are finding ways of growing revenue other than just doing commercial partnerships, and finding ways to invest that will help increase profitability, so your position of most profitable should not be taken for granted. But the main difference is the debt level of your main competitors is much less onerous, therefore whatever profits they do generate they are fee to fully invest, while you still have free cash, the need to pay interest first has to be considered a barrier to future investment.

    • View More Messages