Does it take long to get there?
All change of ownership and Red Knights related posts here please
- Thread starter Gunnar
- Start date
Does it take long to get there?
Not judging you on this (there's plenty of other easier more valid things to judge you on), you don't get to matches much do you?
Your talk of the atmosphere in the ground being ruined by people moaning is so far off the mark its hilarious - if G&G has achieved one thing, it's making the match-going experience way better than it's been for years.
...I deliberately didn't elaborate cos I knew that one liner quip would be expanded upon allegorically somehow! ...It doesn't work as a specific analogy...only a vaguely lazy broad one. And even then as a joke.But if we're gonna run with it..Jones and Snowball = Glazer and MUST are bang on yes. Obviously.
Keith Harris could be Napoleon when I think about it, but basically anyone from within the hardcore element who are starting to think away from the realistic or reasonable base support and want to go all out are what what I was lazily referring to....The quip was mainly aimed at M13_RED's
Which instantly read to me as "All fans are united, but some fans are more united than others". Come to think of it the first bit has overtones of Stalin/Trotsky-ish whitewashing of the original protests value and eventual exile of it's proponents....sort of... ish.....maybe....err
Not saying he's Napolean though....but he could be Squealer
Forgive me if I am not totally accurate here, but , as I understand it, the Bundesliga 50% plus 1 share rule is designed to keep football clubs aligned with their local cities/towns
or communities and ensure a football base rather than a busines base. However, I think the ownership quota is'nt so much "fans" as "German nationals".
I do believe that some Bundesliga Clubs, one of them being Hannover 96, wanted to have the rule changed to attract more "foreign" investment.
There was a vote a few years back, and the status quo remained in place - there has to be a high majority of Bundesliga Clubs in favour for the rule to be changed - I am not sure what the DFB involvement is either......
But I donot think "fans" per se "own" the clubs - certainly none of the BvB fans I used to go to the Westfallen Stadion with many years ago had any share in their club - they bought their "Saison Karten" and that was that......
or communities and ensure a football base rather than a busines base. However, I think the ownership quota is'nt so much "fans" as "German nationals".
I do believe that some Bundesliga Clubs, one of them being Hannover 96, wanted to have the rule changed to attract more "foreign" investment.
There was a vote a few years back, and the status quo remained in place - there has to be a high majority of Bundesliga Clubs in favour for the rule to be changed - I am not sure what the DFB involvement is either......
But I donot think "fans" per se "own" the clubs - certainly none of the BvB fans I used to go to the Westfallen Stadion with many years ago had any share in their club - they bought their "Saison Karten" and that was that......
Right, the social club analogy makes sense I guess.
Let's all (ie 150k+ United fans) become members for a season, and vote to wind the club up and split the assets!
Does this structure make it impossible to carry large debts, as I can't see how 150k members could be held liable for them?
...Which brings us on to Madrid - I know their debts are largely, shall we say, unconventional (ie poorly disguised gifts from the government etc), but somebody must be liable for them?
The aquisition and liability of the debts rests with Futbol Club Barcelona the company, same as Real Madrid's debts are under the name of Real Madrid Club de Futbol or whatever the company happens to be called.
Like you mentioned, it's never the members who will have to pay off debts, they're usually bypassed in ways similar to what you mentioned- ie in Real Madrid's case it's the government writing off the debt, buying the training ground and selling it back to them at a nominal fee... etc etc.
So now as well as top reds, we have top green and golds? Cool.
I get to loads of matches. I held a season-ticket for four years, until the beginning of last season when i could no longer afford it because my credit-card was maxed. I went to matches whenever i could before i got my ST, and i still go now occasionally on my brother's or my dad's season-tickets.
My point is this - if you want to boycott, then go right ahead; if your hatred for the Glazers is more important to you than matchdays, then give someone who will appreciate it the opportunity to take your seat. Getting tickets on general-sale has been a struggle for years, you'll be freeing-up available seats for fans, like myself, who cannot afford a season-ticket but would still attend a number of games every year. For instance, I haven't got to see United vs Liverpool for a while now, because tickets are so hard to come by, and there's no way my dad's gonna let me on his for the big games; but your boycotting would give me, and many more, a much greater chance of getting in. It'd be better that way, it'd be fairer. You could still do your anti-Glazer chants in the street and that, so you'd still be happy, whilst at the same time, the fans who actually want to support United would have more opportunities to do just that. It'd be a win/win situation all round.
Thanks misterredmist.
From other things I've been Googling, the 50%plus1 (why can't I put 50%***?) does have to remain with Club Members. I'm still not clear what that means though. I suppose you could have 50%*** held in trust, paying no dividend, while 50%-1 are like normal shares, with dividend etc. Or could you?
From other things I've been Googling, the 50%plus1 (why can't I put 50%***?) does have to remain with Club Members. I'm still not clear what that means though. I suppose you could have 50%*** held in trust, paying no dividend, while 50%-1 are like normal shares, with dividend etc. Or could you?
I suppose it's not that different to lending to a normal company really. Due to the limited liability of the shareholders, you're awlays taking a risk if you lend a company more money than it has (or will have) the internal resources to repay.
You're pretty much spot on as far I understand it.
As for the DFB's role, they have a list of rules clubs must abide by else face expulsion from the Bundesliga in theory. The rules concern acceptable levels of debt, how much money they can spend on wages etc etc. The rules are very controversial as many have used them to explain why German teams cannot compete with England and Spain in Europe (which I disagree with). Also they're implemented inconsistently to the say the least, as Dortmund are testament to.
Dan said:
Exactly. I was about to compare it to United under a PLC- limited liability is a pretty accurate term to descirbe how debt affects club members.
I've already said this in another thread, but none of the systems are a panacea. Rich Arabs to fan ownership to Hicks and Gillette. None are ideal as the myriad of cases in every major league of owners using clubs to their own gain proves. The key difference is (to me) that you have to pay to become president of Barcelona or Schalke- you ignore the voice of match going fans at your peril.
Right, bringing this back to United and our current situation...
The answers I've had in this thread have made it a lot clearer to me how partial fan ownership, such as the 25% suggested by the Red Knights / MUST, could work. You would essentially have the same situation as German club, but with different %s. The 25% would be owned by a collective of "socios" or whatever the German equivalent is - a social club made up entirely of those who have paid subs for the year.
More interestingly, thinking about these ownership structures has shed some light, in my mind at least, on the question "why would rich business-men voluntarily give away 25% of the shares?".
Now, anybody who's an expert on city matters feel free to correct me, but the way I see it:
1. If the presumptions in this thread are correct, the German model sees the fans' 51% (it's easier to type!) of the shares held in some kind of non-dividend paying form, and the other 49% as normal, dividend-paying shares.
2. The value of a company, and hence its individual shares, is ultimately derived entirely from its ability to make a profit, and hence pay a dividend. Shares which cannot ever pay a dividend are inherently worthless.
hence
3. The owners can potentially do just what they've suggested, and give away 25% of the equity in the form of non-dividend paying shares without actually suffering any direct financial loss. What they've given away has no value, and the entire financial value of the club remains in their 75%.
There may, be a less direct impact on the value of their shares if other potential investors see them as less attractive due to the unusual ownership set-up.
However, as discussed elsewhere, maximising return on investment would not be at the forefront of such an investor's mind, and it is unlikely such an investor would be going in planning to sell-on for a profit. More to the point, if the set-up discourages people who are looking at it primarily form a profit point of view, all the better.
So I think I can finally see how the 25% "give-away" could work... and it's more achievable than I thought!
The answers I've had in this thread have made it a lot clearer to me how partial fan ownership, such as the 25% suggested by the Red Knights / MUST, could work. You would essentially have the same situation as German club, but with different %s. The 25% would be owned by a collective of "socios" or whatever the German equivalent is - a social club made up entirely of those who have paid subs for the year.
More interestingly, thinking about these ownership structures has shed some light, in my mind at least, on the question "why would rich business-men voluntarily give away 25% of the shares?".
Now, anybody who's an expert on city matters feel free to correct me, but the way I see it:
1. If the presumptions in this thread are correct, the German model sees the fans' 51% (it's easier to type!) of the shares held in some kind of non-dividend paying form, and the other 49% as normal, dividend-paying shares.
2. The value of a company, and hence its individual shares, is ultimately derived entirely from its ability to make a profit, and hence pay a dividend. Shares which cannot ever pay a dividend are inherently worthless.
hence
3. The owners can potentially do just what they've suggested, and give away 25% of the equity in the form of non-dividend paying shares without actually suffering any direct financial loss. What they've given away has no value, and the entire financial value of the club remains in their 75%.
There may, be a less direct impact on the value of their shares if other potential investors see them as less attractive due to the unusual ownership set-up.
However, as discussed elsewhere, maximising return on investment would not be at the forefront of such an investor's mind, and it is unlikely such an investor would be going in planning to sell-on for a profit. More to the point, if the set-up discourages people who are looking at it primarily form a profit point of view, all the better.
Don't be ridiculous. Ever since the season ticket waiting list was wiped out in the summer of 2006, it's been piss easy to get tickets for all bar the biggest matches. Even the Milan semi-final a few years went on general sale!
Have you been to any matches where G&G protesting was going on? Atmospheres have been much improved and I'm sure this is a positive thing for the team.
I was at the Milan semi, one of the best atmospheres i've ever experienced, along with 7-1 Roma, Rooney's debut, Rio's 91st minute winner against Pool etc.
Not since the G&G though, no.
If they can afford it.
Good job you don't go to OT much these days ciderman. You'd hate it at the moment.
Well you can try and shoot me next season if you like. I've not decided what I'm doing yet.
Try? I know where you live! You don't have long left, not long at all!
So that would explain it.
You were a day tripper prior to the takeover, you gained a ST due to all the non renewals once Glazer took over. Then suddenly you couldnt afford it anymore due to the price hikes, and now you want more people to boycott so you can get to choose which games to get to because you cant be arsed getting a season ticket.
That explains quite clearly why you dont mind the Glazers and are actually secretly praying they stay, so you get to see United when you choose.. If the game doesnt appeal to you, then you wont bother....
Glazer has been a god send for you. The plight of the long term fans who cant go has meant you get something out of it for yourself..
For you to actually hope people stop going so you can benefit personally is beneath contempt
Just priceless..
Someone who only started going to United games since the club went PLC and only got a ST due to Glazers pricing people out, and he talks of times when football really mattered..
Oh the irony...
You wouldnt have a clue what it was like when football was all United cared about.
I've been saying this for 5 years now..
Full fans ownership is impossible and could never work, logistically and financially. United is too big an entity to be ran in that capacity.
But a 25% stake placed in trust so no one person can ever gain overall control is achievable and in fact would be the perfect case scenario for any businessman wishing to invest because the "customers" would have the same interests at heart. Any profits made would directly benefit the members in so far as ticket prices and facilities would be improved with the cut of the profits the fans would get. The businessmen get their profit, the fans get a say in how the club is ran, and the two sides work together for the benefit of everyone..
This is the kind of stuff I just don't understand. Get him onside then leak the story (or don't if he's a non-player).
Fans boycotting, doesn't necessarily mean the price of a ST decreasing, so Cider better get that credit card paid off or do a better job of getting behind the Glazers
full article: Glazers consider hike in Manchester United tickets prices | Football | guardian.co.uk
If they attempt to raise prices this summer it would be a massive mistake and would destory any chance they had of healing their relationship with the fans
I didn't really get it either, didn't really show why he's so important, just seemed like another rich guy with money
I guess i should explain now, before you dig much deeper. I started going to matches when i became an ADULT and got a JOB and stuff like that - my first year as an ST-holder was the season BEFORE the Glazer takeover. I spent all my money, thousands of pounds, going to (almost) every home match for four years, and i'm still paying-off those costs now. I can't afford to go anymore because of my own financial mismanagement, not because i can't be bothered. I've supported United since i was old enough to know what United was; since probably about '93 when i was 7 years old - i grew-up in Rammy and used to watch Bury often at Gigg Lane because that's all we could afford when we were kids - but i was never a Bury fan, my dad brought me and my brother up as reds from day one. So don't question my support. If you want to boycott United, i'll sit in your seat, and i'll enjoy every minute of it.
Ground expansion made the big difference to availablility of season tickets, not boycotts.
(I believed in boycotts personally, but I won't pretend they worked when they didn't).
(I believed in boycotts personally, but I won't pretend they worked when they didn't).
25 years ago it was £2.50 to stand on Stretford Terrace, £3 in the Manchester Road End at Gigg Lane. Mad or what?
Those Glazers sure know how to win the fans back over to their side
From The Guardian:
From The Guardian:
Glazers consider hike in Manchester United tickets prices
• United owners want more revenue to help tackle debt
• Glazers unconcerned about animosity of fans
Manchester United are giving strong consideration to increasing season-ticket prices to help with the club's enormous interest payments, despite being acutely aware such a move would increase the sense of animosity that has led to fans protesting against the ruling Glazer family.
The Glazers have begun discussions with the club's England-based directors about next season's prices, with an official announcement due in the next month, and the early talks have been geared towards United continuing their habit of making supporters pay more every year since the Americans took control in 2005.
Season tickets have gone up by an average of 48% in that time, and by as much as 69% in some areas of Old Trafford, but the Glazers are said to be largely unmoved by the prospect of further antagonising the supporters, placing more emphasis on how to increase match-day revenue at a time when the club have £700m-plus worth of borrowings and paid £67m in interest payments last year.
The alternative is that the Glazers freeze or lower prices, as they have done with their NFL team the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, but, as yet, that idea has been discussed only briefly. Indeed, there is a sense that the situation in Florida may push the Glazers further towards bumping up the prices at Old Trafford. One source close to the family explained their thinking: "Will the club's financial issues affect their decision-making? Yes. Will the current climate of the protests and support anger influence them? Not at all."
United were the only club in the Premier League not to reduce or freeze season-ticket prices for the current season, when the trend throughout the rest of English football's top division was to recognise there was a significant threat of pricing supporters away from the game in a time of recession. Instead, the Premier League champions asked their 55,000 season-ticket holders to pay an extra £1 for each match, calculating it would bring in an extra £1m from their 19 Premier League home matches.
That hike attracted strong criticism from supporters' groups and there was more anger in January when the Glazers launched a prospectus in January to seek £500m worth of new bond loans. "While other Premier League clubs have experienced a flattening or reduction in ticket prices in response to the economic downturn, we were able to increase aggregate ticket prices for the 2009-10 season by 2.5%," it read.
Season-ticket holders are currently paying up to £931 and another rise would be "commercial suicide" according to Andy Mitten, the editor of United We Stand fanzine. "United are the best-supported team in the world this season but where there was once a waiting list for any season tickets, the continued price rises have diminished demand. Fans have been priced out to the point that we are now seeing empty seats inside Old Trafford for league games for the first time since 1992."
The Manchester United Supporters Trust expects that many fans will not renew, adhering to the belief that if enough of them effectively go on strike it will affect the Glazers' business plan enough to persuade them to sever their ties with the club.
This idea has the backing of the Red Knights, the consortium of businessmen and financiers led by the former United director Jim O'Neill and involving the former Football League chairman Keith Harris, who are trying to put in place a takeover deal. Their plan is to reward boycotters by guaranteeing them a season-ticket, at a reduced price, if their takeover is successful.
And that matters to them because.....
Well it should...
Ah bless, I never realised you were such a kiddie-winkle. I'll be nicer to you in future.
No you won't. You say yourself that you can't afford it.
And as for enjoying every minute of United, the Green and Gold protests have made this one of the best seasons ever for watching United in my book. The camaraderie, the excitement, the eyes of the world on us, it's been absolutely brilliant. You, on the other hand, would hate it at the moment.
Not ground expansion, but a combination of an increased number of STs (previously capped by the Plc so that ST holders could get cup final tickets) and the first two Glazer price rises that wiped out the waiting list.
You're right on boycotts though. The most generous estimate of how many boycotted in 2005 was around 4,000, whereas the Glazers wiped out a 14,000 season ticket waiting list in a matter of weeks when they increased the prices and introduced the compulsory ACS in 2006.
Ah bless, I never realised you were such a kiddie-winkle. I'll be nicer to you in future.
No you won't. You say yourself that you can't afford it.
And as for enjoying every minute of United, the Green and Gold protests have made this one of the best seasons ever for watching United in my book. The camaraderie, the excitement, the eyes of the world on us, it's been absolutely brilliant. You, on the other hand, would hate it at the moment.
Agreed.
You get the odd muppet walking into the megastore wearing a green and gold scarfe or wearing it over a new United shirt but the atmosphere has improved immeasurably and long may that continue. The argument that a boycott would give fans who would 'support the team' more chance to watch United has no weight at all- it would only give fans who had the money a chance to watch United. It hasn't been difficult to get a season ticket at all in the past two years. If these imaginary fans felt strongly enough then they would be at OT already.
hmmm ... sounds ok in theory but not sure if this is workable in practise - although I dont really know the detail of company law and legal structures to comment properly.
It is all well and good to look at Spain or Germany as examples of how fans ownership can work but we have to remember that these club have always been member/fan owned whereas top level English clubs never have been.
It is a completely different situation to try and move from the type of ownership structure we have had for decades to some kind of cooperative - Im not saying it is impossible but it will be very difficult to make such a radical change away from the way things have always been.
Anyway, as far as I understand the Red Knights are not talking about giving away 25% for free - the fans would be expected to pay for their share, there is already some research going on by MUST to try and gage what kind of appetite there is for fans to pay money for shares in the club.
We are still waiting for details of how exactly this would work - Im not sure if the fans would be expected to come up with the cash immediately or whether some kind of system could be put in place to give the fans a chance to build up a shareholding over time.
To shunt this into the right place...
The £120M was in the current account pre-bond and there was £70M earmarked from the bond. There may be less in the CA now but I don't think that number counts the £70M. Worst case I think they clear out the rolled up interest at £110M leaving them £130M PIKS at 16.25% + bond + revolving credit interest.
There was actually exactly £146.6m in the bank as of 30Sep09 (the date the bond prospectus was made up to).
Out of this cash, the bond prospectus detailed that around £25 to 30m would be blown on things like fees for the bond process and a part payment on losses accrued from failed interest rate hedge etc. That leaves us with around the £120m that you mention above.
I think that it is indeed £70m of that £120m that is earmarked for PIK payment (with a £75m revolving credit facility in place to replace this if cash is needed). However, it is not totally clear either way.
We do also have the latest 1/4ly set of accounts (made up to 30Dec09) for a bit more info but it will be the next set of accounts, which are the first ones post bond, that should tell us more.
Red Knights to wrest control of Manchester United by June with £1.25bn bid
full article:
Red Knights plan to wrest control of Manchester United by June with £1.25bn bid | Football | The Observer
There isn't much new news in the article, hence the spoiler.
full article:
Under proposals being studied by the bidder's financial adviser, Nomura, around 30 wealthy Red Knights investors would take control of United by setting up a new company that would later invite fans from around the world to subscribe to new shares.
The structure of the bid is designed to wrest control of United from the US Glazer family as quickly as possible and to meet legal requirements that determine how firms can be run under collective ownership. "The takeover would be in two stages but the objective is to give the fans a central role in the club's future," said a City source.
Jim O'Neill, Goldman Sachs's chief economist, who is one of the founding members of the Red Knights, is keen to distribute equity as widely as possible among millions of supporters globally.
The idea is for United to resemble Spanish rival Barcelona, which is owned by its fans and where profits are ploughed back into the club. At the moment, United's profits are having to be used to service huge debts drawn down by the Glazers when they acquired United in 2005.
Barcelona relies on the same revenue streams as British clubs, but experts say its model could be adopted by Premiership teams with a strong sense of their own identity.
Japanese bank Nomura last week met with wealthy supporters of the Red Knights campaign, which is backed by investment banker Keith Harris and Paul Marshall, founder of London-based hedge fund Marshall Wace. The man in charge of negotiations is Guy Dawson, who set up financial advisory boutique Tricorn before it was recently acquired by Nomura.
Dawson has already held talks with the Manchester United Supporters Trust (Must) to demonstrate that the Red Knights are serious about giving fans a major say in how United is run.
Duncan Drasdo, Must's chief executive, said: "We want a big stake in the club although the exact size will depend on any take-up of shares in the event that supporters are invited to subscribe to new equity."
Drasdo adds: "It's important that as much of the debt is paid down as quickly as possible so that the club has maximum headroom to invest in new players and to ensure affordable ticket prices."
As a symbol of opposition to the Glazers, Must has been encouraging fans to forsake United's traditional red colours and wear green and gold scarves – the colours of the club, then known as Newton Heath, until 1902.
But a spokesman for the Glazers, who reiterated that the family had no intention of selling, said: "There is no dress code printed on the tickets, people are entitled to wear what they like. The important thing is that they show their support for the team."
Drasdo said "the amount of money flowing out of club to service the Glazers' £700m debt pile is quite astonishing. "United needs to invest a lot of money in new players in the next couple of years as well as eventually find a replacement for manager Sir Alex Ferguson. He is going to be a very hard act to follow and his successor will not come cheap."
United's chief executive, David Gill, has defended the Glazers, saying that funds are available for Ferguson to use in the transfer market this summer. Gill maintains the £80m received last year from the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid is still part of the club's budget. Gill said: "The money from Ronaldo is sitting in the bank account."
Sources close to the Red Knights say that offers of financial support continue to pour in, with several sovereign wealth funds expressing an interest. Five British individuals are said to be willing to invest £10m apiece. It is understood they have also won the support of former United chairman Sir Roy Gardner.
The structure of the bid is designed to wrest control of United from the US Glazer family as quickly as possible and to meet legal requirements that determine how firms can be run under collective ownership. "The takeover would be in two stages but the objective is to give the fans a central role in the club's future," said a City source.
Jim O'Neill, Goldman Sachs's chief economist, who is one of the founding members of the Red Knights, is keen to distribute equity as widely as possible among millions of supporters globally.
The idea is for United to resemble Spanish rival Barcelona, which is owned by its fans and where profits are ploughed back into the club. At the moment, United's profits are having to be used to service huge debts drawn down by the Glazers when they acquired United in 2005.
Barcelona relies on the same revenue streams as British clubs, but experts say its model could be adopted by Premiership teams with a strong sense of their own identity.
Japanese bank Nomura last week met with wealthy supporters of the Red Knights campaign, which is backed by investment banker Keith Harris and Paul Marshall, founder of London-based hedge fund Marshall Wace. The man in charge of negotiations is Guy Dawson, who set up financial advisory boutique Tricorn before it was recently acquired by Nomura.
Dawson has already held talks with the Manchester United Supporters Trust (Must) to demonstrate that the Red Knights are serious about giving fans a major say in how United is run.
Duncan Drasdo, Must's chief executive, said: "We want a big stake in the club although the exact size will depend on any take-up of shares in the event that supporters are invited to subscribe to new equity."
Drasdo adds: "It's important that as much of the debt is paid down as quickly as possible so that the club has maximum headroom to invest in new players and to ensure affordable ticket prices."
As a symbol of opposition to the Glazers, Must has been encouraging fans to forsake United's traditional red colours and wear green and gold scarves – the colours of the club, then known as Newton Heath, until 1902.
But a spokesman for the Glazers, who reiterated that the family had no intention of selling, said: "There is no dress code printed on the tickets, people are entitled to wear what they like. The important thing is that they show their support for the team."
Drasdo said "the amount of money flowing out of club to service the Glazers' £700m debt pile is quite astonishing. "United needs to invest a lot of money in new players in the next couple of years as well as eventually find a replacement for manager Sir Alex Ferguson. He is going to be a very hard act to follow and his successor will not come cheap."
United's chief executive, David Gill, has defended the Glazers, saying that funds are available for Ferguson to use in the transfer market this summer. Gill maintains the £80m received last year from the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid is still part of the club's budget. Gill said: "The money from Ronaldo is sitting in the bank account."
Sources close to the Red Knights say that offers of financial support continue to pour in, with several sovereign wealth funds expressing an interest. Five British individuals are said to be willing to invest £10m apiece. It is understood they have also won the support of former United chairman Sir Roy Gardner.
There isn't much new news in the article, hence the spoiler.
MUST (Red Knights) on CNN...
What a fecking tool the presenter of that show is!