ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
How can Fergie claim that these leeches are good owners?

He can't mean it, surely to God.

Come to think of it, how can any United fan support the Glazers. The fact that they are using club profits to pay their debts should be enough to guarantee 100% antipathy.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
I really have a hard time believing that the Glazers are worried about PR for themselves.

If PR at the expense of personal losses was their concern then they surely would have insisted that Fergie buys someone, anyone - so long as he costs at least £30m - during the last transfer window? The money was definitely there for this to happen. I don't think anyone can argue with that.

The reason why the money wasn't spent must, therefore, be as Fergie says - he went for a player, the player didn't want to leave his country and so he decided to stick with pretty much what he had (because what he had didn't do too badly last season).

As things stand, there's just a shitload of money sitting in the account which doesn't appear to serving any useful purpose on or off the field (Anders reckons it's attracting around 1.1% interest so that's obviously not part of the grand plan!). Personally, I can only think that there was another reason why the money wasn't taken. From a PR perspective, nobody seems particularly impressed that we have £164m in the bank.

It's just a weird one.

The PR is going to be bad for the Glazers no matter what they do because, as you well know, there are a certain body out there who twist everything that happens at United into "evidence of the Glazers being bad for United".

We sign a player and they moan that the debt hasn't been paid off or the "club lost money last year".

We don't sign a player and they moan that there's no squad investment.

I really don't see how the Rooney situation would have impacted on their thinking and I hope that this wasn't the case. Players come, players go and that is part and parcel of football.

So long as Fergie is given the funds he needs to fill the void then I don't see what more anyone can ask.

The accounts suggest that even without taking the "Rooney money" into account, there should be a significant sum available for transfers either in january or summer (around £50-60m) and that is assuming the Glazers take the £95million.
Click to expand...

maybe they will take the money in the same financial period when fergie makes a big signing, in order to keep the fans happy....next summer perhaps?
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Perhaps because, from his perspective, they have been?
Click to expand...

Which is?

I can't believe that they haven't restricted his spending, and the club is broke.

How does that make them good owners in anybody's eyes?
 
Livvie said:
Which is?

I can't believe that they haven't restricted his spending, and the club is broke.

How does that make them good owners in anybody's eyes?
Click to expand...

Well, Fergie says that they haven't restricted his spending. He says that whenever he has asked for money, they have given it to him. Fergie's words, not mine.

There's more to being a "good owner" than simply using your billions to turn the heads of stars from other big clubs, you know.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Well, the price is something that gets negotiated between buyer and seller.

I just think that if I were a person looking to buy United right now, I would be more concerned about MUST than anything else.

Whether it costs £500m or £2bn to buy United, it is a lot of money to sink into something when there is going to be a bunch of people trying to throw spanners in the works at every turn.

You clearly don't want to acknowledge this so let's agree to disagree, eh?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to acknowledge a point that is clearly nonsense!

No one will buy United at the moment because they see the club as overpriced.

MUST and the fans could be pacified to a certain extent fairly simply.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Well, Fergie says that they haven't restricted his spending. He says that whenever he has asked for money, they have given it to him. Fergie's words, not mine.
Click to expand...

And what's the popular opinion? Do we believe that?
 
Livvie said:
And what's the popular opinion? Do we believe that?
Click to expand...

Well, *I* believe it. You can make your own mind up as to whether or not you think Fergie is lying when he says it.

The success we have enjoyed over the last five years would suggest that Fergie has had everything he has needed to put out a competitive team capable of winning trophies.

There's £164million in the bank and at least £60million that appears to have no purpose other than to be spent on players so if it hasn't been spent, what conclusions can be drawn?
 
I think Fergie realizes that he can't necessarily ASK for certain things, so he's not lying per se, but on the other hand he's not in the position that his statement would imply.

But then you see thinks like the Bebe transfer, and if we really were skint I can't believe we'd have done that. We'd have saved that money to use on some other signing later in another window to placate the fans.
 
Livvie said:
Which is?

I can't believe that they haven't restricted his spending, and the club is broke.

How does that make them good owners in anybody's eyes?
Click to expand...

The only thing that is obviously "good" about the idea of non PLC ownership is that our transfer dealings can be more secret.

But when you're allegedly hamstrung in that department, what good is secrecy?
 
datura said:
I'm not going to acknowledge a point that is clearly nonsense!
Click to expand...

OK. What happened when Murdoch wanted to take over? What happened when the Glazers wanted to take over? I know that this is only two examples but it is the ONLY two examples we have and I would suggest that even such a small sample suggests a pattern.

If you wish to dismiss this as "nonsense" well fine. I'll say what you say is nonsense and you say what I say is nonsense and we'll have a great discussion.

datura said:
No one will buy United at the moment because they see the club as overpriced.
Click to expand...

As I said, the price is there to be negotiated between buyer and seller. I personally think that the club is worth more now than it was in 2005 and it cost the Glazers over £800m then.

datura said:
MUST and the fans could be pacified to a certain extent fairly simply.
Click to expand...

You'd have to explain that further, really.
 
Bearded but no genius said:
I think Fergie realizes that he can't necessarily ASK for certain things, so he's not lying per se, but on the other hand he's not in the position that his statement would imply.
Click to expand...

This is one of the quotes from Fergie on the subject:-

"I have to say they've done their job well. They support me as manager and they've supported the players.

"I've never been refused when I've asked for money for a player so what can I do other than carry on the way we're doing it. I've no complaints."
Click to expand...

So, when he HAS asked for money, he has been given it. I suppose you could say that this must mean that he hasn't asked for much but surely that must also mean, given our recent success, that he hasn't felt that he NEEDED much and, I think, this is the point that a lot of people miss.
 
Bearded but no genius said:
The only thing that is obviously "good" about the idea of non PLC ownership is that our transfer dealings can be more secret.

But when you're allegedly hamstrung in that department, what good is secrecy?
Click to expand...

On the subject of transfers, Fergie has often mentioned that the process has been improved under the Glazers. Whereas before, it all had to go through the board and whatnot before a decision could be made, it is now a far more streamlined and efficient process.

I presume the benefits of this has been seen in the examples of us being able to buy the likes of Nani, Anderson and Bebe quickly before they were snapped up by others.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
At this stage, I don't see how Glazer opinion could possibly be swayed any more one way or the other and to suggest that they are costing themselves millions of pounds a year solely to stop a section of fans who already hate them from hating them even more is a bit ridiculous, really.
Click to expand...

It's not people hating them that they would worry about (you have to have a heart for that) it's the fear of people stopping giving him their money.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
On the subject of transfers, Fergie has often mentioned that the process has been improved under the Glazers. Whereas before, it all had to go through the board and whatnot before a decision could be made, it is now a far more streamlined and efficient process.

I presume the benefits of this has been seen in the examples of us being able to buy the likes of Nani, Anderson and Bebe quickly before they were snapped up by others.
Click to expand...

Far more streamlined


Fergie: "Can I have some money Mr Gill Sir"

Gill: "No, feck off"
 
TheMancRedDevil; said:
OK. What happened when Murdoch wanted to take over? What happened when the Glazers wanted to take over? I know that this is only two examples but it is the ONLY two examples we have and I would suggest that even such a small sample suggests a pattern.

If you wish to dismiss this as "nonsense" well fine. I'll say what you say is nonsense and you say what I say is nonsense and we'll have a great discussion.

As I said, the price is there to be negotiated between buyer and seller. I personally think that the club is worth more now than it was in 2005 and it cost the Glazers over £800m then.

You'd have to explain that further, really.
Click to expand...

Be serious, to say that the main barrier to anyone taking over is MUST is frankly laughable. There's always going to be a certain amount of resistance to any new owners but just doing a few if the things that Ralphie mentioned and perhaps allow fans to invest in the club so they have a say (say c5%) would largely pacify a lot of fans.

To talk of a sale is far too premature anyway, let's just enjoy the fact that the protests have continued to have a positive impact after the freeze in ticket prices.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
This is one of the quotes from Fergie on the subject:-



So, when he HAS asked for money, he has been given it. I suppose you could say that this must mean that he hasn't asked for much but surely that must also mean, given our recent success, that he hasn't felt that he NEEDED much and, I think, this is the point that a lot of people miss.
Click to expand...

Like I said, or he implicitly realises that he can't ask for much. He's a fairly savvy man, and he and Gill are close. He will know a great deal about the ins and outs of what he might be able to do, which will shape things long before they get to the 'asking for' stage.

It helps we have a tradition of building stars anyway, but every couple of years we tend to splash the cash, and it didn't happen this particular summer which was interesting.

Not that I'm suggesting one should spend to spend. He should spend when he feels he needs to. Just that it was interesting.

Certainly even since the bottom fell out of the economy in mid-2008, Berbatov's signing and the attempt to make Rooney the highest paid player in England show we're willing to pay money for a big talent.

Tevez shows we're not willing to be stupid though. 47.5m? Come on.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
On the subject of transfers, Fergie has often mentioned that the process has been improved under the Glazers. Whereas before, it all had to go through the board and whatnot before a decision could be made, it is now a far more streamlined and efficient process.

I presume the benefits of this has been seen in the examples of us being able to buy the likes of Nani, Anderson and Bebe quickly before they were snapped up by others.
Click to expand...

That's the benefit of not being a PLC.

The downside in the case of the Glazers is, well, you know.
 
datura said:
Be serious, to say that the main barrier to anyone taking over is MUST is frankly laughable.
Click to expand...

Well, I can only say that if I was about to invest such a huge chunk of money into something, I would want to know that I wouldn't be met with resistance from my own "customers" from the off and forever more, that's all I am saying.

To ignore it as a factor is laughable really but I will concede that perhaps it isn't the MAIN factor which is what I originally said.

We'd have to ask people who may have been thinking of buying United for their reasons to get to the bottom of it, wouldn't we?

datura said:
There's always going to be a certain amount of resistance to any new owners but just doing a few if the things that Ralphie mentioned and perhaps allow fans to invest in the club so they have a say (say c5%) would largely pacify a lot of fans.
Click to expand...

Well yes, of course, and this is Hippy Hoppy Happy Dreamland isn't it?

I'll buy the club for £1bn and I won't seek to take any money out for myself, I'll just forget about my £1bn and every penny the club makes will be ploughed back into it.

Of course, if the fans want to own 5% and it will make them happy, I'll give them the opportunity to raise £50million (like that's going to happen!) and they can have it. It will make no difference whatsoever to the way the club is run though because I am the main investor and I am going to run the club how I want it to be run I'm afraid because it is my £950m on the line at the end of the day.

If you have a problem with this then we all have a problem with it again, don't we?

"We want cheaper tickets and we want to buy all the best players and, as 5% stakeholders, we should be listened to!"

I apologise if my tone here is heavily sarcastic but I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would put buy Manchester United and not take any money for themselves when they could buy any other business for £1bn and make themselves a fortune - even if they ARE Manchester United supporters themselves.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
I apologise if my tone here is heavily sarcastic but I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would put buy Manchester United and not take any money for themselves when they could buy any other business for £1bn and make themselves a fortune - even if they ARE Manchester United supporters themselves.[/QUOTE


I don't think Ralphie has never argued that owners shouldn't take out any money to recoup their investment (emphasis on THIER investment as opposed to someone else's money).

Didn't Jack Walker make huge personal losses on his beloved Blackburn Rovers and I can't imagine Dave Whelan is making a mint out of Wigan.
Click to expand...
 
Bearded but no genius said:
Like I said, or he implicitly realises that he can't ask for much.

He's a fairly savvy man, and he and Gill are close. He will know a great deal about the ins and outs of what he might be able to do, which will shape things long before they get to the 'asking for' stage.
Click to expand...

Well... yeah. Obviously he has never gone to the Glazers and said, "Can I have £100m please? I want to buy Messi." He obviously realises that he is still working within certain financial constraints, just as any manager (except those bank-rolled by billionaires) is but there has been some big spending in the last five years. It just tends to get forgotten a lot of the time.

Bearded but no genius said:
It helps we have a tradition of building stars anyway, but every couple of years we tend to splash the cash, and it didn't happen this particular summer which was interesting.
Click to expand...

I don't really know what to say about this. Reading between the lines of his press conference yesterday, it would seem like we did go in with a view to getting David Villa (although I appreciate that this is pure speculation). Whoever it was, Fergie didn't get his man because the man wanted to stay in his home country.

So, having identified a target who Fergie felt could add something to our squad and it fell through, should Fergie just go out and buy "someone else" because he's got the money burning a hole in his pocket or should he put it away and save it for another day (not spending to spend, as you say)?

At the end of the day, the signings of Smalling, Bebe and Hernandez cost somewhere in the region of £25m (I think) which is no small amount by most standards. It just pales into insignificance when we look at our neighbours up the road and the fact that none have a "big" name gets the transfer muppets uppity.

Again, go back to what Fergie said last night about "potential". Who knows? We might have just bought £120m worth of 2013 talent for £25m there.

Bearded but no genius said:
Certainly even since the bottom fell out of the economy in mid-2008, Berbatov's signing and the attempt to make Rooney the highest paid player in England show we're willing to pay money for a big talent.

Tevez shows we're not willing to be stupid though. 47.5m? Come on.
Click to expand...

I suppose we can speculate all day long but what happened when we went in for Berby? What else happened in 2008?

City were bought by Mansour and they tried to highjack our move for Berby (which, in the end, jacked the price up) but Berby, to his credit, chose the better club (:devil:).

Maybe certain lessons were learned from that experience and when City started sniffing around Tevez, we just thought "feck it, let him go, we're not breaking the bank and our wage structure for a mercenary".
 
Crumpsall Red said:
I don't think Ralphie has never argued that owners shouldn't take out any money to recoup their investment (emphasis on THIER investment as opposed to someone else's money).
Click to expand...

Well, how much should they be able to take? Who is to decide on that?

Let's have some figures and we'll work from there, eh? :)

Crumpsall Red said:
Didn't Jack Walker make huge personal losses on his beloved Blackburn Rovers and I can't imagine Dave Whelan is making a mint out of Wigan.
Click to expand...

Yes, Jack Walker, as an old man, decided that what he really wanted to see more than anything else as he reached his twlight years was to see his beloved Blackburn win the title and he ploughed an enormous portion of his personal wealth into it and his dream was realised.

After that, it all sort of went downhill a bit, didn't it?

I dunno the state of affairs at Wigan, to be honest.

I'm not quite sure that either of these are shining examples that I would like United to follow though, to be honest. :nervous:
 
It's a simple scenario though.

The squad needs strenghtening. Relying on potential isn't good enough if you want to compete against the top sides.

It's nothing to do with being spoilt and wanting to win everything - it's about being able to at least compete. If we don't then what's the future for the club?
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Well, how much should they be able to take? Who is to decide on that?

Let's have some figures and we'll work from there, eh? :)



Yes, Jack Walker, as an old man, decided that what he really wanted to see more than anything else as he reached his twlight years was to see his beloved Blackburn win the title and he ploughed an enormous portion of his personal wealth into it and his dream was realised.

After that, it all sort of went downhill a bit, didn't it?

I dunno the state of affairs at Wigan, to be honest.

I'm not quite sure that either of these are shining examples that I would like United to follow though, to be honest. :nervous:
Click to expand...

They aren't shining examples. I was just helping you to imaging for the life of you why someone would invest in a club for reasons other than to make a fast buck ....cos you said you couldn't.


All part of the service :angel:
 
It's obvious that the owner of any football club will want to take money out of it for themselves (PLC or otherwise), most fans would argue capital appreciation is enough but in reality that is a fantasists view. There is however a point where fans will say they are taking too much, I personally believe that point in our club is around 50% of operating profit. When you reach the 75+++% mark I'd say you are slightly taking the piss (or being an opportunist cnut).
 
Livvie said:
It's a simple scenario though.

The squad needs strenghtening. Relying on potential isn't good enough if you want to compete against the top sides.

It's nothing to do with being spoilt and wanting to win everything - it's about being able to at least compete. If we don't then what's the future for the club?
Click to expand...
We managed to compete fine last season. This season is young yet. We are in fact unbeaten in all comps despite our current alleged woes and some want to give up already and continue to question the vision of SAF. When we have ample time and resources to turn this into a fantastic season, with or without the presence of a want away Rooney.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
We managed to compete fine last season. This season is young yet. We are in fact unbeaten in all comps despite our current alleged woes and some want to give up already and continue to question the vision of SAF. When we have ample time and resources to turn this into a fantastic season, with or without the presence of a want away Rooney.
Click to expand...

Statingthe obvious Chief but we had an in form Rooney llast season.

So far this season we've been inconsistent and have struggled in games we should have won.

You can't just assume that the young players will come good just because they wear a red shirt.

Our success has always been built on a blend of youth and experience - and the odd superstar thrown in.
 
Livvie said:
It's a simple scenario though.

The squad needs strenghtening. Relying on potential isn't good enough if you want to compete against the top sides.

It's nothing to do with being spoilt and wanting to win everything - it's about being able to at least compete. If we don't then what's the future for the club?
Click to expand...

Sometimes, for a clue about the future, you need to look at the past.

When did we EVER compete for the "top names"? Where did Brazilian Ronaldo go? Where did Zidane go? Where did Figo go? I could go on and on with this list but the fact is that of all the players in the world who were recognised as "Top Players" (i.e. Player of the Year Awards and the like) the only ones we ever had was the ones we brought in with potential and developed (Ronaldo, Rooney, Beckham, for example).

I genuinely believe that Fergie knows what he is doing and is not being hamstrung. There was absolutely nothing to stop him from spending £30million on a player in the summer but he simply chose not to because he wanted to keep faith in the players he has.

If the future is a future where money alone dictates everything (as appears to be the case with the Rooney situation this week) then I don't much like the sound of that, either.

"Our billionaire is richer than your billionaire"???

I'd rather things are decided XI v XI on the pitch and team-spirit, hunger, desire, tactics and, yes, skill make all the difference.

I am hoping that the FFP Regulations will put an end to a lot of the nonsense we are seeing, to be honest and, if they work as planned, United will be even stronger than it is today because the influence of Abramovich and Mansour will be largely reduced.
 
Crumpsall Red said:
They aren't shining examples. I was just helping you to imaging for the life of you why someone would invest in a club for reasons other than to make a fast buck ....cos you said you couldn't.


All part of the service :angel:
Click to expand...

OK. Fair enough. Looks like we'd better wait for a fabulously wealthy Manchester United fan with one foot in the grave to come and bail us out then. That's the only feasible solution I can think of.
 
A simple question: would you blow all the money that we will have on bank after sale of Rooney (probably around 220mil.) to cover all the PIK loans...? In this situation, where Glazers won't sell, and PIKs are mounting rapidly... Perhaps a good option for the club?
 
Stojan Stamenic said:
A simple question: would you blow all the money that we will have on bank after sale of Rooney (probably around 220mil.) to cover all the PIK loans...? In this situation, where Glazers won't sell, and PIKs are mounting rapidly... Perhaps a good option for the club?
Click to expand...

Simple question!? :lol:

The ramifications behind the answer to that simple question would be enormous.

Anyway, they can't do it even if they wanted to. They simply can't take that kind of money out of the club.
 
I know that, and I know it would be morally and by any means wrong to take a money from the club to cover their debts, and to secure stability for them, but... I imagine that it will secure stability for the club also - club will continue to produce more and more money, next year we will have 20-30mil. to spend already... and the bond issues will be much easier to cover for them.
 
Stojan Stamenic said:
I know that, and I know it would be morally and by any means wrong to take a money from the club to cover their debts, and to secure stability for them, but... I imagine that it will secure stability for the club also - club will continue to produce more and more money, next year we will have 20-30mil. to spend already... and the bond issues will be much easier to cover for them.
Click to expand...

This is it though. If the Glazers COULD and DID take all the money and sort the PIKs out, it would be met with absolute outrage by some but at the same time, there is absolute outrage that the PIKs are rolling up and adding to "Manchester United's debt" by the day and could reach over £600m in the end.

Some of the more pragmatic amongst us simply want the PIKs sorted one way or another and the sooner they are gone, the sooner we know exactly where we stand - the uncertainty that surrounds their existence is a complete pain in the arse.

If there was some way to have a peek into the future and see that all the "potential" we have bought in the last few years and the Academy and Reserves produce some absolute gems which mean that we hardly have to spend anyway then I would say, go for it. Clear the buggers.

Others wouldn't agree though. They'd say, "Leave it where it is! Reduce ticket prices instead!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.