ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't see why anyone should ignore the Ronaldo transfer when totting up net-spend, but if just one transfer can flip the net-spend figures from apparently very good to apparently very bad then they should simply see it as an example of how irrelevent net-spend figures can be.

We sold Ronaldo and bought Valencia; like for like in a football sense, yet that one move knocked £66m off our total net-spend.

Valencia turned out to be a cracking player.

Good choice then?

"No! Net-spend is down! The Glazers are evil!"

But it was SAF's decision, not the Glazers'?

"SAF is a fecking liar!"

Ok :rolleyes:
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
Usual. Duck the point because you can't defend it.
Click to expand...

No. I really was tired and had to go to bed. As you see, I had to get up quite early this morning.

It's largely a pointless discussion at this stage of the season and I couldn't be arsed getting into it at such a late stage. You judge a team's performance at the end of the season, not in October.

EDIT: As for the net spend, I saw the figures on SSN yesterday and in the five years before the Glazers net spend was something like £9.8m/season but in the last five years it has apparently been £1.9m/season.

I don't think I said IGNORE the Ronaldo transfer but just pointed out that such an exceptionally large transfer fee obviously messes with the picture enormously.
 
finneh said:
Unfortunately every club doesn't turn over hundreds of million every year (and irrespective of good management never has the potential to) to do be able to compete with us for players. It'd be a terrible League if no clubs had ever spent more than they could technically afford and every team just stagnated spending 75% operating profit on players/facilities and distributing 25% (for one we'd have won the League 6 times in a row :P). I see a difference, just not a relevant or distinctive one.
Click to expand...

You do realise that is exactly what the new UEFA rules are going to try and enforce? It would stop clubs like Pompey going under for a start so Im not sure why you think that is so terrible. The terrible thing in football at the moment is teams like City and Real spending obscene amounts - the sooner that is stopped the better.
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
Yep. This season's performances and the summer's spending speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

So you were happy with everything before this summer then?
And I guess you must have been exstatic with our relatively high net spend before Ronaldo left?

I have always said that people should wait 2 years to see how the squad evolves after Ronaldo before judging if there has been enough investment or not. And I think 'net spend' is pretty irrelevant anyway.
 
Rood said:
I have always said that people should wait 2 years to see how the squad evolves after Ronaldo before judging if there has been enough investment or not..
Click to expand...

I think you've just pissed over your own fire there.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
No. I really was tired and had to go to bed. As you see, I had to get up quite early this morning.

It's largely a pointless discussion at this stage of the season and I couldn't be arsed getting into it at such a late stage. You judge a team's performance at the end of the season, not in October.

EDIT: As for the net spend, I saw the figures on SSN yesterday and in the five years before the Glazers net spend was something like £9.8m/season but in the last five years it has apparently been £1.9m/season.

I don't think I said IGNORE the Ronaldo transfer but just pointed out that such an exceptionally large transfer fee obviously messes with the picture enormously.
Click to expand...


Yes but I think the salient point is if we had replaced Ronaldo with a similar standing of player and kept the squad in the same shape the net spend would not be affected.

That is this issue and incidentally the reason for a good looking cash balance.

Not that I am muppeterrring here I much prefer going for the Obertan and Bebe as opposed ribery and demaria, I find it more exciting.
 
DFreshKing said:
Yes but I think the salient point is if we had replaced Ronaldo with a similar standing of player and kept the squad in the same shape the net spend would not be affected.

That is this issue and incidentally the reason for a good looking cash balance.

Not that I am muppeterrring here I much prefer going for the Obertan and Bebe as opposed ribery and demaria, I find it more exciting.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, Ribery would have been a steal at £60million wouldn't he?

I am probably tempting another bit of footballing wisdom from Fred that if Chelsea had won more games last season then they would have won the League by a greater margin here but we sold Ronaldo, we brought in Valencia. Rooney stepped up to the plate. Normal balance was restored.

We were one fecking point off the league last season and that would have been an historic fourth on the bounce. No one has ever come closer than that. You can argue all you like about if this and if that but I believe Fergie got it right last season. It was a linesman who got it wrong.

Have we really got to the stage where, unless we win the league and get to the CL Final then that proves we're in terminal decline?

Fergie's press conference the other night told you everything you need to know about the situation and the way that Fergie works and, after almost 25 years in the job, I can't believe people still don't know the man.

It is all about youth. It is about having belief in youth because youth can surprise you. It is about having faith in those kids. Showing them loyalty and trust. You do that for them now and you hope that they repay you later in their careers with loyalty and trust back (unless the kid turns out to be a cnut who thinks he's become bigger than the club and wants to go somewhere with "more ambition" after six years).

Had Fergie got that £80m from the Ronaldo sale and said to all these kids, "Actually boys, forget it. I've got this massive wedge of cash now so I'm going to go out and buy me some finished articles. You're all being transfer listed." then that would have been anathema to everything that Fergie believes in. That wouldn't be his way. The Manchester United way.

He will do things as he has always done them. Bring through youth and bring in established quality when it becomes necessary.

Spending money for the sake of spending money has never been his way.

Money is there in the bank. It was there in the bank over the Summer. He didn't not spend because he couldn't. He didn't spend because he didn't feel that he needed to at that moment in time. I'll always trust Fergie's judgement in these matters and the fact that he's even having to justify himself on the issue is frankly mind-boggling.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Money is there in the bank. It was there in the bank over the Summer. He didn't not spend because he couldn't. He didn't spend because he didn't feel that he needed to at that moment in time. I'll always trust Fergie's judgement in these matters and the fact that he's even having to justify himself on the issue is frankly mind-boggling.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I gave up trusting anyone implicitly in football a long time ago.

Fergie is as prone to twisting things as anyone else. MUST, Gill, Rooney whoever.

Just because Fergie says he could have spent it, I dont take it on face value that this were the case.
 
Been trying to keep up with this thread but it moves at such a pace, 162 pages, wow. Really want to go to page one and read all through but its a mammoth task so can anyone summarise a few things for me, or just link to the thread page its on if you know?

- In may the BBC said the debt had gone down a bit and that we had £95m or so cash reserves, is that what you lot are saying has now grown to £160m?

- I know we had massive fees of like £45m for changing over to the bond issue or other refinances charges but what does the debt cost us in interest for the bond, the PIK and total together?


I know our income is like high 200m and that we broke the operating profit of barrier of £100m, just trying to work out what's left or how close we are to it all gone per year. Thanks.
 
Claymore said:
Been trying to keep up with this thread but it moves at such a pace, 162 pages, wow. Really want to go to page one and read all through but its a mammoth task so can anyone summarise a few things for me, or just link to the thread page its on if you know?

- In may the BBC said the debt had gone down a bit and that we had £95m or so cash reserves, is that what you lot are saying has now grown to £160m?

- I know we had massive fees of like £45m for changing over to the bond issue or other refinances charges but what does the debt cost us in interest for the bond, the PIK and total together?


I know our income is like high 200m and that we broke the operating profit of barrier of £100m, just trying to work out what's left or how close we are to it all gone per year. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Lets put it this way.

The bond is there to stay till 2017, so theres £500 million of debt that wont be going away any time soon.

Once that bond matures they have to find £500 million to repay what they owe.. Will they get £500 million in 7 years.. Not a cat in hells chance, so its more finance, more costs, more debt.

You will be lucky to see United debt free in your lifetime if the GLazers stay at United.
 
Claymore said:
Been trying to keep up with this thread but it moves at such a pace, 162 pages, wow. Really want to go to page one and read all through but its a mammoth task so can anyone summarise a few things for me, or just link to the thread page its on if you know?

- In may the BBC said the debt had gone down a bit and that we had £95m or so cash reserves, is that what you lot are saying has now grown to £160m?

- I know we had massive fees of like £45m for changing over to the bond issue or other refinances charges but what does the debt cost us in interest for the bond, the PIK and total together?


I know our income is like high 200m and that we broke the operating profit of barrier of £100m, just trying to work out what's left or how close we are to it all gone per year. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Try these:

the andersred blog: Manchester United results 2009/10: first thoughts

The Swiss Ramble: United We Stand, Divided We Fall

If you have any specific questions that aren't answered in those then just post them here..
 
Rood said:
You do realise that is exactly what the new UEFA rules are going to try and enforce? It would stop clubs like Pompey going under for a start so Im not sure why you think that is so terrible. The terrible thing in football at the moment is teams like City and Real spending obscene amounts - the sooner that is stopped the better.
Click to expand...

Yes I do realise that, I am also firm in the belief that these regulations will fail miserably. United fans will inevitably want them to succeed, as it will put us in a stronger position and others in a much weaker position. However it will completely ruin competitiveness, it will basically be saying "Man Utd can spend 10 times as much as every other team (excepting maybe Arsenal)".

You say that teams like City and Real are spending obscene amounts of money, which is true, but if the plan is a long-term one (as Chelsea's seems to have been) to make them profitable and competitive, what is the harm? If they can afford it in the short term to sustain it in the long term then why not, it makes football in general far more exciting and therefore attracts more money to every club in the Premier League, from us to Blackpool.

Imagine they tried to enforce this in any other business:

"I'm sorry you are not allowed to heavily invest in your new business (losing money in the short term) to increase long term revenue and become very profitable, if you lose money in the short term we will stop you selling your products to consumers."
 
finneh said:
Yes I do realise that, I am also firm in the belief that these regulations will fail miserably. United fans will inevitably want them to succeed, as it will put us in a stronger position and others in a much weaker position. However it will completely ruin competitiveness, it will basically be saying "Man Utd can spend 10 times as much as every other team (excepting maybe Arsenal)".

You say that teams like City and Real are spending obscene amounts of money, which is true, but if the plan is a long-term one (as Chelsea's seems to have been) to make them profitable and competitive, what is the harm? If they can afford it in the short term to sustain it in the long term then why not, it makes football in general far more exciting and therefore attracts more money to every club in the Premier League, from us to Blackpool.

Imagine they tried to enforce this in any other business:

"I'm sorry you are not allowed to heavily invest in your new business (losing money in the short term) to increase long term revenue and become very profitable, if you lose money in the short term we will stop you selling your products to consumers."
Click to expand...

Sensible post with some valid observations. I must admit that while I believe generally that the FFP Regs are a good thing, I have similar misgivings in that it looks almost certain to create a pretty static situation.

I suspect that the regulations will be tinkered with as time goes by. One thing I suppose they could introduce is some kind of "windfall" allowance whereby a team is allowed a one-off cash injection every five years of (say) £50million or something like that.

This is clearly a bit arbitrary and is just something I'm throwing out there as an example of how the regulations might be developed as time goes by.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Sensible post with some valid observations. I must admit that while I believe generally that the FFP Regs are a good thing, I have similar misgivings in that it looks almost certain to create a pretty static situation.

I suspect that the regulations will be tinkered with as time goes by. One thing I suppose they could introduce is some kind of "windfall" allowance whereby a team is allowed a one-off cash injection every five years of (say) £50million or something like that.

This is clearly a bit arbitrary and is just something I'm throwing out there as an example of how the regulations might be developed as time goes by.
Click to expand...

Agree totally, if the regulations are to succeed they will definitely have to be far more versatile and far less arbitrary than they have been presented to us so far. A player expenditure allowance would be a great idea.

In fact they could say that player expenditure is irrelevant in the calculations, as technically it is just like buying plant and machinery in a different business. You lose £x cash, but gain the same as an asset. This wouldn't affect transfer fees, but would totally change wage structures, encouraging the development of young players, even if they cost a big initial fee.
 
finneh said:
Yes I do realise that, I am also firm in the belief that these regulations will fail miserably. United fans will inevitably want them to succeed, as it will put us in a stronger position and others in a much weaker position. However it will completely ruin competitiveness, it will basically be saying "Man Utd can spend 10 times as much as every other team (excepting maybe Arsenal)".

You say that teams like City and Real are spending obscene amounts of money, which is true, but if the plan is a long-term one (as Chelsea's seems to have been) to make them profitable and competitive, what is the harm? If they can afford it in the short term to sustain it in the long term then why not, it makes football in general far more exciting and therefore attracts more money to every club in the Premier League, from us to Blackpool.

Imagine they tried to enforce this in any other business:

"I'm sorry you are not allowed to heavily invest in your new business (losing money in the short term) to increase long term revenue and become very profitable, if you lose money in the short term we will stop you selling your products to consumers."
Click to expand...

I think the regulations are a good move as it will force clubs to stop and think about their spending on transfers and wages - encouraging teams to live within their means is the right message to send for the good of the future of the game.

I doubt they will be strictly enforced, not to start with anyway, but are more guidelines for a club to work towards with UEFA reserving the right to penalise any big offender.
It is not worth focusing too much on the detail as they will change significantly over time.

If a wealthy owner want to come in and splash the cash then he needs to focus on improving the business rather than just spunking cash on expensive assets. For example, extending the stadium would increase the turnover of a club, which in turn allows increased transfer spending and makes sure that money is spent on improving a club for the long term.

As you point out, these type of rules do benefit us as our business is highly profitable with a high turnover - but I dont think that it would kill competition, more encourage owners to have long term visions of improving the whole club.
 
No point building a huge stadium if you have not got the fans to fill.

Unfortunately it is going to affect competition giving small clubs little chance to really compete for a very long time.

It does need addressing no doubt but I am not sure how these rules will work.
 
DFreshKing said:
No point building a huge stadium if you have not got the fans to fill.

Unfortunately it is going to affect competition giving small clubs little chance to really compete for a very long time.

It does need addressing no doubt but I am not sure how these rules will work.
Click to expand...

Small clubs don't exactly compete for trophies at the moment so I dont see what difference it would make - some clubs expect to win the league (and lets not forget that only 3 different teams have won the league in recent history) while other are only aiming for survival
 
Rood, if the Glazers are to take their £70m one off dividend, will they have to do it before July 1st 2011 to meet the FFP regs?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Rood, if the Glazers are to take their £70m one off dividend, will they have to do it before July 1st 2011 to meet the FFP regs?
Click to expand...

Not that I know of but I havent looked that closely at the detail of the regs to be honest - doubt they will have much impact on the Glazer business plan.
 
Rood said:
As you point out, these type of rules do benefit us as our business is highly profitable with a high turnover - but I dont think that it would kill competition, more encourage owners to have long term visions of improving the whole club.
Click to expand...


I disagree. It will have a short term impact in preventing squad investment, forcing owners to a) spend and fall foul of the regulations, or b) not spend.

Every team in the Premier League generates £100m and below (disregarding "the big four). After wages, dividends and expenses are taken into account they'll be exceptionally lucky to have £10m to invest in players. Spending less than this to constantly produce profits would result in at best stagnation.

You are essentially saying it is a good idea to prevent 16-18 Premier League teams from (adequately) reinvesting in their squad, how will this not kill competition?

I think expanding the ground, improving facilities (both of which I believe to be disregarded by the regs) and trying to increase commercial revenue is a great idea. However lets be honest about things, without success you cannot increase attendance or commercial revenue, so expanding the ground/employing a commercial team would be moronic.

In this situation the only way for a team to do more than stagnate would be for a Utd style FA Youth Cup winning team of 1992 to emerge, but even then the club would probably just turn into a feeder club for the big teams.

/edit: I'd prefer regulations that meant for every £xm a team loses every year, the owner must put 5 or 10 times this figure in a trust fund with the club being the benefactor. This way if the owner left the club, a Portsmouth situation couldn't occur and the team would have 5-10 years to sell players and reduce expenses to get their house back in order.
 
finneh said:
I disagree. It will have a short term impact in preventing squad investment, forcing owners to a) spend and fall foul of the regulations, or b) not spend.

Every team in the Premier League generates £100m and below (disregarding "the big four). After wages, dividends and expenses are taken into account they'll be exceptionally lucky to have £10m to invest in players. Spending less than this to constantly produce profits would result in at best stagnation.

You are essentially saying it is a good idea to prevent 16-18 Premier League teams from (adequately) reinvesting in their squad, how will this not kill competition?
Click to expand...

These rules are not aimed at the majority of teams, they are aimed only the bigger teams in an attempt to limit the huge inflation in transfer values at the top end.
What are the penalties for breaking these rules? Being excluded from European competition - playing in the Europa League (nevermind CL) is not in the mind of all clubs.

The Premier League does not agree with all the UEFA proposals as they dont want to limit investment into the game so I think only some of the rules will be enforced in England.
Basically the teams at the bottom end can pretty much carry on as they were, striving to avoid relegation and then become a mid table team before making an attempt to break into those challenging for Europe. It is only at that point that they need to start thinking about the FFP regs.
 
Rood said:
These rules are not aimed at the majority of teams, they are aimed only the bigger teams in an attempt to limit the huge inflation in transfer values at the top end.
What are the penalties for breaking these rules? Being excluded from European competition - playing in the Europa League (nevermind CL) is not in the mind of all clubs.

The Premier League does not agree with all the UEFA proposals as they dont want to limit investment into the game so I think only some of the rules will be enforced in England.
Basically the teams at the bottom end can pretty much carry on as they were, striving to avoid relegation and then become a mid table team before making an attempt to break into those challenging for Europe. It is only at that point that they need to start thinking about the FFP regs.
Click to expand...

We are talking about clubs who are taken over by wealthy people, who's common aim is to get into Europe/Champions League (teams like Sunderland, Wigan, Man City, Villa, Chelsea, probably Liverpool now, West Ham, Newcastle etc). Eradicating their ability to compete in said competitions once they get into the top 6-7 would erode their ambition to climb the table. You could get to a situation where the ambition of 15 odd teams would be to avoid relegation, as the difference between 5th or 17th would be incidental.

Can you imagine if these regulations were in charge 5 years ago? Chelsea would have been able to heavily invest in players, but would never be able to compete in the Champions League. You'd have a paradoxical situation where they'd need Champions League money to compete, but couldn't compete without the Champions League money
 
anver said:
The Glazer fan boys will disagree. I can almost hear them conferring with each other how best to face the anti-Glazer brigade.
Click to expand...

Not really, they'll just question individual points whilst introducing lots of accountancy terms and practices that most people (including me) won't know, and then call anyone who disagrees stupid for not 'understanding'.

It's a damned good piece, written by someone that seems reasonably independent, and I'll settle for it over most of the propaganda in this thread, from both sides.
 
KingMinger22 said:
That is an absolutely brilliant article
Click to expand...

I think the most pertinent point made in the article for United's future is the £66m difference between our commercial gains and Bayern Munich's; our £70m to their £136m. This demonstrates perfectly what the Glazers are trying to achieve at the club; the brand value of United far outstrips that of Bayern, and yet the club's still not living up to it's massive potential in that area; the Glazers will remedy this.

You only have to look at our current list of commercial partners to see how wide-reaching United has become under Glazer ownership, and there are no signs of that level of growth slowing down. The telecoms deals - a Glazer initiative - represent a massive and revolutionary step forward for our commercial earning power; by tapping into the strength of our overseas fanbase we are able to exploit revenues from all around the world for a fee of around £1.5m per territory per annum; we've so far seen an addition of a new territory on average once per month since the scheme began.

There are 195 countries in the world, many of which contain many United fans; the club currently has telecoms sponsorship deals with around 5% of those, and we're increasing that number all the time. Soon our commercial revenue will outstrip that of Bayern Munich as it will too outstrip our own matchday income; if they, with their relatively poor brand value, can almost double our current commercial success then how easy would it be, with the right moves in the right places the right time, for us with our incredible brand (second only to the New York Yankies globally) to match and then supercede them?

How does an extra £66m a year sound then? For starters, it's not a bad sum. We need to take advantage of our vast commercial potential; the Glazers know this. Our debt payments will be forgotten if we reach that potential earning power; they're already quite manageable, but in years to come they'll be virtually insignificant.

Investment in the squad to keep us competitive is essential then if we're going to realise our potential as a global sporting superpower. The global fanbase needs to be entertained in order to be maintained, and that's why the Glazers will never starve the squad of investment, because it would fatally stifle our commercial growth and kill off any chance we might have of unlocking the big money chest of global commercial dominance.

What money goes out of the club is irrelevent as long as you can bring in enough money to render it so, and that's what the Glazers will be aiming for over the next seven years.

Minimum debt payments + Healthy squad investment = Maximum commercial growth = Maximum asset value + Major profits.

The Glazers can run a successful football club in both financial and footballing terms. Does anyone disagree with that?
 
I would not call Bayern Munich a poor brand. They are huge (as their revenues show)

Biggest club in Germany by a mile, they would even bigger but they have a great relationship with their fans a charge much less for a ticket than us (Premier league vs Bnds league in general not just us).
 
ciderman9000000 said:
The Glazers can run a successful football club in both financial and footballing terms. Does anyone disagree with that?
Click to expand...

Of course they could, and most people hope they can. Whether they will or not is a different question. The answer is hopefully, but it would of been a damn sight easier to run a successful club without them.

Yes, they have grown commercial revenue, but don't forget that the old plc were already streets ahead of other clubs in that department. How they might have grown commercial revenue themselves we will simply never know, however much some might pretend to. As far as the argument about debt goes it's a red herring.

Yes, they will have to invest to maintain the club, that's a bit bleeding obvious, but yet again that would have been easier without the debt.

So when you contend that the Glazer's can run a successful club I agree they could, but that isn't to say that I'm not worried that they can't.

And it's not to say it would have been a damned sight better without them, either.
 
DFreshKing said:
I would not call Bayern Munich a poor brand. They are huge (as their revenues show)

Biggest club in Germany by a mile, they would even bigger but they have a great relationship with their fans a charge much less for a ticket than us (Premier league vs Bnds league in general not just us).
Click to expand...

No, i'm not saying that they're a poor brand, just that relatively, relative to us on a global scale they aren't in the same league.

This Forbes article talks a bit about the importance of a global fanbase:

The Business Of Soccer - Forbes.com

Bayern aren't doing badly by any means, obviously they're not, but we are in a far better position than them in terms of global support and should be able to at least match them for commercial revenue, something that i believe the Glazers will soon make sure of.
 
711 said:
Of course they could, and most people hope they can. Whether they will or not is a different question. The answer is hopefully, but it would of been a damn sight easier to run a successful club without them.

Yes, they have grown commercial revenue, but don't forget that the old plc were already streets ahead of other clubs in that department. How they might have grown commercial revenue themselves we will simply never know, however much some might pretend to. As far as the argument about debt goes it's a red herring.

Yes, they will have to invest to maintain the club, that's a bit bleeding obvious, but yet again that would have been easier without the debt.

So when you contend that the Glazer's can run a successful club I agree they could, but that isn't to say that I'm not worried that they can't.

And it's not to say it would have been a damned sight better without them, either.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but what's the point in speculating about how different things might be without the Glazers? They're here and they're not going anywhere for at least seven years.

I started debating this topic because i read what MUST were saying and thought it sounded vastly exaggerated and sensationalist, i heard them preach hatred and thought it sounded unnecessarily poisonous and that it would do the team or the fans no good to set up this inaccurate picture of a club on its knees. I thought it was dishonest, manipulative and potentially damaging, and so i looked instead for the truth.

The truth is that we're actually doing ok.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
I agree with that, but what's the point in speculating about how different things might be without the Glazers? They're here and they're not going anywhere for at least seven years.

I started debating this topic because i read what MUST were saying and thought it sounded vastly exaggerated and sensationalist, i heard them preach hatred and thought it sounded unnecessarily poisonous and that it would do the team or the fans no good to set up this inaccurate picture of a club on its knees. I thought it was dishonest, manipulative and potentially damaging, and so i looked instead for the truth.

The truth is that we're actually doing ok.
Click to expand...

I agree, Must have surprised me with their PR, really badly managed what to be honest should not be hard to do, make the Glazers appear the wrong owners of our club.

The Glazers have been wise though and not taken out the money everyone expected.

When they do I think it will still be proven that in the long run they are very damaging for United.

If they manage to achieve what you are suggesting with growing commercial revenue above Bayern, while not losing other streams through poor PR, lack of success etc.... they will win me over.
 
711 said:
'doing ok' is an opinion not a truth.

My own opinion is that it's too early to tell, although I'm certainly worried.
Click to expand...

Sorry; to clarify, i meant doing ok as in we're not a club on its knees as MUST depict us to be; we're not skint, we're not in danger of going bust, we've got funds available for transfers and we don't need to sell players to make money; we're doing ok, that's the truth.

It's a common retaliation to this to say, "Oh so you're saying everything's rosy? You've got your head in the sand!" etc. Well no, everything's not rosy, but it's a damn sight better than we have been led to believe it is.

Name me a club at which everything's rosy? Doesn't happen.

The debt for us is a concern, but it's only that, a concern that needs to be well managed; what it's not is the harbinger of doom that we have been told for five years by MUST that it is; though the Glazers have burdened the club with debt, the club is generally in the same position as it was five years ago, not much has changed. We're doing ok.

As the years go by now the debt will become even less of a concern. Revenues will grow but interest payments will stay the same. We can manage the debt well enough now; next year we'll manage it better, the year after even better than that. The Glazers don't need to take all our money away to service the debt. United will carry on regardless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.