ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
So the Glazers bought the club for 800 million pounds.

The Red Knights put together a one billion pound offer and were refused.

Now, the Arabs are rumored to have offered 1.5 billion pounds.

If the latter offer was genuine, then the Glazers have nearly doubled the value of their investment since purchasing the club more than justifying their business plan and debts.

United are competing for all the major trophies, and players like Vidic and Rooney have been signed to lucrative new contracts. I believe they would have paid Cristiano what he wanted if he had been willing to remain at United.

They've never interfered with SAF's running of the club unlike Roman Abramovich, Hicks & Gillette, or the City owners. United have been able to keep their plans secret because they are no longer a PLC, thereby enabling the club to steal young players from Italy, Portugal and Mexico with relative ease.

It seems to me that the only complaint against the Glazers that anyone can muster is over ticket prices, but I'm not convinced that ticket prices wouldn't have increased no matter who owned the club. I'm not a local fan, so I can only go by what I hear. Complaints about increased ticket prices have been a regular feature of this forum since I starting reading it in 2002. I don't think it is reasonable to expect the club to maintain ticket prices at artificially low levels in order to preserve the season tickets of fans who have gotten used to holding them over the years.

Ticket prices will always increase so long as demand remains high and sellouts continue. Why should the club let the scalpers take the profits? Giving tickets their market value enables those to be included among the buyers and sellers who haven't had the benefit of knowing someone who has been fortunate to hold a ticket since the 70s. We would all love to get the same favorable deal we have always had in the past, but is that truly equitable?

My point is that if true the Arab offer should confirm the Glazers as good owners, not engender the response of hope that they sell the club. I really don't understand the eagerness to put the Red Knights or the Arabs in charge over the club. How will you get the many heads of the Red Knights to agree on the best decisions where the club is concerned? SAF has repeatedly spoken of the benefit of getting a swift okay to transfers from the Glazer family. Why are you so willing to put the club's affairs in the hands of interfering Quatari interests whose goals are less financial stability and long term growth for United and more instant success and prestige? Personally I don't want to see United become so impatient for instant success that we start behaving like City or Chelsea or Real Madrid in the running of the club.

The Glazers were condemned from the start, and no matter how many accusations prove to be unfounded in the end, this remains the same. Under what conditions can the Glazers' purchase of the club and debts put on the club be demonstrated to have been good decision-making? If there is no basis upon which a case against the Glazers can be proven wrong, then it is not a case or an argument at all. It is only a pathological agenda incapable of falsification whichever set of facts presents itself.
 
Ferguson said:
So the Glazers bought the club for 800 million pounds.

The Red Knights put together a one billion pound offer and were refused.

Now, the Arabs are rumored to have offered 1.5 billion pounds.

If the latter offer was genuine, then the Glazers have nearly doubled the value of their investment since purchasing the club more than justifying their business plan and debts.

United are competing for all the major trophies, and players like Vidic and Rooney have been signed to lucrative new contracts. I believe they would have paid Cristiano what he wanted if he had been willing to remain at United.

They've never interfered with SAF's running of the club unlike Roman Abramovich, Hicks & Gillette, or the City owners. United have been able to keep their plans secret because they are no longer a PLC, thereby enabling the club to steal young players from Italy, Portugal and Mexico with relative ease.

It seems to me that the only complaint against the Glazers that anyone can muster is over ticket prices, but I'm not convinced that ticket prices wouldn't have increased no matter who owned the club. I'm not a local fan, so I can only go by what I hear. Complaints about increased ticket prices have been a regular feature of this forum since I starting reading it in 2002. I don't think it is reasonable to expect the club to maintain ticket prices at artificially low levels in order to preserve the season tickets of fans who have gotten used to holding them over the years.

Ticket prices will always increase so long as demand remains high and sellouts continue. Why should the club let the scalpers take the profits? Giving tickets their market value enables those to be included among the buyers and sellers who haven't had the benefit of knowing someone who has been fortunate to hold a ticket since the 70s. We would all love to get the same favorable deal we have always had in the past, but is that truly equitable?

My point is that if true the Arab offer should confirm the Glazers as good owners, not engender the response of hope that they sell the club. I really don't understand the eagerness to put the Red Knights or the Arabs in charge over the club. How will you get the many heads of the Red Knights to agree on the best decisions where the club is concerned? SAF has repeatedly spoken of the benefit of getting a swift okay to transfers from the Glazer family. Why are you so willing to put the club's affairs in the hands of interfering Quatari interests whose goals are less financial stability and long term growth for United and more instant success and prestige? Personally I don't want to see United become so impatient for instant success that we start behaving like City or Chelsea or Real Madrid in the running of the club.

The Glazers were condemned from the start, and no matter how many accusations prove to be unfounded in the end, this remains the same. Under what conditions can the Glazers' purchase of the club and debts put on the club be demonstrated to have been good decision-making? If there is no basis upon which a case against the Glazers can be proven wrong, then it is not a case or an argument at all. It is only a pathological agenda incapable of falsification whichever set of facts presents itself.
Click to expand...

holy feck. what a post.

/thread.
 
Ferguson said:
So the Glazers bought the club for 800 million pounds.

The Red Knights put together a one billion pound offer and were refused.

Now, the Arabs are rumored to have offered 1.5 billion pounds.

If the latter offer was genuine, then the Glazers have nearly doubled the value of their investment since purchasing the club more than justifying their business plan and debts.

United are competing for all the major trophies, and players like Vidic and Rooney have been signed to lucrative new contracts. I believe they would have paid Cristiano what he wanted if he had been willing to remain at United.

They've never interfered with SAF's running of the club unlike Roman Abramovich, Hicks & Gillette, or the City owners. United have been able to keep their plans secret because they are no longer a PLC, thereby enabling the club to steal young players from Italy, Portugal and Mexico with relative ease.

It seems to me that the only complaint against the Glazers that anyone can muster is over ticket prices, but I'm not convinced that ticket prices wouldn't have increased no matter who owned the club. I'm not a local fan, so I can only go by what I hear. Complaints about increased ticket prices have been a regular feature of this forum since I starting reading it in 2002. I don't think it is reasonable to expect the club to maintain ticket prices at artificially low levels in order to preserve the season tickets of fans who have gotten used to holding them over the years.

Ticket prices will always increase so long as demand remains high and sellouts continue. Why should the club let the scalpers take the profits? Giving tickets their market value enables those to be included among the buyers and sellers who haven't had the benefit of knowing someone who has been fortunate to hold a ticket since the 70s. We would all love to get the same favorable deal we have always had in the past, but is that truly equitable?

My point is that if true the Arab offer should confirm the Glazers as good owners, not engender the response of hope that they sell the club. I really don't understand the eagerness to put the Red Knights or the Arabs in charge over the club. How will you get the many heads of the Red Knights to agree on the best decisions where the club is concerned? SAF has repeatedly spoken of the benefit of getting a swift okay to transfers from the Glazer family. Why are you so willing to put the club's affairs in the hands of interfering Quatari interests whose goals are less financial stability and long term growth for United and more instant success and prestige? Personally I don't want to see United become so impatient for instant success that we start behaving like City or Chelsea or Real Madrid in the running of the club.

The Glazers were condemned from the start, and no matter how many accusations prove to be unfounded in the end, this remains the same. Under what conditions can the Glazers' purchase of the club and debts put on the club be demonstrated to have been good decision-making? If there is no basis upon which a case against the Glazers can be proven wrong, then it is not a case or an argument at all. It is only a pathological agenda incapable of falsification whichever set of facts presents itself.
Click to expand...

Redrichio likes this. I reckon there will be some horrendous gnashing of teeth going on elsewhere though..
 
There's far too many holes in that post which indicate a worrying lack of understanding of the issues that many fans hold.

The main question is how are we any better off with the current ownership than under the Plc? The argument about quick decisions is given far too much weight, we have been flexible and acted impulsively in the past to secure signings, it's not something new under the Glazers.
 
datura said:
There's far too many holes in that post which indicate a worrying lack of understanding of the issues that many fans hold.

The main question is how are we any better off with the current ownership than under the Plc? The argument about quick decisions is given far too much weight, we have been flexible and acted impulsively in the past to secure signings, it's not something new under the Glazers.
Click to expand...

Shows what you know... We were shit before the Glazers came along, never signed decent players. Thanks God for quick decision making.
 
Ferguson said:
So the Glazers bought the club for 800 million pounds.

The Red Knights put together a one billion pound offer and were refused.

Now, the Arabs are rumored to have offered 1.5 billion pounds.

If the latter offer was genuine, then the Glazers have nearly doubled the value of their investment since purchasing the club more than justifying their business plan and debts.

United are competing for all the major trophies, and players like Vidic and Rooney have been signed to lucrative new contracts. I believe they would have paid Cristiano what he wanted if he had been willing to remain at United.

They've never interfered with SAF's running of the club unlike Roman Abramovich, Hicks & Gillette, or the City owners. United have been able to keep their plans secret because they are no longer a PLC, thereby enabling the club to steal young players from Italy, Portugal and Mexico with relative ease.

It seems to me that the only complaint against the Glazers that anyone can muster is over ticket prices, but I'm not convinced that ticket prices wouldn't have increased no matter who owned the club. I'm not a local fan, so I can only go by what I hear. Complaints about increased ticket prices have been a regular feature of this forum since I starting reading it in 2002. I don't think it is reasonable to expect the club to maintain ticket prices at artificially low levels in order to preserve the season tickets of fans who have gotten used to holding them over the years.

Ticket prices will always increase so long as demand remains high and sellouts continue. Why should the club let the scalpers take the profits? Giving tickets their market value enables those to be included among the buyers and sellers who haven't had the benefit of knowing someone who has been fortunate to hold a ticket since the 70s. We would all love to get the same favorable deal we have always had in the past, but is that truly equitable?

My point is that if true the Arab offer should confirm the Glazers as good owners, not engender the response of hope that they sell the club. I really don't understand the eagerness to put the Red Knights or the Arabs in charge over the club. How will you get the many heads of the Red Knights to agree on the best decisions where the club is concerned? SAF has repeatedly spoken of the benefit of getting a swift okay to transfers from the Glazer family. Why are you so willing to put the club's affairs in the hands of interfering Quatari interests whose goals are less financial stability and long term growth for United and more instant success and prestige? Personally I don't want to see United become so impatient for instant success that we start behaving like City or Chelsea or Real Madrid in the running of the club.

The Glazers were condemned from the start, and no matter how many accusations prove to be unfounded in the end, this remains the same. Under what conditions can the Glazers' purchase of the club and debts put on the club be demonstrated to have been good decision-making? If there is no basis upon which a case against the Glazers can be proven wrong, then it is not a case or an argument at all. It is only a pathological agenda incapable of falsification whichever set of facts presents itself.
Click to expand...

As much as I find myself agreeing with most of what you say it's really only a response to the financial facts of the previous 5 years. As for the morality of it all thats different matter entirely. If ticket prices had been increased to pay for investment in the team then there wouldn't have been much of a protest, the fact is the ticket price increases are to pay the interest on the debt the glazers used to buy the club, in effect the clubs fans were and are being forced to pay for the the glazer buyout.

There's also the undoubted financial burden the debt places on the club, we absolutely have to have CL football every season, there's no room for error, a couple of wrong decisions in the transfer market or a couple of bad injury's to key players could see us up shit creek with no paddle, arms or boat. There's also the wider financial uncertainty, we have no idea how easily we'll be able to refinance in 2017, or if Sky's money will continue to flood in.

Although MUST's prediction of annihilation have prove completely bogus that in no way guarantee's the future of the club or answers the moral question of the fans being forced to pay for the glazers pruchase of the club.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Yeah 60% or something... 30% actually or whatever.
Click to expand...

vaderlove.jpg


Nice.
 
Spoony Youngblood said:
It's totally random. I love Lady Vadar's breasts.
Click to expand...

Well just to clarify something totally random then, you can see here in this table from anders' blog that up until this season the average real increase to ticket prices under the Glazers (that's actual average rise minus the annual RPI inflation rate) was 34%.

full+ST+prices.jpg


Of course though this season's price freeze minus this year's 4.7% RPI inflation rate means the latest figure for average real price rises under the Glazers has been only 29.6%,. You kinda said it was 60% or something? Nah, nah it's not, it's nowhere near, that's just MUSTshit.

I know, I know. It's a whacky idea to consider inflation rates when totting up ticket price rises, that's why MUST don't bother, but I'm absolutely mental like that and I'm not clued up like them; it's an affliction I unfortunately have to live with :(
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Of course though this season's price freeze minus this year's 4.7% RPI inflation rate means the latest figure for average real price rises under the Glazers has been only 29.6%,. You kinda said it was 60% or something? Nah, nah it's not, it's nowhere near, that's just MUSTshit.
Click to expand...

Some crazy numbers are thrown around about our ticket prices - as you point out, the truth is around 30% rise since the Glazer takeover, which works out to 5/6% per year.

I dont really see how people can complain about ticket prices - ours are good value when compared to other Premier League clubs. The ACS is a valid complaint however and has always been my main gripe.
Perhaps some people might say prices went up too much in the first couple of years under the Glazers, which is fair comment, but that has now been offset by virtually no rise for 3 years.

To put things into context, if we look at our historical ticket prices, we can see that this is actually one of the lowest periods of ticket price rises in our history:
www.red11.org - Ticket Prices Since 1960
 
Post based on assumptions of the Qatari family in Ferguson's thread.

Ask any Chelsea or City fan who they would prefer? The clubs were on the verge of bankruptcy, and the fans were watching mediocrity. The interfering owners have paid for World class players and given the clubs a platform for competing against the elite. In fact these foreign owners have raised the bar for all the clubs in the Premiership.
 
Sultan said:
Post based on assumptions of the Qatari family in Ferguson's thread.

Ask any Chelsea or City fan who they would prefer? The clubs were on the verge of bankruptcy, and the fans were watching mediocrity. The interfering owners have paid for World class players and given the clubs a platform for competing against the elite. In fact these foreign owners have raised the bar for all the clubs in the Premiership.
Click to expand...

Haven't read the other thread, but 'club on the verge of bankruptcy and the fans watching mediocrity' is a million miles from accurately describing United.
 
Rood said:
Some crazy numbers are thrown around about our ticket prices - as you point out, the truth is around 30% rise since the Glazer takeover, which works out to 5/6% per year.

I dont really see how people can complain about ticket prices - ours are good value when compared to other Premier League clubs. The ACS is a valid complaint however and has always been my main gripe.
Perhaps some people might say prices went up too much in the first couple of years under the Glazers, which is fair comment, but that has now been offset by virtually no rise for 3 years.

To put things into context, if we look at our historical ticket prices, we can see that this is actually one of the lowest periods of ticket price rises in our history:
www.red11.org - Ticket Prices Since 1960
Click to expand...

What you really meant to say:

I can afford my ticket and therefore I don't really care about other fans being priced out under the current regime. I dislike the ACS as I want to be able to pick and choose the big cup games since I actually rarely go to Old Trafford and struggle to sell on my ticket for the lesser games. :D
 
datura said:
What you really meant to say:

I can afford my ticket and therefore I don't really care about other fans being priced out under the current regime. I dislike the ACS as I want to be able to pick and choose the big cup games since I actually rarely go to Old Trafford and struggle to sell on my ticket for the lesser games. :D
Click to expand...

What you really meant to say:

I don't care that Old Trafford sells out virtually every game; waaaaaaaaa! It's not fair! Plus I want a brand new 50" Sony 3D HDTV for 50% less than market value; waaaaaaaaa! It's not fair! I want stuff for less than it's worth; waaaaaaaaa! It's not fair! The world's not fair on me! Waaaaaaaaa!
 
ciderman9000000 said:
What you really meant to say:

I don't care that Old Trafford sells out virtually every game; waaaaaaaaa! It's not fair! Plus I want a brand new 50" Sony 3D HDTV for 50% less than market value; waaaaaaaaa! It's not fair! I want stuff for less than it's worth; waaaaaaaaa! It's not fair! The world's not fair on me! Waaaaaaaaa!
Click to expand...

I do find it odd that someone who readily admits to being priced out of going to OT is so quick to defend the pricing strategy. Unless of course you don't really believe a word you are saying and have just taken your stance on this issue to be different and provoke a reaction...
 
datura said:
I do find it odd that someone who readily admits to being priced out of going to OT is so quick to defend the pricing strategy. Unless of course you don't really believe a word you are saying and have just taken your stance on this issue to be different and provoke a reaction...
Click to expand...

Nope. It's simply that if I can't afford a luxury item that I want in life then I blame myself for not looking after/earning enough money rather than blaming the rest of the world for being so hard on me. It's not the Glazers' fault that I can't afford to do everything in life that I want to do, it's my fault for messing around in school and selling drugs instead of going to college and getting a decent job. Blame yourselves, you tits; either better yourselves and get the money to pay the market value of whatever you want from life or don't bother and go without. The Glazers don't control market value, do they? They just charge it. Tough shit if that prices you out; welcome to life.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Nope. It's simply that if I can't afford a luxury item that I want in life then I blame myself for not looking after/earning enough money rather than blaming the rest of the world for being so hard on me. It's not the Glazers' fault that I can't afford to do everything in life that I want to do, it's my fault for messing around in school and selling drugs instead of going to college and getting a decent job. Blame yourselves, you tits; either better yourselves and get the money to pay the market value of whatever you want from life or don't bother and go without. The Glazers don't control market value, do they? They just charge it. Tough shit if that prices you out; welcome to life.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's all that simple Cider. Glad you sorted that one out for everyone.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Nope. It's simply that if I can't afford a luxury item that I want in life then I blame myself for not looking after/earning enough money rather than blaming the rest of the world for being so hard on me. It's not the Glazers' fault that I can't afford to do everything in life that I want to do, it's my fault for messing around in school and selling drugs instead of going to college and getting a decent job. Blame yourselves, you tits; either better yourselves and get the money to pay the market value of whatever you want from life or don't bother and go without. The Glazers don't control market value, do they? They just charge it. Tough shit if that prices you out; welcome to life.
Click to expand...

Then can I suggest that you not waste a single minute more of your finite life in this thread, arguing the toss in defence of a tycoon who's priced you out of seeing your team and doesn't care whether you live or die, and instead enroll in evening classes so you can do justice to your obvious intelligence and facility with language?
 
Plechazunga said:
Then can I suggest that you not waste a single minute more of your finite life in this thread, arguing the toss in defence of a tycoon who's priced you out of seeing your team and doesn't care whether you live or die, and instead enroll in evening classes so you can do justice to your obvious intelligence and facility with language?
Click to expand...

Yeah, man, I'm starting an accountancy course in February.

I argue the toss for two reasons; one, because I think it best for the club if the fans finally come to realise that MUST tricked them, that there's little actually wrong with the Glazers, and, two, because I find it thouroughly entertaining and a good exercise for my otherwise largely under-utilised mind.
 
datura said:
That was the inference.
Click to expand...

It really wasn't, not intentionally anyway. Ticket prices do not necessarily equal market value. I'd say that the market value of a match ticket would be the maximum one could charge for them on average whilst still selling out the stadium; or, if all tickets were put on an open and blind auction with no reserve, the market value would be the average selling price once all tickets had gone. It's not simply the actual price set by the Glazers.

The Glazers tactic has been to charge exactly market value, hence the now non-existence of the waiting list. I see no reasonable complaint that can be made about this, it's a fundamental concept of capitalism that sellers should be entitled to sell their wares for what they are worth as dictated by supply and demand.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
It really wasn't, not intentionally anyway. Ticket prices do not necessarily equal market value. I'd say that the market value of a match ticket would be the maximum one could charge for them on average whilst still selling out the stadium; or, if all tickets were put on an open and blind auction with no reserve, the market value would be the average selling price once all tickets had gone. It's not simply the actual price set by the Glazers.

The Glazers tactic has been to charge exactly market value, hence the now non-existence of the waiting list. I see no reasonable complaint that can be made about this, it's a fundamental concept of capitalism that sellers should be entitled to sell their wares for what they are worth as dictated by supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Looks like this is leading into another circular argument of no benefit. Just because they are adhering supply and demand concepts does not 'make it right' and the complaints over the rises are valid.

I can understand the concepts behind it but as many have said before, football clubs aren't normal businesses and this is seemingly what many of these new owners fail to understand (and some of the fans it appears too).

Anyway, we are never going to agree and I can't understand your position so this is my final say here.
 
datura said:
What you really meant to say:

I can afford my ticket and therefore I don't really care about other fans being priced out under the current regime. I dislike the ACS as I want to be able to pick and choose the big cup games since I actually rarely go to Old Trafford and struggle to sell on my ticket for the lesser games. :D
Click to expand...

That is a load of bollocks Im afraid - what I really meant to say was exactly what I said!

If you disagree with anything I have said then feel free to challenge it rather than put words in my mouth - otherwise I will assume that you agree with it.

Do you honestly think our ticket prices are too high in comparison to other Premier League clubs?
 
Rood said:
That is a load of bollocks Im afraid - what I really meant to say was exactly what I said!

If you disagree with anything I have said then feel free to challenge it rather than put words in my mouth - otherwise I will assume that you agree with it.
Click to expand...

I disagree with pretty much everything you say on this subject, as you well know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.