I think the idea is that they're creating extra shares though. So the money has to go to the club.
If they sell their own existing shares it's a different story.
That's if it ever happens.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
I think the idea is that they're creating extra shares though. So the money has to go to the club.
If they sell their own existing shares it's a different story.
That's if it ever happens.
I'll interpret your
as an intelligent comment and reply to it. 
The difference is between the money raised from the share issue going to the Glazers personally to do with as they choose, and the money being reinvested in the business, and earmarked to pay off the club's debts. Of course since the Glazers now own the club the distinction can be viewed as somewhat academic.
But most fans are anxious that the club be debt free so would probably prefer the latter alternative.
Ignore crusoe, he's just a pointless troll.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that they are creating extra shares and that means the money has to goto the club?
Possibly you are getting confused with the earlier stories about selling non-voting shares.
I would expect that some cash will be used to buy back some of the bond debt and possibly they will keep some for themselves, but until they release details it is all just guesswork.
Anyway hopefully someone (GCHQ or RedJazz?) can tell us what the bond prospectus says about the potenential use of proceeds of any equity sale as I cant be bothered to look it up!
I'm not sure where you got the idea that they are creating extra shares and that means the money has to goto the club?
Possibly you are getting confused with the earlier stories about selling non-voting shares.
I would expect that some cash will be used to buy back some of the bond debt and possibly they will keep some for themselves, but until they release details it is all just guesswork.
Anyway hopefully someone (GCHQ or RedJazz?) can tell us what the bond prospectus says about the potenential use of proceeds of any equity sale as I cant be bothered to look it up!
I haven't been following this closely, but that was the idea suggested in the press early on. The company would issue new shares to raise additional funds - the proceeds of the sale to be used to buy back the debt.
I felt at the time that the Glazers might be doing it to get the fans off their backs once and for all. Don't know if that's possible though.
I felt at the time that the Glazers might be doing it to get the fans off their backs once and for all. Don't know if that's possible though.
Nope. When you float a company, you have to explain where the proceeds go. I have a post in one of these threads showing how Samsonite did the same. Essentially, its a dilution. I've never seen a stake sale via a public offer. It may have happened but its rare. Not to mention, you'll screw the valuations you're expecting.
The only way they can pull the money for themselves is if they pay off the debt and show a profit and declare big dividends.
Yes I know you have to say where the proceeds go, which is why I keep saying we have to wait for the details. But does that stop them from allocating some cash to themselves?
For example, say they sold £500m worth of shares - they can pay off all the debt and still have a chunk left over.
I seem to remember there is some clauses in the bond prospectus which covers all this. Some relating to redeeming the bonds from the proceeds of an equity sale and others relating to Glazer personal indebtedness.
They can't technically usurp any public money like that. They aren't allowed to retain IPO proceeds*. Its a dilution not a stake sale. Atleast in Indian laws they can't. Which I'm guessing would be similar worldwide.
However, there are obviously means and measures to take that cash out. Though you can't really declare that in the prospectus and whenever you do use that money unethically, your valuation will get battered.
EDIT: Retain at a personal level.
IPOs typically issue new shares (primary shares) and offerings normally consist of a mix of primary and secondary (pre-existing) shares: With primary shares, cash goes to the issuer (the club); with the latter, proceeds go to the original shareholder (the Glazers).
The Average Joe Investor; said:
The Average Joe Investor: Back to the Basics: The IPO Lock-Up
Doesn't dictate how proceeds are to be used but does allow for optional redemption of up to 35% of the bonds at par (?) in the event of a public offering. Doesn't limit the redemption to 35%, mind, but any further redemptions would require payment of a make-whole premium (basically an early -and hefty- redemption premium on top. The size of the penalty falls to an amount equivalent to one year's interest (around 8.5%) in 2014 reducing thereafter.
Ok thanks for the info, that is along the lines of what I thought- so it basically backs up my original view; that some of the proceeds could be used to pay off debt (or top up the transfer kitty) and the rest could be kept by the Glazers themselves.
Of course, if they took too much then there would an inevitable fan backlash and as mentioned in your post, potential investors wouldnt look on that too kindly either.
So from that it seems likely that at least 35% of the bonds would be redeemed immediately, and then perhaps they would wait a bit longer to redeem more or take the penalty hit.
Although perhaps the news of an IPO would make the bond price fall anyway and then they could go back to the open market to buy them.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if the Glazers go through with it. Elimination of the debt would remove the headline grievance of the protesters, so it might well take the wind out of the sails of the whole anti-Glazer movement.
Imo, the real problem with the the Glazer ownership is not, and never has been, the debt. But rather the restrictions on the use of the club's income. To maximise the value of their investment the owners have to keep profits high, which means keeping expenditure - notably wages - lower than the club could otherwise afford.
If we're as successful in the next few years though, as we have been in the last 6, who can complain?
Imo, the real problem with the the Glazer ownership is not, and never has been, the debt. But rather the restrictions on the use of the club's income. To maximise the value of their investment the owners have to keep profits high, which means keeping expenditure - notably wages - lower than the club could otherwise afford.
If we're as successful in the next few years though, as we have been in the last 6, who can complain?
There is no wind in MUST's sails at the moment. The whole protest is on rowing power.
The news of an IPO last year probably dampened the bond price and countered the impact the Qatari speculation was having. The market premium paid on the the 20% of the bonds purchased so far is probably less than it might have been otherwise.
If the club was to redeem 35%, say, of the bond, then I suggest that the market price would probably rise subsequently given that the make-whole premium would protect remaining and new bondholders in the event of further redemptions. The club would also be less indebted (and have greater bond interest coverage), a factor that would nudge the bond price upwards.
I don't really buy into this transfer kitty top-up business. If more money comes in to the club than is used to reduce the debt then I reckon it will be earmarked for something a lot less ordinary- a business acquisition, funding for a big expansion plan, etc.
Why's that? Because some of the bonds were vulnerable to being redeemed at par? If the club were expected to go into the market to buy back shares wouldn't that have the opposite effect?
Or is that not on the cards?
Lot of questions. Don't know much about this kind of thing.
Many fans will never accept the Glazers regardless of what they do, but it is true that several that were previously antiGlazer are noting that our debt levels are coming down and see it as a positive trend.
I dont really agree with your point about wages, we have a sensible and sustainable wage policy which aims to keep a 50% wage/turnover ratio - and as you note, it has not hindered us from acheiving success. I would not like to see us go the way of City or Chelsea who try to buy success by spending far beyond their means. Anyhow, I believe that UEFA FFP Regs will force the big spenders to come into line with us sooner or later.
TBH I dont really think the transfer kitty needs topping up anyway, I wouldnt expect our cash balance to be as high this summer as it was last year but there should still be plenty available.
I do seem to remember some talk about funds being needed for expansion in Asia, I have seen that some Manchester United shops and cafes have been opening out there:
Manchester United Restaurant & Bar
Having spent the last six months in Asia you start to realize how far from the big winning financial jackpot that it is sometimes portrayed to be for football. Firstly, no one buys any real merchandise. The TV deals, with the exception of HK are actually not that lucrative. China is a huge growing economy but is, in fact, ten times more in love with Basketball than footie. The country's were football is huge - Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam etc - they simply would not spend £40 on an official top when you can get the exact same shirt for £5 from a market. I haven't actually seen a real shirt for sale ever in Asia actually.
Would be overall a promising move to see this happen. It would lower the debt and, IMO, take us one step closer to a future relisting or sale.
Re; 'top up the transfer kitty' - that's utter bullshit and with out low net spend over recent years you would hope it doesn't need much topping up anyhow.
Re; 'top up the transfer kitty' - that's utter bullshit and with out low net spend over recent years you would hope it doesn't need much topping up anyhow.
Wrong. Its about potential growth. United has opened 3 bars in Bombay in a span of a year and all 3 go packed to the brim on almost all matchdays.
And yes, people in Asia do own original merchandise.
And yes, people in Asia do own original merchandise.
The Premier League's sale of its overseas broadcasting rights for 2010-13 will raise around £1.4bn, more than double the previous level of £625m, The Independent can reveal.
With just two deals left to be concluded – in Albania and Russia – the League is assured of raising each club's average annual income from overseas rights alone from £10m now to about £23m per season from this summer.
That leap of £13m per club per year will not necessarily be split evenly. Some of the new cash will bankroll increased parachute payments, up from £11.2m last year to £16m from this summer. Parachute money will probably also be extended beyond the current two years. The League is finalising details on that, as well as how much extra money it might give the Football League in "solidarity payments". It currently gives the 72 Football League clubs £21.6m per year combined for a variety of academy, community and club projects.
The overseas rights bonanza underlines the global appeal of England's top football division, and has been fuelled by intense bidding wars in key areas, mainly between pay-TV rivals in Asia.
The Abu Dhabi royal family, from which Manchester City's owner Sheikh Mansour hails, has also played its part. The ruling elite's Abu Dhabi Media Company has won the rights for Premier League matches across the Middle East and North Africa from the incumbent holder, Showtime Arabia.
Local sources say Showtime paid around $120m (£80m) last time and that ADMC entered the auction for 2010-13 at $150m, but ended up paying more than $300m (£200m-plus). If that is a stunning endorsement of growth in one region, then the auctions in Singapore and Hong Kong were downright jaw-dropping.
In Singapore, an island with a population of 4.8 million people, the rights are held by the pay-TV operator StarHub, which paid an estimated £67m for 2007-10. Its fiercest commercial rival, SingTel, believes that Premier League content equals lucrative subscriptions so poured huge resources into the effort to take the rights from StarHub. It succeeded. Sources in Asia say SingTel paid £200m for 2010-13.
In Hong Kong (population 7 million), the Now TV station currently has the rights (having paid about £115m last time) but has lost them to i-Cable, which is understood to have paid close to £150m.
The Premier League will retain the same partners for 2010-13 in some regions: Fox and Setanta will continue to be the main carriers of the Premier League across North America and the Caribbean, as will Fox Latin in South America, and ESPN Star across 18 major Asia countries, including India.
Canal+ retains rights in France and Poland (in a deal worth about £60m), but a shake-up in Scandinavia has seen Canal+ lose the rights there to an intermediary sub-licensee, Medge Consulting. Medge has paid £111m for rights in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Medge has sold or will sell the rights on to individual broadcasters at a healthy mark-up. An incidental quirk in the Scandinavian sale is the involvement on a consultancy basis in the sell-on of rights of Rune Hauge, the agent at the centre of the Arsenal "bung" scandal of the early 1990s. Almost 20 years on, Hauge is still making money from English football, strictly legally this time.
The League simply does not have the manpower to do individual deals itself in all 211 countries where its games are shown, so sub-licensing and the sales of packets of regional rights is common. The League has 98 broadcast partners, as well as its own new TV station, Premier League TV, which will provide "viewer ready" action, commentary and analysis for nations wanting to buy rights "off the shelf".
In the future, the League hopes PLTV can attract non-traditional buyers to the market, for example entrepreneurs who want to enter the football market but don't have broadcasting capabilities themselves.
The Premier League's live domestic rights for 2010-13 raised £1.782bn when sold last summer. With such enormous growth in international sales, and room for expansion, foreign rights should overtake home sales in the future.
The League has been careful to strike the right balance in its latest sale between maximising income while making matches available to audiences that are as large as possible. Pay-TV stations pay more because they can earn more by charging viewers, but free-to-air stations always deliver much higher ratings.
In China, the pay-TV firm WinTV will keep rights for 2010-13, having paid around $50m, the same as it did for 2007-10. Exchange rate movements mean that $50m was worth £25.6m in 2007, but £33.3m now.
As The Independent first reported two years ago, the last WinTV deal caused a furore among the Premier League's top clubs because WinTV alienated potential viewers with crass marketing and high prices, and got so few subscribers that viewing figures were negligible. Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool were unhappy at the lack of exposure in what is seen as a key market for their international brand growth.
The difference this time is that while WinTV has retained the rights for 2010-13, the new deal in China will involve the screening of at least one free-to-air match per week from this summer.
With just two deals left to be concluded – in Albania and Russia – the League is assured of raising each club's average annual income from overseas rights alone from £10m now to about £23m per season from this summer.
That leap of £13m per club per year will not necessarily be split evenly. Some of the new cash will bankroll increased parachute payments, up from £11.2m last year to £16m from this summer. Parachute money will probably also be extended beyond the current two years. The League is finalising details on that, as well as how much extra money it might give the Football League in "solidarity payments". It currently gives the 72 Football League clubs £21.6m per year combined for a variety of academy, community and club projects.
The overseas rights bonanza underlines the global appeal of England's top football division, and has been fuelled by intense bidding wars in key areas, mainly between pay-TV rivals in Asia.
The Abu Dhabi royal family, from which Manchester City's owner Sheikh Mansour hails, has also played its part. The ruling elite's Abu Dhabi Media Company has won the rights for Premier League matches across the Middle East and North Africa from the incumbent holder, Showtime Arabia.
Local sources say Showtime paid around $120m (£80m) last time and that ADMC entered the auction for 2010-13 at $150m, but ended up paying more than $300m (£200m-plus). If that is a stunning endorsement of growth in one region, then the auctions in Singapore and Hong Kong were downright jaw-dropping.
In Singapore, an island with a population of 4.8 million people, the rights are held by the pay-TV operator StarHub, which paid an estimated £67m for 2007-10. Its fiercest commercial rival, SingTel, believes that Premier League content equals lucrative subscriptions so poured huge resources into the effort to take the rights from StarHub. It succeeded. Sources in Asia say SingTel paid £200m for 2010-13.
In Hong Kong (population 7 million), the Now TV station currently has the rights (having paid about £115m last time) but has lost them to i-Cable, which is understood to have paid close to £150m.
The Premier League will retain the same partners for 2010-13 in some regions: Fox and Setanta will continue to be the main carriers of the Premier League across North America and the Caribbean, as will Fox Latin in South America, and ESPN Star across 18 major Asia countries, including India.
Canal+ retains rights in France and Poland (in a deal worth about £60m), but a shake-up in Scandinavia has seen Canal+ lose the rights there to an intermediary sub-licensee, Medge Consulting. Medge has paid £111m for rights in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Medge has sold or will sell the rights on to individual broadcasters at a healthy mark-up. An incidental quirk in the Scandinavian sale is the involvement on a consultancy basis in the sell-on of rights of Rune Hauge, the agent at the centre of the Arsenal "bung" scandal of the early 1990s. Almost 20 years on, Hauge is still making money from English football, strictly legally this time.
The League simply does not have the manpower to do individual deals itself in all 211 countries where its games are shown, so sub-licensing and the sales of packets of regional rights is common. The League has 98 broadcast partners, as well as its own new TV station, Premier League TV, which will provide "viewer ready" action, commentary and analysis for nations wanting to buy rights "off the shelf".
In the future, the League hopes PLTV can attract non-traditional buyers to the market, for example entrepreneurs who want to enter the football market but don't have broadcasting capabilities themselves.
The Premier League's live domestic rights for 2010-13 raised £1.782bn when sold last summer. With such enormous growth in international sales, and room for expansion, foreign rights should overtake home sales in the future.
The League has been careful to strike the right balance in its latest sale between maximising income while making matches available to audiences that are as large as possible. Pay-TV stations pay more because they can earn more by charging viewers, but free-to-air stations always deliver much higher ratings.
In China, the pay-TV firm WinTV will keep rights for 2010-13, having paid around $50m, the same as it did for 2007-10. Exchange rate movements mean that $50m was worth £25.6m in 2007, but £33.3m now.
As The Independent first reported two years ago, the last WinTV deal caused a furore among the Premier League's top clubs because WinTV alienated potential viewers with crass marketing and high prices, and got so few subscribers that viewing figures were negligible. Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool were unhappy at the lack of exposure in what is seen as a key market for their international brand growth.
The difference this time is that while WinTV has retained the rights for 2010-13, the new deal in China will involve the screening of at least one free-to-air match per week from this summer.
Clueless opinions from you as usual - you are only talking about South East Asia anyway. There is a lot of money in India, Middle East etc nowadays and increasing numbers of fans do want the real thing rather than a knock off.
Selling shirts is just a tiny part of it anyway, the overseas TV rights are growing fast plus look the list of our current sponsors and you will see it is full of Asian companies paying us millions every year.
Wrong. Its about potential growth. United has opened 3 bars in Bombay in a span of a year and all 3 go packed to the brim on almost all matchdays.
And yes, people in Asia do own original merchandise.
The Premier League's sale of its overseas broadcasting rights for 2010-13 will raise around £1.4bn, more than double the previous level of £625m, The Independent can reveal.
With just two deals left to be concluded – in Albania and Russia – the League is assured of raising each club's average annual income from overseas rights alone from £10m now to about £23m per season from this summer.
That leap of £13m per club per year will not necessarily be split evenly. Some of the new cash will bankroll increased parachute payments, up from £11.2m last year to £16m from this summer. Parachute money will probably also be extended beyond the current two years. The League is finalising details on that, as well as how much extra money it might give the Football League in "solidarity payments". It currently gives the 72 Football League clubs £21.6m per year combined for a variety of academy, community and club projects.
The overseas rights bonanza underlines the global appeal of England's top football division, and has been fuelled by intense bidding wars in key areas, mainly between pay-TV rivals in Asia.
The Abu Dhabi royal family, from which Manchester City's owner Sheikh Mansour hails, has also played its part. The ruling elite's Abu Dhabi Media Company has won the rights for Premier League matches across the Middle East and North Africa from the incumbent holder, Showtime Arabia.
Local sources say Showtime paid around $120m (£80m) last time and that ADMC entered the auction for 2010-13 at $150m, but ended up paying more than $300m (£200m-plus). If that is a stunning endorsement of growth in one region, then the auctions in Singapore and Hong Kong were downright jaw-dropping.
In Singapore, an island with a population of 4.8 million people, the rights are held by the pay-TV operator StarHub, which paid an estimated £67m for 2007-10. Its fiercest commercial rival, SingTel, believes that Premier League content equals lucrative subscriptions so poured huge resources into the effort to take the rights from StarHub. It succeeded. Sources in Asia say SingTel paid £200m for 2010-13.
In Hong Kong (population 7 million), the Now TV station currently has the rights (having paid about £115m last time) but has lost them to i-Cable, which is understood to have paid close to £150m.
The Premier League will retain the same partners for 2010-13 in some regions: Fox and Setanta will continue to be the main carriers of the Premier League across North America and the Caribbean, as will Fox Latin in South America, and ESPN Star across 18 major Asia countries, including India.
Canal+ retains rights in France and Poland (in a deal worth about £60m), but a shake-up in Scandinavia has seen Canal+ lose the rights there to an intermediary sub-licensee, Medge Consulting. Medge has paid £111m for rights in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Medge has sold or will sell the rights on to individual broadcasters at a healthy mark-up. An incidental quirk in the Scandinavian sale is the involvement on a consultancy basis in the sell-on of rights of Rune Hauge, the agent at the centre of the Arsenal "bung" scandal of the early 1990s. Almost 20 years on, Hauge is still making money from English football, strictly legally this time.
The League simply does not have the manpower to do individual deals itself in all 211 countries where its games are shown, so sub-licensing and the sales of packets of regional rights is common. The League has 98 broadcast partners, as well as its own new TV station, Premier League TV, which will provide "viewer ready" action, commentary and analysis for nations wanting to buy rights "off the shelf".
In the future, the League hopes PLTV can attract non-traditional buyers to the market, for example entrepreneurs who want to enter the football market but don't have broadcasting capabilities themselves.
The Premier League's live domestic rights for 2010-13 raised £1.782bn when sold last summer. With such enormous growth in international sales, and room for expansion, foreign rights should overtake home sales in the future.
The League has been careful to strike the right balance in its latest sale between maximising income while making matches available to audiences that are as large as possible. Pay-TV stations pay more because they can earn more by charging viewers, but free-to-air stations always deliver much higher ratings.
In China, the pay-TV firm WinTV will keep rights for 2010-13, having paid around $50m, the same as it did for 2007-10. Exchange rate movements mean that $50m was worth £25.6m in 2007, but £33.3m now.
As The Independent first reported two years ago, the last WinTV deal caused a furore among the Premier League's top clubs because WinTV alienated potential viewers with crass marketing and high prices, and got so few subscribers that viewing figures were negligible. Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool were unhappy at the lack of exposure in what is seen as a key market for their international brand growth.
The difference this time is that while WinTV has retained the rights for 2010-13, the new deal in China will involve the screening of at least one free-to-air match per week from this summer.
Exactly - it is all about future growth and the potential is vast. Good article that, and the info about the packed United bars in Bombay is interesting - seems to be some kind of franchise operation being rolled out across some of the big Asian cities.
Firstly, they are the real thing, the shirts. Made in the Copycat factories. My friend has been to one in China actually. They are the real thing except that the club and Nike don't see a penny from them.
Middle East I am sure it is a bit different but only 'south east asia' is the vast bulk of Man United's Asian support.
The commercial deals are stacking up and the TV deals increasing which is good. However, it's not quite the golden ticket that some glamorize it to be.
Clueless? At least I am basing my opinion on first hand experiences in China and SE Asia. I take a keen interest in this stuff and having read always read about it you realize how much PR bullshit there is to it.
Yes clueless - your first hand experiences are of no interest to me. I prefer to look at the facts.
You said previously that TV deals (apart from HK) are not that lucrative - Interval Level then posted an article showing that HK is not even the biggest market and that the prices paid by Asian broadcasters has more than doubled recently.
The focus on selling shirts and talk about copies is also a common misconception - merchandising is not the focus, direct revenue to the club comes from selling sponsorship and licensing the brand.
Anyway no one claims that it is already a 'golden ticket', but it is certainly the area where a lot of future revenue growth is going to come from.
You said previously that TV deals (apart from HK) are not that lucrative - Interval Level then posted an article showing that HK is not even the biggest market and that the prices paid by Asian broadcasters has more than doubled recently.
The focus on selling shirts and talk about copies is also a common misconception - merchandising is not the focus, direct revenue to the club comes from selling sponsorship and licensing the brand.
Anyway no one claims that it is already a 'golden ticket', but it is certainly the area where a lot of future revenue growth is going to come from.
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...chester-United-to-New-York-article885127.html
I think this is brilliant. New York is one of the best markets in the world, plus I could get to NY much easier than I could to Manchester.
I think this is brilliant. New York is one of the best markets in the world, plus I could get to NY much easier than I could to Manchester.
Half hour early :/
Was about to go off on one about journalistic standards till I came to my senses.
You're ruining it. There have to be some idiots who'd fall for it.
Good one, Matt. Pity it was spoiled.
I know. I blame Gaz.subscribers only there #07
Good article that, I liked the part which I couldn't read.
United's tactics are whole new ball game
In the midst of the maelstrom of managerial sackings, player bust-ups and fans' protests, one club has sailed serenely to the top of football's most lucrative and combustible league - yet again.
Manchester United has been written off many times since the Glazer family of the US bought it in a debt-laden deal in 2005. Yet it remains the Premier League's most profitable and successful club, now favourite to fight off the challenge of local rivals Manchester City for at least another season and retain the title of champions.
David Gill, the chief executive who has been a constant since his appointment in 2003, is not among those calling for changes to the Premier League, formed in 1992.
"The Premier League has been the most professionally run league in football. We are leaders in a sport that is growing. There is growth to come. It is exciting. The World Cup is getting bigger. The Champions League is getting bigger. The Premier League is getting bigger."
Spiralling costs, principally players' wages, and mismanagement among some prominent British clubs have seen Portsmouth and Rangers enter administration in recent months. But Mr Gill believes ambitious clubs will continue to spend to stay in their leagues and wages will not moderate. The fair play regulation introduced by Uefa, the European football authority, which requires clubs to balance their books, comes into effect in 2013. Mr Gill believes it will drive them to follow United's approach and seek new commercial revenues, rather than cut costs.
The Glazers, owners of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers NFL team, were right to recognise the untapped potential, he argues.
"As a plc, we thought we were one of the most commercially astute clubs and were leading the world of football, but the world has moved on in the last five to seven years. The owners have been true to their word by investing for the long term. We have invested in people - 40 in London on the commercial side. We are acting much more like a FTSE 100 company."
He cites a deal with Turkish Airlines that features players in safety videos and the deal with DHL to sponsor training kit, worth £40m over four years. "It has got the world a bit aghast how we have done that," he said. "Our revenue is one-third match day, one-third from commercial revenue and one-third from TV. It is a very spread risk. Commercial revenues are very high margin and long term." Rising ticket prices and aggressive merchandising have alienated some fans.
Independent supporters' association MUST has campaigned to remove the Glazers. The Red Knights, a group of supporters, bid £1bn for the club but were rebuffed. Gross debt, though falling, stood at £439m at the end of 2011.
A partial listing in Singapore has been postponed while rumours continue that the Qatari royal family could be interested in the club. The club declined to comment on press reports that the initial public offering plans were being reactivated.
Mr Gill dismisses the idea raised by Ian Ayre, managing director of Liverpool, that the bigger clubs with overseas fan bases should receive a greater proportion of international TV rights.
"Football is about intense competition. It is not just us and City, but Spurs this year. There's Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool. We gain from the collective selling model. Last season we won [the league] and got about £60m. The bottom club got about £40m. The ratio in the Spanish league is about 12 or 13:1. The Spanish league is not competitive."
Research in 2007 found that United had 333m fans worldwide. It has 20m Facebook friends. It has bought joint venture partner ITV's stake in MUTV, its dedicated TV channel, and the international rights so it could tap the subscriber data: "We need to know who our customers are."
The biggest question facing the club is who will succeed Sir Alex Ferguson, its most successful manager, who is 70 and has been in the job for 25 years. Dan Jones, head of the sports practice at Deloitte, which advises the club, believes it will manage the transition well. "They appreciate the value of stability, which is rare in football," he said.
In the midst of the maelstrom of managerial sackings, player bust-ups and fans' protests, one club has sailed serenely to the top of football's most lucrative and combustible league - yet again.
Manchester United has been written off many times since the Glazer family of the US bought it in a debt-laden deal in 2005. Yet it remains the Premier League's most profitable and successful club, now favourite to fight off the challenge of local rivals Manchester City for at least another season and retain the title of champions.
David Gill, the chief executive who has been a constant since his appointment in 2003, is not among those calling for changes to the Premier League, formed in 1992.
"The Premier League has been the most professionally run league in football. We are leaders in a sport that is growing. There is growth to come. It is exciting. The World Cup is getting bigger. The Champions League is getting bigger. The Premier League is getting bigger."
Spiralling costs, principally players' wages, and mismanagement among some prominent British clubs have seen Portsmouth and Rangers enter administration in recent months. But Mr Gill believes ambitious clubs will continue to spend to stay in their leagues and wages will not moderate. The fair play regulation introduced by Uefa, the European football authority, which requires clubs to balance their books, comes into effect in 2013. Mr Gill believes it will drive them to follow United's approach and seek new commercial revenues, rather than cut costs.
The Glazers, owners of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers NFL team, were right to recognise the untapped potential, he argues.
"As a plc, we thought we were one of the most commercially astute clubs and were leading the world of football, but the world has moved on in the last five to seven years. The owners have been true to their word by investing for the long term. We have invested in people - 40 in London on the commercial side. We are acting much more like a FTSE 100 company."
He cites a deal with Turkish Airlines that features players in safety videos and the deal with DHL to sponsor training kit, worth £40m over four years. "It has got the world a bit aghast how we have done that," he said. "Our revenue is one-third match day, one-third from commercial revenue and one-third from TV. It is a very spread risk. Commercial revenues are very high margin and long term." Rising ticket prices and aggressive merchandising have alienated some fans.
Independent supporters' association MUST has campaigned to remove the Glazers. The Red Knights, a group of supporters, bid £1bn for the club but were rebuffed. Gross debt, though falling, stood at £439m at the end of 2011.
A partial listing in Singapore has been postponed while rumours continue that the Qatari royal family could be interested in the club. The club declined to comment on press reports that the initial public offering plans were being reactivated.
Mr Gill dismisses the idea raised by Ian Ayre, managing director of Liverpool, that the bigger clubs with overseas fan bases should receive a greater proportion of international TV rights.
"Football is about intense competition. It is not just us and City, but Spurs this year. There's Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool. We gain from the collective selling model. Last season we won [the league] and got about £60m. The bottom club got about £40m. The ratio in the Spanish league is about 12 or 13:1. The Spanish league is not competitive."
Research in 2007 found that United had 333m fans worldwide. It has 20m Facebook friends. It has bought joint venture partner ITV's stake in MUTV, its dedicated TV channel, and the international rights so it could tap the subscriber data: "We need to know who our customers are."
The biggest question facing the club is who will succeed Sir Alex Ferguson, its most successful manager, who is 70 and has been in the job for 25 years. Dan Jones, head of the sports practice at Deloitte, which advises the club, believes it will manage the transition well. "They appreciate the value of stability, which is rare in football," he said.
So nothing actually new then.
Puff piece ahead of the flotation.
Said it before in this thread I think but I do so strongly agree with him on this point:
Not that I am well placed to comment on Spain, but instinctively I feel it would be massively counter-productive to grab a bigger slice of the pie for ourselves. It is in our interests for the league to be as competitive as possible.
On one level I like the idea of being able to sign up to one channel - MUTV say - and know I can watch ALL our games on it. But I believe it would be suicidal to go that route. Death by excessive success.
Not that I am well placed to comment on Spain, but instinctively I feel it would be massively counter-productive to grab a bigger slice of the pie for ourselves. It is in our interests for the league to be as competitive as possible.
On one level I like the idea of being able to sign up to one channel - MUTV say - and know I can watch ALL our games on it. But I believe it would be suicidal to go that route. Death by excessive success.
To say the Spanish League is not competitive is absurd. No team is more than 5 points from its closest rival in the current season, there is intense competition for virtually every position. The gap between 2nd and 3rd is bigger, but there are still only two teams with a realistic chance of winning the League, and that's been the case for months.
- Status