ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Great read as always.
Glazer regime - reign suggests a king of some kind.
Roadshow will be ongoing now. Everything is kept very hush hush though. If the response from investors was not a good one they wouldn't want the market to know this. I.e. blame market conditions/unfavourable economic climate etc. as a reason for cancellation as opposed to their own optimistic, inflated valuation of the club, criticisms of its structure and so on.
Absolutely no idea how much we will be looking at until they set a price range. And all of the proceeds will be used to pay the debt off so the answer to how much they raise is the same as how much debt will be paid off (although they might not do it all at once).
It's as simple as that, is it? And I don't understand how you call spunking 60 million last summer "underwhelming."
I think some people, due to the Glazers, underappreciate how lucky the club is. How many clubs' supporters can call a 60 million investment in one transfer window underwhelming?
It's as simple as that, is it? And I don't understand how you call spunking 60 million last summer "underwhelming."
I think some people, due to the Glazers, underappreciate how lucky the club is. How many clubs' supporters can call a 60 million investment in one transfer window underwhelming?
It's not 'lucky' though is it? The club's grown to be what it is due to the hard work, belief and courage of generations of players, owners, managers and fans.
If you really want to talk about luck then lets talk about the bad luck of being struck by a bunch of leeching fecking parasites who couldn't give a shit about any of that history just so long as they get their money.
Cheers LR, I appreciate the insight.
Yes, it's down to some of those. And it's also hugely down to being able to reap rewards from being well-placed in the 90s as Sky coverage started taking off. United are now a club that are almost too big to fail because of this, whereas most other clubs don't have a hope in hell of catching up. United are a financial behemoth; to many people, like a Tesco harming every other small business in its industry. Should it work quite like this in sport? I'm not sure it should. So forgive me when I don't start complaining that we haven't spent 10 or 20 million more in a summer than we otherwise could have.
And if you're going to complain about the Glazers, why not the players? They're playing the capitalistic game, too. Sure, all of them probably like the club and want their chance at trophies, but would they be here without getting paid a feck ton of money? No, just look at the exodus at Rangers. I think it's odd to talk about morality when this is the way sport has unfortunately become, on and off the pitch. At the end of the day, most people now hate the Glazers because they think we haven't bought as many new, shiny players on 100k+ plus a week as we otherwise would have. The uproar and outrage was well-justified when it looked like the club's existence was in jeopardy, but now ...? I can't say it bothers me hugely.
If supporting a football team isn't about emotion then I don't know what it is about.
There are loads of things I'm 'not bothered hugely' about. Manchester United isn't one of them.
There are loads of things I'm 'not bothered hugely' about. Manchester United isn't one of them.
Yup.
Work
Man Utd
Alan Partridge
In that order.
EDIT: Might make a good banner that actually.
What's emotion got to do with my point? I'd much rather support the lads we have got then fannying about moaning about the Glazers all summer 'cos they're not making more football players multi-millionaires.
How was this ever allowed to happen?
Your point is increasingly looking like being about players salaries.
Strangely I couldn't give a shit about those, as if we didn't pay them the going rate there's a massive queue of other clubs all over Europe who would.
Love Glazers, Hate Players, hmm that might catch on.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. I'm not trying to take some moral stand on player salaries, I'm saying that the club pays a hell of a lot on wages and transfers to start off with, so if the main gripe and all this huff-and-puff rhetoric is that, should the Glazers not be here, Ferguson might spend a bit more every transfer window, it's all hugely over the top for me.
I mean, how much did we spend last year on transfers alone - 60 million? And at the moment we're roughly on 20 million expenditure, and with Ferguson noting that he's hopeful of "one, maybe two" signings today, at the very least he expects he can spend what, 30 million more? And I don't think there's some stipulated transfer budget either, which leads me to suspect how much Fergie is even hamstrung. Doubtless we wouldn't be competing with City and Chelsea, anyway.
However, let's imagine Fergie has this transfer budget of roughly 50 million. Combined with last season, that would be a total of 110 million. Now how much do you exactly need for all these muppet-wankery signings? He could have bought a superstar or two. But he chose not to, given the (adequate) resources that he had. It doesn't make sense to blame the Glazers for our lack of investment at centre midfield, when it's clear we could have spent a lot in that department. But Fergie chose to invest in other areas. Now I can live with that, be satisfied and still support the club, when some supporters sense of "injustice" only seems to stem from a selfish point of view ie. the fact that we didn't buy a specific brand-spanking new and expensive player that they wanted.
Do you have trouble processing thoughts that don't tow the party line?
I think 'whoosh' is the phrase.
You can never be too sure in this thread when you post something that isn't akin to verbally disembowling the Glazers ... and just to clear up, I don't like them. They're owners a club could do without. But for me, there was a huge dropoff in hatred from the threat of the club going under, to not being able to spend quite as much money.
Good for you.
I don't like the risk they have put the club under.
I don't understand how you can begrudge players for earning money for erm playing, yet don't mind them hammering the accounts for all they are worth.
I never said I begrudge the players. And the Glazers are not using the cashflow ideally from our perspective. I just have a hard time believing that I should despise them for a potential lack of transfers, which seems to be what most of the outrage in this thread and beyond is concerned with. If we're spending 50 odd mil every summer transfer window, wouldn't that have been enough for one single CM that everyone's crying out for yet blaming the Glazers for the lack thereof? I'm far more concerned with the infrastructure and general health of the club; something that we thankfully look in the clear over.
Not sure who told you to despise them.
I don't despise anyone I don't know to be fair, (in fact to clarify, I don't actually despise anyone) I do not like the risk they have put the club I have supported for 30 ish years under (As I said previously).
Another good question is: how could this STILL be allowed to happen?
Ourselves and Liverpool are the two biggest and most successful clubs in English football and should be the pride of the FA and Premier League due to our merits and achievements - yet both clubs have been victims of leveraged buy-outs; Liverpool were brought to the brink by theirs, while ours has seen over £500 million taken out of the game - all paid for ultimately by the supporters.
Despite this the exact same thing could happen again tomorrow. This should've been banned by English football the minute the Glazers plan started being put in place. Not having done so in the seven years since the Glazer takeover is grossly negligent.
Has anything come of the government's review of the game? I'm guessing that was all been forgotten in-between dull scandals involving ex-police horses.
It's as simple as that, is it? And I don't understand how you call spunking 60 million last summer "underwhelming."
I think some people, due to the Glazers, underappreciate how lucky the club is. How many clubs' supporters can call a 60 million investment in one transfer window underwhelming?
Remind us again who came in!
*Slow claps*
The players Sir Alex Ferguson identified to be the ones he wanted to play for the club and got.
These days kids with little EPL experience and no CL experience go for 12-17m. An auction between 2-3 big clubs can spiral the fee to 30-35m. So I apologize if the 50m budget spend every summer doesn't impress me that much especially, since we are still relying on nearly 40yr olds to bring some creativity in CM + our net spending is lower then the likes of Sunderland's and Spurs. Official reports show that our debt could hinder the club's ability to bring/retain key staff. So yes, the Glazer's irresponsible debt have alot to do with all that is going on.
Honestly I am sick of hearing legends moaning that players have become greedy and how things used to be conducted in the good old days. Ok they've got a point about that. However they'll be more credible if they also highlight the fact that in the good old days, owners used to be fans and they used to invest in the club rather then taking money out of it. Its a shame that a club who had been a symbol of good management for years, had ended up being choked by tons of debts saddled by ruthless owners who saw United as the ideal 'brand name' to invest on.
Devilish, could we have used most of that budget to buy a centre midfielder? Or even this year's budget? Yes - I'm sure 30-35 million would bring in a worthwhile reinforcement, don't you? So when we do spend that amount of money and a lot more on other areas of the park, we should be questioning why Fergie doesn't choose to spend in midfield rather than blaming the Glazers for it. It's obviously clear now that he hasn't seen anyone that tickles is fancy or is available. Hopefully that changes soon.
In theory we could however
a) Knowing that the old guard needs to be replaced (+ Fletch has a career threatening injury AND players like Fabio and Ando are injury prone). Would it had been a good idea to spend all the dosh in one position? By signing the likes of Smalling and Jones we sort of ensured that we wont have a defense injury crisis as witnessed in the past years + we signed promising kids, capable of replacing Vidic/Rio and who would not ask ridiculous sums of money in terms of salary. This sort of answered your question regarding why we didn't spend all the dosh in one position.
b) Not all players cost 40m. Nasri for example was at the end of his contract + Sneijder wanted to leave Inter. Unfortunately top quality midfielders are rare and these players know that. That's why they ask top dollar in term of salaries. Now are we in a financial position and break our wage structure (suffering the consequences of it) to get the CM we need?
I think that SAF's is addressing the CM problem. Kagawa's and Powell's signings are clear proof of that (both players will help the CM situation either directly or indirectly). However is it fair for the manager of the biggest club in Europe to sort of scavenge (no disrespect towards these players who are top quality) around for 'bargains' hoping that no big guy goes for them? SAF brilliance have paved the way to the Fergie babes which had contributed for over a decade of top honors with little spending. Doesn't he deserve to get the players he want? After all the club was more then happy to loan the Glazers the 10m loan they asked from it.
Glazers said that they'd give us 25 million plus marquee every few seasons. Last season we lost heaps of players, and absolutely needed investment, otherwise we wouldn't have the goalie etc. Jones was bought due to us missing out if we didn't buy him etc.
This season, we've spent around 15-16 million, plus addons. SAF has said we'll get 1 signing most likely, possibly 2. That probably means we'll be lucky to spend over 30 million.
Now, players like Moutinho are going for 25 million, Hazards and Modric's above 30 million. That's not in our budget. Looking at our profits, 111 million, I think our transfer budget ought to be much higher, even without much investment from the owners.
With the glazers, it's the opposite. They are leeching off us.
This season, we've spent around 15-16 million, plus addons. SAF has said we'll get 1 signing most likely, possibly 2. That probably means we'll be lucky to spend over 30 million.
Now, players like Moutinho are going for 25 million, Hazards and Modric's above 30 million. That's not in our budget. Looking at our profits, 111 million, I think our transfer budget ought to be much higher, even without much investment from the owners.
With the glazers, it's the opposite. They are leeching off us.
I see this has turned into the transfer muppetry thread - Im sure there are better places for that!
http://www.football365.com/f365-says/7896338/F365-Focus
In 1878, the Carriage and Wagon department of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway depot, based at Newton Heath, Manchester, formed a football club. But even Joseph, technicolour replica shirt and all, would not have dared dream that it might, some distant day, become the Pride of the Caymans. And yet, here we are.
We learnt last week that Manchester United¿ is to list on the New York stock exchange, and as with the bond offer of 2010, it has been forced by law to do something to which the Glazer family and loyal lickspittle Gill are ideologically opposed: tell the truth about the club's dangerously parlous financial state. And what a state it is.
As recently as March of this year, the delightful Mr Gill - the very same delightful Mr Gill who asserted that "debt is the road to ruin", and who promised that, in the event of a Glazer takeover, he'd be "behind the barricades" - appeared before the House of Commons' Culture, Media and Sport committee inquiry into football governance. There, he was asked about United's debt of £423m and annual interest bill of £45m. "We know it's there but it doesn't impact what we do", he claimed, tongue spontaneously splitting into separate prongs as he spoke. Tellingly, the committee responded with neither laughter nor fury.
But, thanks to the mandatory IPO prospectus, we may now - indeed have no choice but to - ridicule this swivel-eyed drivel with the vehemence it demands. "Our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health and competitive position", it confesses. "Our indebtedness increases the risk that we may be unable to generate cash sufficient to pay amounts due in respect of our indebtedness. It could also have effects on our business", it continues. No way!
Way! And guess what? The debt could "affect our ability to compete for players and coaching staff", "limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the football industry" and "increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions." Why, it's almost as if they've accepted all the things that plankton in remedial have known since 2004. Whaddaya know! Go Go Glazers! Go Go Man Utd!
So, why list in the US? Newsweek magazine was unequivocal with its explanation:
'Man Utd won't be choosing New York because Americans are gaga for the sport (just one per cent of respondents in a recent Harris Interactive poll said their favorite sport was soccer). Rather, the Glazer family, which also owns the NFL's Tampa Bay Buccaneers, will be taking advantage of the leeway America's listing standards offer companies to practice poor corporate governance.'
In the US, it's possible to issue, without penalty, different classes of share. In practice, this will allow the Glazers to sell as many as they possibly can, whilst retaining all voting rights for their little selves - in London, any business that does this is automatically excluded from various indexes. Thus, Newsweek was moved to conclude that 'there are sometimes perfectly good reasons, such as tax advantages, for buying the sort of coach-class securities that Manchester will likely offer. But winning a race to the bottom by selling out the rights of shareholders is hardly worth celebrating.'
Now this is what football - nay sport - is all about.
But who could have known, who could possibly have expected such chicanery from the children of well-respected "snake in sheep's clothing" sister-suer, Malcolm Glazer? Not the delightful Richard Scudamore, that's for sure. Indeed, the Premier League chief - or chief as he'd have been called in my school playground - declared United to be "one of the best-run clubs in the world" as recently as 2010. Still, far be it from me to criticise - he was, after all, only an "into the ground" away from the nail's head, and what are three short words between friends, eh?
Anyway, it was revealed this week that United filed last year's accounts with the New York Stock exchange, though the rules demand the most recent. Luckily, Edward Woodward - the club's executive vice-chairman, go-go-Gadget finger extending to its pulse all the way from his London office - is on hand to point out that the accounts are not overdue in Caymania. Unfortunately, it is unclear what the blithering blither this has to do with anything, but he does reveal that to present the latest balance sheet would be "impractical and involve undue hardship." Unfortunately, it is unclear what this impracticality and hardship might involve - pressing the "send" button is, after all, notoriously difficult.
These omissions leave crazy conspiracy theorists with no option other than to bark speculation at the moon. Perhaps, they howl, the club would simply prefer to file year-old accounts because it earned significantly less in 2011/12 than in 2010/11 - a league title and European Cup Final appearance versus not a league title and early European Cup Final exit, results entirely unconnected to £423m of debt, of course.
But really, the famous terrace anthem has it best:
"We are just one of those teams that you destroy now and then, we often use supporters' money to repay our debts but we seldom do anything whatsoever to benefit them. We laugh and we point and we shoo them away, we'll ignore any authorities who get in our way. We are the pride of the Caymans, the cock of the western Caribbean, we hate the listing rules, the Securities and Exchanges commission of course (and Leeds). We are United, without any doubt, we are the Wall Street boys, na na na na na na na na oooouch."
In 1878, the Carriage and Wagon department of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway depot, based at Newton Heath, Manchester, formed a football club. But even Joseph, technicolour replica shirt and all, would not have dared dream that it might, some distant day, become the Pride of the Caymans. And yet, here we are.
We learnt last week that Manchester United¿ is to list on the New York stock exchange, and as with the bond offer of 2010, it has been forced by law to do something to which the Glazer family and loyal lickspittle Gill are ideologically opposed: tell the truth about the club's dangerously parlous financial state. And what a state it is.
As recently as March of this year, the delightful Mr Gill - the very same delightful Mr Gill who asserted that "debt is the road to ruin", and who promised that, in the event of a Glazer takeover, he'd be "behind the barricades" - appeared before the House of Commons' Culture, Media and Sport committee inquiry into football governance. There, he was asked about United's debt of £423m and annual interest bill of £45m. "We know it's there but it doesn't impact what we do", he claimed, tongue spontaneously splitting into separate prongs as he spoke. Tellingly, the committee responded with neither laughter nor fury.
But, thanks to the mandatory IPO prospectus, we may now - indeed have no choice but to - ridicule this swivel-eyed drivel with the vehemence it demands. "Our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health and competitive position", it confesses. "Our indebtedness increases the risk that we may be unable to generate cash sufficient to pay amounts due in respect of our indebtedness. It could also have effects on our business", it continues. No way!
Way! And guess what? The debt could "affect our ability to compete for players and coaching staff", "limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the football industry" and "increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions." Why, it's almost as if they've accepted all the things that plankton in remedial have known since 2004. Whaddaya know! Go Go Glazers! Go Go Man Utd!
So, why list in the US? Newsweek magazine was unequivocal with its explanation:
'Man Utd won't be choosing New York because Americans are gaga for the sport (just one per cent of respondents in a recent Harris Interactive poll said their favorite sport was soccer). Rather, the Glazer family, which also owns the NFL's Tampa Bay Buccaneers, will be taking advantage of the leeway America's listing standards offer companies to practice poor corporate governance.'
In the US, it's possible to issue, without penalty, different classes of share. In practice, this will allow the Glazers to sell as many as they possibly can, whilst retaining all voting rights for their little selves - in London, any business that does this is automatically excluded from various indexes. Thus, Newsweek was moved to conclude that 'there are sometimes perfectly good reasons, such as tax advantages, for buying the sort of coach-class securities that Manchester will likely offer. But winning a race to the bottom by selling out the rights of shareholders is hardly worth celebrating.'
Now this is what football - nay sport - is all about.
But who could have known, who could possibly have expected such chicanery from the children of well-respected "snake in sheep's clothing" sister-suer, Malcolm Glazer? Not the delightful Richard Scudamore, that's for sure. Indeed, the Premier League chief - or chief as he'd have been called in my school playground - declared United to be "one of the best-run clubs in the world" as recently as 2010. Still, far be it from me to criticise - he was, after all, only an "into the ground" away from the nail's head, and what are three short words between friends, eh?
Anyway, it was revealed this week that United filed last year's accounts with the New York Stock exchange, though the rules demand the most recent. Luckily, Edward Woodward - the club's executive vice-chairman, go-go-Gadget finger extending to its pulse all the way from his London office - is on hand to point out that the accounts are not overdue in Caymania. Unfortunately, it is unclear what the blithering blither this has to do with anything, but he does reveal that to present the latest balance sheet would be "impractical and involve undue hardship." Unfortunately, it is unclear what this impracticality and hardship might involve - pressing the "send" button is, after all, notoriously difficult.
These omissions leave crazy conspiracy theorists with no option other than to bark speculation at the moon. Perhaps, they howl, the club would simply prefer to file year-old accounts because it earned significantly less in 2011/12 than in 2010/11 - a league title and European Cup Final appearance versus not a league title and early European Cup Final exit, results entirely unconnected to £423m of debt, of course.
But really, the famous terrace anthem has it best:
"We are just one of those teams that you destroy now and then, we often use supporters' money to repay our debts but we seldom do anything whatsoever to benefit them. We laugh and we point and we shoo them away, we'll ignore any authorities who get in our way. We are the pride of the Caymans, the cock of the western Caribbean, we hate the listing rules, the Securities and Exchanges commission of course (and Leeds). We are United, without any doubt, we are the Wall Street boys, na na na na na na na na oooouch."
Did we need to smash the British transfer record for a GK? No. Did we need to pay 18 odd million for a winger in the last year of his contract? No. Did we need to sign an 18 year old for 16 odd million? No. And in all their respective threads, you get people complaining that we overpaid for them and in the same breath fuming that we don't have any money! And who are these heaps of players you're talking about, the ones who were on the fringes of the squad like Gibson, Brown and O'Shea? If we add all of their transfer fees up, we get one Bebe! 7 million best saved, yet we clearly had the financial leeway to spunk money on a half-punt at best.
The priority last summer, one would have thought, would be a replacement for Scholes. I'm suggesting that it's more Fergie's influence/stubbornness/pickiness over any effect the Glazers have had, that has stopped us from buying a central midfielder. If we have a collective 50 or 60m transfer kitty each summer, surely by now we could have signed one.
And again, it's mid-July, City haven't even spent yet and looks like they need to sell to buy, yet we're moaning even though we bought one of the best players in the Bundesliga. This is what I mean about our supporters being spoilt, just because we don't spend 100 million on players every year and make the gap between us and the rest of the plebs sitting in the lower echelons of the league even wider.
The money has been there to buy a CM, yet we haven't.
The transfer fee has been, but the ages haven't.
It's all well and good saying we can £30m for a player e.g. Hazard but its useless if we don't offer a competitive wage packet to go with it.
I would be very happy if we add another CM, or if Anderson can stay healthy for that matter. Other than that I'm really pleased with this team.
We don't know if wages were the contributing factor for Hazard, but all you have to do is look at our wage bill and see that we're extremely competitive in regards to this. 153 million pounds last year, and Glazers or not we are not going to be competing with the investment of a sheikh - and even City are having to sell to buy, what with Adebayor and Kolo Toure being shipped off without yet dipping their toes in the transfer market this season.
That's relative though, isn't it? competitive to who? Chelsea and City? Even if we weren't in debt, only our proven, absolute key players would get paid 'silly' wages. I think if SAF wanted a player, he'd get the salary package needed from the club.
Absolutely. This club has to be run like a business, and if we look at our friends from the blue side of Manchester, their initial splurge was needed to catch up, and we have to begrudgingly admit that they're putting in place building blocks and infrastructure for the future to set them up to eventually be self-sufficient. They also recognise they can't keep the spending up (and don't want to, either, as the Sheikh is a businessman too). I have no idea what Chelsea are doing with their ridiculous wage bill and poor stadium, but time will tell with FFP.
Chelsea actually reduced their wage bill last time.
Yet more positive publicity for this venture:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/9400656/Setback-for-Manchester-Uniteds-IPO.html
Would the Glazers be able to change some of the arrangements prior to the actual float? For example, will they be able to alter the voting rights to something more attractive to investors, or pledge to hold the AGM that Cayman Island's registration avoids, or something to avoid potential investors making statements such as those above?
Or will they expect to raise the figure they want regardless?
The Telegraph said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/9400656/Setback-for-Manchester-Uniteds-IPO.html
Would the Glazers be able to change some of the arrangements prior to the actual float? For example, will they be able to alter the voting rights to something more attractive to investors, or pledge to hold the AGM that Cayman Island's registration avoids, or something to avoid potential investors making statements such as those above?
Or will they expect to raise the figure they want regardless?
"Investors are also worried about the club's high levels of debt and that the financial structure of the business puts its customers, the fans, at odds with shareholders. The legendary English club's millions of fans around the world have shown a strong dislike for the Glazers, who acquired the 134-year-old team in 2005 using high levels of debt."
An ironic outcome to years of campaigning against the owners? The fan's outspoken opposition to the club's debt stops the Glazers removing it.
- Status