That's worse, this guy uses his own knowledge and statistics to mislead people. As an economist (not an accountant) I do know if I'm being misled, and andersred is doing that to many many United fans. He changes his goalposts (about debt) depending on the results, for example, now that United's cash-on-hand is actually at one of it's lowest points post-Ronaldo, he's switched from gross debt to net debt (i.e. going for the higher figure) as his basecase for his arguments. This is a guy abuses peoples emotional connection to United to stir up a frenzy about injustice whilst increasing his own profile been on the radio and sky news). Ultimately, he know no better than we do.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
That's worse, this guy uses his own knowledge and statistics to mislead people. As an economist (not an accountant) I do know if I'm being misled, and andersred is doing that to many many United fans. He changes his goalposts (about debt) depending on the results, for example, now that United's cash-on-hand is actually at one of it's lowest points post-Ronaldo, he's switched from gross debt to net debt (i.e. going for the higher figure) as his basecase for his arguments. This is a guy abuses peoples emotional connection to United to stir up a frenzy about injustice whilst increasing his own profile been on the radio and sky news). Ultimately, he know no better than we do.
This is both hilarious and stupid.
He has an agenda, that is true. And he will use the statistics that best illustrate the argument that supports his agenda. But we all know what his agenda is. He signs off every single thing he writes with LUHG, so he is hardly disguising that agenda. Yes people should think critically about what he says, yes it is good that the Glazers have their own mouthpiece in the form of GCHQ, to give the other side of the argument. We all have access to both viewpoints and it is up to us to decide which we find most compelling. For me it is Anders. Changing whether you use net or gross debt to illustrate your argument is not tantamount to lying.
What part?
Do we really doubt SAF's integrity? The letter suggests that...
We are a sustainable club - We are the world's most valuable club - We have one of the world's best teams - We are one of the worlds biggest brands. disagree?
Some of us seem to be spoiled and disrespectful as well. Impossible to disagree!!
We love to tease City and Chelsea for their sugar dads- and their lack of sustainability. It seems however that we would wish to be in their place.
disagree?
The letter...
Is that the option? Owned by a leprechaun only interested in lining his pockets, or owned by a megalomaniac tycoon? Its like asking if you would rather be raped or be a rapist. Surely you can reject one without saying you wish you were the opposite. I would like United to be owned by the fans, or if not owned publicly owned so the fans have access, and so all decisions are open and accountable, and nobody is pillaging the club's resources.
I've been on the fence to a certain degree here and playing the devils advocate in a lot of debates, but this is a disgrace. They had a chance to do something worthwhile and in doing so they still would have benefited from the club increasing in value. This short term thinking is really worrisome.
I understand where you are coming from. But, do you really think we would have been, or could remain in our position as a global multi-corporation with such an ownership. And, don´t you think that this will be necessary if we are to compete with the sugar daddy clubs?
Barca manage ok.
Question for the financial experts.
Does have a debt (manageable) help us in any way with the tax breaks? How low can that amount be?
Does have a debt (manageable) help us in any way with the tax breaks? How low can that amount be?
Why not? A lot of very big clubs manage it in Europe.
As a PLC we were vulnerable, no doubt about it. The ideal structure was also the most vulnerable to predatory owners of both types (the rich control freaks and the not-so-rich exploitative types).
I do find it regrettable that so many people are willing to moan about this issue who did absolutely feck all when SU was trying to do something about it. Having a blocking stake, or better still a controlling stake, owned by a democratically run fans group like MUST, is a solution. That way you have the advantages of the PLC without the vulnerability.
And yes, I believe that structure would allow us to compete with the sugar daddy clubs. Why would we be any worse off? Do the Glazers making periodical million dollar payments to themselves out of the club's coffers get us any closer to City? They arent putting anything in, they are only using the club to enrich themselves. So them being there is hardly making us better off.
And before someone brings up what commercial wizardry they have given us, and how much more money we make from our sponsorship deals, that has all been done to death. Nobody knows what would have happened under the PLC without Glazer. I believe once we were under pressure, with City and Chelsea buying everyone in sight, we would have been forced to up our game on this side of the business. We wouldnt have surrendered our leading position easily. So once we needed to find more money to compete, we would have done so. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Maybe Glazer did it quicker. Either way, neither side of that argument is provable, it is just a question of whether you think a business that had been at the top for 15 years or something would have just accepted it as others overtook them, or whether it would have fought back. I know what I believe would have happened. And if we can get back to a PLC / fan controlled structure, we can make sure we retain the best bits of the regime we are casting off, without the bad bits - having to fund their lifestyles, other businesses or whatever.
Barca are financially fecked and they get bailed out by bank loans and an unjust tv deal just as much as Madrid do. If Spains financial system crashes they are fecked.
Or this, for the shorter version of what I just said.
The better example is the German clubs.
I agree.
But, financially they have their challenges too. The market (Forbes) has also appreciated our value and increase in value much higher than is the case for Barcelona. We are in fact the world's highest valued club.
They do seem to have internal issues as well.
I respect your views, but recognizes that I do not share them.
The people who didn't help SU, especially those who would barely notice a couple of thousand less to their wealth, let the club down. They could argue that they knew it would never succeed, but they could at least have tried, they could always have taken their money back if/when it didn't work.
Which reminds me, I have some to take back, but a final admission of defeat comes hard, even if you know it's true.
Thank you. I respect your recognition that you do not share my views. And I respect your right to have different views.
I find it inexplicable to be honest.
I have a load of money in the Phoenix Fund or whatever it is called these days. I nearly took it all out a couple of years ago, because it seemed so hard to do. There was (is?) nothing on the website about redeeming the money and I felt a bit paranoid that it was not accessible. And I thought, as you say, this war is lost, feck it, might as well get it. But then I got to the point where I was about to withdraw it, satisfied that was something I could do easily if I wanted to. And I saw it was gaining interest where it was, and I didnt need it right then. So I thought, sod it, Ill leave it. Because one day maybe it will be needed, and maybe MUST will do a better job of mobilising people.
That is what I have least faith in - peoples' ability to take their concern here to the next level, and part with a bit of cash - just a tenner or a ton or something from everyone who professes to care would have been enough. But if they didnt do it in 2005, at the top of the biggest bull market ever, then how are they going to be able to afford to do it now, with the Great Recession / Second Great Depression / whatever you want to call today's economic malaise? My fear is when the Glazers sell, we will end up in someone else's pocket.
If United had unilateral TV deals like Barca then Uniteds finances would be in great shape.
Not sure how their TV deals will look if Spains economy keeps falling though.
But like economists when did the lack of information ever stop them from making bad calls!!
I was in pretty much the same boat, had the equivalent of around 2 week's salary invested (seems a fair way of expressing it without starting a financial dick-measuring contest!). But unlike your situation, the cost of having 2 kids got me to a piont where I couldn't justify it if it wasn't doing anything constructive, so I withdrew all but a nominal hundred quid a year or do back.
If an opportunity arises to by back into the club, I will have to assess what cash I have available in addition to that £100. Would hope to be able to muster togetehr a similar amount to what I previously had.
Basically, I'm prepared to stretch my finances a little if it's of use to the club, but the PF had got to the stage where it was just a savaings account which I couldn't justify (epsecially with current interest rates!).
The only surprising thing that I see is that so many people thought bringing the debt down substantially would have any bearing on the investment or running of the club.
The owners, irrespective of debt, are going to spend as little as possible to keep us at the top. If tomorrow they paid off the debt entirely, they'd just replace the obscene financial costs with dividends. Whether the money is flowing out of the club directly to the Glazer's via dividends/bonuses, who then in turn pay off personal loans to banks, or whether it is done in the more tax-savvy way - directly to banks/investors is wholly irrelevant.
Only the most naive of fan would suddenly think they would loosen the purse strings as a result of clearing the debt.
The owners, irrespective of debt, are going to spend as little as possible to keep us at the top. If tomorrow they paid off the debt entirely, they'd just replace the obscene financial costs with dividends. Whether the money is flowing out of the club directly to the Glazer's via dividends/bonuses, who then in turn pay off personal loans to banks, or whether it is done in the more tax-savvy way - directly to banks/investors is wholly irrelevant.
Only the most naive of fan would suddenly think they would loosen the purse strings as a result of clearing the debt.
Yep.
Money will flow out either as interest payments or dividends or some other way.
It's been 7 years of the Glazers and in that time they have only strengthened their control over United.
The key thing is, they would have the option to. Servicing the debt is compulsory, creaming off dividends is not.
I've no doubt that if it got to a point where we need to to invest substantially to remain competitive and keep making money - ie it financiall made sense to the Glazers, they would want to do it. As we all agree, they are purely interested in the bottom line, after all.
However, the debt ties our hands - it means things could go wrong for us and the Glazers if such a situation arises.
For sure. If the situation arose where the money was actually going to be used for something I would probably add to it - if I could. But like you say, for now it is just sitting there. I agree with what 711 said really: it makes me feel like im doing something (even tho I know Im not really) and redeeming it would be like admitting it was over.
how people can be so naive/stupid to think there's not a real possibility of this happening is fecking beyond me.DDGFD
Indeed.
That's how I felt... hence the ton left in there to appease my conscience!
Debt interest is subtracted from EBITDA (the headline profit figure) in the calculation of taxable income. We pay corporation tax on our taxable income which is presently 25% (24% after the budget, I think)
If, for instance, our debt interest per year was £40M, that £40M would not be eligible for corporation tax, and we would save 40 x .25 = £10M per year.
What one of those questions is not valid then?
Just because it's Fergie we have to swallow what's happening?
Anders will never let the Piks go, will he?Someone should explain to him that the owners personal debts have no more to do with Manchester United than the personal debt of the owners of Arsenal have to do with their club. And I've never heard of Arsenal fans obsessing over the personal finances of their owners.
Edit: The Glazers personal circumstances might determine what they do with United in the future, but the Piks or their successor loans, if any, have no special status. Anders should just let them go. They served him well. They deserve an honourable retirement.
The bold part is true, but as you then go on to say, this emphatically does not mean personal debts have nothing to do with the club.
I'm sure in AndersRed was an Arsenal fan, and he found out that their owners were pulling every penny they could out of the club, potentially at the expense of investment, he would blog about that too.
Which renders your post entirely true, but ultimately a waste of disk space.
No but it's OK, We are one of the worlds biggest brands.
I can't believe some of what I'm hearing to be honest.
Do they give out trophies for that? We can sport it next to the 'Biggest shirt sponsor deal' cup and the notorius 'Most amount of debt accumlated' league.
But this is like the tax-free charity donations issue that's been so upsetting people recently.
At the end of the day, you're not paying the 25% tax on that money, because you are losing all 100% of it as interest.
Just as the charity thing is only a net benefit to a donor if they are pulling some kind of scam (ie dodgy charity which is actually just paying for their children's private education), the debt is only of benefit if they have rigged things up so they are acutally borrowing from themselves.
I don't pretend to be any kind of expert on this stuff and know what you can legally do in this respect, or where avoidance becomes evasion, but if they are doing anything like that, I'll certainly proclaim it as morally wrong.
Which reminds me. I presume every last penny of that fund will be used to purchase these shares?
If not, why not?
Are we going to end up kicking ourselves that fans didn't buy a stake in the club when they had the chance? Again.
That's without even getting into the ethics of taking a load of cash off fans for a specific purpose then not using that cash for the purpose intended when the opportunity arises...
Depends when you buy. It might be prudent to wait a little before they invest.
I would say the shares are priced at the high end the scale and as they have less voting rights - I am still unsure of what demand will be.
Less voting rights, no dividends, the only upside is capital appreciation and that will be constricted if the shares are priced at the high end.
I wouldn't invest.
I suspect not. On the basis the shares are non voting. I imagine MUST's position will be, "there arent real shares anyway, they dont give us control so we dont want them". MUST has a second function, after its primary function of trying to take control of the club, which is trying to ensure Glazer fails - closely related functions but they are different. And here is an example of where those imperatives diverge. Investing in this is supporting Glazer, so they wont.
All of that is what I guess their position will be.
Where is Ralph these days? Isnt he the one with the inside track on these things?
- Status