Has anybody stopped to think that they bought the bonds before the protests rendering that article complete tripe.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Had a great time thanks Crerand. Was totally gutted to miss four United matches (including Bebe's debut and Berba's hat-trick!) but it was good to leave it all behind and forget it all for a fortnight.
I was hoping that by the time I had got back, something more meaty about the finances would have been released (like another quarterly report or something) but this 20% PIK buyout by the Glazers is interesting.
Given that it apparently happened two years ago, I wonder why it has only just come to light though? What other tricks do they have up their sleeves which will render much of our speculation about the issue pointless?
Well either someone has been doing some digging or the Glazers leaked info themselves - we will never know for sure I suppose.
We still have no idea how much of the PIK was bought back - wouldnt be suprised to hear it was higher than 20% - clearly it made sense for them to buy as much as they could afford at the time.
I just don't see the need for it to be "dug out" or "leaked" though. Why not just announce it through David Gill at the time or something or is he really in the dark about it because, as he keeps saying, it is the Glazers' concern and not Manchester United's and so he really doesn't know the details because he doesn't need to know (and neither do we).
I still haven't had time to really sit down and absorb the ramifications of it all as far as we're concerned (I really can't quite get my head around the difference between "buying the 20%" and just paying that 20% off completely to be honest - or could this be what they have now done?)
What it does mean, however, is that a lot of the speculative calculations about what budget will be available to Fergie after Bond interest and Glazer dividends (in the region of just £5million/season in a good year according to some posters on here) have now been blown out of the water as far as I can see.
Some people ask me why I am so interested in all this financial stuff - I know it is a massive turn-off for a lot of fans but I find it absolutely fascinating to be honest and the twists and turns it takes are as compelling as any good book!
I was having a little think about the 20% PIK purchase last night, as you do, and got thinking about the Net Debt/EBITDA covenant which was breached and led to the PIK interest rate rising to 16.25% from 14.25%. I don't think it was ever confirmed but it was strongly speculated that if RFJV Ltd's Net Debt was more than 6 times its 08/09 EBITDA on June 30 2009 then the rate would rise the following August, which of course it did. RFJV Ltd Net debt was c.£560m on June 30 2009 and EBITDA for the year was £91.3m. So on the six times ratio they just missed it (Net debt would have had to be c.£548m in order to not breach the convenant with EBITDA at that level).
My point of course is that if that 6 times covenant ratio is accurate then the Glazers could have prevented the breach of the covenant if they'd cancelled their 20% share of the PIK debt before the end of the 2009 financial year. The PIK debt was c.£200m at the time so take out the 20% and RFJV Ltd's Net Debt on June 30 2009 would have been £520m instead of £560m. £520m is obviously within the 6 times ratio. The ratio would have been 5.7 instead of the 6.1 that it actually was.
So what can we take from that? The first obvious point is that we need to take a bit of a leap of faith that the covenant ratio was actually 6 times EBITDA/Net Debt and not a lower multiple such as 5X. Perhaps Andersred can help us out here because from what I can recall the source of the news about the PIK debt convenant contacted him directly. Anders, how confident are you that it was 6.0 X EBITDA/Net Debt?
If the covenant ratio was indeed 6.0 X then it raises a few pretty interesting points. For me it strongly suggests that the Glazers weren't having anything like the sort of problems dealing with the PIKs back in 2009 that so many have suggested they were (''were'' in terms of pre-bond issue when of course the breach of the convenant took place). The actual news about the 20% PIK purchase only goes to further support that view. Were the Glazers so confident about the success of the future bond issuance (or alternative refinancing) back in June 2009 that they didn't feel it made sense to cancel their 20% PIK share (and let's not forget, a very useful tax relief ''asset'') in order to stop the PIK interest rate rising the following August? Seems likely doesn't it. The calculation must have been that the benefit of retaining the 20% share of the PIK debt was of greater value to the Glazers than the additional cost of the increase in the PIK interest rate to 16.25% on the other 80% of the debt. There's also the possibility that the PIK interest rate will revert back to 14.25% if RFJV came in under the 6 times EBITDA/Net Debt ratio at the end of the 09/10 financial year. I reckon if the Glazers didn't take the £6m management fee then RFJV Ltd will have been inside the 6 times ratio as of June 30 2010. You would assume that if taking the management fee made the difference between coming inside the 6 times ratio and not doing so, that the Glazers would have decided not to have taken the management fee last year.
My point of course is that if that 6 times covenant ratio is accurate then the Glazers could have prevented the breach of the covenant if they'd cancelled their 20% share of the PIK debt before the end of the 2009 financial year. The PIK debt was c.£200m at the time so take out the 20% and RFJV Ltd's Net Debt on June 30 2009 would have been £520m instead of £560m. £520m is obviously within the 6 times ratio. The ratio would have been 5.7 instead of the 6.1 that it actually was.
So what can we take from that? The first obvious point is that we need to take a bit of a leap of faith that the covenant ratio was actually 6 times EBITDA/Net Debt and not a lower multiple such as 5X. Perhaps Andersred can help us out here because from what I can recall the source of the news about the PIK debt convenant contacted him directly. Anders, how confident are you that it was 6.0 X EBITDA/Net Debt?
If the covenant ratio was indeed 6.0 X then it raises a few pretty interesting points. For me it strongly suggests that the Glazers weren't having anything like the sort of problems dealing with the PIKs back in 2009 that so many have suggested they were (''were'' in terms of pre-bond issue when of course the breach of the convenant took place). The actual news about the 20% PIK purchase only goes to further support that view. Were the Glazers so confident about the success of the future bond issuance (or alternative refinancing) back in June 2009 that they didn't feel it made sense to cancel their 20% PIK share (and let's not forget, a very useful tax relief ''asset'') in order to stop the PIK interest rate rising the following August? Seems likely doesn't it. The calculation must have been that the benefit of retaining the 20% share of the PIK debt was of greater value to the Glazers than the additional cost of the increase in the PIK interest rate to 16.25% on the other 80% of the debt. There's also the possibility that the PIK interest rate will revert back to 14.25% if RFJV came in under the 6 times EBITDA/Net Debt ratio at the end of the 09/10 financial year. I reckon if the Glazers didn't take the £6m management fee then RFJV Ltd will have been inside the 6 times ratio as of June 30 2010. You would assume that if taking the management fee made the difference between coming inside the 6 times ratio and not doing so, that the Glazers would have decided not to have taken the management fee last year.
Gill has nothing to do with RFJV so I don't see why he would announce anything?
Re the budget for SAF I don't really see how the PIK purchase affects anything? Firstly they may not write-off the c20% they have apparently obtained and secondly the amount they can take out of the club is unchanged by this anyway.
It all comes down to P-R, I suppose. Gill must know that the PIKs have been a major source of concern even amongst those of us who don't hate the Glazers. Simply saying "it isn't Manchester United's concern" clearly wasn't enough for many of us to not be concerned about them so why not tell us back in 2008 why they were less of a concern than we have been thinking for the last two years?
Look at it this way:-
If the PIKS were spiralling out of control (as we have been led to believe they have been, by some) then the argument (by some) is that the Glazers would have put their payment above the transfer budget (my own argument has been contrary to this all along by the way but even I cannot escape the reality of an ever-growing debt burden) and, if so much was available and the Glazers had the choice of taking it as a dividend (to pay down the PIKs) or giving it to Fergie for transfers then they would have taken it and left Fergie with nothing.
This news would indicate that this situation is now much less likely to arise.
The amount they can take hasn't changed but their NEED to do so has.
The Glazers as have been proven over the last few years don't really care what the fans think about anything and won't comment on anything, negative or positive. They have had the opportunity numerous times but have spurned it.
You don't really know what their need is though. The money taken from United does not have to be used just to service the PIKs. It appears to be the cash cow in their portfolio of investments at present so funds withdrawn could be used to support other areas, which is why Anders research and coverage of their other business interests is relevant to the discussion.
You don't really know what their need is though. The money taken from United does not have to be used just to service the PIKs. It appears to be the cash cow in their portfolio of investments at present so funds withdrawn could be used to support other areas, which is why Anders research and coverage of their other business interests is relevant to the discussion.
Good post GCHQ. This is what I was trying to wrestle with last night but I couldn't get my head around the figures in the way you have.
I have said all along that a lot of these various "expenses" that the Glazers have been taking out are not set in stone and, I still maintain, are largely tax-avoidance expenses.
I still strongly believe that they will vary from year to year as the accounts dictate although a lot of people are taking them as being the same amount every year and are accounting for them in this manner.
Given how little we know about the situation with the PIKs (as this latest development has proved), it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of it has already been paid off by some of the expenses taken already.
We have all been working on the basis of something in the region of £220million purely because there has been no evidence to the contrary but they could quite easily be less than £100million right now.
I can't disagree with this (although I would suggest that certain parties on our side of the fence haven't exactly been behaving in a manner condusive to productive discussion either!) but I think they have a point in some respects. What should matter most of all to us is what goes on on the field and that has been pretty fantastic since 2005 (yeah, yeah, I know, I know... "nothing to do with the Glazers"
) but if the PIKs really do have nothing to do with us then it could also be like David Gill coming on MUTV and saying, "Great news folks... one of First Allied's malls announced record profits this year" - we'd all be like, "Uh? So what?"Who the hell mentioned Anders? Who said his research isn't relevant? What I will say is this: if they have a business that is losing money with no hope of recovery, they will ditch it and not keep it going with "United money" in order to keep it afloat. Why would they do this? As you have just said yourself, they don't care what people think of them so they won't keep a failing business going just to "save face" - they will let it sink and keep the money in their pockets instead.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for them to take their £25million dividend and use it to prop up a doomed mall instead of paying down those PIKs, though.
As far as their "need" is concerned - they NEED to service those PIKs or they lose control of United (this is the general understanding). Why the hell would they risk losing an asset they value in excess of £1.5billion for the sake of a PIK debt in the region of £150million?
What has happened here is that their absolute need to take every last penny they can out of United (if this was ever the case) in order to service the PIKs is now significantly less than we previously believed.
One question I have about the PIKS now (if anyone knows about this stuff) is this:
Reading the last several pages, it would seem that the Glazers can't pay the PIKs off in some kind of preferential order (i.e. pay off the 80% but leave their own 20% unpaid until after 2017) but, as the owners of those notes, could they not change their terms? i.e. make them repayable at a much later date and at a nominal interest rate (say 0.001% or something?).
This would make the recent interest hike actually less in real terms - we have been assuming that 100% of the PIK debt was now 16% but it is only 80% at 16% which, if they are able to rewrite the terms of the PIK, could mean that 100% of the PIKs is actually lower than the original 14% at this stage (if you see what I mean!).
Dunno if this is possible.
Reading the last several pages, it would seem that the Glazers can't pay the PIKs off in some kind of preferential order (i.e. pay off the 80% but leave their own 20% unpaid until after 2017) but, as the owners of those notes, could they not change their terms? i.e. make them repayable at a much later date and at a nominal interest rate (say 0.001% or something?).
This would make the recent interest hike actually less in real terms - we have been assuming that 100% of the PIK debt was now 16% but it is only 80% at 16% which, if they are able to rewrite the terms of the PIK, could mean that 100% of the PIKs is actually lower than the original 14% at this stage (if you see what I mean!).
Dunno if this is possible.
Others have said that looking at the malls etc was irrelevant.
They have other businesses, and may have new ventures that they need start up capital for. It's a far more complicated scenario then you are trying to make out.
As has been discussed, the news does nothing to assuage any of the issues the fans have with the current ownership, however you try and spin it.
Well quote THEM next time!
This is something that I have been thinking about for some time. We are all looking forward to the day when all this PIK shit is out of the way and the "true" picture of Manchester United's finances are crystal clear.
One thing I would hate is if the Glazers then took on a shitload more debt in order to support a new venture and this then became a burden on United's finances in some way or another.
I CAN see this kind of thing happening but then I try to think of the kind of business that would make such a thing worthwhile for them. It would have to be something pretty massive (the idea of leveraging is to always move on to something bigger) and perhaps not even workable from within the constraints of the profits they can take from United as dividends (it would likely require the sale of United in order to provide the start-up capital which would please many people, no doubt).
Sports franchises can be very lucrative if you get the right one (and United IS the right one - it is the biggest in the world) because they are largely recession-proof businesses and they will have learned from the problems with First Allied of the value of this.
I can't dismiss the possibility that the Glazers will start up further business ventures in the future but I just don't think they will impact upon Manchester United in the way you suggest. What they can take from Manchester United is restricted and is likely to be for as long as there is a Bond Issue in place.
What money they will take will be used to pay down the PIKs until they are paid off and beyond that is difficult to see at the moment.
I try not to get too involved with spin really. I am not on the bloody payroll as a P-R guy or something. I am here to get the truth. Are we in the shit or aren't we? Are things as bad as some people say or aren't they? Are we £500million in debt or £1billion? Are players being sold in order to service the debt or not? Are players being bought on the cheap because we can't afford more expensive players? etc etc etc
TheMancRedDevil; said:
How can you possibly say that so decisively? No one knows what their plans are.
You have to look at it from a business pov.
What business could pay them more in profits than the PIKs are costing them in interest?
If they CAN start a business with their dividends from United and generate more profits than the PIK interest then that is good for us (because they can pay their debts from that profit) if they can't then, again, their NEED to use "United money" increases.
The fact is datura, whoever was in charge, no one would know THEIR plans either. Football is fraught with uncertainty by its very nature. I just believe that, all things considered, the owners we have are slightly predictable (and preferable for it) because we know their motives - making money.
Whatever makes them the most money is their plan. The way for them to make the most money from Manchester United is to make United the biggest and the best it can be.
Their motives are in alignment with our own.
I am looking at it from a business pov, just a slightly more sophisticated one than you it seems.
You keep on banging on about 'facts' and seeing the 'truth' yet you make definitive statements on the basis of what makes 'sense'.
The owners so far have been rather unpredictable and there may well be good business reasons for keeping the PIKs unpaid as yet relating to the tax structure of their group.
Their motives don't align with ours at all, what an absurd statement. Why do you think the majority of fans are against them??!
Don't you get it yet? United is paying the 16.5% interest on the 80% of the PIK's not the glazers- and on top of that you also have the pleasure of paying 16.5% interest directly into the glazers pockets on the other 20% of the PIK's that the fans kindly purchased on their behalf!!
And I forgot to add- triple fecked because you also owe the full 100% of the principal when the PIK's become due!
In what way? Start a business? What business? What business can they start with £25million divs from United (and pay off their debts at the same time) that will grow into something worth more than £1.5billion inside a few years? There's nothing sophisticated about what you're saying at all.
What you said was this:-
I ask you again. What could they start up in the next seven years that has the potential to make them more money than Manchester United?
By some people's reckoning, they put feck all into buying United yet are a whisker away from owning a £1.5billion asset at the moment.
But you speak of "other ventures" that they will start up in a very sophisticated manner.
If the above doesn't make any sense to you then I can't help you further.
I think the Glazers are quite predictable in a lot of ways. The problem I have is the same as many on my side of the fence - we have no proof until after the event. If I had said a few years ago that the Glazers could buy up some of the PIK notes at a discounted rate due to a global recession, not only would I be Nostradamus but I would also be laughed off the forum and commanded to produce proof of this.
The fact is, datura, these people are entrepreneurs. Where the rest see doom and gloom, they see opportunity (after the event, the likes of Anders call it "luck").
They were "lucky" that there was a global recession because this enabled them to buy up 20% of the PIKs at a heavily discounted rate.
If there wasn't a recession, they would have been able to refinance at a lower interest rate (and so that would have been "lucky" too, no doubt).
The overall effect would probably have been largely the same.
This is what they do. The individual steps they take at any one moment in the future may well be unpredictable but the general direction they take is only what I would expect - it is the path towards maximising revenue and value of the asset but it is not cast in stone - they move according to the prevailing economic climate.
We should be glad of this. Unlike how some people would have us believe, we are not being owned by a bunch of garden gnomes but a group of savvy and well-advised businessmen.
I think I have said a hundred times why the majority of fans are against them but I am always accused of being condescending and insulting so I won't repeat it again.
If Manchester United being the biggest and the best it can be is not in alignment with what we want then what else is?
I know there are a lot of fans who claim not to be glory hunters and would support United through thick and thin because they have done it before but the fact of the matter is that there are now an awful lot of fans who only know of a successful Manchester United.
Anyone under the age of around 30 will probably not remember a time when we weren't winning Premier Leagues and such.
United has almost become a victim of its own success. Second place is not an option for us any more and it is hard to envisage a scenario where we would accept it again in the future.
We want the club to continue to be contesting at the top end of the Premier League, winning the odd Carling Cup, FA Cup and Champions League and generally going into games as favourites.
United has become synonymous with success.
The Glazers will want to keep it that way because businesses also want to be associated with success which enables us to attract the bigger sponsorship/commercial deals which obviously means bigger profits.
As I say, their aims are in alignment with ours. It's not an absurd statement and you know it.
In what way? Start a business? What business? What business can they start with £25million divs from United (and pay off their debts at the same time) that will grow into something worth more than £1.5billion inside a few years? There's nothing sophisticated about what you're saying at all.
I ask you again. What could they start up in the next seven years that has the potential to make them more money than Manchester United?
By some people's reckoning, they put feck all into buying United yet are a whisker away from owning a £1.5billion asset at the moment.
But you speak of "other ventures" that they will start up in a very sophisticated manner.
If the above doesn't make any sense to you then I can't help you further.
There are many business that they could acquire that would make them significant profits. In the current market anyone with cash is in a unique position, as proven with the PIKs losing their value so much. You have a very naive viewpoint that United is the be all and end all when it actually is a relatively small business in terms of value and profit.
You are just repeating what others have posted. In reality no one knows what they would have been able to refinance the bond at. The level of debt at United would be a concern and it would still be at a premium.
It is absurd. Their aims are not in line with ours. They want to make money out of the club, pure and simple, and at the expense of the fans.
Supporting United is not about success at all. Surely you don't believe that?
I don't know the ins/outs of the PIK's (obviously), but if they owe the PIK debt themselves, I assume the terms can be changed if and when they want. Maybe not ethically, but who is going to bring a court action against them? The Man Utd board certainly aren't going to. To put it straight the Glazers won't legally have to force themselves to accept payment of a debt. My only concern was articulated by Redjazz earlier in this thread:
That's a bit rich coming from the caf's own queen of hissy fits. In fact, it sounds like you're having one right now, brad.
Lucky you're not running this place though, aint it?
For you, yes. Although I know for a fact if one admin had their way, you would have been canned
Shame the big Irish guy hasn't come along and gone above everyones heads with it if you ask me
Wouldn't surprise me if you've got a little DD shrine in your bedroom covered in the white stuff
I just see the Glazers as people who have an affinity for sports brands and they now own the biggest and the best.
They may decide to dabble in other areas but their First Allied company will surely act as a deterrent until the economy picks up.
In any case. I thought the argument was that the Glazers weren't cash-rich?
What cash do they have to buy up such businesses? Their £25million United divs if some are to believed but they apparently need all these to pay off their PIKs.
I am posting my opinions and these have been my opinions since the outset. I have taken onboard a lot of what others have said and that may be coming through in what I post because they have gone some way to forming my opinion.
The level of debt at United remains the Bond Issue and that is not a concern at all.
£45million a year out versus £300million a year in.
The big figure (£520million), to anyone with a brain should not be a concern. It is completely irrelevant in the day to day operation of Manchester United. It is just a figure on a spreadsheet.
Had the credit crunch not happened then there is no doubt in my mind that they would have been able to refinance those PIKs at a lower interest rate at some point in the last few years.
Given that this option was unavailable to them then what they appear to have done was the next best option available to them. Surely you appreciate this?
Ok. Well dress it up how you want then. The fans obviously want to pay less for the tickets but the fans also want to see us buy the best players.
Just look at the cries of indignation around this forum when we are "beaten" to the signature of a transfer muppet favourite.
The fans also want us to pay the highest wages and pay the largest transfer fees.
The fans want us to win every match and win every trophy every season.
If a player wants us to pay them higher wages, the fans say "give it to them, they are worth it" without regard to the knock-on effect it would have to our wage structure and the ticket prices.
And you call ME naive?
Sorry. What I say is NOT absurd. It is based on the reality of the situation.
Supporting a football team, whichever it is, is about what YOU want it to be about. You have no right to tell me or anyone else what it is about. You get what you want out of it and I will get what I want out of it. I pay my money and invest the time and emotional energy just the same as you.
I'm not really going to get into this discussion but I first became a Manchester United fan around 1975 when I was about five years old. I was from Manchester and I liked "The Red Devil" thing. That was the only reason I became a United supporter as opposed to a City supporter.
As the years went by, my affinity with the club grew (because I looked for their results and "followed" them) and as Manchester United became successful again, my pride in my team of choice grew.
I don't claim to have been there during the Busby Babes era because I wasn't born. I don't claim to have been standing in the terraces during the 70s and 80s because I wasn't old enough to go alone and had no one to take me.
Nowadays, Manchester United are one of the premier clubs in Europe if not the world and I want them to stay there. Please don't try to make out that this is some kind of glory hunter thing, it isn't.
Football is about competition. Two teams face each other and the object is to put the ball in the net more times than the opponents. There is no more to it than that. It is not about "where I am from" (I was born and raised in Miles Platting) it is about wanting to see your team win, for me.
If we win enough games, we win trophies and that IS what fans love the most, regardless of what you say. Every fan of every team wants to see their team achieve success (although success is relative to the expectations of the individual club's fans).
As United supporters, we are in a fantastic position where our team goes into every competition with a very real chance of winning it. It doesn't always happen but look at the joy when it does happen and look at the misery when it doesn't happen and tell me that it doesn't matter.
Surely you don't believe that five years without winning a trophy would not have you and thousands of others on here posting something about the owners, the management, the coaching or the players?
There's something in the Bond Issue document about the "Virtuous Cycle" (I think that is what it is called). It is a very simplistic and naive way of looking at it but I do believe that it is something that the Glazers aspire to achieving at Manchester United.
I'd have been booted off here if it was down to one mods' discretion too - he told me so!
I don't give a feck and I doubt ciderman does either. It's either a discussion board for free exchange of views and ideas or a moderated chat where everyone is in agreement all the time.
If it became the latter, the site would be dead within a few months.
There is definitely a groundswell of fans who wouldn't mind seeing the club have a period of underachievement to root out some of the glory hunters and erase the sense of entitlement that many fans have developed.
I can't really understand your position, or any of your arguments and can't really be bothered reading a wall of text anytime I ask a simple question so will take leave of this one.
I can't really understand your position, or any of your arguments and can't really be bothered reading a wall of text anytime I ask a simple question so will take leave of this one.
And I can't understand that position either.
If the Glazers are as bad as you say, maybe you will get your wish, What's your problem?
Fair enough. I'll try to keep my responses to you to one or two words next time. You might not like the words I choose though.
Put a sock in it, brad.
You are right to point out that the Glazers primary motivation is making money – however that does not mean that their interests are not aligned with the interests of the fans.
The Glazers want success on the pitch to maximise their own returns - a full stadium is also integral to their business plan - and a strong squad with top class players are required to attract fans, sell merchandise and achieve success.
The main area where interests are not aligned is in ticketing policy.
I agree that the motivations of the owners is very different to that of the fans, but it is pretty clear to me that a lot of common ground in what both sides ultimately want.
That depends how much success on the pitch costs them. It may be that finishing 4th every season makes them a bigger profit than chasing after big name buys/increasing the wage bill.
Again, not true. Making the most money out of ticket sales is actually what they want. If prices are increased significantly and the attendance reduced marginally, I'm sure they'd go for that. They certainly don't care about whether seats are full or not.
Again, it's a cost/benefit decision. If by spending £80m on, say, Kaka will increase merchandise and TV rights by, say, 5% it's not worth it for them.
It's been a lot more than that that's been going out the club.
I'd have been booted off here if it was down to one mods' discretion too - he told me so!
I don't give a feck and I doubt ciderman does either. It's either a discussion board for free exchange of views and ideas or a moderated chat where everyone is in agreement all the time.
If it became the latter, the site would be dead within a few months.
Good post, at the end of the day everybody is entitled to their opinon
The Buccs?
"Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the NFL team run by the Glazer family who also own Manchester United, suffered a TV "blackout" on Sunday, their 17-14 victory over Randy Lerner's Cleveland Browns prohibited from being broadcast on local television because they failed to sell all the tickets. The blackout rule is aimed at ensuring stadiums are full, yet for that first game of the season, just 41,554 fans turned up, a record low in the Bucs' 12 years at the 65,900-capacity Raymond James Stadium.
That acreage of 24,000 empty seats, an unprecedented expression of supporter disillusionment, is blamed by many on the Glazers' reduction of investment in the team, who won the Super Bowl in 2003, made the play-offs in 2005 and 2007, yet have since slumped, finishing bottom of their division last season with a dismal 3-13 record (ie won three, lost 13)."- Guardian
However, if by selling a player for 80 million, say , Ronaldo will increase their profit by 200% that's what they would do.
I find it very satisfying that the glazers nfl team is suffering from poor ticket sales.
I can't explain how much I hate our ownership situation.
I can't explain how much I hate our ownership situation.
Bloody hell. The thread's been taken over by Hans Christian Andersen wannabes!
Why exactly? Because he's got a different opinion on certain things?
Yeah, as Ralphie rightly points out, we must respect those who hate Glazer because they're our fellow United fans; but of course, those who hate Glazer need not respect us fellow United fans who happen to oppose their views, because we're just cnuts, obviously. It's a reasonable expectation and one which i'm very suprised that the admin on here haven't integrated into caf policy. If only brad was running the place (and one gets the impression that he spends most his waking hours wishing he was doing just that) then we might have gotten rid of all this unnecessary and wholly undesirable open debate and freedom of speech stuff a long time a go and established in its place a good old fashioned dictatorial hotbed of enforced imparity; basically we'd be allowed to voice brad's opinions in our own words, or at least, we'd be allowed to voice brad's opinions in words previously approved by brad; if only, eh? We can but dream.
- Status