Club ownership | Senior management team talk

[Red in STL]

I didn't say it wasn't legal did I? I said we were sold down the river by greedy men and if you can't name them, you haven't been paying attention.

You said it could and should have been stopped, who could have stopped and who should have stopped it?

 

[Annihilate Now!]

How would that work? The 'government' tells the club to just stop paying interest on their debt? That's obviously not how anything works.

No, but there should have been rules in place for the last however many years that clubs with significant debt can't pay dividends.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

My urge to punch my phone screen increases when I see these rats.

A Hollywood director couldn't cast a better embodiment of a weasly villain character tbf

 

[Squeaky_Bum_Time]

Another billionaire going to grovel and kiss the ring.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

Another billionaire going to grovel and kiss the ring.

Yet we will be one of the few businesses who don't benefit by being owned by one of Trump's oligarchs

 

[Waynne]

I want to say things but I'll surely get a ban.

 

[croadyman]

Few on here have already mentioned the debt refinancing from late last year it's no surprise.

Simply put INEOS are too broke to dig the club out of the hole, the cost cuts work for a conventional business but in a competitive sport where there are multiple wealthy owners it only pushes the club further down the pecking order. If United isn't acquired by a state backed venture or a very nuanced consortium the club is finished from a financial point of view.

Sir Jim puts his own liability at risk with the development of a new stadium, it's at a point where if there's no changes in the next 12 months the league should realistically step in to enforce sanctions against the club which will ultimately force the owners out. It's not sustainable.

Wish we could find a nuanced consortium

 

[UnofficialDevil]

Of course, they won't sell now, thanks to Ratcliffe as he has given them a lifeline They were going to sell until Jim arrived.

 

[Sir Erik ten Hag]

This is actually the opposite of true. The Premier League's success in the 90s was hugely linked to United's popularity hence why Sky wanted to buy United at one point. United attract the most viewership of all the teams in the league and consistently fill their stadium. United have the most columns written about them in the media and attract the biggest number of viewers on YouTube. Where is the equivalent of Mark Goldbridge (idiot that he is) for other clubs? There isn't one. Many people in the media have their careers fundamentally linked to United's success or failure.

United is probably the only team in the league that can command a dedicated journalist with the title "Manchester United Correspondent" for each major newspaper.

A decline in United's fortunes will very likely lead to a decline in interest in the Premier League. Nobody overseas gives a shit about City and some of the other clubs occupying the top 6 right now apart from maybe Liverpool and Arsenal.

The PL's case against City is also very much a case of trying to help clubs like United that generate their own revenues. I know a lot of United supporters that simply watch less PL matches than they did before because it is painful to watch. Maybe that makes them bad supporters, sure but ultimately for the PL it means less eye balls on the league and reduction in overall sponsorship revenue. United's recent failures might in fact be tied to the stagnant value of the current broadcasting rights contract in the UK. If United were doing well it is likely the league would be in a better negotiating position for that contract.

La Liga have always known their success was tied to Real Madrid and Barcelona and hence they have that ridiculous revenue distribution model, but fundamentally it is the same. A league with a Real Madrid or Barcelona team that are not healthy / doing well is bad for La Liga.

Then why do their referees constantly feck us over these last few years? Take Casemiro for example.

 

[croadyman]

Honestly it pains me to be right. I genuinely wished I was wrong and INEOS were the dream owners. I love this club and always will. I’m a season ticket holder and go to most games.

I don’t know how we get out of this mess. Feel like we need a Qatari knight to save us now as INEOS/ Glazers won’t do it.

Yeah we are crying out for a saviour and by the looks of it only a state nation has the required funds. Just don't see how any of the NBA/NFL owners could ever afford us in a million years.

 

[Redjazz]

So we paid 1billion dollars in interest repayments and the current debt from the original buy-out is around 500million. So no change in debt from the original buy-out.

I am not including the revolving debt/credit and owing of player fees.

I find it crazy! It will not get any better with the new stadium debt.

We didn't pay 1b in interest payments. That Maguire figure includes exchange rate impacts, among other things. Haven't checked actual interest paid (from 2005) in a while but at a guess it would be around 600m.
Finance costs in Q2 of 37m.....around 35m is due to restating dollar debt ($650m) in sterling at prevailing exchange rate against what it was at the prior reporting date. Dollar strengthens- sterling amount increases, dollar weakens- sterling amount falls. Exchange rate movements will lead to finance losses or gains and neither are cash items. No money comes in or out. And the amount owed in dollars remains the same. Actual interest paid in Q2 was 7.4m. Maguire reports the 37m figure.
I am all for sticking it do the Glazers, but all of this "nuanced" reporting exacerbates this club-on-the-brink doom and gloom.

 

[Red in STL]

No, but there should have been rules in place for the last however many years that clubs with significant debt can't pay dividends.

United are a business, such regulations would have to apply to all business, not specifically football clubs, no Tory government would bring such laws in, the issues today stem mostly from 2016-2020, the Glazers were taking 20m+ in dividends a year but not paying off the debt, that's hbow it;s balloned to what it is now

 

[lex talionis]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, guess what...things have gotten worse.

 

[croadyman]

I think in hindsight the “investment/sale” fiasco we saw go down in public that brought us to INEOS was all a fiasco orchestrated to set up INEOS as fall guys. I think there would be no shortage of reputable suitors if the Glazers had a metaphorical knife to their throat and were being forced into a full sale.

Like who exactly?

 

[croadyman]

We didn't pay 1b in interest payments. That Maguire figure includes exchange rate impacts, among other things. Haven't checked actual interest paid (from 2005) in a while but at a guess it would be around 600m.
Finance costs in Q2 of 37m.....around 35m is due to restating dollar debt ($650m) in sterling at prevailing exchange rate against what it was at the prior reporting date. Dollar strengthens- sterling amount increases, dollar weakens- sterling amount falls. Exchange rate movements will lead to finance losses or gains and neither are cash items. No money comes in or out. And the amount owed in dollars remains the same. Actual interest paid in Q2 was 7.4m. Maguire reports the 37m figure.
I am all for sticking it do the Glazers, but all of this "nuanced" reporting exacerbates this club-on-the-brink doom and gloom.

Sounds like you are trying to play down just how serious our financial problems are, almost like you are saying we are overreacting to the situation

 

[Redjazz]

Sounds like you are trying to play down just how serious our financial problems are, almost like you are saying we are overreacting to the situation

Not playing them down or up. And some of you are overreacting. Our financial problems are not so serious that they can't be fixed.

 

[croadyman]

Not playing them down or up. And some of you are overreacting. Our financial problems are not so serious that they can't be fixed.

OK I am interested to hear what you think the club can do to fix these problems out of interest

 

[Sir Erik ten Hag]

Not playing them down or up. And some of you are overreacting. Our financial problems are not so serious that they can't be fixed.

They can’t be fixed if the Glazers are still here.

 

[croadyman]

They can’t be fixed if the Glazers are still here.

Yeah exactly

 

[Squeaky_Bum_Time]

Yet we will be one of the few businesses who don't benefit by being owned by one of Trump's oligarchs

100%. We’ll get the bad press and none of the benefits.

 

[Strangest Tribe]

Not playing them down or up. And some of you are overreacting. Our financial problems are not so serious that they can't be fixed.

A billion in debt, 15th in the league ( luckily there are teams shitter than us or we would be in a relegation battle) , a squad full of dross, the rats still as majority owners and let’s be honest, Jim hasn’t exactly got of to a promising start, and you think people are overreacting? That’s certainly an interesting slant on it I gotta say.

 

[RobbieBerns]

Like who exactly?

Maybe not reputable as in incredibly down to Earth common man philanthropist, but at the very least our version of a Todd Boehly, billionaire or conglomerate of major money that could take over and wipe out the debt, pledge money to cover a stadium, pledge max amount of money available to put towards the squad every year that FFP will allow. We are a top five global sporting institution to this day despite a decade of decline, and I won’t accept that there would be a lack of real, non state ownership options available should a sale become a real possibility. If real and palpable pressure was put on the Glazers to the tune of multiple games called off and revenue plummeting with a commitment to continuing it until a sale happens, you have to think the Glazers over the top valuation would have to come down to a reasonable number as well.

 

[croadyman]

Maybe not reputable as in incredibly down to Earth common man philanthropist, but at the very least our version of a Todd Boehly, billionaire or conglomerate of major money that could take over and wipe out the debt, pledge money to cover a stadium, pledge max amount of money available to put towards the squad every year that FFP will allow. We are a top five global sporting institution to this day despite a decade of decline, and I won’t accept that there would be a lack of real, non state ownership options available should a sale become a real possibility. If real and palpable pressure was put on the Glazers to the tune of multiple games called off and revenue plummeting with a commitment to continuing it until a sale happens, you have to think the Glazers over the top valuation would have to come down to a reasonable number as well.

We will never see multiple games called off after all the furore and threats from the scouse postponement. I wish we could find some kind of consortium to buy these leeches out but INEOS saved their bacon sadly so have no intention of a full sale

 

[Escobar]

Honestly, how can we be successful on the pitch with that situation and mess that looms over the club

 

[PlasticRed]

I just read the clubs annual report and although there is short term pain and the interest is 60m a year. There still a 600m a year football club underneath.

It just needs gutting and re configuring. Theres no reason why we cant sustain 150m net spend a year if they operate better, qualify for the champions league regularly.

There has been lots of mistakes along the way, the manager is under pressure. But these are all short term things. The club just needs some creativity and goal scorers to lift the mood.

 

[Lyng]

I just read the clubs annual report and although there is short term pain and the interest is 60m a year. There still a 600m a year football club underneath.

It just needs gutting and re configuring. Theres no reason why we cant sustain 150m net spend a year if they operate better, qualify for the champions league regularly.

There has been lots of mistakes along the way, the manager is under pressure. But these are all short term things. The club just needs some creativity and goal scorers to lift the mood.

The issue is that the thing that needs gutting isnt going away.

 

[PlasticRed]

The issue is that the thing that needs gutting isnt going away.

True, but there is easy upside. Just by some sensible club building they could add

+100m for Champions league TV money
+100-150m in sponsorship after some moderate success (CL participation)
+100m on matchday revenue once new stadium arrives.

That pushes us into Real Madrid territory of close to £1bn in revenue.

Its not all doom and gloom, even though the above will not happen over night.

Anybody with half a brain can get a tune out of a club that has cash flow of £600m net of interest. Issue was Glazers didnt care. INEOS do.

I mean this club is severely underperforming for decades and is STILL the 4th richest in the world. The upside is huge and untapped.

 

[MaxZorin]

'Avram Glazer insists that he won't sell Manchester United'

In fairness, if Zoidberg said yes, it'd probably do something or other to share prices or whatnot and increase scrutiny.

Don't believe a word from his gob.

I am all for sticking it do the Glazers, but all of this "nuanced" reporting exacerbates this club-on-the-brink doom and gloom.

You do surprise me.

We far far far worse in a situation than Liverpool ever been.

The point is Liverpool don't have the financial advantages of Newcastle or City's state owners yet still enjoy excellent management.

If he played for a state club, Mo would long since have his dough.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

United are a business, such regulations would have to apply to all business, not specifically football clubs, no Tory government would bring such laws in, the issues today stem mostly from 2016-2020, the Glazers were taking 20m+ in dividends a year but not paying off the debt, that's hbow it;s balloned to what it is now

The FA/Premier League can set whatever rules they want for clubs. See FFP/PSR

 

[Denis' cuff]

Authorities keeping a keen watch over what clubs can spend but totally ignoring owners systematically bleeding the club dry. Pearl-clutching when Murdoch fancied dipping his bread …

Governing bodies at every level, corrupt and at least incompetent while they have their noses buried deep in the trough

 

[OverratedOpinion]

Authorities keeping a keen watch over what clubs can spend but totally ignoring owners systematically bleeding the club dry. Pearl-clutching when Murdoch fancied dipping his bread …

Governing bodies at every level, corrupt and at least incompetent while they have their noses buried deep in the trough

I always knew that the governing bodies wouldn't get involved previously but I'm really surprised that there hasn't been a statement. The pure number of jobs that have been culled in aid of paying this amount towards an unsustainable debt/interest level.

Some opposition fans would view this as a rose tinted view but it is an absolute fact that Manchester United are one of the countries great institutions. It surely warrants at the very least a condemning statement.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

Avram Glazer insists that he won't sell Manchester United'

In fairness, if Zoidberg said yes, it'd probably do something or other to share prices or whatnot and increase scrutiny.

Don't believe a word from his gob.

He would obviously sell, just at an absurd price that no one would pay due to the state they have driven the club to.

I imagine they are holding out to see if the pressure causes Ratcliffe to inject the needed investment on terms that fully benefit the Glazers. Either that or they think that direct to consumer media rights might result in a gold rush if we can at least stay in the league for the next 3 years.

Both disgusting stances but the only ones I can see them taking.

 

[Vault Dweller]

No light at the end of a very long tunnel, I fear.

 

[wolvored]

When the premier league started you could buy a team for 10 million and they never set any ‘anti ownership’ rules up. That’s why the parasites got away with it, when they came in. Ineos are in the red on a lot of their investments. They lost over 1 billion euros in 23 after a profit the year before, according to one rag (guardian)
This probably means Ratcliffe is using his own money to prop them up. With a promise of a 2 billion pound stadium and the need to fund transfers, this will tire pretty quickly I think. I reckon if we don’t have a good season next season, then the whole house of cards will crumble and Qatar, or similar, will pick over the carcass

 

[Nogbadthebad]

He would obviously sell, just at an absurd price that no one would pay due to the state they have driven the club to.

I imagine they are holding out to see if the pressure causes Ratcliffe to inject the needed investment on terms that fully benefit the Glazers. Either that or they think that direct to consumer media rights might result in a gold rush if we can at least stay in the league for the next 3 years.

Both disgusting stances but the only ones I can see them taking.

A decade ago direct to consumer broadcasting would have made us, by far, the richest club in the world.

With the team we have now? I'm not so sure we would be the biggest beneficiaries, plenty of teams much better to watch than us for your money.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

A decade ago direct to consumer broadcasting would have made us, by far, the richest club in the world.

With the team we have now? I'm not so sure we would be the biggest beneficiaries, plenty of teams much better to watch than us for your money.

Our viewing figures are still huge. It would increase our revenues dramatically.

It wouldn't make us the richest club but it is certainly something that I can imagine the Glazers having in the back of their succubus minds as a possible method of further lining their pockets.

 

[Coops73]

When does this option to buy the rest of the club or the Glazers can sell on and make Jim sell on too come into affect?

 

[stefan92]

Our viewing figures are still huge. It would increase our revenues dramatically.

The question is would it stay that way? Every team directly marketing their matches would also mean that viewers have to decide more in detail what they want to watch.

So far United is always a big story and many neutral viewers watch them because of that when they have access to all PL matches. How many of those would keep watching if they had to pay extra for that?

I think it's likely to result in an improvement in revenue, but I think it would be a lot smaller than you expect it to be.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

The question is would it stay that way? Every team directly marketing their matches would also mean that viewers have to decide more in detail what they want to watch.

So far United is always a big story and many neutral viewers watch them because of that when they have access to all PL matches. How many of those would keep watching if they had to pay extra for that?

I think it's likely to result in an improvement in revenue, but I think it would be a lot smaller than you expect it to be.

Everything you've said there is subjective and speculative, which is fine. But the only thing we have to go on are the consistently high viewing figures. Which reflect the fact that United are commonly amongst the most followed clubs.

I think you'd be shocked at how many people would pay £20 a month to watch Utd's matches live.

Even 10 million worldwide would take our TV/Streaming rights to 2.4 billion per year.

I believe 10 million is quite a conservative figure.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Of course, they won't sell now, thanks to Ratcliffe as he has given them a lifeline They were going to sell until Jim arrived.

INEOS and glazers won’t be here together long term. It doesn’t work. The club is going to decline consistently while the glazers remain

I can only see either INEOS deciding they can’t fight against their debt and/or realising Glazers aren’t serious sellers, then leaving. Or Glazers selling up to INEOS of another before the club eats the cost of building a new stadium or revamping OT.