General Glazer Discussion | To receive the majority of £11m stakeholder dividend today

JPRouve said:
It's fair to criticize the Glazers and point the fingers at their shortcomings but it's not fair to act as if success in Football was a given, that money was the only thing needed and competency easy to find because it's not. United found success with SAF who was extremely competent, he did it with shareholders that were taking the same proportion of dividends and had a more stringent wage structure, before that United went nearly two decades without actual success or at least had similar results then we currently have.

To me is pretty clear that they are clueless, the only question that I have and it has been rumoured is whether they are as useless as real estate investors, the rumour is that Malcolm competency wasn't passed to his offsprings.
Click to expand...
He was the cutthroat business man wasnt he. I wonder if he would have allowed woodwards reign to last so long
 
Don't know how they've been allowed to get away with it for so long, wasn't there an anti-glazer clause put in the sale of Chelsea by UK government? Shows how wrong it is what they're doing to the club
 
I'm starting to honestly consider whether the Glazers actually bought Manchester United to intentionally sabotage it. Maybe they were secret Liverpool supporters who had a plan to destroy the club while sucking as much money as they could out of it. It's tough to imagine an ownership group doing more damage to a club then these cretins have done over the past decade.
 
JPRouve said:
I wouldn't say that they no intention of running a good football club because it's easy to forget that most clubs underachieve in relation to investment made and most owners even extremely wealthy ones never find the solution. I have mentioned it several times and people don't really care, this applies to the Edwards family and Manchester United.

It's fair to criticize the Glazers and point the fingers at their shortcomings but it's not fair to act as if success in Football was a given, that money was the only thing needed and competency easy to find because it's not. United found success with SAF who was extremely competent, he did it with shareholders that were taking the same proportion of dividends and had a more stringent wage structure, before that United went nearly two decades without actual success or at least had similar results then we currently have.

To me is pretty clear that they are clueless, the only question that I have and it has been rumoured is whether they are as useless as real estate investors, the rumour is that Malcolm competency wasn't passed to his offsprings.
Click to expand...


I'd have to agree with this, if Malcolm had popped his clogs a few years earlier then non of this would have happened, his kids are just here for the ride, it was thier dad that knew how to get things done, but most importantly how to make things work, which his kids so clearly don't. I'm only thankful that Malcolm was there in the early days of the PIK and major financial risk or we could have really been trouble.

We've basically ended up with the worst of all worlds.
 
We will never win the PL or the CL as long as the Glazers own and run the club. We will find it increasingly difficult to finish top 4. This must be evident to all adults in this forum.
 
Cathy Ferguson said:
We will never win the PL or the CL as long as the Glazers own and run the club. We will find it increasingly difficult to finish top 4. This must be evident to all adults in this forum.
Click to expand...

Yes it's obvious, but it's the blind faith that'll keep the money coming in, and the Glazers staying. A couple of signings and we'll all be back in our box for while.
 
I read comments about people going over there and lynching them - either here or on twitter. Not my instinct as a pacifist.

However United means a lot to a lot of people (millions, maybe billions? Going by crude social media stats). I can kind of understand the emotions but not the sentiment. Looking at it subjectively they have ripped the soul out of the club, fecked our chances of being a top club, and (even after social media briefings about restructuring) we are literally nowhere near the top. All to put money in their pockets through dividends. I understand the feelings to an extent, as an important UK institution this ownership should be looked at by the government, They should not have the right to own us .
 
JPRouve said:
I wouldn't say that they no intention of running a good football club because it's easy to forget that most clubs underachieve in relation to investment made and most owners even extremely wealthy ones never find the solution. I have mentioned it several times and people don't really care, this applies to the Edwards family and Manchester United.

It's fair to criticize the Glazers and point the fingers at their shortcomings but it's not fair to act as if success in Football was a given, that money was the only thing needed and competency easy to find because it's not. United found success with SAF who was extremely competent, he did it with shareholders that were taking the same proportion of dividends and had a more stringent wage structure, before that United went nearly two decades without actual success or at least had similar results then we currently have.

To me is pretty clear that they are clueless, the only question that I have and it has been rumoured is whether they are as useless as real estate investors, the rumour is that Malcolm competency wasn't passed to his offsprings.
Click to expand...

They did get his wonderfully luscious hair and good looks though.

Can't win 'em all.
 
I know our Government is a joke but what the Glazers are doing to a national institution surely deserves some kind of action? It has been clear from day one that their intention is to take out of the club, one of the great institutions of the country and a huge tourist attraction. At what point do they get involved?

A pipe dream for such a joke of a Government but it's a fantasy of mine.
 
[
Tom Cato said:
You can ask that same question regarding why other american club owners have NOT taken dividends from their respective clubs, for example Arsenal and Liverpool.

I get what you are saying, but there is a big practical and cultural difference when it comes to a professional football club in Europe, vs. a company that only exists to create a service and cash surplus for investment.

Companies are in their right to not pay out dividends. And quite frankly they very often choose not to, be it in times of financial hardship, general underperformance or a need for shareholder investment that makes paying dividends in the short term a very bad optics move.

While the Glazers are in their right, technically, to extract dividends from the clubs profits, the optics are god awful, and the damage to the club itself, their asset, is big.

Firstly, taking dividends from the clubs cashreserve directly impacts the clubs ability to negotiate the transfer market, invest in infrastructure without adding extra loans and generally anything else you can do with £11 million pounds in the short term.

Manchester United is strongly in the category of "generally underperforming". A good club owner would provide both financial leadership and provide a will to invest in the club. The Glazers have not invested a dollar into Manchester United.

The moreover important takeaway from the Glazer family taking dividends while no one else does is the message it displays to sponsors, fans, players, and really anyone involved in the club: The owners do not give two shits about you. Its business first, and sporting results last. Unfortunately dividends impact sporting results in the long and short term, and you can make a simple argument that taking dividends at the current situation is incredibly reckless.

Other club owners invest massively in their clubs and generate income through their extended corporate portfolio by assosciation, not directly removing money from the clubs they own. The reason they dont is that A) It shows they dont need money. Billionaires generally like to flex muscles in their competing market. The Glazers taking money out every year to spread among the Glazer family shareholders first and foremost is indicative of a weak owner who relies on the comparatively small money vs club value that they need to get the cash for their private holdings.

Everyone would be significantly better off with the Glazers attempting to unload to club to Sir Jim Ratcliffe or a collection of partners that are willing to take the clubs in its current financial state.

Lastly, its about tradition and values. Siphoning money from clubs is simply not something football club owners do. Except for ours. Instead of "expecting them to" take dividends, let us rather consider why no one else does. Its certainly not because they are not able to.

When Daniel Ek placed a £2bn bid for Arsenal, Stan Kroenkes answer was "No, I dont need money". - Its a shame the parasites awarding themselvs dividends in our club are not as financially strong.
Click to expand...
Great post.
 
What a great day for all United supporters. The Glazers get their dividend payment while nothing got done to strengthen the squad, with the hope of at least contending for (let alone actually winning) a major trophy.
 
So we can all agree that the Glazers are terrible owners. A good bit of the fanbase are less apathetic these days. I give them less than two years till they are driven out. Unfortunately we haven't hit rock bottom with them yet.
 
Glazers gives dividend for many reasons:
1. Keeps shareholders happy so less shares are sold therefore shares price does not tank
2. If shares price does not tank then the networth of Utd doesn't shrink
3. Anyone would need more money to accumulate the shares

Imagine they decided not to give out dividend, some investors are unhappy and start selling the shares then it is disadvantage to them. Look at it this way, Glazers will continue to give dividend as long as Utd is profitable. If the results doesn't come in with ETH, profit will drop and dividend will stop. 110-120 million, I would go a secure FJD and Antony now. If we manage to sell a few players then I will buy a DM or a striker. Let's get these 2 transfer done ASAP.
 
That’s just the dividend. How much did some of them make selling shares recently in a club they haven’t actually finished paying for?
 
lex talionis said:
What a great day for all United supporters. The Glazers get their dividend payment while nothing got done to strengthen the squad, with the hope of at least contending for (let alone actually winning) a major trophy.
Click to expand...

Even harder to stomach when you see City and Arsenal both completing deals whilst we continue to play the long game
 
Tom Cato said:
You can ask that same question regarding why other american club owners have NOT taken dividends from their respective clubs, for example Arsenal and Liverpool.

I get what you are saying, but there is a big practical and cultural difference when it comes to a professional football club in Europe, vs. a company that only exists to create a service and cash surplus for investment.

Companies are in their right to not pay out dividends. And quite frankly they very often choose not to, be it in times of financial hardship, general underperformance or a need for shareholder investment that makes paying dividends in the short term a very bad optics move.

While the Glazers are in their right, technically, to extract dividends from the clubs profits, the optics are god awful, and the damage to the club itself, their asset, is big.

Firstly, taking dividends from the clubs cashreserve directly impacts the clubs ability to negotiate the transfer market, invest in infrastructure without adding extra loans and generally anything else you can do with £11 million pounds in the short term.

Manchester United is strongly in the category of "generally underperforming". A good club owner would provide both financial leadership and provide a will to invest in the club. The Glazers have not invested a dollar into Manchester United.

The moreover important takeaway from the Glazer family taking dividends while no one else does is the message it displays to sponsors, fans, players, and really anyone involved in the club: The owners do not give two shits about you. Its business first, and sporting results last. Unfortunately dividends impact sporting results in the long and short term, and you can make a simple argument that taking dividends at the current situation is incredibly reckless.

Other club owners invest massively in their clubs and generate income through their extended corporate portfolio by assosciation, not directly removing money from the clubs they own. The reason they dont is that A) It shows they dont need money. Billionaires generally like to flex muscles in their competing market. The Glazers taking money out every year to spread among the Glazer family shareholders first and foremost is indicative of a weak owner who relies on the comparatively small money vs club value that they need to get the cash for their private holdings.

Everyone would be significantly better off with the Glazers attempting to unload to club to Sir Jim Ratcliffe or a collection of partners that are willing to take the clubs in its current financial state.

Lastly, its about tradition and values. Siphoning money from clubs is simply not something football club owners do. Except for ours. Instead of "expecting them to" take dividends, let us rather consider why no one else does. Its certainly not because they are not able to.

When Daniel Ek placed a £2bn bid for Arsenal, Stan Kroenkes answer was "No, I dont need money". - Its a shame the parasites awarding themselvs dividends in our club are not as financially strong.
Click to expand...

Super post.
 
Cathy Ferguson said:
We will never win the PL or the CL as long as the Glazers own and run the club. We will find it increasingly difficult to finish top 4. This must be evident to all adults in this forum.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the jokers in the FDJ thread who think we're being shrewd and diligent in our transfers.

They don't even realise it's the whole Maguire saga all over.
 
Every economic and football statistic of the club is now worse than ever and they still get paid. Yep we've wasted a lot of money on transfers. However the transfers are decisions made by the club and they own/run the club. There are no positive statistics for this club, but they will always be paid. They take on no risks, it's simply a glorified ATM.
 
Im not a businessman by any stretch of the imagination and maybe this is too simplistic a take on it. I would reckon the glazers are between 50 to 70 years old. They take about 30 million out a year in dividends, which if they all get the lot and the same, equals 5 million apiece. If they sold it tomorrow for 3 billion, lock stock and barrel, debt to be paid by buyer, they would all get 500 million a piece. They wont live long enough to receive this amount by taking dividends, so being money grabbing parasites, why dont they sell up? Cant understand it myself.
 
Who loaned money to the Glazers for their leveraged buyout?
 
I could be wrong but someone doesn’t choose their dividend pay out, it’s based on financial performance of the business they have shares in. The dividends would have been pre agreed prior to the financial year and locked with all same-class shareholders having same rights

Many people saw the Glazer’s floating the club and offering shares to be a good thing when it happened. Dividends is what a company that has shareholders is obliged to give. This seems a bit like fish complaining that it’s wet

Potentially they’re looking for investors for stadium improvements. Why would anyone want to invest in company that legally reneged on shareholder owed dividends because it upset there Caf?

Declining dividends, while possible, causes tax complications as HMRC simply tax the club based on additional income of £11m.

It really is a spectacularly small fry issue but it’s evidently very effective at whipping up the crowd
 
Last edited:
Tom Cato said:
You can ask that same question regarding why other american club owners have NOT taken dividends from their respective clubs, for example Arsenal and Liverpool.

I get what you are saying, but there is a big practical and cultural difference when it comes to a professional football club in Europe, vs. a company that only exists to create a service and cash surplus for investment.

Companies are in their right to not pay out dividends. And quite frankly they very often choose not to, be it in times of financial hardship, general underperformance or a need for shareholder investment that makes paying dividends in the short term a very bad optics move.

While the Glazers are in their right, technically, to extract dividends from the clubs profits, the optics are god awful, and the damage to the club itself, their asset, is big.

Firstly, taking dividends from the clubs cashreserve directly impacts the clubs ability to negotiate the transfer market, invest in infrastructure without adding extra loans and generally anything else you can do with £11 million pounds in the short term.

Manchester United is strongly in the category of "generally underperforming". A good club owner would provide both financial leadership and provide a will to invest in the club. The Glazers have not invested a dollar into Manchester United.

The moreover important takeaway from the Glazer family taking dividends while no one else does is the message it displays to sponsors, fans, players, and really anyone involved in the club: The owners do not give two shits about you. Its business first, and sporting results last. Unfortunately dividends impact sporting results in the long and short term, and you can make a simple argument that taking dividends at the current situation is incredibly reckless.

Other club owners invest massively in their clubs and generate income through their extended corporate portfolio by assosciation, not directly removing money from the clubs they own. The reason they dont is that A) It shows they dont need money. Billionaires generally like to flex muscles in their competing market. The Glazers taking money out every year to spread among the Glazer family shareholders first and foremost is indicative of a weak owner who relies on the comparatively small money vs club value that they need to get the cash for their private holdings.

Everyone would be significantly better off with the Glazers attempting to unload to club to Sir Jim Ratcliffe or a collection of partners that are willing to take the clubs in its current financial state.

Lastly, its about tradition and values. Siphoning money from clubs is simply not something football club owners do. Except for ours. Instead of "expecting them to" take dividends, let us rather consider why no one else does. Its certainly not because they are not able to.

When Daniel Ek placed a £2bn bid for Arsenal, Stan Kroenkes answer was "No, I dont need money". - Its a shame the parasites awarding themselvs dividends in our club are not as financially strong.
Click to expand...

this
 
stw2022 said:
I could be wrong but someone doesn’t choose their dividend pay out, it’s based on financial performance of the business they have shares in.

Many people saw the Glazer’s floating the club and offering shares to be a good thing when it happened. Dividends is what a company that has shareholders is obliged to give. This seems a bit like fish complaining that it’s wet

Potentially they’re looking for investors for stadium improvements. Why would anyone want to invest in company that legally reneged on shareholder owed dividends because it upset there Caf?

Declining dividends, while possible, causes tax complications as HMRC simply tax the club based on additional income of £11m.

It really is a spectacularly small fry issue but it’s evidently very effective at whipping up the crowd
Click to expand...

May I ask why other owners of clubs in a similar situation to ours don't take dividents?
 
wolvored said:
Im not a businessman by any stretch of the imagination and maybe this is too simplistic a take on it. I would reckon the glazers are between 50 to 70 years old. They take about 30 million out a year in dividends, which if they all get the lot and the same, equals 5 million apiece. If they sold it tomorrow for 3 billion, lock stock and barrel, debt to be paid by buyer, they would all get 500 million a piece. They wont live long enough to receive this amount by taking dividends, so being money grabbing parasites, why dont they sell up? Cant understand it myself.
Click to expand...

Simple, a powerful businessman's portfolio is strengthened by investing money in fixed assets rather than just keeping money (unless your main goal is retirement). Manchester United is an financially attractive asset (1 billion fan base, merchandise sales etc) which the Glazers would keep rather than sell. They can make more money out of it as compared to selling it.
 
devilish said:
May I ask why other owners of clubs in a similar situation to ours don't take dividents?
Click to expand...

It depends on how the respective club owners value their assets (the clubs are their assets) and their overall investment strategy. If you delve into the investment world (whether its real estate, commercial etc) you will come across different strategies for increasing financial growth.
 
OpenIntrovert said:
It depends on how the respective club owners value their assets (the clubs are their assets) and their overall investment strategy. If you delve into the investment world (whether its real estate, commercial etc) you will come across different strategies for increasing financial growth.
Click to expand...

Can you please go in greater detail on that matter?
 
devilish said:
Juventus, Celtic, Dortmund but even Liverpool (I think)
Click to expand...
Liverpool are an LLC I think

Arsenal didn’t pay dividends last financial year but that’s because their after tax result was a £107m loss

EDIT: Looks like Celtic did pay dividends last year
 
stw2022 said:
Liverpool are an LLC I think
Click to expand...

The point is that other clubs are on the stock market and none of them had taken dividends. I don't blame everything to the Glazers. Arnold is right when he said that we literally threw 1B in the bin and tbh I hate the fact that they left the club in the hands of idiots more then them taking dividends. However taking dividends prior signing players is a bit meah in my books.
 
stw2022 said:
I could be wrong but someone doesn’t choose their dividend pay out, it’s based on financial performance of the business they have shares in. The dividends would have been pre agreed prior to the financial year and locked with all same-class shareholders having same rights

Many people saw the Glazer’s floating the club and offering shares to be a good thing when it happened. Dividends is what a company that has shareholders is obliged to give. This seems a bit like fish complaining that it’s wet

Potentially they’re looking for investors for stadium improvements. Why would anyone want to invest in company that legally reneged on shareholder owed dividends because it upset there Caf?

Declining dividends, while possible, causes tax complications as HMRC simply tax the club based on additional income of £11m.

It really is a spectacularly small fry issue but it’s evidently very effective at whipping up the crowd
Click to expand...
If the company is failing you think it is a good practice to take money out of it, or if the main revenue (the fans) are not happy it is smart to upset them even more?


United were literally the pinnacle of British/World sports and now the actual stadium is falling in around them and a training ground is seen as not fit for purpose, I’ll not even mention the football side of things and the Glazers are still using it as a piggy bank to line their pockets. Not even trying to firstly address problems which have been years old or sticking to their promises after the Liverpool game.
 
devilish said:
Juventus, Celtic, Dortmund but even Liverpool (I think)
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken Liverpool do not disclose their annual report and we don't know if owners are remunerated and how much, dividends aren't the only way to get money.
Regarding Dortmund, they do pay dividends in fact they clearly states that it's a goal, this is from their annual report:
Despite these investments, it is Borussia Dortmund's aim to continue distributing a dividend to its shareholders every year, provided it generates a net profit.
Click to expand...
 
devilish said:
The point is that other clubs are on the stock market and none of them had taken dividends. I don't blame everything to the Glazers. Arnold is right when he said that we literally threw 1B in the bin and tbh I hate the fact that they left the club in the hands of idiots more then them taking dividends. However taking dividends prior signing players is a bit meah in my books.
Click to expand...

We’ve wasted so much on transfers and the club has been woefully mismanaged for a decade. But this is another one of those issues that whip people into frenzy but there isn’t really much there.

Long been a proponent of idea that misguided hysteria about finances have always been the Glazer’s shield that deflects from the real issue of their mismanagement of the club.

Truth is, despite the fact some don’t like it, the financial health and financial performance of the club has never been in doubt despite the fact this being the basket that almost all of the anti-Glazer movement put their eggs in. A strategic mistake that they always seem to double down on each year.
 
JPRouve said:
If I'm not mistaken Liverpool do not disclose their annual report and we don't know if owners are remunerated and how much, dividends aren't the only way to get money.
Regarding Dortmund, they do pay dividends in fact they clearly states that it's a goal, this is from their annual report:
Click to expand...

thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.