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

clarkydaz said:
thanks. On that it doesnt appear they have concrete plans, maybe after their masterplan of the superleague failing, anything else is small fry.
Click to expand...
No worries, O’Neil wasn’t quite sure why a lot of Americans were getting involved in English football but that maybe they saw independent tv rights/streaming a thing that would take off and perhaps that’s another reason the Glazers were sticking around.
 
Elcabron said:
May have been discussed already, apologies if so but how much of the club do the Glazers now own and what is that worth net of debt? 3 Billion?

Surely they would be better off netting that three billon and putting the feet up rather than taking out 25m per year or whatever it is in dividends from the club? If they took 50m per year from the 3 Billion cash, they would still have 2 billon left after twenty years without any capital appreciation/compound interest.

Too simplistic perhaps and probably why I'll never have such a decision to make.
Click to expand...
They own roughly 2/3 of the economics However, all their holdings are in B shares with higher votes than the A shares, so even if they sold down to 40%, for example, their stake would be worth more than that because of the control premium (i.e. they control the club and there's no sale unless they agree).
 
The only thing that would get the Glazers to leave is the fan resentment. If Old Trafford was empty it would ruin sponsors, merchandise, endorsements etc. But it takes an extreme to reach such a level and there's too much sentiment in fans and emotions that override which is rational as it's natural as many enjoy and follow the sport.

Another reality is if United have a good summer and a decent season the ardent noises about the Glazers goes from many to a few. There's not enough consistent movement in mass level protests / actions.
 
Vapor trail said:
Another reality is if United have a good summer and a decent season the ardent noises about the Glazers goes from many to a few. There's not enough consistent movement in mass level protests / actions.
Click to expand...

The Glazer business model has two problems - one fundamental and one not so much.

The fixable one is that they have been running the club for short term commercial profit and have been basically indifferent to on the field results until it started to damage the brand. They now seem to be doing something about that, albeit the proof of the pudding has yet to be eaten.

The unfixable problem is that we are in the same league as clubs that either don't care about money (City, Newcastle) or else are willing to put football first (Liverpool). Without new owners it's hard to see us ever winning big silverware consistently. Liverpool don't even do that under Klopp.
 
glazed said:
The Glazer business model has two problems - one fundamental and one not so much.

The fixable one is that they have been running the club for short term commercial profit and have been basically indifferent to on the field results until it started to damage the brand. They now seem to be doing something about that, albeit the proof of the pudding has yet to be eaten.

The unfixable problem is that we are in the same league as clubs that either don't care about money (City, Newcastle) or else are willing to put football first (Liverpool). Without new owners it's hard to see us ever winning big silverware consistently. Liverpool don't even do that under Klopp.
Click to expand...
Whats that mate?
 
Edwards6 said:
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
Click to expand...

Not by the UK government. Abramovich insisted on it via Raine Group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.