Man Utd - stock price

I'm surprised their stock ($Man Utd) price and subsequently, Manchester United PLC is not discussed enough on here. Everything the glazers have done in the past 10 years - EVERYTHING - has been purely for the shareholders, not the fans.

There seems to be this confusion on the forum that they care about the consumers (fans) and try to see everything from that perspective. The glazers have described United as an asset that is 'beach front property' in the top-level football industry. It's all you have to know.
 
WR10 said:
I'm surprised their stock ($Man Utd) price and subsequently, Manchester United PLC is not discussed enough on here. Everything the glazers have done in the past 10 years - EVERYTHING - has been purely for the shareholders, not the fans.

There seems to be this confusion on the forum that they care about the consumers (fans) and try to see everything from that perspective. The glazers have described United as an asset that is 'beach front property' in the top-level football industry. It's all you have to know.
Click to expand...
Gosh this is news. Going to need a little while to digest this.
 
WR10 said:
I'm surprised their stock ($Man Utd) price and subsequently, Manchester United PLC is not discussed enough on here. Everything the glazers have done in the past 10 years - EVERYTHING - has been purely for the shareholders, not the fans.

There seems to be this confusion on the forum that they care about the consumers (fans) and try to see everything from that perspective. The glazers have described United as an asset that is 'beach front property' in the top-level football industry. It's all you have to know.
Click to expand...

Agree. not everyone here gets that we were bought in a leveraged buyout - the glazers had no money to buy the club and bought it with its own projected future incomes. Thats why we are still so in debt - they dont care. The asset value is now huge and probably allows them to leverage money for other projects. We are a soccer sports franchise that has delivered them over a billion pounds in dividends over 15 years. Great business for them and they are entitled to it.

what this means as fans is that we will struggle to ever compete with oil money and sports washing and that the glazers will always prioritise commerce over sporting achievement.
 
Last edited:
When has anyone ever indicated that the Glazers give any hoot about the fans???

I thought it was always well known that they couldn’t give a shit about us? Especially the match-going fans. I’d argue that we are inconvenience to them and they’d rather we weren’t there.
 
K Stand Knut said:
When has anyone ever indicated that the Glazers give any hoot about the fans???

I thought it was always well known that they couldn’t give a shit about us? Especially the match-going fans. I’d argue that we are inconvenience to them and they’d rather we weren’t there.
Click to expand...

No.

I would guess that almost 100% United fans know that thr Glazers only use the club as a cash cow.
 
I bet the cnuts couldn’t even name half the first team

To say they couldn’t give a feck about anything but share value is an understatement
 
Despite the bullshit about ‘how much money theyve spent’ and ‘how much AWB and Maguire’ cost, they havent invested really. Theyve done white elephant transfers whilst falling the rest by the wayside.

The infrastructure of the club is crumbling. The training ground and ground need work. The structure of the football side of the club is obviously shite as is well documented.

but sources close to the club say that we are miles behind on things like sports psychology, science. Apparantly we dont even have dieticians/nutritionists on board. All this costs money, increases staffing costs etc etc. they dont pay for it.

you then look at the meticulous detail conducted at a place like liverpool who went so far as to hire a throw in coach and you see that basically we may as well be in the championship in terms of trying to compete atm.
 
Jezpeza said:
Despite the bullshit about ‘how much money theyve spent’ and ‘how much AWB and Maguire’ cost, they havent invested really. Theyve done white elephant transfers whilst falling the rest by the wayside.

The infrastructure of the club is crumbling. The training ground and ground need work. The structure of the football side of the club is obviously shite as is well documented.

but sources close to the club say that we are miles behind on things like sports psychology, science. Apparantly we dont even have dieticians/nutritionists on board. All this costs money, increases staffing costs etc etc. they dont pay for it.

you then look at the meticulous detail conducted at a place like liverpool who went so far as to hire a throw in coach and you see that basically we may as well be in the championship in terms of trying to compete atm.
Click to expand...
That's on Woodward more than the Glazers. He is the CEO and he was supposed to oversee all that stuff.

Let's wait and see if Arnold will take advice from Murtough and Co. I think they will start bringing up these issues more and more.
 
Jezpeza said:
Despite the bullshit about ‘how much money theyve spent’ and ‘how much AWB and Maguire’ cost, they havent invested really. Theyve done white elephant transfers whilst falling the rest by the wayside.

The infrastructure of the club is crumbling. The training ground and ground need work. The structure of the football side of the club is obviously shite as is well documented.

but sources close to the club say that we are miles behind on things like sports psychology, science. Apparantly we dont even have dieticians/nutritionists on board. All this costs money, increases staffing costs etc etc. they dont pay for it.

you then look at the meticulous detail conducted at a place like liverpool who went so far as to hire a throw in coach and you see that basically we may as well be in the championship in terms of trying to compete atm.
Click to expand...

To be fair though, when you commit to spending 72m on a single player and then another 40m on another in a summer, its hard to fault them for not opening the purse strings and getting the best talent possible.

But clearly they have entrusted the running of the club to an absolute moron who has failed to appoint a successful manager in all his time here.
 
Jezpeza said:
Agree. no one here gets that we were bought in a leveraged buyout - the glazers had no money to buy the club and bought it with its own projected future incomes. Thats why we are still so in debt - they dont care. The asset value is now huge and probably allows them to leverage money for other projects. We are a soccer sports franchise that has delivered them over a billion pounds in dividends over 15 years. Great business for them and they are entitled to it.

what this means as fans is that we will struggle to ever compete with oil money and sports washing and that the glazers will always prioritise commerce over sporting achievement.
Click to expand...

Wait what?

You should go to the press with this bombshell. The people should know about all this.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
Well, there is a protest planned in the Norwich game, against Glazers. Some at least a few fans think that Glazers care.
Click to expand...

I don’t think they believe that the Glazers care about them.

I think they might hope they can influence the sale of the club but it will be pathetic
 
K Stand Knut said:
I don’t think they believe that the Glazers care about them.

I think they might hope they can influence the sale of the club but it will be pathetic
Click to expand...

With the sale of Chelsea the club is about to increase considerably in sale-value. At which point the Glazers will probably be in a situation where the club's value is inflated and they can't realistically get a better price for the club unless they pull off the European Super League. No protest is going to make them sell the club, but seeing Chelsea go for $4bn and realising they can probably get $5bn for Man Utd, just might. There's no chance of the Glazers selling the club until after Chelsea has been bought - regardless of how much noise fans make - at that point though they might conclude that a return of $3.5bn on their $1.5bn leveraged buyout is as good as it is going to get - especially given that the European Super League might be dead in the water.
 
Jezpeza said:
Agree. no one here gets that we were bought in a leveraged buyout - the glazers had no money to buy the club and bought it with its own projected future incomes. Thats why we are still so in debt - they dont care. The asset value is now huge and probably allows them to leverage money for other projects. We are a soccer sports franchise that has delivered them over a billion pounds in dividends over 15 years. Great business for them and they are entitled to it.

what this means as fans is that we will struggle to ever compete with oil money and sports washing and that the glazers will always prioritise commerce over sporting achievement.
Click to expand...
Gee how silly we all are here on the forum to miss that! Absolutely none of us knew that, not the ones who had bought shares to try and stop a buyout happening; not the ones who went off with FCUM, nor the ones who protest. My mind is blown
 
diarm said:
Wait what?

You should go to the press with this bombshell. The people should know about all this.
Click to expand...

i’m serious though. Some People argue how generous the glazers are when actually the club has only ever been run on its own money. About how much money ‘theyve put into transfers’.
 
golden_blunder said:
Gee how silly we all are here on the forum to miss that! Absolutely none of us knew that, not the ones who had bought shares to try and stop a buyout happening; not the ones who went off with FCUM, nor the ones who protest. My mind is blown
Click to expand...

i dont mean literally everyone. And good on you. I mean that there are literally people who will argue how generous the glazers have been with transfers except all the transfer money comes from the clubs own revenue. That seems to be the stock answer to any criticism of their ownership ‘but they put money into transfers’. They didnt. Its a myth
 
Jezpeza said:
i dont mean literally everyone. And good on you. I mean that there are literally people who will argue how generous the glazers have been with transfers except all the transfer money comes from the clubs own revenue. That seems to be the stock answer to any criticism of their ownership ‘but they put money into transfers’. They didnt. Its a myth
Click to expand...
Ok but maybe just watch your wording because you’re tarring a whole forum the same in your first post
 
DevilRed said:
To be fair though, when you commit to spending 72m on a single player and then another 40m on another in a summer, its hard to fault them for not opening the purse strings and getting the best talent possible.

But clearly they have entrusted the running of the club to an absolute moron who has failed to appoint a successful manager in all his time here.
Click to expand...

we shouldnt really be grateful with them as fans for letting the club spend its own revenue. Thats the only reason they did it last summer - to appease fans with distracting big signings. They’ve still taken a billion+ from the club. Its not like man city or chelsea where the blank cheques have been handed over time and time again. Not that thats necessarily a good thing but thats what we have to compete with.

Imo Woodward is their fault - he was a successfull banker/finance man who helped them leverage the takeover. He had no football acumen. He/they never had the humility until recently to appoint a DoF.
 
Jezpeza said:
we shouldnt really be grateful with them as fans for letting the club spend its own revenue. Thats the only reason they did it last summer - to appease fans with distracting big signings. They’ve still taken a billion+ from the club. Its not like man city or chelsea where the blank cheques have been handed over time and time again. Not that thats necessarily a good thing but thats what we have to compete with.

Imo Woodward is their fault - he was a successfull banker/finance man who helped them leverage the takeover. He had no football acumen. He/they never had the humility until recently to appoint a DoF.
Click to expand...

This one intrigues me. United didn't spend differently last summer or at least not more. To make it clear at this fiscal year at 2Q 2021 United paid 90.9m for intangible assets, at 2Q 2020 United paid 108.8m, at 2Q 2019 United paid 187.3m, at 2Q 2018 United paid 145.1m.

The bolded part never happened. United purchased players that they intended to purchase and have pursued for years, if anything United got these players for cheaper that anticipated. And United spend a lot every year. Now should the Glazers be praised for it? Absolutely not. Should they be criticized for it? Absolutely not since the Glazers aren't that wealthy, they don't have a lot of liquid assets and their net worth is attached to commercial real estate which includes the Manchester United PLC.
 
JPRouve said:
This one intrigues me. United didn't spend differently last summer or at least not more. To make it clear at this fiscal year at 2Q 2021 United paid 90.9m for intangible assets, at 2Q 2020 United paid 108.8m, at 2Q 2019 United paid 187.3m, at 2Q 2018 United paid 145.1m.

The bolded part never happened. United purchased players that they intended to purchase and have pursued for years, if anything United got these players for cheaper that anticipated. And United spend a lot every year. Now should the Glazers be praised for it? Absolutely not. Should they be criticized for it? Absolutely not since the Glazers aren't that wealthy, they don't have a lot of liquid assets and their net worth is attached to commercial real estate which includes the Manchester United PLC.
Click to expand...

i dont think intangible assets is just players - for example, in the 2q 2018 transfer window we had the infamous fred dalot grant window. They didnt spend that much on those 3 players
 
Jezpeza said:
i dont think intangible assets is just players - for example, in the 2q 2018 transfer window we had the infamous fred dalot grant window. They didnt spend that much on those 3 players
Click to expand...

It's almost entirely players registrations, the rest represents hundred of thousands and sometimes a couple of millions. And that's not how transfer payments work, you generally don't pay transfers upfront, you pay them in instalments, that's why intangible assets expenses are a better way to know what a club actually spent during a particular period or what they can actually spend. You almost always have obligations and for that reason rarely start the year at zero expenses budgeted, that's also a big chunk of the debts.

So for example in 2Q 2018, you have parts of the 2016 and 2017 expenses, in this case it would be part of the Matic, Lukaku and Lindelof but also the previous windows.
 
JPRouve said:
It's almost entirely players registrations, the rest represents hundred of thousands and sometimes a couple of millions. And that's not how transfer payments work, you generally don't pay transfers upfront, you pay them in instalments, that's why intangible assets expenses are a better way to know what a club actually spent during a particular period or what they can actually spend. You almost always have obligations and for that reason rarely start the year at zero expenses budgeted, that's also a big chunk of the debts.

So for example in 2Q 2018, you have parts of the 2016 and 2017 expenses, in this case it would be part of the Matic, Lukaku and Lindelof but also the previous windows.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t be bothered to actually go look up the reports to check the numbers you’re referring to but intangible assets doesn’t equal cash payments.

Intangible asset amortization schedules (typically divided across the life of the first contract) aren’t the same as the payment terms. Maguire for example would be expensed over his contract but the payment was made in full.
 
limerickcitykid said:
I couldn’t be bothered to actually go look up the reports to check the numbers you’re referring to but intangible assets doesn’t equal cash payments.

Intangible asset amortization schedules (typically divided across the life of the first contract) aren’t the same as the payment terms. Maguire for example would be expensed over his contract but the payment was made in full.
Click to expand...

I didn't tell you that intangible assets were cash payments, did I?

Now the figures that I gave are cash flows for payment for intangible assets.
 
Jezpeza said:
Despite the bullshit about ‘how much money theyve spent’ and ‘how much AWB and Maguire’ cost, they havent invested really. Theyve done white elephant transfers whilst falling the rest by the wayside.

The infrastructure of the club is crumbling. The training ground and ground need work. The structure of the football side of the club is obviously shite as is well documented.

but sources close to the club say that we are miles behind on things like sports psychology, science. Apparantly we dont even have dieticians/nutritionists on board. All this costs money, increases staffing costs etc etc. they dont pay for it.

you then look at the meticulous detail conducted at a place like liverpool who went so far as to hire a throw in coach and you see that basically we may as well be in the championship in terms of trying to compete atm.
Click to expand...
That's actually smart. Why should we waste money on dieticians when you can just tell the players to google "healthy food" and eat it. They're grown-ass men. I'd trust Luke Shaw to find the healthiest chips and burgers on his own, wouldn't you?
 
Jezpeza said:
we shouldnt really be grateful with them as fans for letting the club spend its own revenue. Thats the only reason they did it last summer - to appease fans with distracting big signings. They’ve still taken a billion+ from the club. Its not like man city or chelsea where the blank cheques have been handed over time and time again. Not that thats necessarily a good thing but thats what we have to compete with.

Imo Woodward is their fault - he was a successfull banker/finance man who helped them leverage the takeover. He had no football acumen. He/they never had the humility until recently to appoint a DoF.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I despise them to the core.

But the return on our investment is dire. A disgrace if you will. Any CEO would have been sacked years ago if we based his performance on club results/transfer success.

Obviously thats not and will likely never be the case. The Glazers only look at revenue and how much it increases every year.
 
JPRouve said:
I didn't tell you that intangible assets were cash payments, did I?

Now the figures that I gave are cash flows for payment for intangible assets.
Click to expand...
Yes, you did.

You said “that's why intangible assets expenses are a better way to know what a club actually spent during a particular period.”

Expenses don’t tell you anything about what they actually spent.

I don’t know what the figures you gave are but the terminologies you used are wrong.
 
limerickcitykid said:
Yes, you did.

You said “that's why intangible assets expenses are a better way to know what a club actually spent during a particular period.”

Expenses don’t tell you anything about what they actually spent.

I don’t know what the figures you gave are but the terminologies you used are wrong.
Click to expand...

I should have used the term expenditure but I didn't suggest what you wrote either. I clearly talked about what the club paid.
 
Laurencio said:
With the sale of Chelsea the club is about to increase considerably in sale-value. At which point the Glazers will probably be in a situation where the club's value is inflated and they can't realistically get a better price for the club unless they pull off the European Super League. No protest is going to make them sell the club, but seeing Chelsea go for $4bn and realising they can probably get $5bn for Man Utd, just might. There's no chance of the Glazers selling the club until after Chelsea has been bought - regardless of how much noise fans make - at that point though they might conclude that a return of $3.5bn on their $1.5bn leveraged buyout is as good as it is going to get - especially given that the European Super League might be dead in the water.
Click to expand...

A very fair point but who on earth is going to pay £5bn for United??

You can right your answer on a stamp if you want because there is nobody
 
Withnail said:
Of course it's to do with league position and nothing at all to do with it being a year since the Glazers made promises they've now reneged on.
Click to expand...

It’s both.

Do you think these same people would do it if we were closing on a league title and in the SF of the CL?
 
WR10 said:
I'm surprised their stock ($Man Utd) price and subsequently, Manchester United PLC is not discussed enough on here. Everything the glazers have done in the past 10 years - EVERYTHING - has been purely for the shareholders, not the fans.

There seems to be this confusion on the forum that they care about the consumers (fans) and try to see everything from that perspective. The glazers have described United as an asset that is 'beach front property' in the top-level football industry. It's all you have to know.
Click to expand...
Then they’re doing a shit fecking job then aren’t they? Seeing as their stock price hasn’t moved much from 10 years ago.

God knows what the feck you’re on about. A company that cares about its stock price wouldn’t have spent so recklessly in the transfer market or on inflated wages. They’d have invested into physical asset like a new stadium but you keep going though.
 
K Stand Knut said:
It’s both.

Do you think these same people would do it if we were closing on a league title and in the SF of the CL?
Click to expand...

It's not both. It's literally because they haven't done what they agreed to. And yes they feckin would protest because the Glazers haven't done what they promised. I'm baffled by your post to be perfectly honest. You're not making any sense as far as I'm concerned.
 
Withnail said:
It's not both. It's literally because they haven't done what they agreed to. And yes they feckin would protest because the Glazers haven't done what they promised. I'm baffled by your post to be perfectly honest. You're not making any sense as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Baffled by that post.

That’s some going. Not sure how else to put it but I’ll try

Yes, these fans may well be protesting because the Glazers have lied about things happening that haven’t materialised but I suspect that the clamour to protest would be a lot lower if we were a successful team. This happens regularly because most fans are fickle as feck

In fact, I’d almost guarantee that they wouldn’t protest if that was the case.
 
K Stand Knut said:
Baffled by that post.

That’s some going. Not sure how else to put it but I’ll try

Yes, these fans may well be protesting because the Glazers have lied about things happening that haven’t materialised but I suspect that the clamour to protest would be a lot lower if we were a successful team. This happens regularly because most fans are fickle as feck

In fact, I’d almost guarantee that they wouldn’t protest if that was the case.
Click to expand...

Ok mate. You suspect? I'm going by what the protesters are saying and it sounds logical to me and holds up to scrutiny.

It's been a year, they reminded the Glazers last monthish that they were expecting a response. But yeah your opinion that this is about results is both more logical and believable.

you claim my post baffled you? Explain to me why the fans are in the wrong for protesting and when is an appropriate time. I presume we should wait til we win the league to protest, that way no one can cast aspersions or undermine the motivation behind it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.