This. But not just a bit daft.
Protest at Old Trafford
- Thread starter Lennon7
- Start date
This. But not just a bit daft.
We're already hated, might as well be solvent and hated.
But people are expecting a new stadium, training facilities, clearing the debt, plus extra transfer funds. Clearing the debt alone saves £20 million a season, plus dividends. That isn’t paying for a stadium, which means we need financial doping to pay for it.
It’s not okay for United to get a free £2 billion from a state because they’re already a big club, but claim City aren’t allowed it, which is what a lot of people are trying to say.
I disagree. Spurs had a new stadium, West Ham, Arsenal - these aren’t financially doped clubs.
Utd need a new stadium / renovation because of the complete negligence and irresponsible behaviour of their owners.
Utd generate an obscene amount of money compared to City. City have to invent faux business ventures to plump up their books - hence financial doping.
This is not the case with Utd, nor would it be with Liverpool who I believe Qatar will swiftly target if they are denied the Utd purchase by the repulsive leeches who bleed Utd.
City are tiny little club globally, being propped up by gigantic spending - Utd are a gigantic club globally being bled dry.
'Financial doping' is about squad investment, not infrastructure
And using City really is the worst example seeing as they got a free stadium paid for by UK state funds
In terms of FFP, but not in general. I don’t think it’s right that a state can come in just buy a £2 billion pound stadium.
Man City’s stadium cost fractions to build at £110 million, they paid £20 million towards repurposing it from a purpose built athletics stadium and lease it at 3 million a year. Its simplistic to say the government paid it, most of the money came from Sport England, which is heavily funded by the national lottery. It’s clearly a very good deal, but it’s not the same as a new owner coming in and spending £2 billion on a new stadium.
United fans want to have their cake and eat it as far as I can see. First it was about getting rid of the Glazers, now it’s about removing all the debt, buying a new stadium, spending more on transfers, all without any borrowing. It’s mental demands.
It’s always been about getting rid of the Glazers and their debt - and it’s still about that now.
The stadium talk is clearly a secondary issue, ask any Utd fan, it’s about getting rid - COMPLETELY - of the Glazers, and then removing their debt.
But the likes of Arsenal and spurs had to take on debt to fund it, which is the proper way of doing it. I have no issue if we did that, but a lot of fans are demanding the new owners pay outright.
Of course City have cheated with fake sponsorship, and I hope they get punished, but it’s only an FFP technicality that means a new owner could buy us a new £2 billion stadium, where’s as City’s owners couldn’t just pump £2 billion into player purchases easily.
There’s plenty of evidence in the other threads from months ago to show that isn’t the case for lots. People were desperate for Qatar only from the off.
Anyway, this ain’t really the thread for it, but happy to discuss in the sale threads.
Based on our latest accounts has anyone calculated our tax liability if we were to be debt free?
I could easily argue that your "5 that didn't" cumulated into the 1 that worked. One protest alone will rarely be enough, it needs to be a concerted effort to have any chance of success.
Dictatorship is much more complex than simply ignoring protest. For the impact of protest you only need to look at the history in the UK, at the 5 day working week, sick pay, holiday pay, child labour laws, women's right to vote etc etc.
But yeah, let's agree to disagree.
Financial doping is a term coined by Arsene Wenger specifically about clubs (and it was Chelsea at the time) spending unsustainably on transfers and wages. It is nothing whatsoever to do with infrastructure and never will be.
All the figures you posted (both for Old Trafford redevelopment and Etihad Stadium cost) are incorrect but this is not the thread to be going into that.
I dont really get what you are complaining about though and what it has to do with protest at Old Trafford - I dont know anyone who was at the protests today who expects all the things you have listed, do you?
You have got all your facts wrong and then made a straw man argument with random claims that are nothing to do with what this thread is about.
Annual interest expense * effective tax rate is a quick back-of-the-envelope estimate for our annual incremental tax liability.
Our annual interest expense is about 100m pounds. At an effective tax rate of 20% that would mean our current tax shield from debt is about 20m pounds.
Yeah which Ineos don't want to do so that's why I have serious concerns about them
Cheers Ben!
Not sure you realised what the Glazers have done to the club financially over the past 18 years? They took United's revenues to pay off the loans United is what everyone knows. Its the knock-on effects of that LBO that people seem to not understand.
It deprived United's management of some sinking fund or money set aside that would have been used to build any new stadium or any serious renovations -- that would have cost us to the tune of £1-2+Billion. Over the past 18 years.
Its like you setting money aside for a new home or major renovation. We didnt have that money set aside. Arsenal and Spurs did.
Then you add to the debt on top of that to the tune of nearly a billion quid. Why do you think the Glazers never did any serious renovations or ground upgrades during their 18years? The last serious upgrades were done under the budgets of the previous owners.
Both Spurs and Arsenal never had this lumped onto their accounts. Neither did City.
We have gone into serious deficit --- and now if we are to build a new stadium or serious renovation we will have to take even more loans -- which I suspect the banks would see as risky based on our current ability to re-pay. None of teh clubs mentioned above had to face any of these issues.
So the ol' mantra of we are have the biggest revenues, and we have always been able to self-generate doesn't really hold true.
We basically ''kicked the can down the road'' by not spending the serious big capital expenditures on projects like the stadium to infinite -- so that the Glazers can afford to spend on quarterly or semi-annual dividends, wasteful Galaticios transfers, management fees etc.
Its coming back to bite us now that the stadium is in a sorry state.
So the only way is some serious capital injection. We cannot organically grow that money for these serious capital expenditures in view of the debt outstanding.
If the 1958 wants to make an impact going forward, they need to be ultra transparent.
Who are they? People want faces and names. If you're gonna be leading a protest movement, fans need to know who's directing them. Being a faceless mob on Twitter won't cut in now.
What do they actually want? Glazers out, obviously. But aside from that, what do they want next. They say full sale only and their followers say "at all costs" but what does that actually mean for the club. Are they 100% in for Qatar? If they are, be honest. Don't hide your true view. However, if that is your true view, don't be shocked when you're not getting 10,000 out for a protest. At the very least, explain why "getting our club back" should mean being cheerleaders for someone else taking over.
Who are they? People want faces and names. If you're gonna be leading a protest movement, fans need to know who's directing them. Being a faceless mob on Twitter won't cut in now.
What do they actually want? Glazers out, obviously. But aside from that, what do they want next. They say full sale only and their followers say "at all costs" but what does that actually mean for the club. Are they 100% in for Qatar? If they are, be honest. Don't hide your true view. However, if that is your true view, don't be shocked when you're not getting 10,000 out for a protest. At the very least, explain why "getting our club back" should mean being cheerleaders for someone else taking over.
I completely understand financial doping, you don’t need to explain it. But both actions (transfers and stadium) are owners ploughing their own money into their clubs, it’s only different because UEFA decided so. The bottom line is that there is no need to artificially inflate revenue to develop a stadium, because it doesn’t count for FFP. That’s the only reason Man City did it for transfers.
The figures for Man City’s stadium are out there on several websites, so im not sure which part you’re claiming is wrong. £2 billion is an estimated cost for a new stadium not redevelopment.
These were all things being discussed in previous posts, and clearly spilled over into this thread, which is why I put at the end of my other post it isn’t the right thread for it (thanks for pointing that out several times though). I definitely wasn’t the one starting conversations about financial doping etc.
Thank you. These are the real heroes instead of whinny holier than thou feckers here complaining we want get rid of Glazers, debts, new infrastructure, new stadium and etc for the betterment of Man Utd.
Fair play to these guys. I just wish we had more of the turnout Liverpool had when their ticket prices were increased (and subsequently reduced back again).
To whoever was there, thank you
To whoever was there, thank you
What we need, and what we will get - is not the same. We won't get to control that (with either of the parties).
And we don't just need our debt cleared, we need an upgraded stadium, an upgraded training center. We need a lot of quality in our squad.
Most of all we will need a steady hand to not blow all of it away in the 1st few years.
Ye but you were the one who took it on an unrelated tangent about the stadium
I don't agree that it's only different because UEFA decided so - one is essentially cheating to win things (hence the comparison to doping), whereas the other in our case would be a wealthy Manchester United fan (be it Jim or Jassim) investing in the infrastructure for the good of all our matchgoing fans and the club in general.
I'm pretty sure not many (if any!) who were protesting yesterday would have any issue with that and why would they ?!
I don’t really see how you can call it unrelated. We’re taking about owners putting money into a football club, albeit in the wrong thread. In my eyes, an owner paying for transfers and stadiums are the same thing. I’m not sure if you’re getting so caught up in the financial doping part, that you’re ignoring my point.
We all know what Man City have done, but the bottom line is that they wouldn’t have done that if cash injections from owners for transfers were treated the same as stadiums.
We’re owed a bit of good fortune from new owners after the last 18 years, and of course no one will complain about a new stadium or redevelopment, me included. But you have to admit that we’ll be massively advantaged to the likes of Spurs who had to pay for their own stadium. I’m not sure these things are good for sporting integrity.
Either way, I’m very supportive of the protests. I’m not sure we’ll ever agree on the new ownership though
This is so spot on. Even if the 1958 is a divided group in views on who should be taking over, that would be important to know.
It looks from the outside like a group made of (ex)hooligans and normal die hard fans who have hated The Glazers for a looong time, and still stick to the motive that they need to get them fully out of the club (understandable but simplistic). It’s just very dangerous to make it all that simple, as you might get an even more hollow owner in Qatar.
But I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt: it seems counterintuitive to be on about United’s history and then wanting Qatar and also starting out the protests with a big Jim-banner. It seems like a divided group, but it‘s important with some transparency, even if they just say they’re undecided about which owner they want (which would be understandable, no one really knows what offers are made exactly and how little if any actual Glazer-involvement there will be).
And also still: thank feck we have people willing to protest - Glazers would never sell without any potential dangerous situation on their hands. The SuperLeague riots and invasion of Old Trafford seems quite impactful in hindsight.
Last edited:
I don’t really see how you can call it unrelated. We’re taking about owners putting money into a football club, albeit in the wrong thread. In my eyes, an owner paying for transfers and stadiums are the same thing. I’m not sure if you’re getting so caught up in the financial doping part, that you’re ignoring my point.
We all know what Man City have done, but the bottom line is that they wouldn’t have done that if cash injections from owners for transfers were treated the same as stadiums.
We’re owed a bit of good fortune from new owners after the last 18 years, and of course no one will complain about a new stadium or redevelopment, me included. But you have to admit that we’ll be massively advantaged to the likes of Spurs who had to pay for their own stadium. I’m not sure these things are good for sporting integrity.
Either way, I’m very supportive of the protests. I’m not sure we’ll ever agree on the new ownership though
I want an owner who will clear our debts, bring us the world class stadium that we deserve (and generate more than enough money to afford), put competant football people in the boardroom and back our manager (I dont expect any more spending on players than we have done in recent years).
The vast majority of protestors are fighting for this
I dont mind if it is Jim or Jassim, but that's what I expect them to deliver and I dont think it's too much to ask and I dont think it puts us at any unfair advantage to any other club
The 1958 is not an official fan group, there is no official leadership or official stance - they are just a collective who aim to mobilise the Manchester United fanbase to protest against the current owners.
This particular protest was backed by MUST and The Red Army who are organised fan groups - neither have backed any particular ownership option but both want change from the current owners as a priority:
https://www.imust.org.uk/Blog/Entry/must-urges-acceleration-of-united-takeover-process
The majority of fans protesting would not agree with your simplistic views about a bid from Sheikh Jassim either
A new owner bankrolling a new stadium is clearly a huge advantage, especially when it comes to spending on players. Arsenal were hamstrung for years by their stadium repayments. Spurs seem to be the same so far too. We won't be, and that's the advantage. Then to add to that, all the extra income the stadium generates is instant profit and not used for repaying the debt of the stadium.
Not that I'm complaining, but it's a hell of a leg up.
Not that I'm complaining, but it's a hell of a leg up.
We make more than enough money to afford a major stadium refurbishment already - don't actually need any owner to bankroll but it might speed up the process
Relative to revenue, we spent less than any other PL club in past 10yrs on infrastructure - this is a major reason that matchgoing fans are protesting
Relative to revenue, we spent less than any other PL club in past 10yrs on infrastructure - this is a major reason that matchgoing fans are protesting
Is it really that wrong to be simplistic on the matter that Sheikh Jassim will make our historic club a more shallow club? It is the reality, and it is that simple, you know?
You know, the same we’ve hated City for the last 15 years?
A new stadium, a new Neymar signing wont change that we’ll be a more shallow club under Sheikh Jassim. If anything it might underline it.
Someone is leading it though aren't they? A person/group of people made a pro "Sir Jim" banner back in August and now they're saying "full sale only" which in essence means "we want Qatar in".
Someone has ultimately decided upon that change of messaging. Unless of course there's a secret democratic process going on that nobody knows about.
Yes it is wrong and I don't agree in the slightest - as far as I can tell the majority of protestors don't agree with you either
But this is not the thread for that discussion - already been discussed in detail in other threads
Some lads turned up draped in a Qatar flag too itd just a group of fans who want a full sale they dont alll agree much like the people on this forum worh who should win the bidding, a full sale means Glazers out 100% that is what they want end of.
The fact that people don't care about who wins the bidding should be deeply concerning.
Unlike 2005 and the Super League protests, this isn't necessarily a black or white situation.
People who haven't stepped foot inside the ground since 2005 are being called Glazer collaborators on Twitter because they're not in favour of Qatar/Sheikh Jassim.
I dont think any 1 person is a leader, I dont think there has been any concious change of messaging either - just different people with different and changing opinions which represents our fanbase as a whole
'Full Sale Only' is essentially the same message as 'Glazers Out' which has been The 1958 message since day 1 - it is a good message as it is one everyone can get behind hence the show of unity with MUST and TRA leading to a good turnout on Sunday.
It doesnt necessarily mean they are backing Sheikh Jassim either, although I am sure the majority of protestors would be happy with that. Eventhough some antiRadcliffe banners have appeared recently (due to media reports that he is giving Joel and Avram Glazer the option to stay on the board), I think the majority would probably accept Jim taking control over staying with the Glazers too.
The only official fan group with official statements regarding ownership issues is MUST. I think it is correct that they are not picking any sides on Jim vs Jassim either because we dont actually know enough about either bid to be making such judgements.
People care there just isn't a consensus on who wins, I was in a pub in London before Spurs last week and I was with 15 reds who go home and away and I'd say it was a fairly even split on who we want to take over, the one factor that unites us is the need for the Glazers to go hence one message that all fans can rally behind and not one that is divisive to what could be 40/50% of the fan base
Incorrect; it meant full sale of the Glazers shares. I thought that much was already clear but it was confirmed yesterday for those in the back:
For the record, there was no discussion about future ownership at the protest that I can remember. Sure there was one clown with that cardboard Qatar sign that seems to have got himself into the pictures but I didn't see him and don't actually recall anyone saying any preference. It's not that people don't care, it's more that there is a split so discussing it creates division which was the opposite of what the Glazer protest needed.
Then they should work on their messaging because that tweet makes it sound very much like they prefer Qatar. Especially given the structure of Ratcliffes bid.
It literally couldn't be clearer in saying it was not about any preferred bidder and they consider a "full sale" to be a full sale of the Glazer owned shares.
When I read that, the first thing I'm thinking is "They support Qatar". For the rather obvious reason that theirs is the only bid that encompasses the full sale of the Glazer-owned shares.
That's because you're not reading the text, you're looking past it. It was a message to the Glazer family and any perspective buyers of what the fans want, which is that family gone.
The reality is that both Qatar and Ineos have each made three bids for the club, only one of which has retained the Glazers in any capacity. None of those exact bids will be accepted. The next stage of the process is a period of exclusivity in negotiations for the preferred bidder, if that preferred bidder is Ineos, you can be pretty damn sure they will be trying to buy the full 69% as they won't want the Glazers holding a sizeable percentage any more than anyone else does given that they know they won't invest in the club, so why have them there just to diminish any future return on investment?