Would you accept relegation to feck the Glazers off?

lorcanjc said:
What about this point fred
Click to expand...

If Glazers in that much shit he will sell.

Supposing hes sat owing the banks £50 million, do you think he'll just keep them knowing the banks will come knocking, or will he sell the assets to keep the banks happy..

Rooney and Ronaldo are no good to him if the banks get the club, so he'll get shot of them long before the banks decide enough is enough..

Look at it this way.

You owe the banks £5k and you've got a car worth £8k on your drive.

The banks want to come and seize all your assets because you've fallen behind on your loan.

Would you sell the car and pay the banks what you owe, or would you let them come in and take the lot all because you know that the car is worth way more than what you could sell it for....

Common sense my friend, common sense..

Look at Bury. They sold a player valued at £1 million for less than £100k all because they needed the cash desperate.

As they say.. MONEY TALKS, BULLSHIT WALKS..
 
gh78 said:
I still don't get it. Are you saying you'd rather have a championship club that acted like an angel but never achievedd anything or you just think long term gain can be achieved by getting rid of the Glazers etc.?
Click to expand...

Yes....

So you'd rather see United at risk of going bust in preference to seeing United lose their status.

We've been second rate before. In fact for most of the time of our existence, and I've been there, and you know what. Those were the best years of my life.

United isnt all about trophies, never has been..

I'd give up the lot to get rid of Glazer. The treble, the league titles, the players, everything. Because he is potentially the most damaging thing ever to hit United, and no amount of silverware overrides that..
 
fredthered said:
If Glazers in that much shit he will sell.

Supposing hes sat owing the banks £50 million, do you think he'll just keep them knowing the banks will come knocking, or will he sell the assets to keep the banks happy..

Rooney and Ronaldo are no good to him if the banks get the club, so he'll get shot of them long before the banks decide enough is enough..

Look at it this way.

You owe the banks £5k and you've got a car worth £8k on your drive.

The banks want to come and seize all your assets because you've fallen behind on your loan.

Would you sell the car and pay the banks what you owe, or would you let them come in and take the lot all because you know that the car is worth way more than what you could sell it for....

As they say.. MONEY TALKS, BULLSHIT WALKS..
Click to expand...

Using an analogy close to your car.

I would say it is closer to someone who owns a van but uses this as part of their job. If they sell the van they can pay back the bank put they no longer have job. Not much good to them or the bank in the long-term!

I still think it is much more likely that the Glazers would look for equity investors to cover the £100m rather than sell players which only devalues the asset they are trying to protect.
 
Yeah how could we ever walk the streets knowing we support a team that isnt in the top four..

OH THE SHAME OF IT...

_______________________________

It's not black and white and we all know your thoughts. The only surprise is it wasn't you that kicked Sir Alex Ferguson in Euston...or was it!?

I'm sure if you open your mind up you can come up with worse things then us
not finishing in the top four........at least try - I know I could..:smirk:
 
lorcanjc said:
Using an analogy close to your car.

I would say it is closer to someone who owns a van but uses this as part of their job. If they sell the van they can pay back the bank put they no longer have job. Not much good to them or the bank in the long-term!

I still think it is much more likely that the Glazers would look for equity investors to cover the £100m rather than sell players which only devalues the asset they are trying to protect.
Click to expand...

If I have a van that holds enough cash to repay my debt, then I'd sell it and buy a cheaper one for the time being...
 
Striker10 said:
Yeah how could we ever walk the streets knowing we support a team that isnt in the top four..

OH THE SHAME OF IT...

_______________________________

It's not black and white and we all know your thoughts. The only surprise is it wasn't you that kicked Sir Alex Ferguson in Euston...or was it!?

I'm sure if you open your mind up you can come up with worse things then us
not finishing in the top four........at least try - I know I could..:smirk:
Click to expand...

Arent you actually agreeing with my point that finishing outside the top four wouldnt be the worst thing that could happen..

As I said before, I dont want United to fall from grace, but i'd rather do it without Glazer than with him, because if we've got him in charge should it ever happen then we're fecked...

It would be like Leeds still having Peter Ridsdale.

They fell from Grace but can survive because hes no longer there. Had he still been there, you can bet Leeds would have gone under completely...

If its a choice of relegation with Glazer, or relegation without, then I'll take it without him anyday..

And if getting him out means losing our status so be it. We can get our status back. We'll never get the £70 million we're paying to the banks every year back..
 
fredthered said:
If I have a van that holds enough cash to repay my debt, then I'd sell it and buy a cheaper one for the time being...
Click to expand...

Good point but I don't think it applies to United.

Why do you think they would sell players rather than sell some of the shares to other investors? I just don't see the logic
 
lorcanjc said:
Good point but I don't think it applies to United.

Why do you think they would sell players rather than sell some of the shares to other investors? I just don't see the logic
Click to expand...

Let me ask you a question in all seriousness.

Glazer has got United in a mess. He owes millions to the banks and the clubs losing money..

Would you invest in United ?
 
fredthered said:
Let me ask you a question in all seriousness.

Glazer has got United in a mess. He owes millions to the banks and the clubs losing money..

Would you invest in United ?
Click to expand...

Fred the CLUB is projected to make £90m this year it is the holding companies that hold all the debt and it is them that are making the loses NOT the club.
And this is a form of financing for the Glazers they don't see it as an operating expense.

And, Yes I would invest £100m (if i had it) for 10% of a club that has increasing revenues, massive global recognition and a squad of young world class players.
 
lorcanjc said:
Fred the CLUB is projected to make £90m this year it is the holding companies that hold all the debt and it is them that are making the loses NOT the club..
Click to expand...

NO, its not them thats losing the money. Its Red Football, the holding company of MUFC..

If that holding company goes bust then MUFC goes to the banks..

United made plenty of money last season, £43 million I believe. THe holding company LOST £132 million..

All because United is making money, it doesnt mean that United are safe, far from it..

If the holding company cant afford the debts, then United are in the shit.
 
I think you have a point of course but take someone like Rooney. How many people talk about the great Duncan Edwards and wish they could have seen him play? Rooney is the best English player of his generation. It doesn't happen everyday - so would you willingly risk losing such a player?

From a purely football point of view - it'd be sickening and add to the fact that we'd have to suffer a season losing until we eventually got relegated

I mean footballs all about moments and players that make a difference. I don't like glazer but when you look at where we are now - you cannot take success for granted.

I mean people go into war to win. People play football professionally to win. Fans spend thousands of pounds in the hope their team wins.

I'm a fan but there's always a side of the game people won't like. Real fans being priced out of games etc. I think though unless the fans own the club then there's always a risk. I mean God forbid, what if the next owners put the club/fans in a worse situation??

I just enjoy the game. Try not to think of finance. We're not privy to what goes on behind the scenes. If United ever was in a financial crisis aka leeds then I would like to think someone would buy the club

If I read everything from a financial view point then maybe it'd be different but I prefer for the moment to just enjoy the game and the players we have because only God knows where we'll be in 5/10 years time
 
fredthered said:
NO, its not them thats losing the money. Its Red Football, the holding company of MUFC..

If that holding company goes bust then MUFC goes to the banks..

United made plenty of money last season, £43 million I believe. THe holding company LOST £132 million..

All because United is making money, it doesnt mean that United are safe, far from it..

If the holding company cant afford the debts, then United are in the shit.
Click to expand...

And if Red Football gets into trouble it will sell the shares in MUFC it owns not the players. What you are saying makes no financial sense Fred!

How exactly will United be in shit we'll just have a new owner
 
lorcanjc said:
And if Red Football gets into trouble it will sell the shares in MUFC it owns not the players. What you are saying makes no financial sense Fred!

How exactly will United be in shit we'll just have a new owner
Click to expand...

Think about what you're saying here...

If Glazer owes £50 million to the banks, then he wont sell his stake in the club. That will be the LAST thing he will sell.

Common sense tells you that.

If you owe £5000k to the banks for your house, you wouldnt sell your house but keep your TV because it makes the house look good... You sell the smaller parts, and if, only if, you hit the shit, do you sell the biggest asset.

If Glazer got into that much shit he'd sell the players first, then sell OT and lease it back, and finally if there was no other option he would sell his shares.

He wouldnt sell his shares because by doing that hes giving away part of the assets anyway. If he sells 25% of his shares hes giving away 25% of the value of those assets.

And as I said, if the debts are that high who's going to buy into United knowing that they will be liable for 25% of the debts that Glazer owns..
 
I follow the guys on the pitch,I remember when we were relegated,and Tommy Docs era,my fav tbh..call me a hypocrite etc but I love the guys in the red shirts.....sorry!
 
Keep this thread going, it makes an interesting read.
Love Utd
Hate Glazer.
Well i do anyway. I'd rather see Utd fall from the top 4 and Glazer go, than Utd win the league with Glazer. I know alot of you will be confused by that, but thats just me.
 
Patti said:
I follow the guys on the pitch,I remember when we were relegated,and Tommy Docs era,my fav tbh..call me a hypocrite etc but I love the guys in the red shirts.....sorry!
Click to expand...

Dont we all.

And as you say, the 70s and early 80s were the best times..

We were shit then..

Sometimes I wonder if we'd be where we are today ( in relation to Glazer ) if we had remained shit..
 
Utd heap said:
Keep this thread going, it makes an interesting read.
Love Utd
Hate Glazer.
Well i do anyway. I'd rather see Utd fall from the top 4 and Glazer go, than Utd win the league with Glazer. I know alot of you will be confused by that, but thats just me.
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly what you mean because I feel the same way..

United will be United no matter where they are in the league, and losing our place in the top four isnt a big deal.

The problem is too many have never seen anything other than trophies and they think that MUFC and trophies go together like bread and butter...

In time we will fall from grace with or without Glazer. No club ever remains at the top indefinitely. Thats inevitable. Glazer, Ferguson, whoever, it will happen..

The thing is, can United cope WHEN ( not IF ) it happens..

More importantly, will some of the posters on here cope,,,
 
fredthered said:
Dont we all.

And as you say, the 70s and early 80s were the best times..

We were shit then..

Sometimes I wonder if we'd be where we are today ( in relation to Glazer ) if we had remained shit..
Click to expand...

Well even Portsmouth are in hands of a rich investor, nowadays you just have to be a Premier League club to sell yoursllf.

No club ever remains at the top indefinitely. Thats inevitable. Glazer, Ferguson, whoever, it will happen..
Click to expand...

I can't recall Real Madrid being shite at all.
 
fredthered said:
I understand perfectly what you mean because I feel the same way..

United will be United no matter where they are in the league, and losing our place in the top four isnt a big deal.

The problem is too many have never seen anything other than trophies and they think that MUFC and trophies go together like bread and butter...

In time we will fall from grace with or without Glazer. No club ever remains at the top indefinitely. Thats inevitable. Glazer, Ferguson, whoever, it will happen..

The thing is, can United cope WHEN ( not IF ) it happens..

More importantly, will some of the posters on here cope,,,
Click to expand...

To be honest if they can't cope, there not really a red. And yes your right, it is a case of when not if. No club stays at the top for too long.
I've been lucky/unlucky in the fact that i have grown up supporting Utd in our era of dominance, but i know to support the club not the silverware. Some people in this thread are embarrasing, completely clue-less and missing the point.
 
Red Flag Flying said:
Hypothetical situation only, but I would without doubt. Obviously as a United fan it wouldn't be nice to see us come down from the top tier, but these days I feel so disenchanted with some sections of our support and the cnuts running our club that I think that it wouldn't be too bad a scenario. We'd feck off the gloryhunters only in it for trophies, get back the hardcore and with that kind of strong support the club would rise again in no time. It would also be a bit of a laugh turning up at places like Colchester with thousands of Reds (the faces of the locals could be interesting).
Click to expand...

Never. I get depressed when we come second in the top league. What on earth are you on?
 
golden_blunder said:
what an idiotic thing to suggest

hypothetically, if United were to be relegated the Glazers would more than likely asset strip everything & sack the manager. Do you want the club to go into freefall?
Click to expand...

I'm not considering all the consequences that relegation would bring, just a choice between keeping the Glazers and stating in the Premiership or getting a better owner willing to work with the fans and being relegated
 
fredthered said:
I understand perfectly what you mean because I feel the same way..

United will be United no matter where they are in the league, and losing our place in the top four isnt a big deal.

The problem is too many have never seen anything other than trophies and they think that MUFC and trophies go together like bread and butter...

In time we will fall from grace with or without Glazer. No club ever remains at the top indefinitely. Thats inevitable. Glazer, Ferguson, whoever, it will happen..

The thing is, can United cope WHEN ( not IF ) it happens..

More importantly, will some of the posters on here cope,,,
Click to expand...


Fred

I don't know about you but I remember freezing to death on United Road for the best part of 27 years waiting to win the league again. I have been spoiled recently but I had to endure a lot of pain and suffering through many false dawns, including 30 points out of 30 at the start of the 85/86 season. I want the club to retain its roots as much as anybody. I would love to see the fans own the club. But given the choice of winning and losing, I know what I prefer. And life has changed. We are living in an era of megarich owners trying to get richer at all costs. We are living in a world of greed. I don't like it, but I will support United forever, come what may, hopefully through many more titles, champions league wins and more importantly, by watching a team hell bent on attack and entertainment.
 
fredthered said:
Think about what you're saying here...

If Glazer owes £50 million to the banks, then he wont sell his stake in the club. That will be the LAST thing he will sell.

Common sense tells you that.

If you owe £5000k to the banks for your house, you wouldnt sell your house but keep your TV because it makes the house look good... You sell the smaller parts, and if, only if, you hit the shit, do you sell the biggest asset.

If Glazer got into that much shit he'd sell the players first, then sell OT and lease it back, and finally if there was no other option he would sell his shares.

He wouldnt sell his shares because by doing that hes giving away part of the assets anyway. If he sells 25% of his shares hes giving away 25% of the value of those assets.

And as I said, if the debts are that high who's going to buy into United knowing that they will be liable for 25% of the debts that Glazer owns..
Click to expand...

They are not giving away the shares Fred they are selling them

Currently
MUFC is probably worth in excess of £1billion
Holding Company's have debt for £700m
Glazers have net equity of £300m

Sell Rooney and Ronaldo
Revenue from player sales £100m (Please don't argue about valuations)
MUFC now worth £1billion - £200m = £800m
Holding company debt £700m - £100 = £600m
Glazers have net equity of £200m

Sell Shares of MUFC - 10% for £100m
MUFC still worth £1 billion (Glazers own 90%) = £900m
Holding company debt £700m - £100 = £600m
Glazers still have equity of £300m

It makes no financial sense to do what you are saying.
 
Red Flag Flying said:
I'm not considering all the consequences that relegation would bring, just a choice between keeping the Glazers and stating in the Premiership or getting a better owner willing to work with the fans and being relegated
Click to expand...

you cant consider it without considering the consequences

as Fred has stated, and myself, IF Glazer was selling up he'd sell all the assets first. The club would go into freefall
 
I wouldn't accept relegation to just get rid of the Glazers. But if we're talking about fan ownership of the club - yes definitely. Just imagine that - fans not only being listened to, but actually having a stake in the club itself and a say in how it goes forward. Definitely worth swapping a season in the Championship for. And as has been pointed out, what a laugh it would be turning up at places like Blackpool :D
 
I don't know. Depends I guess.

In general, probably not mind.
 
lorcanjc said:
They are not giving away the shares Fred they are selling them

Currently
MUFC is probably worth in excess of £1billion
Holding Company's have debt for £700m
Glazers have net equity of £300m

Sell Rooney and Ronaldo
Revenue from player sales £100m (Please don't argue about valuations)
MUFC now worth £1billion - £200m = £800m
Holding company debt £700m - £100 = £600m
Glazers have net equity of £200m

Sell Shares of MUFC - 10% for £100m
MUFC still worth £1 billion (Glazers own 90%) = £900m
Holding company debt £700m - £100 = £600m
Glazers still have equity of £300m

It makes no financial sense to do what you are saying.
Click to expand...


Who is going to buy 10% of United knowing

a) the company as a whole is losing money
b) They will be liable for £7 million per annum in debt repayments
c) They will also be liable for 10% of all Uniteds debts amounting to £66 million.

No one with any sense at all is going to buy a part share of United under the current circumstances.

If Glazer is going to sell then he'll sell 100% of United and get rid of the whole thing. If he wants to keep United and it goes tits up he will sell the assets.

Why would he sell the assets ? Because they are a depreciating asset and what you may get £50 million for now, you could maybe get £30 million for in two years time. Its not logical to hold onto an asset which in five years time is worthless, so therefore he will sell them when he can get something for them and still retain 100% ownership of the club.

Using your argument, Glazer would have been more sensible to only buy 75% of United and reduce his liabilities, leaving the rest in other shareholders hands. But he didnt. He wants 100% of the profits, and I can assure you there is no way on gods earth he is going to sell part of United. He will either own all of it or he will own none of it. Theres no middle ground.
 
What happens if the whole Glazer family... accidentally... *cough*you know what*cough*?:angel:
 
fredthered said:
Who is going to buy 10% of United knowing

a) the company as a whole is losing money
b) They will be liable for £7 million per annum in debt repayments
c) They will also be liable for 10% of all Uniteds debts amounting to £66 million.

No one with any sense at all is going to buy a part share of United under the current circumstances.
Click to expand...


Fred if they need to raise the cash they would sell SHARES IN MANCHESTER UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB not the holding companies.

The new buyers would have absolutely nothing to do with the debt. They would be making no interest payments and wouldn't be liable for 1p of the debt.

I don't think any rational investor would see anything wrong with these circumstances.

fredthered said:
If Glazer is going to sell then he'll sell 100% of United and get rid of the whole thing. If he wants to keep United and it goes tits up he will sell the assets.

Why would he sell the assets ? Because they are a depreciating asset and what you may get £50 million for now, you could maybe get £30 million for in two years time. Its not logical to hold onto an asset which in five years time is worthless, so therefore he will sell them when he can get something for them and still retain 100% ownership of the club.

Using your argument, Glazer would have been more sensible to only buy 75% of United and reduce his liabilities, leaving the rest in other shareholders hands. But he didnt. He wants 100% of the profits, and I can assure you there is no way on gods earth he is going to sell part of United. He will either own all of it or he will own none of it. Theres no middle ground.
Click to expand...


What's wrong with selling a part of United? Most private equity bidders do this when they are exiting a leveraged buyout. I don't see why United would be any different.
 
lorcanjc said:
Fred if they need to raise the cash they would sell SHARES IN MANCHESTER UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB not the holding companies.

The new buyers would have absolutely nothing to do with the debt. They would be making no interest payments and wouldn't be liable for 1p of the debt.

I don't think any rational investor would see anything wrong with these circumstances.
Click to expand...
So OK, they'd buy shares in United. The same club who have to provide the money to repay the debt with.. Just who exactly is going to buy shares knowing that ALL of Uniteds profits have to be paid to red football ltd.

You dont seem to comprehend the fact that all of Uniteds profits are committed to Red Football. If United make £40 million next season that HAS to go to Red Football because United is their only source of income.

So yet again, i ask, who is going to buy a share of MUFC knowing that the profits the club makes have to go to pay off Red Footballs debt. If Red Football dont pay the bills the banks get United because the whole debt is secured against United.

And unless I am mistaken, he coudlnt sell any of United because its all security for the debt. Glazer cant sell off the thing that the debt is secured against. If things were that desperate that they needed to sell shares to pay the banks the banks would simply foreclose on the debt and sell the shares themselves..




lorcanjc said:
What's wrong with selling a part of United? Most private equity bidders do this when they are exiting a leveraged buyout. I don't see why United would be any different.
Click to expand...

See above..
 
fredthered said:
So OK, they'd buy shares in United. The same club who have to provide the money to repay the debt with.. Just who exactly is going to buy shares knowing that ALL of Uniteds profits have to be paid to red football ltd.

You dont seem to comprehend the fact that all of Uniteds profits are committed to Red Football. If United make £40 million next season that HAS to go to Red Football because United is their only source of income.
Click to expand...


Fred you don't seem to comprehend the basics of company ownership.

Of course 100% of United profits have to go to Red Football. Red football currently owns 100% of United the shares.
Each 1% of shares owned entitles the holder to 1% of the profit that's the way they work!
So if they sell 10% of the shares. 10% of the profit now goes to new owners. 90% to Red Football.



fredthered said:
So yet again, i ask, who is going to buy a share of MUFC knowing that the profits the club makes have to go to pay off Red Footballs debt. If Red Football dont pay the bills the banks get United because the whole debt is secured against United.

And unless I am mistaken, he coudlnt sell any of United because its all security for the debt. Glazer cant sell off the thing that the debt is secured against. If things were that desperate that they needed to sell shares to pay the banks the banks would simply foreclose on the debt and sell the shares themselves..

See above..
Click to expand...

The whole purpose of selling the shares is to pay down the debt.
They sell 10% of United shares and then use the £100m or so to repay £100m off the debt.
The banks would be more than happy to have 90% of United shares (worth £900m) securing the £600m debt remaining rather than 100% (worth £1,000m) covering £700m debt.

They have increased the equity/debt ratio from 1.4 to 1.5. And would probably be able to reduce the interest rate paid in the process.
 
Hell no, maybe someone should just kill the Glazers then and save us all the worries. ;)
 
I would accept a simple 'relegation' if it makes the Glazers leave. But life is never that simple isn't it.

For one thing, we know the relegation will impact us in more ways than just forcing the owners to leave. At this day and age, the impact would be staggering.

Secondly, the Glazers leaving can only mean we'll belong to either the major creditors or a new owner. It doesn't necessarily mean things will get any better.

And for these reasons, grounded in reality, I'd rather hope that it will never come to this.
 
lorcanjc said:
Fred you don't seem to comprehend the basics of company ownership.

Of course 100% of United profits have to go to Red Football. Red football currently owns 100% of United the shares.
Each 1% of shares owned entitles the holder to 1% of the profit that's the way they work!
So if they sell 10% of the shares. 10% of the profit now goes to new owners. 90% to Red Football.





The whole purpose of selling the shares is to pay down the debt.
They sell 10% of United shares and then use the £100m or so to repay £100m off the debt.
The banks would be more than happy to have 90% of United shares (worth £900m) securing the £600m debt remaining rather than 100% (worth £1,000m) covering £700m debt.

They have increased the equity/debt ratio from 1.4 to 1.5. And would probably be able to reduce the interest rate paid in the process.
Click to expand...

You are failing to spot one glaringly obvious detail in all that.

IF the stage was reached where by GLazer had to sell something to alleviate the problem, the debt would have risen to well above what it is now, which is £660 million and the share value would have fallen dramatically because ultimately who is going to pay top whack for a football club that is on the verge of going tits up...

You are assuming that the debts dont rise and the share value has risen. IF the debts became unmanageable and he needed to sell a stake in United then no one will pay that amount of money to alleviate his debt liabilities.

You could well find that the debts are well in excess of £800 million by that time and the value of United ( because of the debt liabilities ) will not be worth anywhere close to what it is currently..

We are talking obviously hypothetically, so yes using current figures your scenario would be logical, but for Glazer to be in the situation whereby he had to sell shares in the club the figures wouldnt be anything like they are now. The debt would be higher, the share price would be lower, and it wouldnt make any financial sense to sell of a share in the club and keep depreciating assets in the hope that you can ride the storm..

Ronaldo is worth £50 million now ( for example ). In two years time he may be worth say £30 million. It makes sense to sell him on and keep your 100% stake in the club. In the long run, keeping your 100% stake could prove to be far more profitable. Once you sell part of your stake, you'll never get it back, and you also have the problem that the new co-owners will want to have their say, and they could well just walk in and say they want to sell the assets anyway...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.