Manchester United Superthread 2014 mod warning #8081

TheDoc

Blatter wrote: »

TheDoc, you are coming across as if you think the Glazers made United what they are today and are giving them credit for having the club compete with major European clubs yet are seemingly ignoring the fact that United were one of the biggest clubs in the world and number one on the rich list before the Glazers took over.

OMG

I'm not crediting them with the clubs success, I'm arguing essentially that this so called "risk" wasn't a risk at all, or certainly not as big as being made out anti-glazer groups at the time.

And I'm pointing out that absolutely nothing the doomsayers predicted was anywhere close to the reality of the situation.

I'm not in anyway crediting them with the clubs success, I'm saying their takeover didn't in anyway hinder it, and we had our most successful spell, while they were in charge. Which takes a fat dump on the projections of the time that the club wouldn't be able to attract players or sustain the success that had grown during the 90's.

i'm in no way saying they are directly credited or linked with the clubs success.

The reason for our success was very much one man in fairness, I assumed that to be the general acceptance so thought I wouldn't have to actually specify him...

Mitch Connor

2moreMinutes wrote: »

Before people start complaining about a transaction as complex as the Glazers takeover, they should include their experience in the field of M&A.

Before people start discussing transfers, they should include their history or working on deals as an agent.

Before people start discussing tactics they should include details of the Uefa A badge coaching courses they have done and passed.

Before people starting talking about the films they have watched, they should post details of the film making and studies courses they have done, and their history as a director or writer.

v3ttel

2moreMinutes wrote: »

Before people start complaining about a transaction as complex as the Glazers takeover, they should include their experience in the field of M&A.

Before people start discussing Manchester United, or any other professional football team, maybe they should include their coaching qualifications & relevant experience in the field of professional football too.

2moreMinutes

Agueroooo wrote: »

people also forget the projections for the growth of World football and commercial activity around the time the Glazers took over.

everyone wanted in.

Yes the Glazers kept the ball rolling, and yes adding value but in no way did they plant any seeds.

They didn't plant any seeds but they also didn't cause the sky to fall in a manner most thought around that time. The fact we have seen great success on and off the pitch during their period of ownership also adds to the argument that they have been good for the club.
Could things have been as good or possibly better without them? Possibly but that doesn't remove the fact that the Glazers haven't been the big bad monsters some would make them out to be.

The points you mention above about the growth potential in football also adds to the argument that the takeover was not as risky as some would have you believe.

Pro. F

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm not using it as a justification, I'm pointing it out in that it had no impact on our success. Could it have? Maybe.

But that's speculation. The facts are the club has had it's most successful while under the Glazer's ownership, have grown revenue streams to far exceed our rivals and be on part with the unfairly advantaged behomoths of Europe, and our debt is being reduced considerably, down €150m in 2012 and on course to be the same again, bringing out debt down from 500m to just shy of 200m.

I'm not drawing conclusions or any parallels, I'm just stating the facts.

No you are not just stating facts. You have interpreted some facts and come to conclusions about the benefit to the club.

TheDoc wrote: »

The club didn't disintegrate, we didn't stop being competitive, we didn't turn into a void ( like many predicted). Instead we had a period of tremendous success.

The fact that the club didn't disintegrate and that Fergie continued having success on the field does not prove that the risks were worth taking.

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm trying to find an article on Forbes at the moment, because I remember reading it and it rang so true at the time when the green & yellow/gold protests were going on. It was from a collection of leading financial consultants indicating that the craze generated by this had no basis, and was more likely based of anti-american ownership then any concern for the clubs future. That the takeover plan was actually minimal risk, from the financials of the club there was little chance it would go wrong, and after the IPO all risk evaporated and the club was on a course to be a global leader.

That was a few years ago, and I just took my basis of opinion from that. What else is there to take it from, local fans trying to breakdown complex financial takeovers?

Ah yes, financial experts' opinions. Those guys are never wrong and never have their own agendas.

TheDoc wrote: »

We can go back and forward all day on this to be honest, you have your feelings I have mine, don't think either is going to conceed to another. Will let you have the last word to respond to this, then probably leave it there. I don't see how we can continue to argue the merits of a method of takeover, speculating on the potential damage it caused, that simply never came to pass.

I am not speculating on damage that didn't come to pass. You are straw-manning.

Mitch Connor

TheDoc wrote: »

OMG

I'm not crediting them with the clubs success, I'm arguing essentially that this so called "risk" wasn't a risk at all, or certainly not as big as being made out anti-glazer groups at the time.

And I'm pointing out that absolutely nothing the doomsayers predicted was anywhere close to the reality of the situation.

I'm not in anyway crediting them with the clubs success, I'm saying their takeover didn't in anyway hinder it, and we had our most successful spell, while they were in charge. Which takes a fat dump on the projections of the time that the club wouldn't be able to attract players or sustain the success that had grown during the 90's.

i'm in no way saying they are directly credited or linked with the clubs success.

The reason for our success was very much one man in fairness, I assumed that to be the general acceptance so thought I wouldn't have to actually specify him...

Say Fergie had decided to retire in 2005, following the takeover - and we appointed someone who did as badly as Moyes did - so we finished 7th and floundered rather than winning the title. Imagine we didn't have the best manager in the world doing his thing? Could the Glazers have driven their commercial strategy based on mediocer results rather than League wins and CL finals?

Their risk paid off because of Ferguson and the TV money (which people did predict to drop due to recession).

Moyes shows how badly things could have gone for them - had it happened even two years ago, the damage to United could have been far far worse than it has been.

2moreMinutes

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Before people start discussing transfers, they should include their history or working on deals as an agent.

Before people start discussing tactics they should include details of the Uefa A badge coaching courses they have done and passed.

Before people starting talking about the films they have watched, they should post details of the film making and studies courses they have done, and their history as a director or writer.

You really can't see the difference between giving opinions on a sport or a movie and giving an "opinion" on a highly complex business deal? Really?

TheDoc

Mitch Connor wrote: »

My point was in regards to how United would have grown commercially - the inference of Gills comment is that they hadn't even considered the splitting of sponsorship that we have seen under Glazer/Woodward. Revenue would have increased due to TV revenues, and sponsorship likely would have increased too - but probably in line with other PL clubs rather than possibly doubling their record deals with our own deals. Would Gill and his team have got the money we did off Chevolet? Or AON for Carrington naming? or DHL for the training kit - or possibly twice the Madrid/Barca deals for the next kit deal?

I dislike the Glazers, and Woodward, but their growth of the commercial side of United is industry leading - hence Woodward being happily appointed to a Uefa commercial sponsorship role this week.

I don't think United would have anywhere remotely close to the commercial revenue we have now, without the Glazer/woodward input.

However, I think the good they have done on that side, is massively outweighed by the ~700million spent on debt, interest and banking fees, and the 380million STILL on the books to be paid.

I think, real profit wise, United would have been better off with the more modest commercial growth under Gill/PLC and no debt repayments than the higher commercial revenue and the debt+associated costs.

Why the focus on profit? Revenue is what matters.

We don't buy players, or that thing, with "profit". We buy it with revenue, and its marked as an expenditure. The final total results in profit, which at the end of the day if capable get's paid to shareholders.

Revenue is what it is all about.

And it's difficult to somewhat say for certain. But if the club maintained it's Gill/PLC status, with moderate revenue increases, could we safely say we could compete for the top talent in European football? I'm not saying yes or no, it's impossible to say. It's too hard to take a fixed point, and then throw it forward 10+ years and see if it still holds weight.

I'm sure we probably would be punching around for top targets, and being able to upgrade facilities. But I don't think we can deny having bumped up revenue will help the club compete in a rapidly expanding transfer market where fees for average - good players is on the rise.

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Say Fergie had decided to retire in 2005, following the takeover - and we appointed someone who did as badly as Moyes did - so we finished 7th and floundered rather than winning the title. Imagine we didn't have the best manager in the world doing his thing? Could the Glazers have driven their commercial strategy based on mediocer results rather than League wins and CL finals?

Their risk paid off because of Ferguson and the TV money (which people did predict to drop due to recession).

Moyes shows how badly things could have gone for them - had it happened even two years ago, the damage to United could have been far far worse than it has been.

Moyes was chosen by Fergie and the Glazers agreed that Fergie new best from what I remember.

So would you agree that when Moyes was sacked that it wasn't the Glazers who overthrew this decision? I think it was when things went south towards the end of the season. Seems like they reacted quicker than your predicting.

RichFTW

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm not using it as a justification, I'm pointing it out in that it had no impact on our success. Could it have? Maybe.

But that's speculation. The facts are the club has had it's most successful while under the Glazer's ownership, have grown revenue streams to far exceed our rivals and be on part with the unfairly advantaged behomoths of Europe, and our debt is being reduced considerably, down €150m in 2012 and on course to be the same again, bringing out debt down from 500m to just shy of 200m.

I'm not drawing conclusions or any parallels, I'm just stating the facts.

The club didn't disintegrate, we didn't stop being competitive, we didn't turn into a void ( like many predicted). Instead we had a period of tremendous success.

I'm trying to find an article on Forbes at the moment, because I remember reading it and it rang so true at the time when the green & yellow/gold protests were going on. It was from a collection of leading financial consultants indicating that the craze generated by this had no basis, and was more likely based of anti-american ownership then any concern for the clubs future. That the takeover plan was actually minimal risk, from the financials of the club there was little chance it would go wrong, and after the IPO all risk evaporated and the club was on a course to be a global leader.

That was a few years ago, and I just took my basis of opinion from that. What else is there to take it from, local fans trying to breakdown complex financial takeovers?

We can go back and forward all day on this to be honest, you have your feelings I have mine, don't think either is going to conceed to another. Will let you have the last word to respond to this, then probably leave it there. I don't see how we can continue to argue the merits of a method of takeover, speculating on the potential damage it caused, that simply never came to pass.

Can't wait to see this Forbes article...Don't forget that the Red Knights that wanted to buy the club were made up of leading financial consultants too. They certainly saw a basis for concern.

You seem to be missing the point the takeover plan was actually minimal risk from the Glaziers point of view, not the club's. If the club had failed to increase its revenue or lost out on revenue such as CL money, the club would have paid for it, not the Glaziers.

As Blatter pointed out, United's rivals have also increased their revenue over the same period. And by rivals I mean rivals for the global market like Barca, Real, Munich etc. United don't compete with Fulham & West Ham for the American & Asian market. Comparing their revenue growth with United's isn't a like for like comparison (I know it was another poster who mentioned this point).

You are not stating any facts. In fact, you haven't even referenced where you are getting your debt repayment figures from.

Mitch Connor

2moreMinutes wrote: »

You really can't see the difference between giving opinions on a sport or a movie and giving an "opinion" on a highly complex business deal? Really?

Why do you think the NFL doesn't allow leveraged buyouts of its teams? Reckon it could be because they are risky and poor for the team in question?

They may happen in other industries, but that doesn't mean it is a correct and acceptable strategy for soccer.

I'll discuss the takeover if I want to, and if you dont want to read my, or anyone elses opinion on it - stick us on ignore or just ignore the thread for a bit.

You don't need a history in big money M&A deals to be able to discuss whether a deal which has seen a club make real losses, or have 700million sucked out of the club in 9 years, was a good or bad thing. We have the facts - the money out and money in.

bangkok

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Moyes was chosen by Fergie and the Glazers agreed that Fergie new best from what I remember.

So would you agree that when Moyes was sacked that it wasn't the Glazers who overthrew this decision? I think it was when things went south towards the end of the season. Seems like they reacted quicker than your predicting.

just to say moyes was never first choice to be united manager, fergie sounded out guardiola and anchelotti before they looked to moyes

Mitch Connor

TheDoc wrote: »

Why the focus on profit? Revenue is what matters.

We don't buy players, or that thing, with "profit". We buy it with revenue, and its marked as an expenditure. The final total results in profit, which at the end of the day if capable get's paid to shareholders.

Revenue is what it is all about.

And it's difficult to somewhat say for certain. But if the club maintained it's Gill/PLC status, with moderate revenue increases, could we safely say we could compete for the top talent in European football? I'm not saying yes or no, it's impossible to say. It's too hard to take a fixed point, and then throw it forward 10+ years and see if it still holds weight.

I'm sure we probably would be punching around for top targets, and being able to upgrade facilities. But I don't think we can deny having bumped up revenue will help the club compete in a rapidly expanding transfer market where fees for average - good players is on the rise.

If you don't make profits, and your owner doesn't bankroll you, what are you going to buy players with?

Mitch Connor

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Moyes was chosen by Fergie and the Glazers agreed that Fergie new best from what I remember.

So would you agree that when Moyes was sacked that it wasn't the Glazers who overthrew this decision? I think it was when things went south towards the end of the season. Seems like they reacted quicker than your predicting.

It doesn't matter who hired him, or when he was sacked - my point is that any appointment could have gone worse (or indeed better) than Fergie did over the 8 years of their Glazer reign - and if it had gone badly (as Moyes did) the uncertainty over the takeover plan coupled with poor performances could have seen the Glazers stuggle to do the refinancing, bonds and share issues they did. Had United not been successful, it would have been far harder to sell the club to sponsors and investors as they have done - look at the volatility of the Share Price in the last year.

The Glazers are extremely lucky, imo, for the results Fergie gave them. had it not gone as well, their financial results could have been very different.

bangkok

Mitch Connor wrote: »

It doesn't matter who hired him, or when he was sacked - my point is that any appointment could have gone worse (or indeed better) than Fergie did over the 8 years of their Glazer reign - and if it had gone badly (as Moyes did) the uncertainty over the takeover plan coupled with poor performances could have seen the Glazers stuggle to do the refinancing, bonds and share issues they did. Had United not been successful, it would have been far harder to sell the club to sponsors and investors as they have done - look at the volatility of the Share Price in the last year.

The Glazers are extremely lucky, imo, for the results Fergie gave them. had it not gone as well, their financial results could have been very different.

agree totally with this.......

bangkok

bangkok wrote: »

just to say moyes was never first choice to be united manager, fergie sounded out guardiola and anchelotti before they looked to moyes

Doesn't have relevance to my point. He still gave them who he wanted regardless of 1st or 3rd choice and they showed faith in his decision.

Pro. F

2moreMinutes wrote: »

You really can't see the difference between giving opinions on a sport or a movie and giving an "opinion" on a highly complex business deal? Really?

The world of finance is not to be trusted. It benefits everybody for the rest of us to stick our noses in and discuss what we see going on.

TheDoc

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If you don't make profits, and your owner doesn't bankroll you, what are you going to buy players with?

I'm probably arguing semantics, I get where your coming from.

RichFTW

TheDoc wrote: »

Why the focus on profit? Revenue is what matters.

We don't buy players, or that thing, with "profit". We buy it with revenue, and its marked as an expenditure. The final total results in profit, which at the end of the day if capable get's paid to shareholders.

Revenue is what it is all about.

And it's difficult to somewhat say for certain. But if the club maintained it's Gill/PLC status, with moderate revenue increases, could we safely say we could compete for the top talent in European football? I'm not saying yes or no, it's impossible to say. It's too hard to take a fixed point, and then throw it forward 10+ years and see if it still holds weight.

I'm sure we probably would be punching around for top targets, and being able to upgrade facilities. But I don't think we can deny having bumped up revenue will help the club compete in a rapidly expanding transfer market where fees for average - good players is on the rise.

That's not how it works at all.

Cash is what buys players. Revenue growth is meaningless if your costs are higher as it means you are making a loss. If you continuously make losses and cut into your cash reserves, you can't buy any players no matter what your revenue is because you can't afford it.

duffman13

Oh my days we need a signing to fix this place. Glazers took the chance to complete a no personal risk takeover of a massive company. It paid off, from a business perspective it was fantastic for them but not for the club. That debt could have crippled the club and only for the on field success between 2005 - 2011 we could be in a very different situation.

I credit them for being extremely clever people but they put the club at risk and that won't be forgotten. Yes our revenues have increased but so have other premier league clubs. We might have almost doubled revenue but Chelsea and Arsenal are not far behind in terms of % growth.

As a fan this was a terrible deal for the club.

redbaron_99

I'd be quite happy with them as owners if they had bought the club with their own money. They've done quite well in developing the club.
But the fact thy borrowed to fund the takeover and heaped so much debt onto the club is scandalous.
It was a risk that paid off. It could have gone very bad though. And the club could have been virtually destroyed if it had.

TheDoc

RichFTW wrote: »

That's not how it works at all.

Cash is what buys players. Revenue growth is meaningless if your costs are higher as it means you are making a loss. If you continuously make losses and cut into your cash reserves, you can't buy any players no matter what your revenue is because you can't afford it.

Most clubs carry financial debt. This debt is organised in a vary of ways and methods of replayments.

Banks and creditors mostly recognise a football club as an organisation that will be around for the longterm, and can service it's debt. Some clubs even gain extensions or increased levels of loans in order to expand or invest, which a bank will happily sign off. It will hopefully increase the clubs income, enable them to service their debt, and continue repayments.

Remember banks and creditors make their money from the interest paid on loans, so they are more then happy to extend out a loan to large organisation, therefore increasing their return from the interest.

The repayments are structured in a way that it services the banks requirement while also providing cashflow to the club in order to run the day ot day, but also make those investments.

Our club for example made 331m in 2011, while out debt was reportedly 500m or so. Yet we were able to continue making signings, and then go onto install a multi-million euro upgrade to Carrington.

There is a fixed repayment to the banks for our loans, for any loan. The club can opt to make a bulk payment to clear the debt total down, but the repayments continues as fixed. The purpose of which is to ensure the club can operate.

So no, it's not as simply as "cash buys players". Plenty of clubs are able to invest and improve their squads, while managing a serviceable debt.

Your insinuating a situation where the club is consistently outspending it's income. Your talking about a Leeds or a Portsmouth, who completely outjumped their revenue streams with injections of short term investment, and when the risk didn't pay off, and they didn't open up those streams from success, they started hemoragging money and went into administration.

Having debt, and your operational expenditure are two ENTIRELY different things. You can more then happily manage a large debt, continue to invest, aslong as you have the revenue streams to cope. Which in this case, us, we do.

TheDoc

How the **** did I even get here posting about this. I left the Finance sector for a reason!

I said at the start I don't even recall my feelings on what happened when the Glazers took over, I made a small post probably ambigious now looking back, but trying to point out a man died, and hope we didn't descend into rejoicing over it.

I've pretty much zero feelings towards our owners, and I'm being portrayed as being some mad Glazer fan or something. I'll take the **** coming my way for backing up Moyes to the hilt, but this is stretching it

kippy

redbaron_99 wrote: »

I'd be quite happy with them as owners if they had bought the club with their own money. They've done quite well in developing the club.
But the fact thy borrowed to fund the takeover and heaped so much debt onto the club is scandalous.
It was a risk that paid off. It could have gone very bad though. And the club could have been virtually destroyed if it had.

I was of the same thinking when it initially happened.
I've since come to terms with the fact that the club is a business and this kind of stuff happens in business.

duffman13

TheDoc wrote: »

Most clubs carry financial debt. This debt is organised in a vary of ways and methods of replayments.

Banks and creditors mostly recognise a football club as an organisation that will be around for the longterm, and can service it's debt. Some clubs even gain extensions or increased levels of loans in order to expand or invest, which a bank will happily sign off. It will hopefully increase the clubs income, enable them to service their debt, and continue repayments.

Remember banks and creditors make their money from the interest paid on loans, so they are more then happy to extend out a loan to large organisation, therefore increasing their return from the interest.

The repayments are structured in a way that it services the banks requirement while also providing cashflow to the club in order to run the day ot day, but also make those investments.

Our club for example made 331m in 2011, while out debt was reportedly 500m or so. Yet we were able to continue making signings, and then go onto install a multi-million euro upgrade to Carrington.

There is a fixed repayment to the banks for our loans, for any loan. The club can opt to make a bulk payment to clear the debt total down, but the repayments continues as fixed. The purpose of which is to ensure the club can operate.

So no, it's not as simply as "cash buys players". Plenty of clubs are able to invest and improve their squads, while managing a serviceable debt.

Your insinuating a situation where the club is consistently outspending it's income. Your talking about a Leeds or a Portsmouth, who completely outjumped their revenue streams with injections of short term investment, and when the risk didn't pay off, and they didn't open up those streams from success, they started hemoragging money and went into administration.

Having debt, and your operational expenditure are two ENTIRELY different things. You can more then happily manage a large debt, continue to invest, aslong as you have the revenue streams to cope. Which in this case, us, we do.

The Glazers put the full value of the club as debt in the club. Revenue is a term which means very little. I could be making billions in revenue but zero profit. Our revenues have increased as have our costs. Additionally a good chunk of our revenue goes to debt repayments as a result of the Glazers.

In the normal circumstances it is of course acceptable for a club to have debt. This is not a normal situation all of our debt exists because of the Glazers. Arsenals debt was a result of building a spanking new stadium. Liverpools is as a result of poor performances and investment to try get back to the top. Uniteds is because someone bought the club.

RobertKK

We are buying Koke, OK?
€60 million euro...according to Spanish newspaper...el confidencial.

We need to talk about rumours even if they are 99.9% fake.... :P

TheDoc

duffman13 wrote: »

The Glazers put the full value of the club as debt in the club. Revenue is a term which means very little. I could be making billions in revenue but zero profit. Our revenues have increased as have our costs. Additionally a good chunk of our revenue goes to debt repayments as a result of the Glazers.

In the normal circumstances it is of course acceptable for a club to have debt. This is not a normal situation all of our debt exists because of the Glazers. Arsenals debt was a result of building a spanking new stadium. Liverpools is as a result of poor performances and investment to try get back to the top. Uniteds is because someone bought the club.

I suppose that's the risk in itself when you put a company public Your pretty much open to being bought out. And your at risk for that buyout to take place in a number of ways, this one included.

TheDoc

RobertKK wrote: »

We are buying Koke, OK?
€60 million euro...according to Spanish newspaper...el confidencial.

We need to talk about rumours even if they are 99.9% fake.... :P

Atleast we are keeping busy while things are quiet

Pro. F

TheDoc wrote: »

How the **** did I even get here posting about this. I left the Finance sector for a reason!

I said at the start I don't even recall my feelings on what happened when the Glazers took over, I made a small post probably ambigious now looking back, but trying to point out a man died, and hope we didn't descend into rejoicing over it.

I've pretty much zero feelings towards our owners, and I'm being portrayed as being some mad Glazer fan or something. I'll take the **** coming my way for backing up Moyes to the hilt, but this is stretching it

Your post was not ambiguous and you have since posted a lot of words trying to argue how the Glazer take over was good for the club. Despite protesting that you have no opinion on the takeover you clearly do.

Robson99

RobertKK wrote: »

We are buying Koke, OK?
€60 million euro...according to Spanish newspaper...el confidencial.

We need to talk about rumours even if they are 99.9% fake.... :P

What is his best position??