Manchester United Superthread 2014 mod warning #8081

Pro. F · 29-05-2014 01:02PM

TheDoc wrote: »

ok, clearly my post has caused some ruptions from what I've read. To be perfectly honest at the time of the takeover, I barely remember having an opinion on it, so I'm not going to used muddied hindsight to make comment.

I think most people take their lead on what happened from either the fairly aggrevied fan groups and in some cases football centric punditry or comment.

From what I read and heard from the last 18 months, from experts in business and corporate finance, is that while it was a risk in the method they took over the club, it was calculated.

To be fair it's quiet complicated and I don't fully understand it, but the laymans explanation was that the Glazers saw the club with potential to multiply their revenue streams and turn the club into an absolute money making machine, and the best way to achieve this revenue growth was to buy the club with loans against the club.

This way negotiations could be done to organise internet only payments and essentially small payments on these loans, in order to maximise investment in club infrastructure and revenue expansion. I believe it was explained that if the Glazers did not go down this method, they would have had to take this investment from within the actual club directly, gobbling up revenue.

I'm not defending anything. I have been of the opinion that the Glazers were the fingerpointed enemy when the club weren't doing well, or looked to be floundering in the transfer market. Yet at the same time we are throwing €25m on the likes of Ashley Young, or Gill and Ferguson allowing transfer targets to slip through the cracks.

I've not seen anything definitive ( and remember our accounts are publicly viewable) to indicate the club coffers were dry during transfer windows.

The latest I was reading on the situation was before Christmas last year, where experts were in agreement that the method the Glazers took paid off massively, with revenue streams growing to projection and resulting in massive funding available at the clubs disposal.

I'm not being oblivious to the issues being raised, I was just stating that I felt some sadness our owner had passed away and don't think I agree with what would be forthcoming, probably a large wave of "ding dong the witch is dead".

Don't forget there was a massive infrastructural upheavel at Carrington with first class upgrading. The direct impact on the squad is that funding should be available to compete with the big spenders.

Like I said I don't fully understand it, but I never took for gospel the angry fan groups or Eamon Dunphies proclaiming our demise to financial ruin. I listened to the experts, who all fully understood why the Glazers had took this route, saw there ws a very viable reason for it, and as recently as before Christmas indicated it will all pay off for the long term, allowing the club to the financial powerhouse it should be in the marketplace among other things.

My post that seemed to have cause a lot of grief was more to antiticapte the posts of people probably posting the "good riddance" sort of nonsense.

The experts you have been reading have led you astray. The reason the Glazers put all the risk on the club rather than themselves was to ensure that they wouldn't be exposed to risk. It wasn't a calculated risk for the clubs benefit, it was a risk taken in order to benefit the Glazers.

Anticipating what other people might post about Malcolm's death is no excuse for effusive praise of the Glazer's take over of the club.

Pro. F · 29-05-2014 01:04PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and why you focusing on clubs in different countries, with different tv and revenue streams? bayern have a monopoly in one of the biggest countries in the World, Spain is a two horse race (with a €300million tv deal shared between them each year). England has a unified TV deal and 5 or 6 big clubs that have a huge share in the total local fan base.

lets compare like for like - and compare our increase in revenue compared to the other clubs -

United - £164.4
Arsenal - £109.9
Chelsea - £85.5
Liverpool - £100.4

i rest my case.

No sources and no comparison of revenue growth in a discussion about revenue growth. Your case hasn't even been constructed for you to rest it.

Mitch Connor · 29-05-2014 01:05PM

NeVeR wrote: »

I can't wait until we actually sign some players.. and we can start to imagine how the line-ups will be.

Out of all the gossip and possible targets.. can someone ( if possible ) post a list of players we actually might get.. or are they all just wishful thinking?

Players I personally think are actual realistic/real targets for United.

Martins-Indi.
Hummels.
Shaw
Strootman
Depay

I do think we will be in for or looking seriously at other players - at least one more CM and maybe a right back, but i haven't seen any links that I would actually trust as of yet. Koke rumoured this morning and I do think he is a LVG type player, but the 48million buyout that we are reported to be ready to match? NAH! not buying it. Similarly, I don't think we will be getting Schweinsteiger at 10million.

Spazdarn · 29-05-2014 01:05PM

Meh, don't really see the bother to all of it. We'd a very successful few years since the club was bought, and the debt has diminished year after year. If they throw money at V. Gaal to rebuild I'll be happy enough.

Pro. F · 29-05-2014 01:08PM

ToiletFusion wrote: »

Meh, don't really see the bother to all of it. We'd a very successful few years since the club was bought, and the debt has diminished year after year. If they throw money at V. Gaal to rebuild I'll be happy enough.

I bet my family's home on a horse race. It came in and now I've got myself some money. I don't see what people are upset about.

bmcc10 · 29-05-2014 01:08PM

Nuts102 wrote: »

I think Powell has massive potential as a box to box midfielder. I would rather focus on developing him than overpay for Barkley.

Once again i don't get where this Powell hope as a box to box midfielder is coming from? We've hardly even seen him play there and in my opinion his loan has been a complete waste for United.

Bannerman7 · 29-05-2014 01:10PM

homerjay2005 · 29-05-2014 01:10PM

Pro. F wrote: »

No sources and no comparison of revenue growth in a discussion about revenue growth. Your case hasn't even been constructed for you to rest it.

you thanked a post above yet when i take figures from the same link using the exact same comparison, you discredit it?

hypocrisy at its finest.

TheDoc · 29-05-2014 01:13PM

Pro. F wrote: »

The experts you have been reading have led you astray. The reason the Glazers put all the risk on the club rather than themselves was to ensure that they wouldn't be exposed to risk. It wasn't a calculated risk for the clubs benefit, it was a risk taken in order to benefit the Glazers.

Anticipating what other people might post about Malcolm's death is no excuse for effusive praise of the Glazer's take over of the club.

To my understanding this is relatively normal practice for large takeovers of corporations. We were a PLC before the takeover. I think you'll find it's somewhat normal for a takeover, where the buyer extracts loans on the other end to insulate them from risk.

Appreciate that obviously its a football club we all support, and maybe that risk isn't very appreciated, I do understand that.

But I'm under the impression, even from a quick google now, it's a frequently done thing. Just on newstalk today they were discussing Apples takeover of Beats, indicating that Apple are organising a large portion to be loans to be covered by Beats. Reason being there is some risk as Beats market share has fallen since they removed themselves from Monster Cabling.

But as the expert they had on indicated, it's a calculated risk, as the company has a large history of strong revenue streams, and it would take a catastrophic disaster for it to implode.

As I said I don't recall the opinion I had at the time of the takeover, and I appreciate that obviously a lot of people arn't happy with the fact there was risk placed on the clubs part. But the reason I say it was calculated, is because during due dilligence it would have been identified how the club had such strong revenue streams and projection for growth.

Look to be honest I don't really want to get in a massive debate about it. I've not really got myself flustered over the whole situation at any point. OK I accept it's easy to say now, but in their reign we have chellenged for league titles and won them, and in Europe had a hatrick of CL final appearances in 4 years. Our revenue streams dwarf our domestic competitors and we are up their with the best in Europe, and all the indications are that bigger and larger funding will be made available to the squad, for fees and wages.

Sure, it was a risk, but in it's simplest form, if you want to achieve anything, or improve anything, you need to take a risk. They took a risk, it paid off. They are a wealthy family for a reason to be fair.

kippy · 29-05-2014 01:16PM

Pro. F wrote: »

I bet my family's home on a horse race. It came in and now I've got myself some money. I don't see what people are upset about.

Thats not a fair comparison tbh.

The glaziers never bet their family home on a horse race.
For them it was a risk free venture.

Pro. F · 29-05-2014 01:17PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

you thanked a post above yet when i take figures from the same link using the exact same comparison, you discredit it?

hypocrisy at its finest.

Yeah, because it was obvious that was where you got your figures from...

TheDoc · 29-05-2014 01:20PM

Pro. F wrote: »

I bet my family's home on a horse race. It came in and now I've got myself some money. I don't see what people are upset about.

I'm not going to get snipey about it, but just purely as a matter of interest, I'm assuming from your posts you had massive issues with how the takeover happened. And from your posts that the club was essentially put at risk.

Might there maybe be an issue on your part in accepting this risk paid of, in spades and to the longterm benefit of the club. Or are you of the stance that no risk like that should have been taken and the results of which are irrelevant?

I've no illusion that the Glazers did it for the club, their businessmen, profit is the bottom line. But normally a coefficent to profit is a high performing organisation. And in football terms, usually coincides with success on the pitch and sizeable transfer funds.

Also re: Homers post, I've read something similar, will find the link. We are dwarfing our domestic rivals in terms of revenue streams. And remember revenue is all money earned, not talking profits here. This increase in revenue allows us to be more competitive under the FPP rulings, while the likes of Chelsea and City will struggle, needing to amend their organisation to what we did over a decade ago.

Pro. F · 29-05-2014 01:22PM

kippy wrote: »

Thats not a fair comparison tbh.

The glaziers never bet their family home on a horse race.
For them it was a risk free venture.

Yes true. I'll rephrase it:

Somebody stranger gets control of the deeds for my family home, in which my family are still living. They bet the deeds on a horse race. The bet came in. I don't know what everybody is so upset about.

bangkok · 29-05-2014 01:30PM

bmcc10 wrote: »

Once again i don't get where this Powell hope as a box to box midfielder is coming from? We've hardly even seen him play there and in my opinion his loan has been a complete waste for United.

yes your right a complete waste, 42 games and 12 goals. plenty of first team experience, European experience in the Europa league, playing in a hard league, a good years development...

what were united thinking sending him out on loan :rolleyes:

Pro. F · 29-05-2014 01:35PM

TheDoc wrote: »

To my understanding this is relatively normal practice for large takeovers of corporations. We were a PLC before the takeover. I think you'll find it's somewhat normal for a takeover, where the buyer extracts loans on the other end to insulate them from risk.

Appreciate that obviously its a football club we all support, and maybe that risk isn't very appreciated, I do understand that.

But I'm under the impression, even from a quick google now, it's a frequently done thing. Just on newstalk today they were discussing Apples takeover of Beats, indicating that Apple are organising a large portion to be loans to be covered by Beats. Reason being there is some risk as Beats market share has fallen since they removed themselves from Monster Cabling.

But as the expert they had on indicated, it's a calculated risk, as the company has a large history of strong revenue streams, and it would take a catastrophic disaster for it to implode.

As I said I don't recall the opinion I had at the time of the takeover, and I appreciate that obviously a lot of people arn't happy with the fact there was risk placed on the clubs part. But the reason I say it was calculated, is because during due dilligence it would have been identified how the club had such strong revenue streams and projection for growth.
...
Sure, it was a risk, but in it's simplest form, if you want to achieve anything, or improve anything, you need to take a risk. They took a risk, it paid off. They are a wealthy family for a reason to be fair.

What is normal practice in the world of finance is not what is good for the companies being taken over. The whole benefit of these leveraged takeovers to the financiers is that they can take risks with other people's valuables, be that money, assets or just a company that is liked by the public. When financiers take successful businesses and foist risk on them for their personal gain we (employees, customers, fans, beneficiaries) should be unhappy about that. It is not a calculated risk that is taken in order to benefit the employees or customers or other beneficiaries of the business being taken over and we have not seen any benefits from the Glazer takeover.

TheDoc wrote: »

Look to be honest I don't really want to get in a massive debate about it. I've not really got myself flustered over the whole situation at any point. OK I accept it's easy to say now, but in their reign we have chellenged for league titles and won them, and in Europe had a hatrick of CL final appearances in 4 years. Our revenue streams dwarf our domestic competitors and we are up their with the best in Europe, and all the indications are that bigger and larger funding will be made available to the squad, for fees and wages.

Using the on-pitch success to justify the Glazers risk taking with the club is a false correlation. You have no evidence to show that the success on the pitch came about because of anything the Glazers brought to the club.

The increased revenues were needed to cover the new debts. We had no shortage of money to compete before the Glazers came along.

Blatter · 29-05-2014 01:38PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and why you focusing on clubs in different countries, with different tv and revenue streams? bayern have a monopoly in one of the biggest countries in the World, Spain is a two horse race (with a €300million tv deal shared between them each year). England has a unified TV deal and 5 or 6 big clubs that have a huge share in the total local fan base.

lets compare like for like - and compare our increase in revenue compared to the other clubs -

United - £164.4
Arsenal - £109.9
Chelsea - £85.5
Liverpool - £100.4

i rest my case.

I compared those foreign clubs because they're the clubs that rival United in terms of stature, fan base etc. The English clubs don't.

I'm aware of Barca and Madrid for eg. getting a much bigger cut of TV money, but even taking that into consideration, they seem to have expanded their revenue streams in a compareable way to United.

I'm still not convinced that the Glazers have done anything spectacular with regards revenue growth in comparison to the other giants of football.

Mitch Connor · 29-05-2014 01:44PM

Blatter wrote: »

I compared those foreign clubs because they're the clubs that rival United in terms of stature, fan base etc. The English clubs don't.

I'm aware of Barca and Madrid for eg. getting a much bigger cut of TV money, but even taking that into consideration, they seem to have expanded their revenue streams in a compareable way to United.

I'm still not convinced that the Glazers have done anything spectacular with regards revenue growth in comparison to the other giants of football.

I'm fairly certain that when originally denouncing the Glazer business plan pre-takeover, Gill said the board/commercial team didn't see scope for the vast improvements in commercial revenue needed (amongst other things) to make the takeover anywhere close to viable.

TheDoc · 29-05-2014 01:48PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'm fairly certain that when originally denouncing the Glazer business plan pre-takeover, Gill said the board/commercial team didn't see scope for the vast improvements in commercial revenue needed (amongst other things) to make the takeover anywhere close to viable.

And that's what having a different perspective can have. The Glazers team went to work straight away on the US and Asian markets, that where pretty much ignored previously assuming there was no market there for football.

Ugh, wish we had a transfer to drool over

homerjay2005 · 29-05-2014 01:48PM

Pro. F wrote: »

Yeah, because it was obvious that was where you got your figures from...

i replied to a post that had figures in it and used the same figures, same comparison.

its pretty f*cking obvious but as usual you just wanted to jump down on somebodies throat..

Pro. F · 29-05-2014 01:49PM

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm not going to get snipey about it, but just purely as a matter of interest, I'm assuming from your posts you had massive issues with how the takeover happened. And from your posts that the club was essentially put at risk.

Might there maybe be an issue on your part in accepting this risk paid of, in spades and to the longterm benefit of the club.Or are you of the stance that no risk like that should have been taken and the results of which are irrelevant?

How did the risk pay off? Revenue increased? Yes, so did debt payments. And revenue would have increased anyway, just not at such a rate.

The risk the Glazers put on the club was huge. The benefit that risk brought to the club was a net increase in revenue (reduced by paying new debts) which may or may not be significantly more than the club would have grown without the Glazers. Of course that risk should not have been taken.

TheDoc wrote: »

I've no illusion that the Glazers did it for the club, their businessmen, profit is the bottom line. But normally a coefficent to profit is a high performing organisation. And in football terms, usually coincides with success on the pitch and sizeable transfer funds.

Also re: Homers post, I've read something similar, will find the link. We are dwarfing our domestic rivals in terms of revenue streams. And remember revenue is all money earned, not talking profits here. This increase in revenue allows us to be more competitive under the FPP rulings, while the likes of Chelsea and City will struggle, needing to amend their organisation to what we did over a decade ago.

We were always going to be well placed to compete under FFP. That is no reason to blow smoke up the Glazers' holes.

Vic Vinegar · 29-05-2014 01:52PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i replied to a post that had figures in it and used the same figures, same comparison.

its pretty f*cking obvious but as usual you just wanted to jump down on somebodies throat..

You're the one that's getting aggressive... as usual.

bmcc10 · 29-05-2014 01:52PM

bangkok wrote: »

yes your right a complete waste, 42 games and 12 goals. plenty of first team experience, European experience in the Europa league, playing in a hard league, a good years development...

what were united thinking sending him out on loan :rolleyes:

Ye i really can't wait to see him start up front for United.

Pro. F · 29-05-2014 01:53PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'm fairly certain that when originally denouncing the Glazer business plan pre-takeover, Gill said the board/commercial team didn't see scope for the vast improvements in commercial revenue needed (amongst other things) to make the takeover anywhere close to viable.

Gill's job was at risk if the takeover happened. It was in his interest to argue against the takeover going ahead.

Blatter · 29-05-2014 01:54PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'm fairly certain that when originally denouncing the Glazer business plan pre-takeover, Gill said the board/commercial team didn't see scope for the vast improvements in commercial revenue needed (amongst other things) to make the takeover anywhere close to viable.

I'm not sure what your point is here in relation to mine?

I remember Gill was staunchly opposed to the Glazer takeover when it was initially proposed. IIRC he even admitted to considering a sizeable donation towards an anti-Glazer movement.

Pro. F · 29-05-2014 02:02PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i replied to a post that had figures in it and used the same figures, same comparison.

its pretty f*cking obvious but as usual you just wanted to jump down on somebodies throat..

None of the figures you brought up -

"United - £164.4
Arsenal - £109.9
Chelsea - £85.5
Liverpool - £100.4"

- are mentioned in the article that Blatter linked. If you had bothered to construct your argument clearly I wouldn't have criticised you not constructing your argument clearly.

TheDoc · 29-05-2014 02:03PM

Pro. F wrote: »

Using the on-pitch success to justify the Glazers risk taking with the club is a false correlation. You have no evidence to show that the success on the pitch came about because of anything the Glazers brought to the club.

The increased revenues were needed to cover the new debts. We had no shortage of money to compete before the Glazers came along.

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.

Blatter · 29-05-2014 02:11PM

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.

2moreMinutes · 29-05-2014 02:13PM

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

Agueroooo · 29-05-2014 02:13PM

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.

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.

Mitch Connor · 29-05-2014 02:20PM

Blatter wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is here in relation to mine?

I remember Gill was staunchly opposed to the Glazer takeover when it was initially proposed. IIRC he even admitted to considering a sizeable donation towards an anti-Glazer movement.

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.

Manchester United Superthread 2014 mod warning #8081

Comments