Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread - See Mod Warning in OP, 09/11

kryogen wrote: »

I signed Laporte in FM14, turned out to be a good bit of business. Naturally this means if we do sign him in real life the form will work out

Also the man to sign in Fifa 15 too. Or 14.

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Some people could hav been worried 10 years ago, they were entitled to. Sure they didn't know anything of the deal or details, they were fed mis truths. They haven't changed their mind.

But they really shoul be changing their mind by now. There is no shame in changing your mind. You don't always have to stick to your guns.

Good job on steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the existence of the counter argument presented.

Start the conversation off with mocking of those who hold a different opinion to you and then finish it up with an offer of clemency for anybody who "admits they were wrong". Well played.

:o:o:o:o

https://twitter.com/Sport_Witness/status/533347946704945153


















Does it ever end?

sure we can have valdes in nets for the next game.

A follow up..

https://twitter.com/Sport_Witness/status/533349097013776385

Whatsisname wrote: »

A follow up..

https://twitter.com/Sport_Witness/status/533349097013776385

Ouch, that must suck!

Pro. F wrote: »

I didn't state that you think United are like Sony. I said that you were equating a company product decision (Sony PS3 blu-ray decision) with an LBO strategy (Glazer take-over of United), which you were. Equating the two is nonsense.



The Glazers would have lost their investment of £272m. You can describe that as a "lot" if you want, but it's relatively small in the grand scheme of things. The rest of the money required to buy the club (£560m) was borrowed against the club and their ownership of it (source: Red Football lmt offer for Manchester United PLC & 2006 Refinancing Investment Memorandum (see page 11, The original transaction)). For the equity they put up the Glazers got to work with an £832m investment (the total cost of buying the club). As is the standard practice with LBOs they took on higher risks to maximise the upside while dumping as much of the risk onto the target company (United) as they could.

1. Judging the amount of risk undertaken based on the current - or let's say "final" for the sake of argument - outcome is completely wrong. It's like a poker player who judges his play based on the outcome of the bet rather than the choices he made with his hand in the game. And to call it a roaring success is ridiculous. You do know that the Glazers ended up selling 10% of their stake in the club during their debt refinancing don't you? There's no way that can be described as a roaring success for an investment plan.

2. With regards to evidence that the club was put at risk, I'm not going to go into detail on that with you. It has all been discussed at extreme length on this forum before; see the United Financial Situation thread for that. 3. The bottom line is this: football is unpredictable by design, any financial plan that requires a club to maintain a level of success in order to meet debt repayments means the club is being put at unacceptable risk. It isn't unacceptable risk for the financial investors in this case, they are only putting up a relatively small portion of the money at risk and 4. they don't care about the club, it is unacceptable to any fans who want the club to continue existing in a healthy state in the long term.

1. Thats the point I was making that your missing. You think there wasn't a plan for every eventuallity accounted for. Do you think selling a 10% stake was a suprise move just because thats how it was reported in the papers? You think they hadn't foreseen this? We are talking a long term plan here. We are talking decades. The Glazers are dealing in these terms to leave a legacy behind for their future family. Malcolm Glazer is dead, he would have had plans for the future of UTD financially so his family could continue as he did in life but more succesfully.

Equating an 832m combination of their own money and money borrowed against the club, to a poker style risk is nonsense. We signed a 750m sponsorship deal on top of the other deals we have place. To claim that as a huge success is not stupid. Its accurate.

Just because this news is drip feed to you and us through the media doesn't mean the Glazers got lucky. Its extremely shortsigthed and arrogant to think so. This level of financial recovery and ultimate success is down to very good financial planning and intelligence.

2. It would be hard for you to do so accuratley. Of course there was an element of risk. Like i said there is an element in crossing the road. Given where we are heading there is a massive gap in the level of risk you think you predicted in the early years compared to the planning and success the Glazers planned for and predicted.

3. When UTD had a nightmare season last season and still managed to secure the greatest sponsorship deal in the history of sport shows how obvious the fact that UTD being the most suopported club in the world allows us such suppar on field results and to still grow out of depth. The Glazers knew it. Did you forget this huge point and variable or just not include it because it undermines your entire point?

4. Rubbish. The Glazers have done nothing but support the club and buying players and up grading the training facilities.

Whatsisname wrote: »

A follow up..

https://twitter.com/Sport_Witness/status/533349097013776385

No hysteria? Don't tell me what to do.

We're doomed!

My understanding of those financial posts is $$$$$$$

Dear Man Utd Board,

Please buy Séamus Coleman asap.

Yours every and all Man Utd fans everywhere.

Your Airbag wrote: »

Of course they do.

Of course they pay off debt using the clubs income. This is a bad thing? What other income are they going to use when we are generating such revenues. We just dropped 160m or so and have broken our club record transfer record twice in succession and the British record once.

Yes, this is a bad thing. They are using the club's income to pay off the Glazer personal debt that was used to buy the club. What part of leveraged deal do you not get? The Glazer debt is being paid off, not debt used to improve the club. Bar this year, the Glazers spent nowhere near what our rivals did since they took over.

Your Airbag wrote: »

The fact we are course so well financially allows them to do this. All the planning, carefull planning allows them to do this.

You and others seem to think they planned every single scenario and had numerous contingency plans. They took a risk. A risk that was leveraged against the club. They bet that Ferguson would continue to make top 4 and be competitive without spending a lot of money. Thus they would be able to meet interest payments and pay off the debt over a number of years as they could predict a constant income. Also they bet that they could increase revenue given their past experience in sports management.

In hindsight it worked out. If it didn't, the Glazers would have cut their losses, the bank would have taken ownership of the club (as the loan was leveraged against the club) and done a firesale of assets and/or shares in order to get back their money. Club would have been screwed. Even more so than Leeds screwed.

Your Airbag wrote: »

Every club owner wants his club to make money and withdraws from it. If those points are against the Glazers, if your using loans from the club as an example then almost no club owner cares about there club.

I admire them as business people as they did a good job commercially. I'm not sure any other competent CEO wouldn't have done the same though. Someone put up figures here before showing that all the major European clubs had increased their income along the same lines as United in the same period. United isn't some unique financial performance.

Usually a club has loans which are due from investing in training facilities, stadium, players etc. A loan used to buy the club is not the same thing. A loan used to buy the club benefits the Glazers; a loan used to improve the club benefits the club. That is one of the major issues.

Your Airbag wrote: »

Do you think in our debt free day nobody was getting their fair share? Just becasue we are financially under the microscope in this social media day an age, with everyone painting the crisis story doesn't reflect the reailty.

A fair share that most owners take is expected as they made an investment and expect a return. The Glazers didn't make the same investment. They leveraged their investment meaning the club pays the bulk of the investment through interest & loan repayments, thus using money that otherwise would have been used to improve the club.

And for other posters, you don't need first hand experience of corporate takeovers to know what the Glazers were trying to do. Basic-ish common sense of finance would do. It's not that complicated, they took a risk and it paid off. Hindsight is 20:20 so it looks like a great deal originally.

I promised myself I wouldn't get dragged into another finance argument but I feel you are ignoring Pro. F's points based on past arguments/battles. Also this is the internet so nobody listens to anyone really!

I just seen De gea dislocated his finger. The injuries will never let up