Haha... Hahahahahha. Its sad for football, but amusing as someone rooting against ManU...

Glazer and ManYoo
 

It seems the deal has gone through.
As FARK put it: "Malcolm Glazer launches takeover of Manchester United. America, this means nothing to you."

Link: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...609322,00.html
Story:

Glazer takes control of Man Utd By Andrew Ellson, Times Online

Mr Glazer: owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers Malcolm Glazer has launched a formal takeover bid for Manchester United after buying the 28.7 per cent stake of Irish racing tycoons JP McManus and John Magnier. The deal means Mr Glazer has control of the club with a 56.9 per cent stake and under stock exchange rules he must now make a formal offer for the remaining shares. The bid will be pitched at 300p a share, valuing the club at £790 million. Bankers acting on behalf of Red Football, Mr Glazer's bid vehicle, said a further announcement with more detailed terms of the offer would be released shortly. Last month the American businessman was given a deadline of May 17 by the Takeover Panel to make a formal approach after months of speculation. Securing a deal with Mr McManus and Mr Magnier was the only way Mr Glazer could proceed with his bid. Mr Glazer paid Mr McManus and Mr Magnier £227.2 million for their stake handing the Irish duo a £70 million profit on their original investment. Mr Glazer needs a further 18.1 per cent of shareholders to agree to his offer to enable him to take the club private and de-list it from the London Stock Exchange. But, he will still need to own more than 90 per cent of the club's equity before the remaining shareholders are forced to sell giving him complete control of the club. This could prove difficult as the club's supporters, who are vehemently opposed to the bid, own 18 per cent and are unlikely to be willing to sell. Mr Glazer's bid comes a fortnight after the board of Manchester United said it would not be recommending the takeover proposal to investors because Mr Glazer’s business plan appeared "aggressive" and was financed in part by debt. In a statement on April 28, the club said the price indicated by Mr Glazer was fair but it believed the proposals would put "significant financial strain" on the business. "The board believes that, notwithstanding the changes from the previous proposals, the proposed capital structure, taken as a whole, still contains more leverage than the board would consider prudent." United supporters have fiercely opposed the bid and formed a shareholders’ association to buy shares in the club to try to thwart Mr Glazer’s takeover ambitions. The supporters have already held major demonstrations at Old Trafford and have threatened to boycott the club should Mr Glazer take control. Last month the fans' fears were fuelled by comments made by Greg Dyke, a former director of Manchester United, who warned that Mr Glazer's borrowing to fund the deal could jeopardise the future of the club. "If you borrow £300 million it means you will have to pay £25 million a year in interest. If Manchester United do not qualify for the Champions League they get no money at all, if they don’t qualify for three or four years it is very bad news. The banks want their money."

Mr Dyke, who was instrumental in the establishment of the FA Premier League in the early 1990s, warned the deal could potentially put United in the same position as Leeds, a club that almost went bankrupt after it borrowed against future success and had to sell assets when the team underperformed. Mr Glazer is believed to have offered a guarantee that he will not sell and lease back Old Trafford, or sell the naming rights to the club’s home without consulting supporters first. He is also committed to the £43million stadium expansion plans and is believed to be offering Sir Alex Ferguson a £20million summer transfer fund but most fans remain unconvinced.

Simon Murphy, 35, a police officer from Bury, Greater Manchester, and a Stretford End season ticket holder, said: "I view this with extreme trepidation and not in the best interests of the club and I fear for the future. I think protests are inevitable but pointless. Glazer has so far shown an absolute disregard for the fans anyway."

Mr Murphy said some fans would not renew their season tickets, but they would find it difficult to stop supporting the club.

"There will certainly be some protests, but fans are in a difficult position. They are now torn between something they love and someone they hate."

Mr Glazer owns the Tampa Bay Buccaneers franchise and is thought to be keen on marketing the Manchester United brand more aggressively in the United States.

In response to the bid, Manchester United released a statement: "The Board awaits the formal terms of the Red Offer and a further announcement will be made once the board has received that announcement."

Shares in Manchester United surged 34p to 299p after the bid.

Dola-ish
Yes I know this means he doesn't quite have full control yet. But he now does own a majority share.

SackAttack said that the NFL wouldn't let him own teams in different sports. I guess EPL and soccer don't count as a sport?

Anyway, GO GUNNERS!!!

/tk

Terrible thing to do really, put a club in debt.

crud!....double crud!!

Does this mean we'll get to see EPL on NBC or CBS?

Now that would be good.

The EPL negotiates it's tv deal as a single group. There's rumors that ManU will try and pull out of that deal now and sell their tv rights alone. So you never know. It'll be messy if they try, though.

So, they have as much power as Notre Dame football then. Lets see if Ebersol will pay.

If it does happen that way, I hope it brings Man Utd the level of success it's brought Notre Dame.

This is terrible news :(

Swapping equity for debt. I don't really see how this benefits Man U at all, since no cash is being injected into the club. Glazer obviously sees a potential there.

As bad as this seems to be by just reading everything...I really enjoy this quote from a Man Utd supporter in the BBC article:

"I hope Mr Glazer sets up constructive discussions with the club, its supporters and employees, as well as the footballing authorities, as soon as possible."

As defiant as they have come across so far do you really think he'll be able to have a "contructive" discussion with the supporters? I'm thinking not.

Well until he gets 75%+1 of the club, all the debt is on him alone and not the club. So the Supporters are trying to prevent him from getting that threashold.

That's a classic catch-22. Assuming they resist, driving up the per share price he has to pay, they might cause the 75% debt assumption to be unmanageable, leaving the club in serous trouble.

There are also threats of fans leaving to create their own club (as in the MK Dons / AFC Wimbledon story). How likely is that? Who knows.

I think some fans may do it but any such club will have to start way down the leagues like the new Wimbledon club has. I don't see a significant part of the Utd fan base following such a club but it has long term potential for those that do.

This is the dilemma for the fans - to oppose Glazer will now mean opposition the club. Most will bite the bullet and just hope Glazer doesn't get into the sort of trouble financing his debt that occurred at Leeds. Boycotting matches, not buying replica shirts etc will merely bring about the financial crisis all of us fear.

Those fans who gloat over this because of anti-Utd feelings are fools. Glazer will have to find greater profits from somewhere - the $25 million dollars Utd made this last 6 months will not service a $1 billion plus debt. He needs to find ways of increasing profits and the most likely source of improvement is the tv deal. Currently Utd are part of a communal deal with other Premiership clubs but if he pulls out of that then the deal for other clubs will be worth so much less as other clubs - Chelsea and Arsenal obvious candidates - will maximise their income in the same way and also withdraw. The rest of the clubs will see their tv income plummet as the big clubs withdraw from the deal.

This is bad for Utd, bad for other clubs and bad for soccer in the UK and possibly beyond. The biggest club in the UK, possibly the world, is about to be taken over by a guy with absolutely no interest in the game and whose sole purpose is to squeeze every cent of profit he can from the organisation. If that means other clubs suffer - so be it. If the game itself suffers. So be it. The profit margin is everything. If anything gets in the way of that profit Glazer will walk all over it if he can and leave a trail of devastation if he can't.

This rules then.

I hope it ruins soccer and I will laugh, just because you assholes mocked the hockey strike. :)

Fortunately, the only place it will (possibly) ruin soccer is England. It doesn't look good on paper, but no one can know for sure what the impact is going to be. All the claims of gloom and doom might be a little early.

It also appears that Glazer is doing this, at least partially, for his son, who is a big soccer fan. So it's not necessarily so much about squeezing every last cent out of the team.

Well, one thing to keep in mind, he did buy what was one of the most inept NFL franchises ever and turned them into Super Bowl winners and perennial title contenders. So, it may be a bit early to throw the towel in.

I think one problem with this may be the disconnect between how U.S. pro sports teams are run, and the local club idea seen in Europe. I think the media and many soccer fans there may be unnecessarily worried about the club turning into a 'franchise' type like MK Dons did.

Yeah, but its a little different, especially as the NFL has the salary cap and the draft, whereas success in Europe consists of buying as many good players as you can. That conflicts with the goal of making as much money as possible. For example, in the NFL having a successful team is the way to make most money. Not so in European soccer, where spending to win may prevent you from making money. After all, Chelsea is still losing money hand over fist, but Abramovich doesn't care.

Why can't you make life easier by just blindly agreeing with me ;)

No, I do agree with much of what you say. It could easily go down that way, but all I'm saying is, I think its a bit too early for all the gloom and doom.

Also, as for success leading to more money; if Man U is to go into a total tailspin over the next few years, I'm pretty sure all their potential TV/retail revenues will dry up. If they aren't in the Champions' League and consistently challenging for the title, I can't see how they will continue to make as much money as they are now.

It's my contrarian nature :D.


Perhaps, but all it takes is one year missing the CL and huge problems happen. The interest on the debt is supposed to be 25 million pounds a year! That's about how much ManU are going to be making this year in profit! Though it's half of last year's profits.

One thing for sure is that huge transfer signings will be in the past. And that is what they need to win the Premiership.

ManU is also a pretty old team and they need to replace a lot of parts soon (Giggs, Keane, etc). They'll need to spend for that. But can they afford to?

It's not the end of the world for Man Utd. They may have to suck it up and realize that they won't be title contenders for a couple of years, but its not certain that this will blast them into the lower leagues. They still have a great youth acedemy system that has produced a lot of the starters they have now. So I wouldn't speak too soon.

I wouldn't pretend to comment on what has happened at Tampa but here's a post from the BigSoccer board from a Tampa fan:


Glazer MUST raise far more from Utd than the club currently does. To succeed, the above may well be something fans have to put up with.

But the real danger is if he fails. The debt he's taking on must be repaid. Utd's "debt" is currently in the form of dividends to shareholders. This protects companies from short term financial problems - poorer financial performance is met with reduced dividends, reduced share price. This doesn't initially affect the club - the financial loss is the shareholders'.

But the debt that Glazer is bringing to the club - and once he gets 75% of the shares then it becomes Utd's debts not Glazer's by British stock market rules - HAS to be paid and Utd's current profits simply can't do that. That means assets must be sold - the club's assets not Glazer's. That means stadium, players, commercial rights and so on.

It's an enormous risk, particularly as financial success comes very much from on-field success which is by no means guaranteed. Exit the CL early (and Utd could do that at the qualifying stage next season) and immediately income drops significantly. Utd currently needs to replace older players - the money for that may not be forthcoming.

You don't get first draft picks in soccer if you perform badly - you have to pay for the best in transfer fees and wages. The financial/on-field downward spiral that can occur is frightening.

Utd are a club with no debt and enormously successful on field. Why the hell would we need Glazer?

Standard tactics for US sports franchise owners. Nothing he did is any different than in nearly any other city where a stadium has recently been built. It doesn't make it right, but he shouldn't be singled out for what has become a standard strategy.

I don't think Man U needed Glazer either. However, one doesn't spend that kind of money, and invest that kind of effort, without some sort of long term plan to make it work. I just think it's too early to make the automatic call that it's going to kill the team.

Man Utd can't just pull out of the deal, the tv deal is negotiated through the EPL and EPL rules say there's got to be a 2/3 majority before changes can be made. So they're stuck with the deal, or they have to leave the EPL. They could try challenging through the courts, but that would be length, expensive, and not guarenteed to work. UEFA also has fairly stiff penalties for clubs that take them, or the clubs National FA, to court.

To make more money they'll be looking to increase ticket prices, increase sponsorship deals, increase corporate deals, cash in on their Asian following and maybe try to break into the US market. Going to be tough doing that with the debt repayments and a team and manager that's getting old and isn't good enough. A 25mil warchest alread isnt going to get Man Utd back challenging Chelsea, Sir Alex normally blows 25mil on reserve forwards.

So I'm predicting 5 years of nothing much but with Man Utd moving backwards quicker and a hit to their fanbase (the real fans who'll be alienated from the club, and the gloryhunters from further away who'll lose interest when they arent winning and move onto Chelsea or someone). A return to pre-Sir Alex days when Man Utd were a big club with a big history but who won the odd FA Cup and not much else. Then he'll move on, probably sell for a profit too.

Bigsoccer board huh... you aren't the one who snapped at me for being 'smug' when I wasn't, were you? ;)

He wasn't going to have anywhere near 25 million pounds this summer. Unless they sold a lot of second tier players.

Well, whether he was going to have it or not, they need at least 25 million quid to have a chance to compete with Chelsea for the Prem crown.

Isn't Arsenal going to get a nice injection of an increase of a steady revenue stream with the new stadium?

Liverpool, will they fall or rise?

It depends... without a CL place, for any chance at that they'd have to beat Milan first, they probably won't 'rise'.

Just because you see it as standard practice doesn't make it any more appealing :)


But no one is saying that it's automatic. He may prove to be a wonderful new owner who suddenly becomes as keen on Utd's on-field success as the most avid fan - though there is little to suggest that in his behaviour or record so far. What Critch says about the slow decay may prove to be the case - but you won't be surprised to learn that that doesn't appeal to Utd fans either.

But the collapse - because the club's unable to fund the debt - is also a possibility. That's the worry. Currently the club is successful both financially and on-field and this possibility was very remote. It is the introduction of this risk that is so unacceptable.

For Utd fans it's a classic case of not being broke so don't fix it. It is difficult to see much good, from the fans point of view, coming out of this. It is easy to see disaster - a real possibility that we could go the same way as Leeds who also went into debt on the expectation of future earnings!

What I don't get in the tv sales argument is how a team can think they can sell rights to their games independant of who they play (not Man. Utd. specifically, but any team). Doesn't the opposing team have their own rights then? Isn't that why leagues (should) have collective deals in the first place? It'll be tough to only film the Man. Utd. players during a game...

It´s sad.

For us (europeans), some teams are more than.. a team. Barsa (our biggest foe) "is more than a club". Boca (argentinian) "is life". In Madrid, the madridistas and atleticos are like two religions (Be atleticos must be one of the most punishing things in life).

To the point. I think Glazer can understand what means a team to us. He sees ManU in terms of profit/losses, while it´s a part. But Man U (as a lot of other teams) has a charge of feelings and history that must be understood to make a team run.

Look in Spain. Florentino Perez and Laporta had done a great job, managing at the same time the business part and the "spiritual" part.

Sorry if I dont expresss myself very well.

1. Which is why I said that, although it's common, it isn't necessarily right. ;) However, I think it does refute the idea implied in that quote that Glazer is somehow an ogre, when his behaviour has really been no different than any other owner in the US.

2. It seems to me like everyone is saying it's automatic. I haven't seen too many Man U fans even saying to give it a chance. As far as the keen for on-field success part goes, that Irish duo, did they care about it? It seems like Glazer's son cares more about the sport than they did.

3. The debt is certainly a risk, I won't argue that. When I look for personal investments, the first thing I look at is cash v. debt. I think that certainly carries over to a larger scale. That doesn't mean that you can't be successful using debt as a tool. Only time will tell, which is all I'm saying. Surely some Russian billionare will bail them out in the end if it all goes to pot anyway. :)

You expressed it perfectly. Football is life and as a fan of any club big or tiny you live and breath it everyday - it is part of your soul.

However, the moment Man Utd decided to become a PLC they ceased to be a football club and became a business and like any PLC in the world that business is vulnerable to takeover - every shareholder has his price and Glazer is only doing what happens all over a capitalist society. United fans must be thick. The pathetic 'United Not For Sale' chants last night were laughable - Hello? You are already SOLD! It's gone and further more it went several years ago and I did not see you complaining when you won the Champions League as a PLC. You are no longers 'supporters' you are 'customers' - get real.

The fans protesting against Glazer are Brits in the main. That behaviour, no matter how common you might believe it to be in American sport, is totally unacceptable in British sport. I've also read previously (not recently so I cannot give links) that Glazer's business behaviour is less than acceptable in many American eyes. I recall, in particular, a judge presiding over a case Glazer was involved in effectively calling him a "scumbag" (not the word he used but one with the same meaning). His business dealings are not, apparently, those of a man of great integrity.


This second is not the same as the first at all.

As I've tried to explain, what we object to, is the risk that Glazer brings to a club with no current risk - a risk of duplicating Leeds' collapse. "Giving it a chance", with it's obvious possibility of the "chance" failing, could well mean that collapse. Thus, we do not wish to even give it a chance.

Is this really difficult to understand? We have no risk. Glazer's takeover means a significant risk. Even if the failure is not automatic we don't want the risk. It ain't broke, don't fix it!


No they didn't. And they were equally despised for what they did to the club at the start of the season. They would have been no more acceptable than Glazer - revealing that it isn't that Glazer is American as some American's like to believe, merely that his and their interests were purely financial with no respect or concern for the history off the club or the interests of the fans.


An unnecessary one. Prior to Glazer there was no risk. With Glazer we gain nothing and we face possible failure of the company. Who needs it?


What you don't seem to understand is that one thing "time may tell" is the collapse of Utd as a club. And for what? So that Glazer can make money! So we don't want "time" to have the opportunity "to tell" :)


If only. What will happen if he fails is the banks will call in the loans - $1 billion worth - and the club will be wound up when they can't pay them off. They may call in part of the loan and demand that the club "live within it's new means" which will mean selling assets - stadium, players etc.

You can understand the fans don't want that.

What is happening here, because of the 75% ownership leading to the debt being the club's not the owner's, is that Utd are being forced to take out a loan to buy back their own shares at an inflated price (a price chosen to convince current shareholders to sell). Not just a few shares as sometimes happens but ALL the shares. Few companies could afford to do that whose shares have been on the market for some time - the value being far higher than they received when first they floated the company. Utd are currently on a price to earnings ratio of 32 to one. No company can afford to service the loan necessary to buy back all their shares at that p/e ratio unless they can borrow money at around 2% (even then their after-tax profits would only pay the interest and take nothing off the loan).

While it's not automatically a failure, it'd be hard for a Man Utd fan to get behind the deal. They're already in need of a rebuild and now they're being taken over by somebody who claimed to be a Man Utd fan then admitted he'd never seen a soccer game, somebody who's got a record of wringing every penny from sportsfans (the British press is full of Tampa Bay journalists/fans saying how bad an owner he is), and he's also going to lumber the club with a huge debt that will take all their annual profit to finance. His business plan was rejected by the existing board as being too aggresive and risky, so there is a worry that he could seriously damage the club. So it's a hard deal for them to get behind.

Fans like to feel that they're part of the club, at a lot of clubs they're already distrustful of the corporate sponsor type (aka The Camelcoat Brigade) who turn up when the going is good, so a takeover by somebody who just sees the club as a money making venture and has no emotional link with the club or the sport isn't going to be supported.

Plus everybody wants a Russian billionaire these days.

Dola..

Yeah, Arsenal will be moving to their new stadium season after next (and no red shirt with white sleeves next season, shock horror!) so they've got to be looking good. Liverpool have looked like they're on the way back before and not made it, maybe this time is for real. I'm looking forward to a Morientes/Cisse forward line next season, if they can keep Gerrard they could be closer.

Add in Newcastle (they've got to get things right eventually, though maybe not with Souness), Tottenham (Jol has steadied them and they've got a number of good young players signed up), Aston Villa and Birmingham City (both have mentioned having good amounts of money to spend), maybe Everton (the debt worries seem to have passed, Moyes is a good manager and the Champion's League money will help) and there are plenty of teams that can challenge to take Man Utd's place (if it comes to that).

Whether any of them can challenge Chelsea and their cash is another thing..

I'm not entirely sure this applies to the US though. ManU and the NY Yankees have some joint marketing deal, one of the results being that ManU games (and only ManU games) are shown on the MSG network (madison square garden?) in NY. Granted they seem to be tape dealyed.

This might have been negotiated by the EPL, but since it seems to apply to ManU only, it seems that they were able to negotiate this on their own.

The US tv rights aren't really important as a money making route for Glazer though, especially since it's only the tape delayed games that are outwith the EPL deal.

The UK live game deal is the real money maker, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB which sells the live game rights in the US to his FOX International group, so the live EPL games here are on FSC.

I'd guess if they're going to be able to increase their tv revenue anywhere, it's South East Asia. Man Utd have been working on breaking in there for years and the merchandizing sales are huge.

As an aside:
Well Cisse needs to regain his confidence over the summer (he looks really skittish in avoiding tackles) and we need to get something for Baros and get a solid 3rd striker.

But the team seriously lacks depth, and needs to address that before Liverpool can compete with the big 3. Traore is really a backup not an every day starter, and Hyypia (sp?) and Hammann are getting older and slower. Guys currently coming off the bench - Biscan, Smiicer, Nunez, Pelligrino, Kewell (sadly) are simply not top class players anymore, and I'm not sold yet on Pongolle as the 3rd/4th striker. Unfortunately the only way to address these needs are to get the 30mil for Gerrard and even that won't buy us enough players unless we get some good bargains.

Besides, Champions League success aside, I'm still worried about the whole Spanish invasion. Particularly if the rumors are true about bringing in the Villareal goal keeper when we already have Carson, Dudek, and Kirkland as better than average options (occasional disastrous blunders aside).

An interesting development this morning revealing just how dire this is for Utd - they could be banned from European competitions as a direct result of the takeover and the financial position it creates for the club.

To participate in Europe a club has to be registered with UEFA. Currently a club registered with a registered national league - the Premiership in the case of Utd - is automatically registered with UEFA.

But UEFA is concerned that so many soccer clubs are badly run economically and are introducing new rules regarding registration and the financial viability of the club. Utd's debt position will fail these rules.

It raises the question "How can a club go from being the richest in the world to the poorest (greatest debt) without a single cent changing hands with the club itself - Utd goes $1 billion into debt without receiving a single cent itself?"

When you boil it all down it's because Glazer is buying a $1.6 billion company for $600 million. Utd will pay the other $1 billion itself - it's future profits already spoken for in the interest repayments and in paying off the debt!

Glazer will be solely responsible for any debt, correct? If so, won't this wipe out his net worth if he is unable to overcome the roadblocks?

As for SE Asia, I read that MU was looking at a player from China. Any truth to this?

Leave it to the Americans to f*ck everything up...

No! The rules are that when you achieve 75% of ownership then the debt shifts from the owner to the company. Of the $1 billion that is being borrowed $550 million - the direct monetary loan - is secured with the Old Trafford stadium.

It's Utd's debt not Glazer's.


It would wipe out the money he has paid into Utd but it would leave his own personal wealth and his ownership of other companies untouched. The debt is the company's and Glazer part of the debt is his personal investment in the company. But being a private owner (comes with owning 90% of the company) he can play all sorts of tricks with the assets if he realises that things are going belly up so he could recover some of his losses with some dubious, but marginally legal, accounting - transferring assets into other companies he owns etc. Apparently that's not beneath him. Hopefully the banks will have prevented that with the terms of the loans though experience over here in the 1980/90s revealed that banks don't always do that.

Utd however would lose everything - and they haven't received a single cent from the deal.


They already have one. He's currently loaned out to another club, I think.

so what happens if Glazer can't get to 75%? All of the debt is still is? Can't he set the board of directors now that he owns over 50%?

British stock market rules say that when a PLC has 75%+1 of its ownership owned by one person, that person can change the company from a PLC to a private company (taking it off the stock market). When that happens, the owner can transfer his debt to the company.

It looks almost inevitable he'll get 75%. If he falls short, the debt is his (haha). And yes, he can set the board, but the important thing is getting 75%+1 so he can shift the debt over.

Below 75% he would be like any other shareholder - except he would be able to out-vote the rest whenever he wanted.

Last I heard though he had 74.9%. Once he achieves 75% then he can de-list the company and the shares held by others become useless pieces of paper so he'll have no trouble taking the rest.

When the two Irishman sold their 29% then he had the company.

As a private company he will choose his own board of directors. Already three non-executive directors have resigned.

Mac, I'm guessing you are the same "machoward" on Big Soccer ;). It's nice arguing on your side there :D... people don't understand what could reasonably happen if things go even a minor bit sour.

Isn't the barrier for privatizing 90%, not 75%?

At 75% he can 'privatise"or "de-list" the company (but doesn't have to) but others can hold on to their shares for what they're worth. At 90% he is compelled to buy all remaining shares.

An article here that might interest you guys as it refers to the NFL's interest in what Glazer is doing:

Yep, that's me :)


It's by no means certain but it is a real possibility and a possibility that didn't exist a few days ago. The debt is so large - Utd's current profits would almost all disappear in the interest payments. A couple of years of relative economic failure - failure to qualify or progress in the CL for example - could produce real strains in the club's finances that could see asset sales to service the debt - players, OT sold. A lack of transfer funds could see a further decline in the club's on-field success and you have the start of a downward spiral.

A lot of criticism is made of the PLC status of the club as if that were the cause of this. But a privately owned club could be bought out with borrowed money in the same way that a plc can. The financial status of the club is irrelevant. What has brought Utd to the attention of Glazer, and the Irish duo previously, is the value of the club - it's sufficiently large to interest the corporate world.

A PLC was probably the best that they could have. The whole point of a stock market listing is that it brings financial stability to a company. Fluctuations in financial performance are partially taken care of by shareholders in reduced dividends and share price leaving the business to recover - dividends fall where interest on a loan would still be demanded. What has happened here is that the reverse to listing has happened - Utd have been (or will be) taken off the list and the insecurity has returned. They now have debt not flexible dividends to pay.

Maybe Glazer will increase profits sufficiently and plough some of the gains into the soccer-related activities of the club. A very big maybe, I think, but I'm now down to this sort of wishful thinking I'm afraid :(

Yeah, I agree that the risks have increased 10 fold (at least) from a few days ago. That's a massive debt. Giggs, Keane, Scholes will all have to be replaced soon and with top tier talent. The interest payments and payment on principal seem to indicate a tiny number for transfers. A 5th place finish could be the start of a Leeds like tailspin.

Also there are rumors that Sir Alex isn't too fond of these developments and may just retire.. which would be a HUGE blow.

It isn't the end of the world, yet, but it is far more likely to be the end of the world than it was when ManU was a PLC.

If you want to look for a positive spin

On fox football friday Nick said Manutd may have up to 120 million to spend this offseason (and will doing the best to put a postive outlook on the club).

Also said this deal only works for Glazer if he is successfull and because he has been tight lipped about his plans alot of the gloom and doom is speculation. He is a successfull buisnessman and has plans to be successfull to make alot of money with Manchester United. Manchester United needs to be in the Champions League and remain at least a top 4 club so the team falling on hard times is a bit premature.

On fox football friday Nick said Manutd may have up to 120 million to spend this offseason

They won't have £120m to spend this offseason. Maybe £20m, but nowhere near £120m!

It'll take about 120m to make them title contenders again.

Hell, I heard Wigan Athletic are going to have 25 million to spend this offseason!

We hate Wigan.

Early favorites to go right back down, but Roberts and Ellington should do quite nicely at that level of play.

According to one of the English newspapers yesterday (Sunday People), Glazer's first move will be to bring Beckham back from Real Madrid. If that's not just newspaper talk, and if they can actually pull it off, it may go part way to placating some Man Utd fans. It would be a smart move, if he doesn't cost a fortune.

Waaaaahhhh. The Europeans had one of their precious soccer teams bought out by a rich American. Boo hoo. Maybe Glazer will change the uniforms and build a new stadium with a working pirate ship in one of the end zones.

I'd be all for that. So long as the cannons were also used to neutralize soccer riots.

Are you kidding? Most ManU fans don't WANT Beckham back. They think he was overrated and don't speak very highly of him.

And another person who just simply doesn't get it and goes for knee jerk responses :p.

Well he is seriously over-rated, but I'd bet they'd be happy if they got him back for less that half what Real Madrid paid for him.

Do you think Madrid would really sell Beckham for 12 million? I'd assume they'd want a ton more than that.

What happens if the NFL steps up and tells Glazer its against the rules?

I think if he'd paid cash, there would have been much, much less of an outcry. Most of the controversy has centered around the amount of debt being used to finance the purchase. The fact that he's an American isn't a plus, but isn't central to the issue.

They've lost the league, there's going to be a shake up, and Beckham's stock isn't nearly as high as it was a few years ago. Beckham was getting grief in the Spanish press for being more hype than actual talent, one opponent said he wasn't in the top 10000 players in the world, never mind the top 10. So he could get scapegoated out along with a few other players.

I guess his pricetag is mostly dependent on who's after him, if the rumors of Arsenal or Chelsea being interested are true then he would go higher. I don't know, the transfer market doesn't seem to make sense any more
:)

for fans of real football in the lower divisions of England, this deal means nothing whatsoever. we can continue to go to see our shitty teams play a technically inferior brand of football, but one that features more sincerity and heart than the pr£mi£rship. money has been making a mockery of the sport in England for a fair few years, my interest in the top flight has dwindled, and this business move is just the cumulation of the destruction of the soul of the game at the highest level. personally, i have a great deal of trouble caring. business is business, and united would never have had the extreme level of success that they did back in without lowering their boxer shorts, bending over, and inviting the great god of the almighty pound to apply the lubricant and, well, the rest writes itself. united have reamed football, and now they are being reamed themselves. poetic justice.

That would be a twist to the tale. If the NFL forced him to sell, would it assuage ManU fans if he put the proceeds of the sale of the Bucs into the debt? I'm not sure how much the franchise is worth, but the Redskins set the benchmark a few years back at something like $800 million if I remember right. The Bucs aren't quite that valuable, but a Super Bowl winner with a shiny stadium that's less than ten years old I think should be worth around $500 million.

On the other hand, if the NFL told him no-go, would he rather have TB over ManU? I'm guessing not, because if he's as money-grubbing as people make him out to be, ManU has far bigger money-making potential than the Bucs.

A few NFL owners have MLS teams. I doubt the NFL will say anything.

I would be suprised if he put his own cash into the Man U's debt.

As Critch said, the word out of Madrid is that a major shake-up is planned. Despite the plan of buying tons of world class players, the team hasn't really performed up to expectations (i.e. win everything, handily), and it's possible they'll take another tack. In such a case, Madrid are more likely to view Beckham (and others) as "what can we get for him?" as opposed to "can we recoup our original investment?"

I, for one, didn't think he was overrated at Man U. He fit the right wing of their 4-4-2 perfectly, and was an integral part of that team in its glory days. The major problem Man U had, really, was that he wanted to move inside, where he wasn't nearly as effective.

If Madrid puts Beckham on the market for 12 million, I'm sure a number of English teams will line up to get him. With so much debt, can ManU win the bidding war? Most likely not.

Beckham would only contribute to Man U's collection of aging stars. They need to get younger. I would be very suprised if they bring him back.

We're talking Glazier here. He's trying to market to Americans. He'd probably sign Beckham over the objections of the manager (NOT SAF next year).

He also built a winning program in Tampa Bay. Like I said, I would be very suprised if Beckham is back.

The Beckham thing might indicate that he will make decisions that maximise the commercial appeal of the club but are not the best for on-field performance. He might sell many replica shirts in China and up his income from TV deals in Asia if he has three or four Chinese players regularly in his first team. :rolleyes:

It's easier to have a winning program in the NFL than in the EPL, if you aren't merely spending more than the competition.

That goes without saying, since you can't really spend more than the competition in the NFL. The EPL is more comparable to MLB. But the desire to build a successful program was made evident with Tampa Bay. He could have gone the Vikings mode and stayed $20 million under the cap, sucking every last dollar out, but he didn't.

He's not an idiot, and obviously has to realize that to continue to generate revenue, Man U have to remain a top club.

is it too early to start an office pool for the season that man u is relegated?

i'm just asking....

2150

Has anyone ever had them relegated in FM? They came close in my Norwich game, finishing 17th a few seasons in a row.

In some of the older CM's I used to have some of the big teams relegated quite often. Hasn't happened that I can recall in FM though.

However, with the debt payment compared to ManU's profits, they aren't going to have nearly enough money to make the transfer payments they need to bring in enough talent to compete with Chelsea and Arsenal.

I think Glazer hasn't realized all the pitfalls of this debt deal.

I'm sure he has a very good understanding of the risks involved. It's not like he rushed into this situation out of the blue. I think it's far more likely that no one understands the poential upside as well he does. For that, we'll just have to wait and see.

Quite frankly, I don't think the previous ownership was slacking on money making possibilities. Why is he the only one that sees the potential upsides? Where the previous owners dumb?

He was one of the previous owners.

The public management pushed the United, but they didn't truly capitalize on the brand and club. Glazer likely sees a much more potential global market that can be tapped.

Not a managing owner. IIRC, he didn't even control a board seat.


The public management didn't want to be lynched by the fans, which is exactly what is happening to Glazer. And the 'potential global market', what is he going to do? Resign Beckham so he can sell more shirts in the US? Sign Chinese players to get money from there? Decisions on those grounds will kill the club that much faster.

ManU is the richest club the world and is known by every football fan... what greater market is he going to tap?

He owned 27% of the club, which, whether you're active in day to day decision making, means that you're paying attention to what's going on.

Anyone catch Outside the Lines last night? Focused on Glazer-ManU.

Also, saw on BBC that Sir Alex will likely get 25 million pounds to spend.

Curious, any update on the NFL being annoyed with Glazer over the ManU/casino stuff?

I heard about it briefly (probably on the radio) and then never saw mention of it again (including a very quick and non-thorough look at Soccernet)...

/tk

They can't be overly upset about it as they've just scheduled a SB at Raymond James...

I saw that too... OUCH. That may push Sir Alex out. That is no where NEAR enough to catch Chelsea... or even Arsenal.