Thread: Man Utd v Glazer Rumour

There is a rumour doing the rounds that Dermot Desmond is still pissed of that Liam Miller went to Man U on a free. The rumour suggests that it was he who convinced Magnier, McManus and Dobson to cash in on their shares. He obviously sold his own too.

It is certainly true that he is a known close associate of all of these people and the fact that Glazier was offering the top whack for the shares would have helped.

It is now his (Glazier's) intention to get over 75% of the shares, he is either there or very close. If he does this he can transfer the bulk of the debt to the club. Moving it from debt free and profit making to around £540,000,000 in the red (pardon t'pun).

Given that the fans are talking about boycotting the merchandise this could really feck the club big time. The interest alone would be about £20,000,000 a year apparently. So that would have to be covered, before the capital sum is even addressed, from potentially smaller revenue streams.

This would be quite a revenge for what wasn't even a first team player.

(For those who don't know, Dermot Desmond is the largest shareholder at Glasgow Celtic and his personal fortune is estimated to be around £850,000,000. He is a billionaire when measured in either $ or Euro. He does not however invest money in clubs, other than the funds which are used to buy the shares, he does not for example buy players or pay off debts.)

The papers are on fire with this man today. By the end of the weekend he will mop up the rest of the shares and own 75% of the club giving him total control. The papers believe that he could stop it being a PLC and become his business. Meaning that if he goes bankrupt the club will go bankrupt. They also belive that when he does take full control of the club he will be pushing all his debts on to club itself. I`m led to believe he had to borrow over five hundred million to buy the shares in the first place.

Yup, if he gets that level of control he can "re-privatise" and place the debts against the club.

He can also not pay out dividends to shareholders, hence a lot of them wanting away. Large debt secured against the assets and no dividend = poor investment. Football isn't really a good investment at the best of times, but this is perhaps a step too far.

He can in effect do what he wants. This really could be seriously bad for Man U if he doesn't know what he is doing. Bearing in mind that Kenyon (the commercial guy) left them for Chelski.

Man U = Leeds Utd ?

There`s another two member of the board on thier way out as well. So the papers say. They say he has to make at least fifty million a season to stand a chance of paying off his debts.

There was also another article that sir alan sugar wrote saying it was far to much to pay for a club, because you`ll never sell it for that price again. Which i can`t believe because i`m led to believe that micheal knighton who owns carlise united missed out on buying it for ten million.

I bet they wished that rupert murdock would`ve bought it now.

Indeed.

However getting control of a club which hasn't won the league for 26 years at a reasonable price is one thing.

Buying one vlaued at around £750,000,000 is something else entirely.

I don't really see where the extra income will come from. It was already fabulously well run and the cash from merchandising second to none. Chelski are now on the scene and have got Kenyon. So if anything the revenues may go down.

One can only hope it doesn't kill the club or seriously cripple it.

Originally Posted by barbarossa

Really?

Yes, 'tis would be a shame...

The rumour about Dermot Desmond is paper talk. I can't see him convincing the Irish fellas into a business deal based on personal feelings. They cashed in because three quid a share makes business sense. It makes for an interesting news article but despite the acrimony surrounding Miller's transfer and the association of Desmond with Magnier and McManus, the rumour has little basis in fact.

Incidently, any chance of them (Magnier and McManus) doing something other than what was in their own best interests was lost when the existing Man Utd board gave Sir Alex Ferguson the go ahead to instigate legal proceedings regarding that horse. Quite what, the well meaning but ultimately clueless, David Gill was thinking at the juncture completely escapes me.

The pair had always declined the voting rights that their shareholding afforded them but if the correct overtures were made toward them and the Gibraltar fiasco hadn't happened then they could have been heros to millions of United fans the world over. Even for a pair as shrewd and financially motivated as these, this particular carrot could have been presented in such a way that selling up wouldn't have seemed the more attractive option.

The lack of foresight displayed by the existing board is unforgivable, they are the true villans of the piece. Two shareholders owning 60% of the equity? With one planning a takeover, you'd think that the board would try to appease the other. Glazer should never have been allowed to get himself into this position.

Originally Posted by manker

Glazer should never have been allowed to get himself into this position.

Agreed.

To those indulging in a bit of schadenfreude you would do well to consider where the extra revenue may come from. Perhaps things like seperate TV deal with SKY for their own games, or maybe a wee cabal with some of the other large (in fanbase) clubs to get more of the pie.

There is a finite amount of cash in football. Man U and Chelski are trying to get more of it. Which can only result in others getting less.