PDA

View Full Version : Man Utd v Glazer Rumour



JPaul
05-15-2005, 12:59 PM
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.)

enoughfakefiles
05-15-2005, 01:06 PM
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. :blink:

JPaul
05-15-2005, 01:59 PM
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 ?

enoughfakefiles
05-15-2005, 02:20 PM
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. :unsure:

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. :unsure:

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

JPaul
05-15-2005, 03:38 PM
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.

Barbarossa
05-16-2005, 08:56 AM
One can only hope it doesn't kill the club or seriously cripple it.

Really? :01: :P :D :lol:

Illuminati
05-16-2005, 10:23 AM
Really? :01: :P :D :lol:

Yes, 'tis would be a shame... :shifty:

manker
05-16-2005, 11:29 AM
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.

JPaul
05-16-2005, 12:44 PM
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.

Illuminati
05-16-2005, 04:56 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/terrybee/unitedrev.jpg

:whistling

Busyman
05-17-2005, 03:58 PM
Wtf? Doesn't Glazer own Tampa Buccaneers?

I thought the NFL frowned on cross team ownership. :huh:

I'll have ta google dees one.

edit:confirmed

manker
05-17-2005, 04:04 PM
Wtf? Doesn't Glazer own Tampa Buccaneers?

I thought the NFL frowned on cross team ownership. :huh:

I'll have ta google dees one.

edit:confirmedPresumably they wouldn't frown upon owning another team in a completely unrelated sport.

Busyman
05-17-2005, 04:12 PM
Presumably they wouldn't frown upon owning another team in a completely unrelated sport.
Yes they do.

It's weird though that I read that people mainly are talking about not buying season tickets just because...he's American. :huh:

They fear he'll run the team into the ground.

Why not "wait and see"? :blink:

The Bucs did win the Super Bowl in 2002.

RPerry
05-17-2005, 04:20 PM
Presumably they wouldn't frown upon owning another team in a completely unrelated sport.

There was some talk about this yesterday on on espn's website, but unfortunately I cannot find the link. I know the league was going to discuss this at any rate.
Well, atleast I know I won't have to worry about him moving the Buccaneers anytime soon, he's going to be busy elsewhere :rolleyes:

manker
05-17-2005, 04:25 PM
Yes they do.

It's weird though that I read that people mainly are talking about not buying season tickets just because...he's American. :huh:

They fear he'll run the team into the ground.

Why not "wait and see"? :blink:

The Bucs did win the Super Bowl in 2002.Weird shit. Why are they bothered?

There are a lot of people being stupid about things and citing his nationality as why it's a bad thing but ultimately that's not the reason it's a bad thing.

Tampa were a team down on their luck and without much tradition, they needed someone to sort them out. Manchester United are were the richest Football team (maybe sports team) in the world - who now suddenly find themselves almost half a billion pounds in debt (that's $918,950,000 US).

No so much wait and see, it's what's already happened :(

RPerry
05-17-2005, 04:32 PM
Weird shit. Why are they bothered?

There are a lot of people being stupid about things and citing his nationality as why it's a bad thing but ultimately that's not the reason it's a bad thing.

Tampa were a team down on their luck and without much tradition, they needed someone to sort them out. Manchester United are were the richest Football team (maybe sports team) in the world - who now suddenly find themselves almost half a billion pounds in debt (that's $918,950,000 US).

No so much wait and see, it's what's already happened :(

Well, if its any help, I'll be the first to praise Malcom Glazer as an owner. I have been a Tampa Bay fan since I was old enough to watch NFL Football, and can tell you he has done alot for the city of Tampa. The staium that was built for the Bucs is unbelievable, and though the last 2 years they have been on a downward slide, understand the core of the championship team of 2002 was geting old, and if not for the championship, they would have been broken up a year sooner.
I have no idea what his reasons are for getting involved with a team outside the country, but I hope it works out for the best ;)

manker
05-17-2005, 04:33 PM
There was some talk about this yesterday on on espn's website, but unfortunately I cannot find the link. I know the league was going to discuss this at any rate.
Well, atleast I know I won't have to worry about him moving the Buccaneers anytime soon, he's going to be busy elsewhere :rolleyes:I'd be quite interested to read that if you see any more stuff on it.

I'm wondering if he's not going to let his sons do most of the stuff over here - they are the life long Man Utd fans (:dry:) and he is almost eighty.

By the way, how about a discussion on the odd American tradition of hawking clubs around the country in the pursuit of $$$ :D

RPerry
05-17-2005, 04:37 PM
By the way, how about a discussion on the odd American tradition of hawking clubs around the country in the pursuit of $$$ :D

Thats a terrible "tradition" and I want no part of it :frusty:

I was sick to my stomach when the news first started about the moving of the Bucs, and I think it was more or less a deal with if Glazer could have bought the Anehiem/California/Los Angeles Angels :rolleyes:

RPerry
05-17-2005, 04:48 PM
I'd be quite interested to read that if you see any more stuff on it.

I'm wondering if he's not going to let his sons do most of the stuff over here - they are the life long Man Utd fans (:dry:) and he is almost eighty.


Here is what I found:



LONDON (AP) - Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Malcolm Glazer took complete control of Manchester United on Monday by increasing his stake in the world's richest soccer club to more than 75 percent.

Glazer bought more shares to take his ownership level to 75.70 percent by the end of Monday's trading, Glazer's Red Football Ltd. said in a statement to the London Stock Exchange.

With 75 percent, Glazer can place his personal debt on United's books and take the club off the stock exchange and into private ownership. Manchester United has been listed on the stock exchange since 1991.

The NFL, which usually frowns upon cross-ownership, isn't sure if its rules would prevent Glazer from owning a foreign club. The league's finance committee will discuss it during spring meetings in Washington next week.


http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/3616476

manker
05-17-2005, 04:50 PM
Well, if its any help, I'll be the first to praise Malcom Glazer as an owner. I have been a Tampa Bay fan since I was old enough to watch NFL Football, and can tell you he has done alot for the city of Tampa. The staium that was built for the Bucs is unbelievable, and though the last 2 years they have been on a downward slide, understand the core of the championship team of 2002 was geting old, and if not for the championship, they would have been broken up a year sooner.
I have no idea what his reasons are for getting involved with a team outside the country, but I hope it works out for the best ;)I've read a lot about what he's done for Tampa and it's commendable for sure. However, this is a totally different kettle of fish.

I've studied his proposal and can't figure for the life of me how he expects to make any money. Certainly with the cost of servicing the debt, the current level of profit/success won't be sufficient. He must be planning something else to increase profits.

While the Man. Utd. Board were idiots in this fiasco, they certainly knew how to exploit the global football market. The finances of the club were extremely well managed, any opportunites for making a quid or two were seized upon.

If this something else exists then I doubt the current board would have missed out on this opportunity. Glazer proponants are harking toward exploiting the US Soccer market - however, we've been doing that for years but you lot don't like watching Soccer. Just because there is an American at the helm, won't make a game that frequently finishes scoreless more attractive. It's a culture thing.

Glazer has tied himself inextricably to the club's finances, if the club makes no extra money, he's on a loser. Therefore he has to come up with a way to make the most financially proficient Soccer club in the world more financially proficient. I'm sorry but in a world that he's not sure of and people are mistrustful of him, it's not likely to happen.


If the club doesn't increase it's profitability then the budget to buy new players will decrease, the success will decline and, ultimately, Glazer may find himself in a position where he has to sell the clubs assets (players, training facilities, Old Trafford itself) to service his huge borrowing.


Someone posted above that Man Utd = Leeds United :pinch:

manker
05-17-2005, 04:52 PM
Here is what I found:



LONDON (AP) - Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Malcolm Glazer took complete control of Manchester United on Monday by increasing his stake in the world's richest soccer club to more than 75 percent.

Glazer bought more shares to take his ownership level to 75.70 percent by the end of Monday's trading, Glazer's Red Football Ltd. said in a statement to the London Stock Exchange.

With 75 percent, Glazer can place his personal debt on United's books and take the club off the stock exchange and into private ownership. Manchester United has been listed on the stock exchange since 1991.

The NFL, which usually frowns upon cross-ownership, isn't sure if its rules would prevent Glazer from owning a foreign club. The league's finance committee will discuss it during spring meetings in Washington next week.


http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/3616476Cheers for that. I wonder if they'll make him choose between the two.

Altho' he could always put one of the clubs in his son's name if need be.

RPerry
05-17-2005, 04:57 PM
Here is what I found:




http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/3616476Cheers for that. I wonder if they'll make him choose between the two.

Altho' he could always put one of the clubs in his son's name if need be.

If your still on that site with the link I gave you, do a search on "Glazer" and you'll see he will indeed have all three of his sons involved. I don't know about playing the name change game though, or he could have done that here and bought the Angels

JPaul
05-17-2005, 10:47 PM
I read a piece in the Graudian today regarding the make-up of the deal. Without going into exact figures it appears that a large chunk of the finance has come from Hedge Funds, a rather interesting thing which a bank clerk would do a better job of explaining.

In essence he does not have to service that part of the debt just now, however the interest they charge is about 13% (a.p.r. presumably). Bottom line, as I understand it is that he has borrowed that money, with a view to not servicing that debt in the short term, however in the long term it will be more expensive.

It is therefore considered that he will have to raise those funds elsewhere fairly quickly. Either from his own resources, or from elsewhere. In order to raise the money from elsewhere he will have to show that the revenue streams are increasing fairly dramatically. Then he can sell off shed loads of shares at a profit, i.e over the 300p he "bought" them at.

Given that the club made around £58,000,000 profit last year that is going to be a good trick. Paricularly as it did not have to find the £20,000,000 interest which is now there, like the proverbial albatross.

To me this is a high risk strategy, with the potential for great gains to Glazer. However it puts the whole future of the club in serious doubt. Hedge funds are little more than the seriously wealthy playing high stakes poker with shares.

manker
05-18-2005, 10:35 AM
I read a piece in the Graudian today regarding the make-up of the deal. Without going into exact figures it appears that a large chunk of the finance has come from Hedge Funds, a rather interesting thing which a bank clerk would do a better job of explaining.

In essence he does not have to service that part of the debt just now, however the interest they charge is about 13% (a.p.r. presumably). Bottom line, as I understand it is that he has borrowed that money, with a view to not servicing that debt in the short term, however in the long term it will be more expensive.

It is therefore considered that he will have to raise those funds elsewhere fairly quickly. Either from his own resources, or from elsewhere. In order to raise the money from elsewhere he will have to show that the revenue streams are increasing fairly dramatically. Then he can sell off shed loads of shares at a profit, i.e over the 300p he "bought" them at.

Given that the club made around £58,000,000 profit last year that is going to be a good trick. Paricularly as it did not have to find the £20,000,000 interest which is now there, like the proverbial albatross.

To me this is a high risk strategy, with the potential for great gains to Glazer. However it puts the whole future of the club in serious doubt. Hedge funds are little more than the seriously wealthy playing high stakes poker with shares.A hedge fund is a loan where payment is received in kind (sometimes these funds are referred to as piks). The initial amount was received by Glazer and rather than paying back the total amount, plus interest, over a number of years in installments, the pik is to be paid back after a certain period of time. In this case I'd guess five years but no-one knows the details of this yet. When this happens Glazer will have to restructure his loans, this either means more piks, since he'll never raise that amount by conventional finance, or floating the club again.

The interest part is what makes a hedge fund different from some other piks. As JP said, this interest can be deferred and I suspect it's what Glazer will do in part. However, since this form of finance is far more risky than normal loaning arrangements and given the volitile nature of soccer clubs, I expect the interest rate to be at least 17%.

To cover this interest and the interest arising from the other £275million that Glazer has secured against his own property (not that of United's), profits will have to double (IMO). Incidentally, altho' Glazer may elect not to pay off the interest, the interest charge will still be shown in the P&L, reducing profits and making the club appear less solvent on the balance sheet - hence less attractive to potential investors.

Of course he could not bother paying any interest and hope that when he does float the club again, he'll get substantially more than £3 per share - but this won't happen if the club hasn't been successful or if the club hasn't managed to find other revenue streams, ie the profits remain at the same level.

Catch 22.


I'm missing the bit where Glazer can make some money.

JPaul
05-18-2005, 11:02 AM
It's not from ticket sales, they are already full all the time and the price increases were already allowed for.

That leaves

TV deal, they may move to doing their own deal with SKY - fecking smaller clubs at the same time. Probably in association with other large clubs.

Sponsorship.

Merchandising.

Prize Money.

Other e.g. Man U TV, affinity credit card etc.

Given that Man U were probably the best run club in the world, at least financially, it is difficult to see what he will be able to do to improve income. Unless he already has some substantial deals in place or pending.

manker
05-18-2005, 11:41 AM
Yup, the areas you've listed will be extremely difficult to improve upon.

In theory he has to produce a mission statement type document before Friday, whether he will or not or how vague this document will be isn't known but I guess it may provide some answers.

Barbarossa
05-18-2005, 04:27 PM
TV deal, they may move to doing their own deal with SKY - fecking smaller clubs at the same time. Probably in association with other large clubs.


http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/050518/4/ayzj.html

Hmmm, well it sounds like he hasn't done his homework... :lol:

Busyman
05-18-2005, 07:31 PM
He needs to concentrate on better play and marketing.

The TV deal is toast unless they make better inroads into the American market. I've watched soccer every once and awhile but even the MLS has got a ways to go.

The dumb thing is I remember English League Soccer being on pay-per view. :lol: :lol:
Not very smart.

RPerry
05-23-2005, 09:02 PM
Glazer looking to close acquisition Reuters LONDON -- U.S. tycoon Malcolm Glazer plans to delist Manchester United as early as June 22 as part of his $1.5 billion takeover, his bankers said on Monday. In a statement, investment bank Rothschild said Glazer planned to apply to the UK's listing authority to cancel Manchester United Plc's listing from the London Stock Exchange, on June 22 "or as soon thereafter as is practicable".

Rothschild made the statement as it posted Glazer's offer document to shareholders, kicking off a timetable for the U.S. financier to close his acquisition of the 15-times English champions.Glazer already owns 76.2 percent of United after acquiring a key stake from the club's biggest shareholder and snapping up other shares over the past two weeks.Shareholders will be able to sell their shares to Glazer until 1400 GMT on June 13, Rothschild said.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=334148&cc=5901

Rat Faced
05-23-2005, 09:40 PM
I think comparing Man U to Leeds is a little below the belt.















Leeds havent got anywhere near that amount of debt :rolleyes:

JPaul
05-23-2005, 10:15 PM
I think comparing Man U to Leeds is a little below the belt.















Leeds havent got anywhere near that amount of debt :rolleyes:

Neither have they anywhere near the assets.

In fact it could be argued that Leeds (amongst others) are trading whilst insolvent. I'd have to check with a bank clerk, but I think that may be illegal.

Rat Faced
05-24-2005, 12:04 AM
I'd say the major asset is the ground.

I think Elland Road is one of the few major grounds where the freehold is actually held by the football club (Old Trafford is too).

Elland Road must be worth a bob or 2... probably enough to get them out of trouble, if sold for development, by itself. They arent therefore bankrupt as they have positive equity that could cover the debts.


Old Trafford is now owned by some American guy, however I dont think it will raise £3/4 Billion when sold :rolleyes: He'd get a few quid off Dan Gilbert for it mind.. he wants to build a leisure complex around there.

manker
05-24-2005, 12:37 AM
I'd say the major asset is the ground.

I think Elland Road is one of the few major grounds where the freehold is actually held by the football club (Old Trafford is too).

Elland Road must be worth a bob or 2... probably enough to get them out of trouble, if sold for development, by itself. They arent therefore bankrupt as they have positive equity that could cover the debts.


Old Trafford is now owned by some American guy, however I dont think it will raise £3/4 Billion when sold :rolleyes: He'd get a few quid off Dan Gilbert for it mind.. he wants to build a leisure complex around there.Leeds' major asset is the ground, not the case with Man Utd. I take it we're talking intangibles too because it would make little sense to neglect reference to that.

You seem to have some major insight to which I am bereft. Why will Glazer sell the ground.

In any case, I'm not sure of your figures. The figure of £3/4 of a billion is overstated in so much as the total value of the shares currently held by Glazer approximates that figure so the club couldn't possibly be in that much debt given he'd already bought and paid for 37% of them.

I am unsure whether you read the rest of this thread but there is some info there which details the debt. You'll notice that a lot, indeed over half of it, isn't secured on Man Utd's assets, rather that of Glazer's other assets.

I'm sure you'll agree that this fact alone distinguishes the situation at Old Trafford from the plight suffered at Elland Road not only slightly but clearly indicates that they are totally different scenarios that no-one in their right mind could even begin to compare. But you knew that :dry:


There is little doubt that the club is worse off, financially, now than one month back but the situation is only unpalatable because of that. Not because of impending asset stripping nor because of possible liquidation.

Just as soon as I can see some documents and understand precisely how Glazer expects to profit from this venture, as surely this must be his intention, then I'll be happier. This is the bone of contention right now - not scaremongering stories by rival 'fans'.

JPaul
05-24-2005, 08:14 AM
The problem football has is that a large chunk of the "assets" are the players themselves. Rooney is a great example. I am sure the books show him as being valued at around £25,000,000, however that is only if someone is willing to pay it.

A long run of poor form or an injury could change that quick style. Indeed a really bad injury could wipe all value from the books. I am quite sure their insurance premiums reflect this high risk, that would only be fiscally prudent.

Let's not even go into "goodwill", particularly with Man U's current status / plight.

(Note to mangep, je suis joking re what goodwill means, to avoid accusations of roddery)

manker
05-24-2005, 11:59 AM
It really is rather interesting that footballers are both employees and tangible fixed assets. Conventionally, the two were always treated as mutually exclusive until quite recently when ... oh alright, it's not that interesting :ermm:

Since Leeds have been mentioned tho', they, allegedly, tried to capitalise upon this sporting nuance of treating employees as assets when they hatched a plot to break one of their defender's legs in order to claim the insurance money and to get his contract paid off. It is eaiser to insure an asset against damage than it is to insure an employee. This is conjecture on my part in more ways than one but I do believe the rumour to be rooted in fact.

===

Btw, RF, if Man Utd did ever subside to that level where GBH seems to be an option to procure the odd million, Glazer himself would be on the verge of financial ruin. His personal finances are inextricably linked to the club now.

It's not going to happen, eh. The club will be refloated when financial reports indicate that a profitable 6 month period isn't likely - and I mean profitable to the level where his loans can be adequately serviced. Glazer will cut his losses and head back to the USA.

This is, obviously, the plan that the various supporter groups have in mind when urging merchandise boycotts.

Now, I see two possible outcomes:

1) Manchester United attains desirable profit levels which greatly exceed current levels (tho' with less money available to spend on players and wages) Glazer stays.

2) Manchester United don't acheive these gargantuan gains, the financial outlook is bleak for Glazer so he re-floats and leaves.

Both scenarios represent several steps back for United, with Glazer staying their transfer market power is limited and their wage structure won't compete with the elite in Europe anymore. If he leaves then the club will be devalued and bereft of the funds Glazer will strip before his departure. Recovery to present status will take several years.

So, in summary, things are pretty bad but it's not all doom and gloom. My own spirits have been lifted considerably this past week after talking to people that knew more about it that I do. We're still light years ahead of Newcastle and the Scousers. Which is a bonus.

Barbarossa
05-24-2005, 12:18 PM
So, in summary, things are pretty bad but it's not all doom and gloom. My own spirits have been lifted considerably this past week after talking to people that knew more about it that I do. We're still light years ahead of Newcastle and the Scousers. Which is a bonus.

... do you mean those very same scousers who still have a chance of winning a trophy this season?? :snooty:

manker
05-24-2005, 12:21 PM
Nah, Tranmere :pinch:

MCHeshPants420
05-24-2005, 12:36 PM
So, in summary, things are pretty bad but it's not all doom and gloom. My own spirits have been lifted considerably this past week after talking to people that knew more about it that I do. We're still light years ahead of Newcastle and the Scousers. Which is a bonus.

We're the 11th richest club in the world. Soon to be tenth. :snooty:

Illuminati
05-24-2005, 02:37 PM
So, in summary, things are pretty bad but it's not all doom and gloom. My own spirits have been lifted considerably this past week after talking to people that knew more about it that I do. We're still light years ahead of Newcastle and the Scousers. Which is a bonus.

... do you mean those very same scousers who still have a chance of winning a trophy this season?? :snooty:

:cheers:

Rat Faced
05-24-2005, 07:39 PM
You seem to have some major insight to which I am bereft. Why will Glazer sell the ground.

I have no idea whether he will or not, i was takin' teh piss out of Man U fans, hence the smilie.. come on, its not often we get the chance to; let us have our fun. :P

More seriously though, i hear they are seriously looking at the £30million offer on Rio... If they start selling the players so soon after all this, then the fans may take that as the new trend.

manker
05-24-2005, 07:47 PM
You seem to have some major insight to which I am bereft. Why will Glazer sell the ground.

I have no idea whether he will or not, i was takin' teh piss out of Man U fans, hence the smilie.. come on, its not often we get the chance to; let us have our fun. :P

More seriously though, i hear they are seriously looking at the £30million offer on Rio... If they start selling the players so soon after all this, then the fans may take that as the new trend.Hehe yeah, my humour is not so good about this subject atm, sorry about that :D


They're not selling Rio, he's in negotiations to sign a new contract so there would have been speculation anyway, probably caused by Pini Zahavi to get Rio's wages up (:dry:) The takeover has perpetuated it.

However, as with all contract talk it could go tits up if Rio gets too greedy and he may well be on his way. This will be down to the player and not the club, tho' - they've offered him £100,000 a week already.

Rat Faced
05-24-2005, 07:48 PM
So, in summary, things are pretty bad but it's not all doom and gloom. My own spirits have been lifted considerably this past week after talking to people that knew more about it that I do. We're still light years ahead of Newcastle and the Scousers. Which is a bonus.

We're the 11th richest club in the world. Soon to be tenth. :snooty:

I thought we were, and you were 10th?

Your dropping quicker than us too (well, you were until this season :( )

Annual incomes 2003-04 (latest available from accounts i think)

1 (1) Man Utd £171.5m
2 (4) Real Madrid £156.3m
3 (3) AC Milan £147.2m
4 (10) Chelsea £143.7m
5 (2) Juventus £142.4m
6 (7) Arsenal £115m
7 (13) Barcelona £110.1m
8 (6) Inter Milan £110.3m
9 (5) Bayern Munich £110.1m
10 (8) Liverpool £92.3m
11 (10) Newcastle £90.5m
12 (11) Roma £72m
13 (18) Celtic £69m
14 (16) Tottenham £66.3m
15 (15) Lazio £65.8m
16 (-) Man City £61.9m
17 (14) Schalke £60.5m
18 (-) Marseille £58.3m
19 (-) Rangers £57.1m
20 (-) Aston Villa £55.9m

Shearer is 5th richest player in UK @ £42mil, thats nearly half of the clubs annual income :ohmy:

manker
05-24-2005, 07:50 PM
RF, MCHeshPants420 is Withcheese :D


He's a Mackem too, I believe.

manker
05-24-2005, 07:51 PM
Btw, annual income is a pretty poor way to decide which club is richest :snooty:

Rat Faced
05-24-2005, 07:52 PM
RF, MCHeshPants420 is Withcheese :D


He's a Mackem too, I believe.

:ohmy:

No he isnt... he just supports a Geordie Team :P

I was under the impression he was a scouser... my bad.




/me wonders why people use fake names *sigh*

Rat Faced
05-24-2005, 07:53 PM
Btw, annual income is a pretty poor way to decide which club is richest :snooty:


Its certainly a bloody good indicator... You cant get the main fixed assets without the income, nor can you keep them. :shifty:

DanB
05-24-2005, 07:55 PM
/me wonders why people use fake names *sigh*


He really did die when he go to 10,000 :mellow:

JPaul
05-24-2005, 08:05 PM
Celtic / Rangers certainly aren't in the richest list. The income list maybe, but not the richest list.

It's pretty meaningless when you include some clubs from Europe, which are part hobby. In fact look at Chelski now.

manker
05-24-2005, 08:13 PM
Btw, annual income is a pretty poor way to decide which club is richest :snooty:


Its certainly a bloody good indicator... You cant get the main fixed assets without the income, nor can you keep them. :shifty:If no-one watched Chelsea for the next ten years or bought any merchandise and they refused all prize money, making their income zero. They'd still be the richest club in the world.

Income pays no heed to how well managed or liquid the company is.

Rat Faced
05-24-2005, 11:17 PM
In one sense they did have a huge income... what, with someone pumping huge wads of money into the club. They couldnt have done what they've done on their normal ticket sales, merchandising etc.

Its an indicator... but no, it doesnt account for the odd madman billionaire that wishes to give millions away to his club.

If i had a rich relative that wished to give me loads of money then i guess my salary would pale in comparison to my wealth... but this is not the normal situation in life, or in football.

To any volunteers that wish to give me loads of money..... notice i never said anything against that, please feel free to donate this way ;)

manker
05-24-2005, 11:34 PM
In one sense they did have a huge income... what, with someone pumping huge wads of money into the club.That's what I mean, the 'income' figures are merely P&L top lines and as such won't take into account what really matters. For all we know, Newcastle's #11 position could belie the fact that their expenses > than their income.

What matters is the bottom line P&L figure and, even more importantly, liquidity as shown on the balance sheet.

jimmy23
05-25-2005, 06:37 AM
true that, but at all times maintaining a good and strong public image is paramount

RPerry
05-25-2005, 12:18 PM
NFL wants information on Man U casino ties

WASHINGTON (AP) - The National Football League asked Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Malcolm Glazer on Tuesday to explain Manchester United (http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/soccer/team?categoryId=568)'s relationship with a Las Vegas casino, a venture that could run afoul of the league's policies concerning gambling.

The request came during the pro gridiron league's spring meetings, the owners' first gathering since Glazer's 790-million-pound (US$1.47 billion; €1.16 billion) takeover of the world's most valuable soccer club.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Glazer's acquisition did not violate the league's cross-ownership rules and that there was no problem related to the debt Glazer is incurring.

But the league, known to be wary about any connection to gambling, wants to know more about a proposed resort and casino that would be built near Manchester United's Old Trafford stadium as a joint venture between the club and Las Vegas Sands Corp.

"The only potential issue concerns that reported Man U joint venture with the Las Vegas casino, what that means, and does it have any implications regarding our policies," Aiello said.


There is no timetable for Glazer to respond to the NFL's request, Aiello said.

The meetings came on the same day that the U.S. representative of Shareholders United, a group of fans and shareholders who oppose Glazer's takeover, wrote a letter to NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue outlining Manchester United's connection to gambling.

The letter, written by J.D. Deitch, said that United has bookmaking stalls at Old Trafford and has links to a gambling Web site on the club's official site. The letter also mentions the deal with Las Vegas Sands.

"The issue here is whether the NFL is really going to stand by its policies," Deitch said in an interview.


Aiello said he did not know whether Tagliabue had seen the letter.

Several of Glazer's fellow NFL owners said they didn't know much about the casino deal, but they were full of admiration that Glazer was able to pull off the purchase of such a prominent team.

"I didn't believe he could get the job done to get that much control of it, but he's a strong negotiator," Tennessee Titans owner Bud Adams said. "He's got the No. 1 soccer team in the world."

Glazer, who rarely speaks to the media, walked past reporters without comment.

"I asked him how much time he's going to spend over there, and he said, 'Not too much,' " Adams said.

When it was pointed out that Glazer's takeover has met with hostility among United fans in England, Adams said: "That's why maybe he's not going to go over there very much."


http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/3637652

JPaul
05-25-2005, 01:19 PM
Interesting developments.

Thanks RP.

manker
05-25-2005, 01:24 PM
Indeed. Don't often get to read stuff from an American perspective.

DanB
05-25-2005, 04:55 PM
true that, but at all times maintaining a good and strong public image is paramount

Hi Billy :)

RPerry
05-25-2005, 05:59 PM
Interesting developments.

Thanks RP.


Indeed. Don't often get to read stuff from an American perspective.

Quite welcome guys, I've been watching the story to see what Glazer does ;)

JPaul
05-26-2005, 11:47 AM
true that, but at all times maintaining a good and strong public image is paramount

Hi Billy :)

Speaking of a good and strong public image.