ChatterBank0 min ago
Man Utd - the Glazers - JJ ranting on
29 Answers
Maybe this should go under "Business" ... I'm not sure.
Over coffee this morning, I read the details of the Bond Issue Prospectus, seeking to raise £500m. The Prospecus declares that on 19 December 2008, the Glaziers took loans of £10m out of the club.
Before the 2006 revisions to The Companies Acts, those loans would have been illegal. Now, they just seem undesirable. Does Roman Abramovitch "borrow" millions of ££'s from Chelski? Of course not. No Directors of any other Premier League club have borrowed from their club. Most, if anything, are lending money to the clubs.
So the Glaziers came into the club in the face of opposition from supporters, and from Chief Executive David Gill ... despite the bid documents describing the Glazier family as "Billionaires".
Was that true? Most of the Glaziers' business interests are registerd with the New York Dept. of State, and this gives ememption from publication of annual accounts. The only visible activity is the Glaziers' interest in Zapata, a company with a stake in Omega Proteins (a name familiar to anyone who shops in Holland and Barrett). But in 2006, Zapata ditched it's share in Omega for $29m and, last summer, the Glaziers sold their stake in Zapata to Harbinger Capital - a hedge fund.
The Glaziers have retained an interest in a property company called First Allied - but no information is available about how that company is doing in a US market where property values have fallen. Did the Glaziers burden that company with loans, as they have done with Man Utd, only to find that the market returns are now insufficient to service the debt?
(continued ...)
Over coffee this morning, I read the details of the Bond Issue Prospectus, seeking to raise £500m. The Prospecus declares that on 19 December 2008, the Glaziers took loans of £10m out of the club.
Before the 2006 revisions to The Companies Acts, those loans would have been illegal. Now, they just seem undesirable. Does Roman Abramovitch "borrow" millions of ££'s from Chelski? Of course not. No Directors of any other Premier League club have borrowed from their club. Most, if anything, are lending money to the clubs.
So the Glaziers came into the club in the face of opposition from supporters, and from Chief Executive David Gill ... despite the bid documents describing the Glazier family as "Billionaires".
Was that true? Most of the Glaziers' business interests are registerd with the New York Dept. of State, and this gives ememption from publication of annual accounts. The only visible activity is the Glaziers' interest in Zapata, a company with a stake in Omega Proteins (a name familiar to anyone who shops in Holland and Barrett). But in 2006, Zapata ditched it's share in Omega for $29m and, last summer, the Glaziers sold their stake in Zapata to Harbinger Capital - a hedge fund.
The Glaziers have retained an interest in a property company called First Allied - but no information is available about how that company is doing in a US market where property values have fallen. Did the Glaziers burden that company with loans, as they have done with Man Utd, only to find that the market returns are now insufficient to service the debt?
(continued ...)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joggerjayne. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
(continued ...)
So, why do I care? I have no allegiance to Man Utd. I'm not even that crazy about football.
But I do support a nice little team, with modest ambitions (to avoid relegation, again). And I “feel” for real supporters who have, frankly, been “screwed over” by the Glaziers. Until now, I didn’t really understand why the fans were so upset.
If you buy a season ticket at Man Utd, you are obliged to buy a ticket for every Cup game. You are being screwed for every last £ that the club can get from you while, at the top, the Directors are apparently using the club as a cash cow, to compensate for the adverse performance of their other interests. And, if the bond issue is taken up, there are provisions in there for a whole lot more to be taken out by the Glazers.
So, basically, this was just a rant. But it was also my little burst of outrage – not on behalf of Man Utd, but on behalf of ordinary people everywhere, who enjoy going to see football on a Saturday afternoon. Even non-supporters will agree that Man Utd are a great club. They have been totally screwed over by a bunch of American upstarts and I, for one, am annoyed about it.
Seagull x
So, why do I care? I have no allegiance to Man Utd. I'm not even that crazy about football.
But I do support a nice little team, with modest ambitions (to avoid relegation, again). And I “feel” for real supporters who have, frankly, been “screwed over” by the Glaziers. Until now, I didn’t really understand why the fans were so upset.
If you buy a season ticket at Man Utd, you are obliged to buy a ticket for every Cup game. You are being screwed for every last £ that the club can get from you while, at the top, the Directors are apparently using the club as a cash cow, to compensate for the adverse performance of their other interests. And, if the bond issue is taken up, there are provisions in there for a whole lot more to be taken out by the Glazers.
So, basically, this was just a rant. But it was also my little burst of outrage – not on behalf of Man Utd, but on behalf of ordinary people everywhere, who enjoy going to see football on a Saturday afternoon. Even non-supporters will agree that Man Utd are a great club. They have been totally screwed over by a bunch of American upstarts and I, for one, am annoyed about it.
Seagull x
I have no allegiance to Man Utd, but you have hit the nail on the head JJ as it applies to many Clubs in the Premier League who are getting screwed by so called 'investors' who come along as Club Saviours but who are nothing of the sort.
Look at Portsmouths plight ! On the brink of Administration ! Does anyone know who owns the Club? Where has this Clubs money gone especially as they have sold off most of their key Players for large transfer fees.
Who is pocketing the money ?
Look at Portsmouths plight ! On the brink of Administration ! Does anyone know who owns the Club? Where has this Clubs money gone especially as they have sold off most of their key Players for large transfer fees.
Who is pocketing the money ?
Jane small point and i'm not having a go or anything.
Abramovitch has put millions of his own money into Chelsea and now taken equity rather than money out of the club. I.e he has done nothing but the best by Chelsea. I also belive that Chelsea are a private company.
The Glazers on the other hand used the biggest sporting organisation on the planet to borrow the money to buy it? I'm not a business man but it seems crazy you can do that.
The debt is now obviously unsustainable and this extemly viable and should be very rich club is in some sort of crisis.
I couldn't agree more about what you are saying about the fans but as a supporter, you should aware tht its always the fans (Who are the club) who get shafted I would guess its only the degree that changes.
Abramovitch has put millions of his own money into Chelsea and now taken equity rather than money out of the club. I.e he has done nothing but the best by Chelsea. I also belive that Chelsea are a private company.
The Glazers on the other hand used the biggest sporting organisation on the planet to borrow the money to buy it? I'm not a business man but it seems crazy you can do that.
The debt is now obviously unsustainable and this extemly viable and should be very rich club is in some sort of crisis.
I couldn't agree more about what you are saying about the fans but as a supporter, you should aware tht its always the fans (Who are the club) who get shafted I would guess its only the degree that changes.
I'm not a Man Utd supporter, Dave.
I also think that Abramovitch has behaved well towards Chelski (although we all suspect that he had to make a huge amount of very dodgy money "disappear" quickly into a complex corporate web).
But, in fact, he does have Chelski by the short and curlies. If he ever got bored with his little blue toy, he could sell the club to another football sugar daddy ... or to a property developer).
I also think that Abramovitch has behaved well towards Chelski (although we all suspect that he had to make a huge amount of very dodgy money "disappear" quickly into a complex corporate web).
But, in fact, he does have Chelski by the short and curlies. If he ever got bored with his little blue toy, he could sell the club to another football sugar daddy ... or to a property developer).
No when Ken Bates was chairman he sold it to a supporters trust or something, its so that land developers or such couldn't buy up the club and build on it.
Chelsea FC own the entire infrastructure but not the pitch.
There is also a mandate about the name - if the club decided to relocate if this trust decide they can't or shouldn't they can go but they can't take the name (No sure how legal that is)
Chelsea FC own the entire infrastructure but not the pitch.
There is also a mandate about the name - if the club decided to relocate if this trust decide they can't or shouldn't they can go but they can't take the name (No sure how legal that is)
I'm not an MU Fan, but unlike most MU fans who come from Surrey, have lived in Manchester!
Having said that, what the Glazers are doing to the club is not criminal but is immoral. The borrowed a large amount of money to buy a football club which they saw as a cash cow, with the number of fans and world wide interest would generate a good cash flow which they could tap into and satisfy their greed for money, by various financial instruments (fiddles) such as consultancy fees, interest etc.
Unfortunately it is starting to go wrong and the interest on the loans is getting out of control, requiring more financial sleights of hand to keep them out of trouble. The only thing they are interested in is maintaining the cash flow - they do not give a toss about football, Sir Alec, the team or the fans, except in as much as the fans are the suckers who maintain the cash flow.
Sadly there is only one way to get rid of them. That is for the fans to STOP supporting the team. If you could bring yourselves to not turn up for about half a dozen home games and not buy any expensive replica kits or other stuff, the financial model would start to change. That, in itself would not bring the club to its knees, but would start to give the potential investors in the bonds an attack of the wobblies - they rely on on the fans as the cash cow to be milked, to make this work.
If the team also lost a few games that would help as well. with any luck the Glazers would catch a financial cold and have to sell up to hit their repayments on the loans.
Extreme I know, but sometimes the only treatment to get rid of parasites is painful in the short term!
Having said that, what the Glazers are doing to the club is not criminal but is immoral. The borrowed a large amount of money to buy a football club which they saw as a cash cow, with the number of fans and world wide interest would generate a good cash flow which they could tap into and satisfy their greed for money, by various financial instruments (fiddles) such as consultancy fees, interest etc.
Unfortunately it is starting to go wrong and the interest on the loans is getting out of control, requiring more financial sleights of hand to keep them out of trouble. The only thing they are interested in is maintaining the cash flow - they do not give a toss about football, Sir Alec, the team or the fans, except in as much as the fans are the suckers who maintain the cash flow.
Sadly there is only one way to get rid of them. That is for the fans to STOP supporting the team. If you could bring yourselves to not turn up for about half a dozen home games and not buy any expensive replica kits or other stuff, the financial model would start to change. That, in itself would not bring the club to its knees, but would start to give the potential investors in the bonds an attack of the wobblies - they rely on on the fans as the cash cow to be milked, to make this work.
If the team also lost a few games that would help as well. with any luck the Glazers would catch a financial cold and have to sell up to hit their repayments on the loans.
Extreme I know, but sometimes the only treatment to get rid of parasites is painful in the short term!
In a way i think personally the majority of man united fans are to blame.
Im not a united fan but follow football. My team is WOLVES.
A few years ago united went on the stock market to raise funds to buy players, this is what the fans kept asking for by the then owners. What the fans didnt realize was that if youre on the market, anyone can buy shares. Buy enough of them and you own the club and can take them off the market,
ENTER THE GLAZERS....
rewind a little, The 2 previou owners of MUFC warned fans of this but the fans we're adamant what they wanted so been the owners of a footy club they listened to the fans as its the fans club in a way, I know many united fans now that all say they shouldnt have gone on the stock market selling shares, but they were happy enough when they were winning everything.
They cant have it both ways, I think the Glazers need to look at paying off the clubs enormous loans before they think of taking money out for theirselves.
As for POMPEY, personally i blame gaydamak. He wanted out and stripped the club of every pound he could get back before selling, so then the new men who take over have no assets or no foundations to build a team as its all been took out.
Im not a united fan but follow football. My team is WOLVES.
A few years ago united went on the stock market to raise funds to buy players, this is what the fans kept asking for by the then owners. What the fans didnt realize was that if youre on the market, anyone can buy shares. Buy enough of them and you own the club and can take them off the market,
ENTER THE GLAZERS....
rewind a little, The 2 previou owners of MUFC warned fans of this but the fans we're adamant what they wanted so been the owners of a footy club they listened to the fans as its the fans club in a way, I know many united fans now that all say they shouldnt have gone on the stock market selling shares, but they were happy enough when they were winning everything.
They cant have it both ways, I think the Glazers need to look at paying off the clubs enormous loans before they think of taking money out for theirselves.
As for POMPEY, personally i blame gaydamak. He wanted out and stripped the club of every pound he could get back before selling, so then the new men who take over have no assets or no foundations to build a team as its all been took out.
well said jogger.
the way its going with the glazers at the helm they will be like a sunday league team with a big stadium.
can you see the next LEEDS UNITED appearing in front of us, I think so and all clubs should be run like a company and how any1 can get £750million loans is beyond me.
Especially when clubs like Bournemouth was in trouble for £500k , Accrington ave transfer embargo for £50k . Ridicolous when united have that much debt..
the way its going with the glazers at the helm they will be like a sunday league team with a big stadium.
can you see the next LEEDS UNITED appearing in front of us, I think so and all clubs should be run like a company and how any1 can get £750million loans is beyond me.
Especially when clubs like Bournemouth was in trouble for £500k , Accrington ave transfer embargo for £50k . Ridicolous when united have that much debt..
It's not a level playing field, wilke.
If clubs like that are making money, the owners help themselves.
If they get into trouble, the FA are asked to help out, because the clubs are described an national institutions, part of our footballing heritage, etc.
Well, either they exist to add to our cultural heritage (in which case, they should not be seen as cash cows) ...
... or alternatively, they exist to pay big sums of money to their owners and players (in which case, they must stand or fall on their own balance sheet).
Personally, I don't buy into the "national institution" argument.
Those people who seek to make their fortunes from football clubs must accept that, if it goes wrong, then (like any other business) they could be shut down, the staff sent home, and the real estate sold off for "affordable housing"
If clubs like that are making money, the owners help themselves.
If they get into trouble, the FA are asked to help out, because the clubs are described an national institutions, part of our footballing heritage, etc.
Well, either they exist to add to our cultural heritage (in which case, they should not be seen as cash cows) ...
... or alternatively, they exist to pay big sums of money to their owners and players (in which case, they must stand or fall on their own balance sheet).
Personally, I don't buy into the "national institution" argument.
Those people who seek to make their fortunes from football clubs must accept that, if it goes wrong, then (like any other business) they could be shut down, the staff sent home, and the real estate sold off for "affordable housing"
couldnt agree more jogger.
the reality check will be IF UEFA GET THEIR FAIR TRADE POLICY IN.
this means any club in debt cant play in european tournies,
imagine champs league with no man utd , liverpool, madrid , barcelona etc...
at least the clubs like wigan , hull , wolves and the rest of the clubs that balance the plugs will now have an advantage over the top in-debt teams. To be fair though uniteds debts are unrealistic, portsmouth will bounce back from it as its not a major debt compared to other clubs. Clubs just need to be run responsibly and have a longer plan for where theyre going rather than wanting success straight away.
the reality check will be IF UEFA GET THEIR FAIR TRADE POLICY IN.
this means any club in debt cant play in european tournies,
imagine champs league with no man utd , liverpool, madrid , barcelona etc...
at least the clubs like wigan , hull , wolves and the rest of the clubs that balance the plugs will now have an advantage over the top in-debt teams. To be fair though uniteds debts are unrealistic, portsmouth will bounce back from it as its not a major debt compared to other clubs. Clubs just need to be run responsibly and have a longer plan for where theyre going rather than wanting success straight away.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.