Man U. takeover

Shoco wrote: well thats funny because the debt actually increased from when they took over the club until january this year which resulted in the bond issue, simple maths eh when they took over the debts were announced at over 600m, in january this year the debt had  increased to over 700m. this despite the fact the club was paying over 60m a year in intrest payments

Shocco - the debt soared because they transfered some bank loans to PIK's which reuslted in the pay backs going up because there was more interest.  But they said the PIK's would be paid off soon - and they were paid off within a year.

All MUFC fans need to know about the debt is this (without all the complicated sh*t we can't fully understand and - more importantly - without the agenda driven made up bull from MUST)

Manchester United are in about 480mill of debt.  This costs the club 45mill a year to pay back.  That's it in simple form.

However, in 2004 - before the Glazers took control - United were turning over about 140mill annually - since the Glazers took over that has risen about 18per cent EVERY year and is continuing to rise (estimated at 335mill for 2011).  That is incredible.  However, it's also not making any headlines and it's certainly NEVER mentioned by MUST in their daily sh*te emails. 

So - with the Glazers at the club we have to pay back that 45mill - which we pay back from the extra 160mill they bring in to the club yearly anyway.  So, yes without the Glazers we wouldn't have to pay the 45mill in loans every year, but we also wouldn't be bringing in an extra 160mill a year!!!

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY: the Glazers have been brill owners from the point of view that they haven't involved themselves in the football side of things. They deal with the commercail side (briiantly) and they hire Ferguson and Gill to run teh football club (brilliantly).

They are going through the best era for the club off the field EVER and are going through the best era of teh club on the field EVER; yet some fans are giving out....

What more do Manchester United fans want?  How can nobody answer that? And please refrain from answering that with mention of the debt - because IT DOESN'T MATTER IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS!


Edited by Siralex - 20 Dec 2010 at 5:20pm

There it is folks, another gem from siralex

Debt doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things

Sure Brian Cowen should give the Imf a ring in the morning and say, ah sure come on lads debt doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things

Lets forget about the huge interest payments on the massive debt put on the club by the Galzers

So forgetting about the huge amount of debt put on the club by the glazers- do you honestly think malcolm glazer is a united fan with the values of the club at heart?

Actually has he ever been to a united game??? Sounds like a huge united fan

ShamtheRam wrote: Every club loses money. I think it was Alan Sugar who said "If you want to make a profit.......don't buy a football club"It's part of the course........no avoiding it.

Is that a wooden spoon youre using to stir there sham

Siralex wrote: Shoco wrote: well thats funny because the debt actually increased from when they took over the club until january this year which resulted in the bond issue, simple maths eh when they took over the debts were announced at over 600m, in january this year the debt had  increased to over 700m. this despite the fact the club was paying over 60m a year in intrest payments Shocco - the debt soared because they transfered some bank loans to PIK's which reuslted in the pay backs going up because there was more interest.  But they said the PIK's would be paid off soon - and they were paid off within a year. All MUFC fans need to know about the debt is this (without all the complicated sh*t we can't fully understand and - more importantly - without the agenda driven made up bull from MUST) Manchester United are in about 480mill of debt.  This costs the club 45mill a year to pay back.  That's it in simple form. However, in 2004 - before the Glazers took control - United were turning over about 140mill annually - since the Glazers took over that has risen about 18per cent EVERY year and is continuing to rise (estimated at 335mill for 2011).  That is incredible.  However, it's also not making any headlines and it's certainly NEVER mentioned by MUST in their daily sh*te emails.  So - with the Glazers at the club we have to pay back that 45mill - which we pay back from the extra 160mill they bring in to the club yearly anyway.  So, yes without the Glazers we wouldn't have to pay the 45mill in loans every year, but we also wouldn't be bringing in an extra 160mill a year!!! BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY: the Glazers have been brill owners from the point of view that they haven't involved themselves in the football side of things. They deal with the commercail side (briiantly) and they hire Ferguson and Gill to run teh football club (brilliantly). They are going through the best era for the club off the field EVER and are going through the best era of teh club on the field EVER; yet some fans are giving out.... What more do Manchester United fans want?  How can nobody answer that? And please refrain from answering that with mention of the debt - because IT DOESN'T MATTER IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS!

well i am going to mention the debt because you are wrong. its not that simple im afraid, the 45m a year is only intrest payments, that doesnt actually clear the debt, the 60m that they were paying off was only intrest also, thats why the debt never decreased otherwise it would have been well reduced at this stage

i cant believe you think its just a matter of paying 45m a year and the debt goes away!!!

yes the PIKs are gone, but for all we know the club could have bothered more money to pay them off, or maybe they paid it out of their own pockets (which they lined from taking mney out of the club)

anyways, this time i am off

Are you trying to say the glazers are the reason united have been succesful over the last 3/4 years??

What about the 8 leagues 4 fa cups and 1 european cup they won in the 11 years before they took over??

The richest vein of form in the clubs history was between
1999 and 2003 anyway

Im not complaining about the team/ the club or the manager im complaining about the glazers, simple.

There is one reason that united have been so succesful

ALEX FERGUSON

greenarmy wrote: Siralex wrote: However, in 2004 - before the Glazers took control - United were turning over about 140mill annually - since the Glazers took over that has risen about 18per cent EVERY year and is continuing to rise (estimated at 335mill for 2011).  That is incredible.  However, it's also not making any headlines and it's certainly NEVER mentioned by MUST in their daily sh*te emails.       Think your clearly missing the point. This is why the vast majority of man utd supporters want them out of the club   A large percentage of the rising turnover is down to increase in prices and new policies introduced to shaft supporters in any way they can, The supporters are paying the glazers debt they have landed on the club

Siralex wrote: .....United's transfer activity under the Glazers completely rubbishes Sabermetrics. How does spending 19mill on Anderson who was virtually unknown fall in to that theory? How does spending 17mill on Nani who was virtually unknown fall in to that theory? How does spending 10mill on Chris Smalling who never played a Premier League game at Fulham fall in to that category? How does spending 24mill on Hargreaves who has a history of bad knee problems  fall in to that theory? How does spending 18.5m on Michael Carrick fall in to that theory? How does splashing out 5mill A YEAR just to loan Carlos Tevez fall in to that theory? How does spending 31mill on a 30-year-old Berbatov with zero re-sale value fall in to that category? How does the fact that Alex Ferguson has constantly said "there is money here to spend when I need it."  and "The Glazers have NEVER turned down a requests for money for any transfer" fall in to that theory????  and how the f**k does the fact that after all the signings Ferguson has made under the Glazers, they have gone on to win three Premier League titles in a row and been in two European Cup Finals fall in to that theory?  Are people saying United are going backwards because their signings aren't good enough?  Jeeeeez!!! The idea of sabermetrics has been raised loadsa times, but their is no evidence to back it up and a sh*t load of evidence to completely dismiss it! Also, GreenArmy above said the Manchester United fans are the reason for United's turnover being so big.  It's not buddy. The Glazers have increased revenue from marketing and commercial ventures by 90percent since 2005.  United had 35 club sponsors in 2005 and now they have 50! Me think too many people are reading the MUST emails too much!!!!!

In the last 5 years? You're just sticking to the same timeframe because it suits your argument, even though I've already said this has only been in the last couple of years. How much have transfers cost United in the last two years net? I'm assuming the 80m for Ronaldo puts them firmly in positive territory.

Because my time frame is more relevant in terms of figuring out the direction of the club. Yes, of course I am aware the Glazers took ownership of the club in 2005. Are you suggesting that every owner takes over a business and instantly knows what their strategy will be forever more? That there is no room for organic growth of any kind? I think you'll find that is the ridiculous comment...it's not like they read 'Moneyball' and then suddenly went "F*ck me - let's buy a football club and try that!".