Glazer buys United

[bloodsimple]

This will just be a rant because I'm so fucking angry.

Malcolm Glazer, that fucking ignorant munchkin Tampa Bay owner, has just bought my beloved football (soccer) team Manchester United.

This is a nightmare.

We go from being debt-free to owing £500 million overnight, because the fucking bastard doesn't actually have the money, he's just mortgaging our own assets to buy them. He'll double ticket prices, sell our stadium name rights, and generally fuck about with everything we stand for and have built with our own efforts.

He knows nothing about the game, nor cares for it. He thinks we're just another franchise, just another brand. Ignorant prick.

One of the most evocative names in world sport is about to start dying.

And before any fans of other teams start crowing or congratulating themselves, just remember that we're more difficult to buy than any of you. So you're all up for grabs now.

 

[TheEarl]

Blood: You have my sympathy. I really feel for every Man U fan.

Unlucky.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

Oops, I should stay out of this thread...

You have my sympathies.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Fucking hell. I'm stunned.

You're right. If Man U can go down in a trashing like this, anyone could be next.

How did this happen? How was the franchise owned? Was this a single owner selling Man U down river, or a corporate board somehow fattening at the trough?

Sincerely, genuinely sorry bloodsimple. It's disgusting when someone takes a damned good thing - team, company, or idea - and destroys it for sheer greed and ego. I hope that the team pulls through.

Shanglan

 

[TheEarl]

Shang: He's been gunning for Man Utd for nearly a year and a half now and has been wanging shares out of anyone and everyone. He didn't have enough for control until he bought out JP Magnier (an Irish horseracing tycoon) from his 27% of shares. Magnier only bought them in the first place because he was having an argument with Alex Ferguson and wanted leverage (if memory serves) and saw it as a business stock. Magnier made him a good offer....

Bloody shame. If he had the money to back himself, then it wouldn't be so bad, but as blood points out, the whole bid is a straw house based on loans and overdrawn offers.

The Earl

 

[neonlyte]

Fucking hell. I'm stunned.

You're right. If Man U can go down in a trashing like this, anyone could be next.

How did this happen? How was the franchise owned? Was this a single owner selling Man U down river, or a corporate board somehow fattening at the trough?

Sincerely, genuinely sorry bloodsimple. It's disgusting when someone takes a damned good thing - team, company, or idea - and destroys it for sheer greed and ego. I hope that the team pulls through.

Shanglan

The club is owned 83% by businessmen who reap 83% of £790 million. Fans own the remainder. According to latest BBC news Glazier is likely to acquire the 75% which under UK rules means he has to acquire (and automatically) the remaining 25%. Fans lose out except for the £3.00 per share on offer.

Glazier will take the club private, borrowings to finance the deal funded against the equity of the club. It wouldn't surprise me to learn he has purchased shares from existing owners on a part cash/part 'new share' basis. If Glaziers business plans suceed they make money, if he fails, they had part cash and will be in direct line to acquire at a knockdown price if the club goes 'belly up'.

Be interesting to see how long Ferguson stays, my bet he won't last a month beyond the completion of the takeover.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Ugh. That sort of borrowing on the business to buy it thing always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I know, I know ... in many ways it's not that different to borrowing on a house to buy the house, which most of us do. But I'm not about to take the house through a series of potentially disastrous business moves that might affect thousands of fans and stakeholders. I understand why it's legal, but it just feels ugly.

I'll just hope it sorts out. I'm not a big follower of sport, but I love my home teams, and its horrible to think of someone running them into the ground while I watch helplessly.

Shanglan

 

[ChilledVodkaIV]

It's a blatant attempt to revive the cold war. The capitalist running dogs don't want Commie pinko bastards getting a foothold in the beautiful game. (second again, just like the space race)

 

[BlackShanglan]

It's a blatant attempt to revive the cold war. The capitalist running dogs don't want Commie pinko bastards getting a foothold in the beautiful game. (second again, just like the space race)

I've always wondered why they were "running dogs." Are dogs somehow more offensive when in motion? Mine looks quite cute when she runs about in her dreams, paws twitching and issuing concerned little whuffles. Is she a counterrevolutionary on the side? Is she actually dream-whuffling orders to defeat the People's Army by all means possible? Or is she only a counter-revolutionary menace when actually awake and racing through the house with a half-dismembered squeaky cow in her mouth?

 

[TheEarl]

I've always wondered why they were "running dogs." Are dogs somehow more offensive when in motion? Mine looks quite cute when she runs about in her dreams, paws twitching and issuing concerned little whuffles. Is she a counterrevolutionary on the side? Is she actually dream-whuffling orders to defeat the People's Army by all means possible? Or is she only a counter-revolutionary menace when actually awake and racing through the house with a half-dismembered squeaky cow in her mouth?

I think it's because they were exerting a lot of energy and trying to outcompete each other when they could've been living in a Socialist Utopia.

The Earl

 

[bloodsimple]

There have been people pointing out that this is the price Utd pay for being a Plc (and therefore having tradeable shares) but I disagree. Part of being a Plc is that it imposes financial rigour and discipline - hence our wages form a lower proportion of turnover than most clubs.

It should also impose the discipline that a club shouldn't go from being debt-free to £500m in the red, for the sole purpose of changing ownership. That cannot be in the long-term interests of anyone, shareholders included.

Utd are already probably the best-run football team (off the pitch) in the world. They pioneered many marketing techniques like replica shirts. They are huge in developing markets like China. They own their own 67,000 seat stadium and the land around it. I fail to see where Glazer thinks there is hidden value, other than by simply ramping up prices. Lazy man's capitalism.

I would agree that Fergie will go and that is no bad thing, as I think he's past his peak and I don't like his tactics and team selection. But that could have been achieved anyway. Who knows who the munchkin wants instead? Probably Bill Purcell or something.

Incidentally, Utd are not a franchise as American fans would recognise it. While they have a worldwide fan base and international players they are, like every other soccer club, emphatically from and of Manchester. I can't imagine how fans of the original Dodgers or Colts or Cardinals feel when their team simply moves to a wealthier municipality.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Is soccer a sport? Maybe it will be on after ESPN Bowling Night. In the meantime, you should get into NFL Europe football. And buy twelve dollar beers to simulate the real stadium experience.

Ain't pro sports great?

 

[TheEarl]

Is soccer a sport? Maybe it will be on after ESPN Bowling Night. In the meantime, you should get into NFL Europe football. And buy twelve dollar beers to simulate the real stadium experience.

Ain't pro sports great?

Pah. American football isn't a sport. Take off the girly padding and the helmets, remove the cheating rule of passing the ball forwards, apply discipline of tackling only the ball carrier and don't stop play every ten seconds. Then you'll be allowed to play a sport.

I don't understand quite how Glazer's got his backing. Unless there are several banks owned by Man City fanatics, I can't see the financial sense in letting him have the money for that reason. United's profitable, but certainly not profitable enough to justify what he's paying for the shares.

The Earl

 

[bloodsimple]

Earl,

Exactly. Utd made £15m profit last year, and even without Rooney would have only made £40m. Glazer won't be able to afford years of heavy losses like Abramovich, but he's paid 50x the annual profit - most City observers would tell you that's a crap deal. So where does he think the long-term money is going to come from? We now need to make £25m a year profit, just to pay the interest on the debt he's landed us with....

And Seattle Jack,

Bless you and the only country who doesn't realise soccer is the biggest game on the planet. You know how many people watch the Superbowl each year? More than that watch Utd ten or fifteen times each season. The World Cup (world championship) final is watched by about one in four of the entire planet.
Try watching rugby - league or union. See real athletes hitting each other with big tackles, all the way through the game. And no stupid helmets or padding everywhere - just athletes in a physical encounter.

You could lend us those cheerleaders, though.

 

[lil_elvis]

Look on the bright side...at least it wasn't George Steinbrenner who bought Man U

he's the owner of the NY Yankees and for a real sport, nothing beats puck

 

[R. Richard]

Seeing Red

By Grahame L. Jones Times Staff Writer
Fri May 13, 7:55 AM ET

Manchester United, the world's wealthiest and arguably most famous soccer club, became American property in all but name Thursday.

Malcolm Glazer, the billionaire owner of the NFL's Tampa Bay Buccaneers, achieved effective control of the English team by buying a 28.7% stake in the club from Irish racehorse owners J.P. McManus and John Magnier.

That raised Glazer's share in the 127-year-old team to 56.9% and paved the way for a complete takeover.

Glazer, 76, has spent almost two years pursuing Manchester United after failing in a bid to buy the Dodgers. He has gradually increased his investment from an initial 2.3% stake acquired in 2003.

Along the way, however, he has angered the club's fans, who greeted Thursday's news with dismay and vowed to do everything they could to make sure Glazer's investment was not profitable.

"Even if Mr. Glazer succeeds in getting all-out control, the campaign by fans to show that no customers equals no profits will continue," Oliver Houston, of the fan group Shareholders United, told SkySports News in England.

"If that means starving ourselves [of soccer], and starving the club of income, in order to make this parasite detach himself from us, then so be it."

United fans have long opposed the sale of the club to those they say they believe do not have its best interests at heart.

In 1999, they successfully rebuffed a $1-billion takeover bid by Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB satellite television network, and as Glazer's investment has increased, fans have been increasingly vociferous in their opposition.

At one point last year, the cars of two Manchester United directors who had sold their shares to Glazer were daubed with red paint. In another incident, fans invaded the field during a reserve team match to vent their anger.

The fans' belief is that Glazer has no knowledge of, or interest in, soccer and that he is trying to gain control of one of the world's most recognizable brand names strictly for financial gain. They fear he will raise ticket prices or even sell Old Trafford, the club's 68,000-seat stadium.

Glazer has not revealed his intentions. Neither he nor his sons, Joel and Bryan, who, according to Associated Press, will be involved in running Manchester United, were available for comment.

The club, which rejected two earlier bids by Glazer on the grounds they would have saddled Manchester United with too much debt, made only a brief comment on the latest $1.47-billion bid, which was made in the name of one of Glazer's many companies, Red Football.

"The board awaits the formal terms of the Red offer and further announcement will be made once the board has reviewed that offer," the club said.

Meanwhile, fans criticized McManus and Magnier for selling their shares to Glazer. The two Irishmen netted a reported profit of more than $183 million on an investment made only four years ago.

"They have sold the Manchester United heritage," Mark Longden, of the Independent Manchester United Supporters Assn., told reporters in England. "They have proved that they were never interested in Manchester United or football."

There was no similar outcry in England when Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich bought controlling interest in another English Premier League team, Chelsea, in July 2003.

Since then, Abramovich has invested almost $400 million in new players and this season his team won the English championship for the first time in half a century.

Manchester United fans argue that their club has not needed that sort of cash infusion to be successful. Manchester United has been English champion eight times in the last 11 seasons, its matches are always sold out, and it is competitive in the player transfer market. Last fall, it bought England international striker Wayne Rooney for more than $50 million.

Whether the club will be able to keep up with Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool if Glazer does take over, remains to be seen. Winning back the fans could take longer than winning another title.

"I'm giving up my season ticket," Nick Twole, president of Shareholders United, told reporters in England. "I'm not putting a penny of my money into this guy's pocket."

 

[BlackShanglan]

Is soccer a sport? Maybe it will be on after ESPN Bowling Night. In the meantime, you should get into NFL Europe football.

Pah. American football isn't a sport. Take off the girly padding and the helmets, remove the cheating rule of passing the ball forwards, apply discipline of tackling only the ball carrier and don't stop play every ten seconds. Then you'll be allowed to play a sport.

Earl,
Bless you and the only country who doesn't realise soccer is the biggest game on the planet. You know how many people watch the Superbowl each year? More than that watch Utd ten or fifteen times each season. The World Cup (world championship) final is watched by about one in four of the entire planet.
Try watching rugby - league or union. See real athletes hitting each other with big tackles, all the way through the game. And no stupid helmets or padding everywhere - just athletes in a physical encounter.

All right, lads. There's only one traditional way to end this sort of crowing and chest-puffing.

Whip 'em out, measure 'em, and take the results like men.

(Advocating horse-racing, naturally, has a number of advantages on this front, but I shan't put myself forward in the competition.)

Shanglan

 

[elfin_odalisque]

All right, lads. There's only one traditional way to end this sort of crowing and chest-puffing.

Whip 'em out, measure 'em, and take the results like men.

(Advocating horse-racing, naturally, has a number of advantages on this front, but I shan't put myself forward in the competition.)

Shanglan

As English and also a CPA (And an Arsenal fan - without Lou's great ass) you's all got it wrong.

ManU finances look a lot healthier than Arsenal's or Liverpool's, even after Glazer.

I hate McU just like Chelski, but Glazer is a knight in shining armor for Man U and the future looks bright. Sentiment about the Busby Babes, Bobby Charlton and the Theatre of Dreams went out the window years ago.

Glazer has ramped up the value of Tampa Bay more than 4-fold since he bought it, with great improvements in the playing success.

Although I hate to admit it, it is clubs like Arsenal, Everton and Liverpool who are going to feel the heat - not the ManU idiots.

 

[Guest]

As English and also a CPA (And an Arsenal fan - without Lou's great ass) you's all got it wrong.

ManU finances look a lot healthier than Arsenal's or Liverpool's, even after Glazer.

I hate McU just like Chelski, but Glazer is a knight in shining armor for Man U and the future looks bright. Sentiment about the Busby Babes, Bobby Charlton and the Theatre of Dreams went out the window years ago.

Glazer has ramped up the value of Tampa Bay more than 4-fold since he bought it, with great improvements in the playing success.

Although I hate to admit it, it is clubs like Arsenal, Everton and Liverpool who are going to feel the heat - not the ManU idiots.

Have I ever told you that I love you?

Very, very well said.

Man U have always been greedy bastards and now they're whinging and whining cos someone's buying them out for £500m. WTF?

(It's actually £270m he gonna have mortgaged on you, Bloodsimple, and yes that is secured against the club, but sell a few players and you'll be fine.)

The real battle will be sorted out next Saturday. Good luck, cos you're gonna need it.

 

[zschachwitz]

 

[bloodsimple]

elfin,

Can you explain why going from being debt-free to paying £25m a year in debt interest alone makes Glazer a "knight in shining armour"? The comparison with Tampa doesn't stack up.

1 Tampa were a crap team going nowhere - United are one of the biggest teams in the world.

2 Tampa did not have the heritage United have - and before you dismiss that as sentimentality, be aware that it's this history (Munich, 1968, Barcelona and all) that makes United so successful commercially, which is all Glazer cares about.

3 The first thing Glazer did at Tampa was blackmail local officials to build him a stadium, providing him with a cash-cow free of charge. That won't happen and isn't relevant at United, since we built the stadium ourselves with not one penny from the taxpayer.


Lou,

I dispute that Utd are greedy bastards. We generate money from our football, unlike Cheski who've done the reverse. We've built our financial muscle on the back of 67,000 through the turnstiles every week, and a legacy of attacking football that goes back sixty years. We built the finest team in the country with a raft of English, usually local, youngsters. We don't pay the most to our players, and the majority of Premiership teams charge more for their season tickets. Don't confuse success and running a good long-term business off the pitch, with sheer greed.

How many local youngsters regularly play for Cheski or Arsenal? One or two at best. How much do you pay to watch at Highbury? Nearly twice as much as at Old Trafford. Is it virtuous to run a club with debts each year, or to pay players more than you can afford? No.

Make no mistake, United were the hardest team in the country to buy, because of the amount involved. If someone offered your board £200m for Arsenal they'd bite their hands off. That's the real story here - that everyone in the Premiership can be bought by know-nothing dickheads, loaded up with debt, and then cast aside, regardless of what the fans think.

BTW - you'll stuff us at Cardiff, unless we play 4-4-2 like I've been advocating all year.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Look on the bright side...at least it wasn't George Steinbrenner who bought Man U

My point exactly, l-e, and no disrespect to our sporting brothers across the pond.

We know how it is, over here. You want to be a KC Royals fan? Manager of the year? No thank you.

 

[neonlyte]

(It's actually £270m he gonna have mortgaged on you, Bloodsimple, and yes that is secured against the club, but sell a few players and you'll be fine.)

The real battle will be sorted out next Saturday. Good luck, cos you're gonna need it.

It's a little more than that. He's borrowed £265m secured against club assets and securitised £275m - presumably against future ticket sales. The interest bill is £46m per year.

For him to get an adequate return on his initial investment (share purchase) of £272m, say 7% return, he needs to improve profit by 12% over last year and before player transfers. This equates to every spectator putting £2.85 into an envelope marked 'Mr Glazer' each time they buy a seat, assuming merchandising sales stay at current levels.

It's a pretty safe deal, if he can crack the marketing of Man United on a world-wide basis. The way you do this is to buy 2 'world class' player and sell 500,000 shirts at a mark-up of £40 - profit £20m, player cost ammortized over 5year period.

It is the buying of world class players that secures Glazers future and when you do the sums, his figures leave him with a minimum of £30m 'in the bank' to buy the players. In all likelyhood he will not press for 100% ownership, just control at 75% + 1share. This will leave him with capital in excess of £100m to invest in players. He can always press for 100% control once the strategy has been proven.

 

[ishtat]

Man U fans Spit the Dummy

Look at how much Real Madrid made out of marketing Beckham. It doesn't matter a toss if he played badly. The deal was bankable.

Glaser will sack the deadwood and bring in the names to promote cash flow from shirts etc. Manchester cannot afford the infrastructure for 2 premiership clubs .There is some money to be shaken out of that too.

Why do you poor saps think this has anything to do with football?

Prediction. Arsenal or Liverpool is next.

 

[TheEarl]

It is the buying of world class players that secures Glazers future and when you do the sums, his figures leave him with a minimum of £30m 'in the bank' to buy the players. In all likelyhood he will not press for 100% ownership, just control at 75% + 1share. This will leave him with capital in excess of £100m to invest in players. He can always press for 100% control once the strategy has been proven.

First off £30m will not buy you a world-class player and certainly not one who will sell millions of shirts. Also, Man U tend to be a home-bred team. Superstars like Veron don't tend to blend well into the side. This is not forgetting the fac that superstars are a considerable drain on the resources with their wages.

Secondly, AFAIK under UK law, once he has 75% he must buy the other 25%. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that's the case.

The Earl