PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 This has been bugging me (on and off) for a few years. I quote these factoids from the BBC website: The Glazer family bought the club for £790m in 2005 The club still owes about £400m in loans used to finance the takeover Please can someone explain how it makes any sense for the club to borrow money in order to help finance it's own takeover. Surely if the Glazers were short of the funds needed buy out existing shareholders then THEY and not the club would be borrowing the money. What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 This has been bugging me (on and off) for a few years. I quote these factoids from the BBC website: Please can someone explain how it makes any sense for the club to borrow money in order to help finance it's own takeover. Surely if the Glazers were short of the funds needed buy out existing shareholders then THEY and not the club would be borrowing the money. What am I missing? I think I understand it - sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 It's a bit of a head:censored:. As far as I get it it's about a willingness to take more out of the club than normal investors would. Sort of like people who made or lost a fortune in the last property boom by getting mortgages against mortgaged properties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 It doesn't make any sense. @andersred is a good source of information on Glazernomics: The story so far: stacking up debt 2005-2010, paying down debt 2010-2012..... The 2005 takeover Manchester United was taken over in 2005 by the Glazer family of Tampa, Florida. The transaction was a "leveraged buyout" of Manchester United plc (which was at the time quoted on the London Stock Exchange). "Leveraged buyout" means that United was acquired largely with debt, debt secured primarily on the football club itself. The takeover was hugely controversial at the time it happened and was opposed not only by supporters but by the management of Manchester United plc itself.From the 2010 bond issue to the 2012 IPO Whilst Sir Alex Ferguson and his players have worked miracles on the pitch since 2005, financially the leveraged buyout has had a major impact on United. Ticket prices have risen very significantly, pricing many traditional supporters out, transfer budgets have been reduced to levels way below what a club of United's size and profitability should be able to afford, the new owners have failed to communicate properly with supporters and in January 2010 the £500m bond issue granted the Glazer family the right to take hundreds of millions of pounds out of the club in dividends in the next seven years. ...you can read the whole thing here: http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/500m-of-costs-later-could-we-see-debt.html http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 i see they have just signed a £750 MILLION 10year shirt deal with Adidas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 All's well that ends well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I'd like to know who negotiated that deal for Adidas - only £44 million a year more than Real Madrid get from their kit manufacture deal. Bargain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I'd like to know who negotiated that deal for Adidas - only £44 million a year more than Real Madrid get from their kit manufacture deal. Bargain. I can only assume it hands over a lot of power to Adidas as otherwise, I don't see the sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Perhaps the Redd Soxx are a bigger global brand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfatjoe1 Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Amazing to think that Adidas have just given them the same amount as the Galziers paid for the club. A different world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Perhaps the Redd Soxx are a bigger global brand?140% or so bigger, based on those figures. Wasn't Nike's previous deal with United £23.5m/year, so they're now worth more than three times that, despite having their worst season in decades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 140% or so bigger, based on those figures. Wasn't Nike's previous deal with United £23.5m/year, so they're now worth more than three times that, despite having their worst season in decades? Ive met many hundreds of people from all over the world, I reckon the ones calling themselves United fans outnumber Madrid easily 100 - 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) This has been bugging me (on and off) for a few years. I quote these factoids from the BBC website: Please can someone explain how it makes any sense for the club to borrow money in order to help finance it's own takeover. Surely if the Glazers were short of the funds needed buy out existing shareholders then THEY and not the club would be borrowing the money. What am I missing? It works in the same way as a mortgage you borrow money to buy a house from a bank the house is mufc the buyers are the glazers the bank is JP Morgan. If you don't pay your mortgage you get your house repossesed the glazers pay a certain amount to Jp Morgan to finance the debt if they miss a certain amount of payments the JP Morgan takes over the club and will auction it off to the highest bidder. The house itself is safe it just finds new owners the risk is with the buyers in this case the glazers. When Gillet and Hicks owned Liverpool they borrowed from RBS when they didn't pay the debt back as Liverpool were not making a profit and RBS took control and auctioned it of to john Henry their was nothing hicks and gillet could do Liverpool was safe. That is the worst case scenario for Man United in reality if the glazers couldn't pay the debt they would suffer a few years of hardship but ultimately they would survive and recover. From a business point of view it's risky but it does work if they run the club properly. Man United is pretty safe. From a sporting point of view it's questionable wether it's good to have people running football clubs who aren't really interested in football. Edited July 16, 2014 by GlossopLatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Glazer. It's...it's Glazer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Glazer. It's...it's Glazer.Yep. Let's all praise his good work, and laugh at the clownish hypocrites who support United's bastard son. That's what you mean, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Glazer. It's...it's Glazer. Unfortunately iPhone autocorrect only recognises glazier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Unfortunately iPhone autocorrect only recognises glazier Ah, that explains it then. There are loads of posters of conversations out there who are being chastised for confusing window installers with a blood sucking leech - and it's all Apples' fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 140% or so bigger, based on those figures. Wasn't Nike's previous deal with United £23.5m/year, so they're now worth more than three times that, despite having their worst season in decades? I think it's the fact that United are in the worst shape for years and still raking in the the cash that is most depressing, the club is being sucked dry - as some have said elsewhere, it'll be interesting to see the bottom line at the end of the season. I don't think that Adidas money will be going back into the team. Corporate control at it's most abhorrent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Ah, that explains it then. There are loads of posters of conversations out there who are being chastised for confusing window installers with a blood sucking leech - and it's all Apples' fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 I think it's the fact that United are in the worst shape for years and still raking in the the cash that is most depressing, the club is being sucked dry - as some have said elsewhere, it'll be interesting to see the bottom line at the end of the season. I don't think that Adidas money will be going back into the team. Corporate control at it's most abhorrent. Well they have already sunk over £50 million in and are not stopping their over a £100 million was promised to van gaal to say that the glazer (looked I spelt it correctly) ownership of United has severely hampered them in the transfer market is naive. They spent over £70million on top of what they already had last season and finished 7th only man city out spent them. This summer the spending has continued despite no champions league football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Ive met many hundreds of people from all over the world, I reckon the ones calling themselves United fans outnumber Madrid easily 100 - 1 Here's a list of shirt sales for calendar year 2013 (according to Bild): Top 10 (club, shirt sales) Real Madrid 1,400,000 Manchester United 1,400,000 Barcelona 1,150,000 Chelsea 910,000 Bayern Munich 880,000 Liverpool 810,000 Arsenal 800,000 Juventus 480,000 Inter 425,000 Milan 350,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Here's a list of shirt sales for calendar year 2013 (according to Bild): Top 10 (club, shirt sales) Real Madrid 1,400,000 Manchester United 1,400,000 Barcelona 1,150,000 Chelsea 910,000 Bayern Munich 880,000 Liverpool 810,000 Arsenal 800,000 Juventus 480,000 Inter 425,000 Milan 350,000 How much is a shirt these days? 1,400,000 x £40 = £56,000,000. How much was Fellaini? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 How much is a shirt these days? 1,400,000 x £40 = £56,000,000. How much was Fellaini? They are talking about total merchandise sales of $1.5 b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.