Why are we(Man Utd) in such big debt?

English football section, also known as Ratherton's hole
panchester07
Veteran Member
Posts: 3849
Joined: 27 Aug 2007, 04:25

Post by panchester07 » 24 Jan 2010, 00:36

shahensha wrote:
I don't want a owner who buys all the stars because then we're just as bad as the scum we hate, such as Chelsea and Real Madrid.
Well technically, Madrid doesnt have an owner. Its owned by socios, or in layman's term, club members who chip in a few bucks from their pockets, which collectively pays for the club and its expenses. Ofcourse the money cashed in from tickets and shirt sales is an added bonus.

The socios vote for a president who runs the club for them so basically the idea of ownership is a club of the people, for the people, by the people.

Dont know about other leagues, but barca and various other teams in La liga like Valencia, Atletico, atheletic and Osasuna handle their ownership and money matters in the same manner as well.
I understand that Madrid thing, and always had.. But what happened that when Florentino Perez became president, he could buy CR9, Kaka, Benzema, etc.... Why couldnt the previous Presidents do it, if the scoios money was always there? Is he just a better negotiator?
to know Him is to want to know Him more"


"i don't know where the limit is, but I know where it is not"

Tocar y moverse y tratarla siempre muy muy bien..'

soccer11
Admin
Posts: 4870
Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 23:40
Location: Michigan, USA

Post by soccer11 » 24 Jan 2010, 00:51

panchester07 wrote:
shahensha wrote:
I don't want a owner who buys all the stars because then we're just as bad as the scum we hate, such as Chelsea and Real Madrid.
Well technically, Madrid doesnt have an owner. Its owned by socios, or in layman's term, club members who chip in a few bucks from their pockets, which collectively pays for the club and its expenses. Ofcourse the money cashed in from tickets and shirt sales is an added bonus.

The socios vote for a president who runs the club for them so basically the idea of ownership is a club of the people, for the people, by the people.

Dont know about other leagues, but barca and various other teams in La liga like Valencia, Atletico, atheletic and Osasuna handle their ownership and money matters in the same manner as well.
I understand that Madrid thing, and always had.. But what happened that when Florentino Perez became president, he could buy CR9, Kaka, Benzema, etc.... Why couldnt the previous Presidents do it, if the scoios money was always there? Is he just a better negotiator?
difference is is that Perez probably has a lot more money to throw around than the last president so Perez used a lot of his money in that case to cover the cost that the socios money didn't, which I'd say is fair to say that it was most of the cost.
Image

shahensha
Veteran Member
Posts: 2528
Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 03:38
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada

Post by shahensha » 24 Jan 2010, 03:02

Just because the socios are there doesnt mean the club will avoid debt. Ask Valencia for instance. Its upto the president and board to manage finance properly. One analogy you could use is that the board is the government and the club is a country. If the government messes up, the country sees economic downfall.

However the advantage this system has over the private ownership is that if things arent going well, the socios can easily demand a change.
Image

terminator
Senior Member
Posts: 161
Joined: 30 May 2008, 14:01

Post by terminator » 24 Jan 2010, 08:47

I read somewhere that Real Madrid had to put up their stadium up as collateral for all the loans to buy the players.

Anyway I don't think manchester united being in debt will be a big problem in the future.Manchester United is a world-known brand with huge revenues...if glazers can't pay off the debt...they will just sell the club to some other person(I am sure there are many willing people)
I don't think the club will die out in the future like some people suggest.

ratherton
Veteran Member
Posts: 2872
Joined: 29 Oct 2005, 18:41

Post by ratherton » 07 Feb 2010, 14:16

klc123 wrote:Manchester United the football club is not in debt.

The owners of Manchester United Football Club are in debt.

So obviously theres in inherent pressure on the club.

Any profit thats made by the club, gets sucked away to pay the owners debt.

The owners told Ferguson to sell Ronaldo last season so that they could get more of their debt rid of. Ferguson wanted to keep him, why wouldn't he hes the best player in the world...

And thats also true about chelsea...Chelsea would be in so much debt if their owner left, but he has a mountain of cash, he has no reason to leave, chelsea is just a little bit of fun for him.
I thought the owners had transferred the debt to Manchester United so they(Man U) were around £700m in debt. It costs around £40m a year in interest payments. They have just managed to raise £500m with some bond issue but from what I understand, they have just paying off one credit card with another.

No doubt about it, they have serious problems. They've been winning titles and appeared in consecutive Champions League finals and last year they only made £40m profit when you include the £80m sale of Ronaldo.
Image

Mandy felt Brian's wrath when she wandered in front of him after they'd announced free beer at the bar.....

panchester07
Veteran Member
Posts: 3849
Joined: 27 Aug 2007, 04:25

Post by panchester07 » 13 Feb 2010, 02:49

The bundesliga is the richest league right now.. They present a 5.3 % since last year, and have been growing each year economic growth, they won 2,00,000,000 Euros last season...

Manchester United has more debt, than 18 of the bundesliga teams put together..

One of the reasons, the Bundesliga teams are economically better..
Is that 40% of their budget goes on salaries...
Unlike Spanish and English leagues that 60% - 70% of their incomes are spent on player and staff salaries..

Bayern Muchen wins 29 million Euros just on telivision rights

They have an economic system similar to the NFL and the MLB...

and they pay their players salaries, with anticipation..
to know Him is to want to know Him more"


"i don't know where the limit is, but I know where it is not"

Tocar y moverse y tratarla siempre muy muy bien..'

2brown347
Veteran Member
Posts: 3339
Joined: 30 Oct 2007, 04:15

Post by 2brown347 » 13 Feb 2010, 03:59

Last I heard the MLB is still loosing money every year. They even pay their reserves more than most MLS starting lineups get.

panchester07
Veteran Member
Posts: 3849
Joined: 27 Aug 2007, 04:25

Post by panchester07 » 03 Mar 2010, 00:29

I was in old trafford and took these pictures..

Pretty Self Explanatory:
Image

United fans have started wearing green and yellow colors, to start a campaign against the Glazer family, asking them to leave/sell the club.
Image

A group of fans, associated the colors green and yellow, to glazers rejection, and the trend expanded.
Image

Green and yellow are the old colors of Man U, when the team name was Newton Heath.
Image

Now People are selling green and yellow scarfs and atttire, to get that prick called Glazer out.
Image


As you can see, its all over the stadium, and the campaign is gaining power and length.
Image
to know Him is to want to know Him more"


"i don't know where the limit is, but I know where it is not"

Tocar y moverse y tratarla siempre muy muy bien..'

bsc
Veteran Member
Posts: 872
Joined: 31 Mar 2008, 16:54
Location: University of Delaware

Post by bsc » 03 Mar 2010, 00:50

So would all of you Man United fans want some Russian or Middle Eastern billionare to take over the club and view it as a fun side project?
When Abramovic leaves Chelsea we have no idea what will happen to the club. There's no guarentee that in the future there will be a buyer willing to finance a club like that out of his own pocket. I understand the Glazers suck, but having to try and fund yourself as much as you can without extremely wealthy owners while still being able to win loads of trophies and keep that massive wage bill isn't a terrible situation. It shows that right now you're not dependent on your owner, so when he leaves you won't collapse.

One thing I like about League 1 is that if a team can't prove they're not in debt they are punished by substancial loss of points. it keeps the league more competitive and less of negative influence. I do understand that this would never work in the EPL ever, but it is something to think about.
Image Image
And the dreams that you dare to dream, really do come true

panchester07
Veteran Member
Posts: 3849
Joined: 27 Aug 2007, 04:25

Post by panchester07 » 03 Mar 2010, 01:39

bsc wrote:So would all of you Man United fans want some Russian or Middle Eastern billionare to take over the club and view it as a fun side project?
When Abramovic leaves Chelsea we have no idea what will happen to the club. There's no guarentee that in the future there will be a buyer willing to finance a club like that out of his own pocket. I understand the Glazers suck, but having to try and fund yourself as much as you can without extremely wealthy owners while still being able to win loads of trophies and keep that massive wage bill isn't a terrible situation. It shows that right now you're not dependent on your owner, so when he leaves you won't collapse.

One thing I like about League 1 is that if a team can't prove they're not in debt they are punished by substancial loss of points. it keeps the league more competitive and less of negative influence. I do understand that this would never work in the EPL ever, but it is something to think about.
Who said it has to be russian or middle easten? 80% of the clubs still have "normal" (none middle eastern) owners. We can have a decent owner, that doesn't bring his personal debt and make it the clubs personal debt.. You don't need a multimillionaire, just a man that doesn't owe 800 million pounds.

Haha, I honestly don't care about the dept. The only reason I'd start caring if we have to sell any other players. But hey, beeing in dept, second in the premier 1 point away from chelsea, winning the carling cup, having 1 foot in quarter finals in the champ is pretty outstanding..

Many teams are in huge debts as well, and continue to play well, I hope this is our case, and that Glazer doesn't force us to sell anyone else..
Last edited by panchester07 on 03 Mar 2010, 02:06, edited 1 time in total.
to know Him is to want to know Him more"


"i don't know where the limit is, but I know where it is not"

Tocar y moverse y tratarla siempre muy muy bien..'

bsc
Veteran Member
Posts: 872
Joined: 31 Mar 2008, 16:54
Location: University of Delaware

Post by bsc » 03 Mar 2010, 01:56

Hey Panchester I agree with you, it's the Glazers that are going to disagree. They're looking for a massive billionare to sell to, and are probably going to hold on the the club until they get one willing to buy the club for what ever ridiculous amount they're expecting.

Sadly to them the football club is an asset to be sold when the perfect opportunity arrives.

And what have they exactly done wrong transfer wise? Ronaldo was the one who wanted to leave, it's not like if they had money he would have stayed. If arsenal had 30 million to spend on a striker last season I would have jumped for joy. (we also wouldn't have purchased Berbatov though)

I have no doubt they have done things to make the fans angry (besides simply being in debt) I'm just not sure what it was.
Image Image
And the dreams that you dare to dream, really do come true

panchester07
Veteran Member
Posts: 3849
Joined: 27 Aug 2007, 04:25

Post by panchester07 » 03 Mar 2010, 02:12

Ronaldo wanted to leave, but it wasn't his decision to make. As you saw two summers ago, after winning the champions league, Fergie "convinced"/forced Ronaldo to stay. Ferguson didn't have Glazers pressure on and he, the club didn't exactly need money back then. Ronaldo's contract expired this June 2010 if i'm not mistaken, and the same way Valencia kept Villa, or Bayern kept Ribery we could have kept Ronaldo by declaring him "untransferable".

But Glazer had other plans, like you said, he doesn't see football the way we do, for him, its another possesion, another gadgect, so he pressured Ferguson to sell Ronaldo because he needed the money, his debt getting bigger and bigger he needed to do something.

I'm worried about this "sell players" mentality, that Glazer seems to have. Thats all.
to know Him is to want to know Him more"


"i don't know where the limit is, but I know where it is not"

Tocar y moverse y tratarla siempre muy muy bien..'

nick117
Veteran Member
Posts: 1105
Joined: 27 Aug 2009, 23:14

Post by nick117 » 03 Mar 2010, 02:53

Manchester United could soon be the subject of a sustained campaign to buy the club from the group of businessmen calling themselves the 'Red Knights'.

The group have issued a statement outlining their aims and their intention to formulate a £1 billion plan to buy the club from the Glazer family.

There has as yet been no formal contact with the Glazers though.

"We can confirm that a group of high net worth individuals, who support Manchester United (known as the 'Red Knights'), met in London yesterday," a statement released on behalf of the Red Knights reads.

"This group is supportive of current management but are looking at the feasibility of putting together a proposal to be put to the Glazer family regarding the ownership of Manchester United.

"These discussions are in early stages and no contact has been made with the Glazer family."

Keith Harris, a notable figure when it comes to making football deals, is one of the group, as is John O'Neill, the chief economist at Goldman Sachs and a one-time friend of United boss Sir Alex Ferguson.

The group are clear, though, that for the idea to succeed then it must enjoy the widespread support of United fans.

"For such a proposal to be viable it would require the involvement and support of Manchester United supporters worldwide," the statement goes on.

"The Red Knights have been liaising with the Manchester United Supporters Trust and their representatives attended yesterday's meeting.

"As a first step, the Red Knights want supporters to demonstrate their commitment by joining the free online membership of the Supporters Trust, www.joinmust.org.

"Any new ownership model would aim not only to put the club on a sound financial footing, but would also aim to put the supporters at the heart of everything the club does."

nick117
Veteran Member
Posts: 1105
Joined: 27 Aug 2009, 23:14

Post by nick117 » 03 Mar 2010, 03:02

and from a new source


Manchester United's Glazer family owners are set to receive a takeover bid being put together by a group of financiers determined to oust the Americans.

The discussions, which are in their early stages, are being led by football deal broker Keith Harris, chairman of investment bankers Seymour Pierce, and Jim O'Neill, chief economist at Goldman Sachs.

The group, who describe themselves as high net worth individuals, see the Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) as key to helping their takeover attempts succeed.

The 18-time English champions have been valued at $1.8 billion by Forbes Magazine, but the Glazers have consistently insisted that the debt-ridden club is not for sale.

"A group of high net worth individuals, who support Manchester United, met in London yesterday," the group, calling themselves the Red Knights, said in a statement. "This group is supportive of current management but are looking at the feasibility of putting together a proposal to be put to the Glazer family regarding the ownership of Manchester United. These discussions are in early stages and no contact has been made with the Glazer family.

"For such a proposal to be viable, it would require the involvement and support of Manchester United supporters worldwide."

Debt arising from Malcolm Glazer's 2005 leveraged takeover of the club has risen to 716.5 million pounds ($1.1 billion).

"Any new ownership model would aim not only to put the Club on a sound financial footing, but would also aim to put the supporters at the heart of everything the club does," the Red Knights statement said. "In the coming weeks the Red Knights will continue to work with MUST and others to formulate our proposal."

The United supporters group has stepped up its campaign in recent week to force the Glazers out of Old Trafford, notably by getting fans to wear green and gold - the colors of Newton Heath, the club's original name.

"Initially the Red Knight Group has effectively set a challenge to Manchester United supporters to demonstrate they wish to see an alternative ownership proposal developed," MUST chief executive Duncan Drasdo said. "In the first instance supporters are being asked to do this simply by joining the free online membership of the Supporters Trust and swelling its ranks to an initial target of at least 100,000."

jessclark92
Senior Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 18 Nov 2006, 19:42
Location: Munster Indiana USA

Post by jessclark92 » 03 Mar 2010, 04:39

I read somewhere that Ronaldo wanted to hook up again with Wazza. The probability of that happening are very slim as of now but if it did happen, Ron would have to come back to Utd.

Now I always thought that teams and clubs in any sport run better when the ownership is a board or committy that is in touch with the fans. United have the staff,resources,players,etc.,etc.,etc. but they lack that financial power that the chealses and man. citys have. If new ownership came in with loads of money to spend, some would go to buying big names but a good amount would go to the youth academy since that is what Fergie believes in most. If you look when he was at Aberdean, he built that youth system into one of the best in Scotland. He did the same with Utd. durring the time Giggsy, Scholes, the Neville bros, and Becks were playing academy and that 1999 team turned out to be legit. And Fergie has brought back past players to be coaching staff, Ole and Sir Bobby Charlton work with the academy and oversee player development.

Anyway, out with the Glazers, in with the Red Knights, and start wearing Green and Yellow!
Image
Ronaldo impersinating Arsen Wenger

Rooney thinking: should I laugh or should I punch him?

Post Reply