Swiss Ramble twitter thread on Glazers ownership

[lysglimt]

They only understand one thing. Once the value of the club starts to dip consistently, they'll be on their bike for sure.

I am sorry but that is a completely wrong reasoning. The more the value of the Clubs, the less inclined they are to sell. What would happen is that they will let the club regain its value before they sell it.

I am sure they can be forced to sell - but not because the value of the club drops.

 

[2mufc0]

We've known this for over 15 years, it's not new information, that's why I haven't spent a penny on official United products for over a decade .

Stop buying the official merchandise and start boycotting the games when it hits their pockets they will listen.

Also why I found it strange some protestors wearing the kits.

 

[Maticmaker]

Not at all, it was a fairly safe LBO because the Glazers provided more funds than you often see, iirc around 300m. Now a quick google search will give you for example Gibson Greeting Cards being purchased in 1982 for 80m with only 1m in cash and the rest borrowed.

Yes, sorry, it was a straightforward leverage buy-out, I was using the term 'on steriods' to emphasize the impact it had on a football club (and its supporters) not use to such business ventures.
I'm not sure Martin Edwards ever envisaged what was to follow when he chose a different route to his father in exercising his ownership of the club, but the law of unintended consequences does exist!

 

[hungrywing]

Is this possibly the worst loan of all time?

550m original loan, over 700m paid on the fecking interest

Totally-Not-JP-Morgan: I'm told it was the best.

 

[adexkola]

Welcome to any loan (home, vehicle, personal, commercial ) in the developing world, ever!

Next you'll tell me the loan servicers come around with bats when a payment is missed

 

[stevoc]

Indeed it has. Which is why I find it weird the way so many people bring up the debt as though it’s “brand new information”. They put that debt on the club 16 years ago. We just paid over 30 million quid for a player that had only just been born when the Glazers brought the club!

I’m old enough to remember well the outrage at the leveraged purchase. It was heartbreaking. But there’s nothing we can do to make it unhappen.

Most of the information from the Swiss Ramble in the first post focused on the debt the Glazers heaped upon the club and how much it's cost to service and repay that debt. So is it really surprising the thread ends up discussing that debt?

 

[Annihilate Now!]

We have invested less in our Stadium then Arsenal have... who had a brand new stadium built in the last 20 years.

 

[hellhunter]

Is this possibly the worst loan of all time?

550m original loan, over 700m paid on the fecking interest

If you put it like that, that's shocking.

 

[adexkola]

We've known this for over 15 years, it's not new information, that's why I haven't spent a penny on official United products for over a decade .

Stop buying the official merchandise and start boycotting the games when it hits their pockets they will listen.

Also why I found it strange some protestors wearing the kits.

I have never understood why people find it reluctant to boycott. It's an extreme action but desperate measures and all that.

 

[Escobar]

According to the Guardian, the Glazers are digging in deeper. Just like a tick does.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...to-review-security-and-could-ban-fans-glazers

It will soon boil over, I hope they put themselves into a really poor situation with no way back.
Having said that, an easy solution would be that the government bans dividends or any kind of returns from football clubs to their owners. Suddenly they wouldnt make money hence only someone with an interest in football would be keen in buying a club.

 

[SuperiorXI]

Totally-Not-JP-Morgan: I'm told it was the best.

You can see why they were for it for sure

Can see why they backed the ESL also, with those numbers, you're multiplying it by the number of super clubs. They could have made billions.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

its not just recruitment. Its the stupid wages we pay, overpay for players and cant sell. Hang on to older players not good enough to avoid replacing them. Supposedly Ederson at City is on 65k a week, DeGea is on £375k, Henderson 120k etc. Just plain stupidity

City players wages have always been dodgy. Weren’t they paying Mancini something like 5x his official salary? I think they pay their players under the table a lot. There’s no way in hell Ederson, a goalkeeper who could commend 200k a week plus, is happily sitting on 65k.

 

[DoomSlayer]

City players wages have always been dodgy. Weren’t they paying Mancini something like 5x his official salary? I think they pay their players under the table a lot. There’s no way in hell Ederson, a goalkeeper who could commend 200k a week plus, is happily sitting on 65k.

Theories like this just give more leverage for the Glazers shills and apologists, because they say it's all City's fault that the football market has gone tits up.

I personally don't think they need to resort to doing things behind the scenes so much, they are a top club that is fighting for every trophy available, every season. Players want to go there for the chance of winning trophies, it's as simple as that.

They have probably done a lot in the past of what people insinuate and have even broker FFP a couple of times, but right now, players go to them for more than the money.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

I agree with the sentiment of this and agree but feel that if this money wasn't used for servicing debt etc, the money saved we'd of just spent another £500m on utter dross and contribute to the ever inflating transfer fee levels.

It is bad that we have this model and I want it gone but I wouldn't say this has drained our resources as we have spent only a second to City. The difference is we have spent poorly....

 

[bdecuc]

Stop it. We all hate it, but this isnt unique

Hi. I'm not sure what you're saying? We hate it but it's not unique so we can't voice our opposition to it?

 

[RUCK4444]

It never ceases to amaze me that people don't get this. Yes we've spent a billion on transfers, but we should be spending a billion more. We are not a City or Chelsea who should just be grateful for whatever the owners put in to save us from irrelevancy. This is the club's own money and should be invested in the club, in the first team, the academy, the stadium, the training ground and so on. And to make matters worse, the money they have spent they've done it badly.

Exactly. We are Manchester feckin United, what’s the point in being a sporting powerhouse of a brand if we don’t have any financial power to outmuscle our rivals and retain our spot at the top table.

It’s such a defeatist apathetic attitude that so many have. ‘ah well we’ve spent a lot, it’s our own fault.’

Yeah we’ve wasted money, sure, but we should be able to spend double and correct it ffs!

 

[Barnslig]

Yep, I could tell. I was just backing you up.



For the four-hundred-ninety-six-thousand-seven-hundredth-and-forty-first time, because they're not.

The average caftard needs to pound it into his/her skull that the Glazer children are not very smart. Their father was; they are not. Look up where they went to school. Look up all their failed business endeavours away from their father's supervision.

Never attribute malice to stupidity and all that. They were never directing Woodward. Not in the master/puppet way in which so many caftards misunderstand the relationship. If anything, it was the other way around, ESPECIALLY after Papa Glazer passed away.

The fact they're not, doesn't stop them from being portrayed as 'savvy businessmen'. I don't by any stretch think the Glazers are savvy businessmen.

 

[Barnslig]

Because it has never cost them a penny. They don't pay the interest on the loan, we do. They then take £20mil a year for themselves for the privilege of us doing so and people like @JPRouve spend hours every day telling people it's fine because it's common in the financial world.

But if they had paid off the loan, instead of spending more than the loan on interest they could take even bigger dividends, no? So it would costed them a lot of money, wouldn't it?

 

[gajender]

I have never understood why people find it reluctant to boycott. It's an extreme action but desperate measures and all that.

Reasons might be varied but could it be the case that it's already being done maybe not in coordinated fashion but at Individual level and despite how many are vocal on here when push comes to shove not many are that keen to go through with this or simply most are just indifferent about it unlike vocal majority here.

 

[TMDaines]

Fans want an owner that dont think about making any profits off the club. That the owner should use all the money generate from club to put backnin the club...etc. i think the best way was fans should buy up the club 15 yrs ago. Then there wouldnt be any of these issues. But now its done and dusted, the club is the Glazers property.

I'm not sure. There's plenty like me, who would struggle to care too much about how much profit the owners make provided the club is still successful on the field. The problem with the Glazers is the debt with which they burdened the club has hamstrung our ability to compete at the very top and position ourselves as the best club in the world. That's the real issue for many, and not one that isn't often articulated.

 

[Tarrou]

I am sorry but that is a completely wrong reasoning. The more the value of the Clubs, the less inclined they are to sell. What would happen is that they will let the club regain its value before they sell it.

I am sure they can be forced to sell - but not because the value of the club drops.

I don’t think this is right either. If the value is decreasing but they don’t see it increasing for a long time they’ll be out. $3bn or whatever it’s worth can be put to better use.

You don’t maximise your profits by waiting for an asset to return to a value that something used to be worth. You make a decision based on all the variables currently in play. If they feel the value has topped out they’ll sell, no matter what it was worth last week or last year. Likewise if someone offers a lot more than it’s worth, they’ll be gone in a second.

 

[JPRouve]

Hi. I'm not sure what you're saying? We hate it but it's not unique so we can't voice our opposition to it?

You can and should voice your opposition but there is no point in pretending that it's special, if anything we should point to the fact that it's not special and a problem that hasn't been adressed despited decades of criticisms. And I'm not just talking about Football, LBOs are controversial in general and always one of the domains that is supposed to be more regulated but we don't see much from politicians after elections.

 

[Beachryan]

Just chipping in on potential new owners: the issue is RoE. There are 3 reasons in my head to purchase our club:
1. Genuine fans being the hero. Do it for the goodwill, the love of United, the joy of being a saviour whatever. In this case your RoE doesn't matter.
2. Do it for sportswashing/ cause all your cousins have football clubs. This is the sugar daddy model, and RoE is again irrelevant.
3. Do it as a business venture. This is the one I guess we all want, but here's the catch - football clubs aren't a good investment, at all. Say a new investor could convince the Glazers to sell for just 2bn. And that they'd keep the debt (which obviously causes more issues). New investors would pony up 1.5bn or so for the priveldge. Maybe you view a football club as diversifying, so you'd be willing to settle for an RoE of maybe 5-6%. That would require annual pure profit of 75m. That's kind of best case. Assuming this is correct (https://www.statista.com/statistics/383903/manchester-united-profit-loss/) we're nowhere near that consistently. And tbh, most investors right now would be looking for a damn sight more than 5%.

The Glazers crushed this by essentially having an infinite RoE. They spent 0 investing, so each dollar they take out is pure, glorious upside to them.
If there was an investor willing to part with 2bn to buy MUFC, the Glazers SHOULD snap their hand off, because investing that cash wisely would yield much better returns than United, and they'd of pocketed 2bn of profit off their initial outlay of nothing.

 

[groovyalbert]

Honestly, this is the way you would expect a rival fan to manage your club, if that fan was wanting to keep bleeding your club dry rather than immediately run it into the ground.

They must be the worst owners in football currently, particularly amongst the top clubs.

 

[Maticmaker]

Having said that, an easy solution would be that the government bans dividends or any kind of returns from football clubs to their owners.

Whoa...Boris will have a field day!
Tax, tax ,and tax again the dividends from football, that will frighten the Glazers away ...Death and Taxes only sure things in life!

 

[diarm]

That's not what I said, if you want to know what I think and thought about United being purchased by the Glazers, ask me, don't run your mouth on my behalf.

Oh sorry mate. I must have misunderstood...

Not at all, it was a fairly safe LBO because the Glazers provided more funds than you often see, iirc around 300m. Now a quick google search will give you for example Gibson Greeting Cards being purchased in 1982 for 80m with only 1m in cash and the rest borrowed.

That's an LBO, it's a theorized and relatively common purchase strategy. The goal is generally, if not exclusively, to sell the purchased company in the short to mid term for a huge profit.

That's not how it works. Players are essentially intermediate goods, they are not investments or at least they are not the concerns of investors because the playing staff is part of recurring expenses and within annual budgets, they have nothing to do with the owners remuneration and their purchase doesn't come from their pockets, at least not at clubs like United.
What you need to consider when you try to determine whether United is a good investment or not for the Glazers is that they mainly didn't purchase the club with their own cash, the club generates enough revenue to cover the bills and also pay dividends, so it is in fact a great investment for whoever is able to purchase it through an LBO, at least it was in 2005, particularly when you consider the profits from a future sell. Now it would be a terrible investment if they purchased it with their own cash.

The debts were put against the owners assets and the club was one of those assets. And the cold reality is that United from the Glazers standpoint isn't different to a real estate investment, United generates "rent" money that is used to pay the loan and a little bit of side money for the owners. It's a fairly common practice.

No, it's a business generating revenue for its owners.

 

[Withnail]

But if they had paid off the loan, instead of spending more than the loan on interest they could take even bigger dividends, no? So it would costed them a lot of money, wouldn't it?

If they were interested in paying off the loan, they wouldn't be taking yearly dividends. Something no other PL club is doing.

What has cost them money, exactly? They put in nothing and are taking out 20-30m per year.

Also, they just had to get a loan to cover costs of 50m due to covid but apparently they got a loan for 60m and took 10m for themselves. It beggars belief.

 

[2mufc0]

I have never understood why people find it reluctant to boycott. It's an extreme action but desperate measures and all that.

Maybe there's a lack of awareness? Or simply not enough people care enough?

But it's a very easy thing to do and you will be better financially for it too.

 

[diarm]

I agree with the sentiment of this and agree but feel that if this money wasn't used for servicing debt etc, the money saved we'd of just spent another £500m on utter dross and contribute to the ever inflating transfer fee levels.

It is bad that we have this model and I want it gone but I wouldn't say this has drained our resources as we have spent only a second to City. The difference is we have spent poorly....

Because we are an organisation geared more towards servicing debt than being a football club. We have bankers and accountants in positions where well run football clubs have football people.

 

[JPRouve]

Oh sorry mate. I must have misunderstood...

Yes, I answered a question about financing and how it was possiblle, I didn't answer a question about whether I supported that type of financing.

 

[Dec9003]

Fans and clubs need more protection from dodgy owners. Look at Burnley, they’re in a similar situation with their owners as us, and they were allowed to take over Burnley 16 years after the Glazers came here. It’s time for laws to be put in place that no longer allow owners to buy a club if they can’t afford it, laws should also be put in place to stop owners destroying clubs like Bury FC.

 

[diarm]

I have never understood why people find it reluctant to boycott. It's an extreme action but desperate measures and all that.

Because whenever anybody tries to start a movement you get people sneering down their nose at them. Either making excuses for the Glazers, pointing at net spend and telling them they're spoilt and entitled, convincing them that all this is perfectly normal in the business world and we're not special, laughing at their attempts and about how pointless and futile such efforts would be.

For ever person who cares about things nowadays, there are two others who care more about appearing clever on the internet. And like it or not, these days it is the internet where such campaigns will live or die.

 

[diarm]

Yes, I answered a question about financing and how it was possiblle, I didn't answer a question about whether I supported that type of financing.

No you just jump in whenever people express frustration at the ownership and feel the need to point out how common it is in the business world. No matter how many people make it clear that they feel their football club is about more than just business, it seems really important to you that you keep educating us all on the fact it isn't.

 

[100]

It's a massive shame that we've spent so much and so poorly on players (worst in the world surely).

If we'd done better there, we'd certainly have more money to spend on the stadium and facilities.

I'm not justifying the glazer ownership, just saying what could have been if we'd spent better in terms of player recruitment.

Part of our terrible expenditure on players is due to penny pinching. Being proactive in the market saves you money in the long run. We sat on our hands whilst teams in the league signed the top talents in Europe and then we had to play catch up with reactionary signings.

 

[Andersonson]

Hi. I'm not sure what you're saying? We hate it but it's not unique so we can't voice our opposition to it?

Sure, just dont call it what its not. It aint theft, it aint illegal

 

[rotherham_red]

Maybe there's a lack of awareness? Or simply not enough people care enough?

But it's a very easy thing to do and you will be better financially for it too.

I think for me, it's the fear that it will never be organised enough to actually effect change. I've stopped buying the official tops and stuff, but I can't give up my ST. At least not when I'm 99.9999999% sure someone else will just take over it anyway and render my actions pointless.

 

[roonster09]

I have never understood why people find it reluctant to boycott. It's an extreme action but desperate measures and all that.

When the game was postponed, few moaned that their Sunday plans was ruined. That's how it is. There are many who will boycott and then others will just fill up their seats.

 

[Dec9003]

I agree with the sentiment of this and agree but feel that if this money wasn't used for servicing debt etc, the money saved we'd of just spent another £500m on utter dross and contribute to the ever inflating transfer fee levels.

It is bad that we have this model and I want it gone but I wouldn't say this has drained our resources as we have spent only a second to City. The difference is we have spent poorly....

We’ve spent similarly on players, but that’s only a part of City’s investments. City have invested in a training ground, invested heavily in their youth, and have hired the best in class football men above Pep that money can buy. United on the other hand have a great Stadium that needs some serious love, a training ground which is lagging behind the best, and, until recently, allowed Ed Woodward to basically play fifa with our football team, which was second priority behind business.

 

[Flying high]

These figures actually show that management has been the real issue, not finances.

2% dividends is nothing in the grand scheme of things. It has had no bearing over the club's ability to succeed. 10% on interest is more substantial, but, again, it is not the reason why we have failed in the last 8 years. With the debt repayments, that is 16% overall (rounding to 1dp, it is 15.6%). So, 84% is still spent on the club.

Net player purchases is a bit of a flimsy argument to level 'payments to Glazers' with 'investments in players'. In the end, cash from player sales isn't specifically held to pay for players, so it makes no sense. Some of that could have actually been used to pay dividend or expenses etc. In the end, 1.4bn has been spent on players no matter how you twist it.

The 16% is not the reason the club is currently in the position it is. The main problem is bad investments and overpaying of wages. Correct these and people probably won't even notice the owners.

2% dividends isn't particularly significant, and if that was all they were costing us, I doubt many at all would complain. The trouble is of course, that they are costing us these huge amounts to service their loans, whilst still not reducing the loans which will probably be here after they have gone. Had we gained an extra 30,000 seats in the stadium, or gone full real madrid on our transfers, then at least we'd have something to show for the debt. But no, this is their debt, which they should have paid down from their stock issuances.

As it is though, we have never been able to fill the holes in our squad. Each manager has been backed a decent amount in one window. Then we don't finish the job. Ole's first summer for example. We had needed a new CB and RB for years. We also needed a RW and a CF to replace the outgoing Lukaku. We could have bought for all four positions if we didn't have the debt, meaning that bringing in Fernandes was the final piece of the jigsaw. Then a summer window of a couple of squad players and a couple of prospects would have been fine. This summer we'd only need one or two players.

So yes, we have spent badly at times. So has Guardiola though. When your competition can buy four new defenders for two positions, then more the next year if they need to, it makes keeping up with them difficult. But it would have been possible if not for the Glazers. They have cost us the posibilty of keeping the noisy neighbours quiet. Not to mention what happened last season.

In the end, these owners have cost us more than we could afford, no matter how you twist it.

 

[DoomSlayer]

No you just jump in whenever people express frustration at the ownership and feel the need to point out how common it is in the business world. No matter how many people make it clear that they feel their football club is about more than just business, it seems really important to you that you keep educating us all on the fact it isn't.

It's not just him, although he is a notoriously pedantic poster.