Manchester United - The End of an Era?

Bubbles wrote:POLR,


You're wrong about what I do for a living, but nonetheless I ask you, why do you care?

If I was a bloodsucking leech like you would what I'm saying somehow be more correct in your eyes?


When you work a job that actually produces or provides something useful to other people then you'll have some right to talk about other people. Until then, you're just a soulless fuckwit taking the easiest path available to you. When you die, no one will think of anything funny to write on your tombstone.

You mean like an engineer

Six wrote:

Tweesus wrote:Seems as though Man Utd are royally fucked.

If they're forced to sell Rooney over the summer than that's pretty much it for them.

Its quite funny really that american's could be responsbile for running the two most successful english clubs into financial ruin

Americans should be banned from 'soccer'.

Well Liverpool have only themselves to blame, nobody forced Moores to sell.

We'd still be in the same mess we are if he hadn't, he didn't have the funds neither, he just didn't pretend he did

He's coming !

Normally agree with your comments Six but Lulu is right. The club needed to be progressed. New investment was needed for players and the stadium was a must.The fans were desperate for Moores to sell. I remember during the whole takeover process, DIC was widely regarded as Liverpool supporters preferred choice. G and H never had the same backing DIC had from the supports.

@ Goater's pic

But didn't Moores get more cash from the Americans than he would have from the arabs? Maybe even more influence on the board whereas the arabs wanted their own people in charge of everything. I don't think the question of money ever stopped the arabs, it's the fact that they would not have total control of the club. And don't forget they're a bunch of terrorists.

So yes, I would blame Moores, he wanted his money and lifetime seat on the board, and he's a racist.

Sir Alex Ferguson will be handed £75million to spend on new players by Manchester United's owners in a bid to haul the club out of its financial crisis.

The Glazers have borrowed the money and will give it straight to Fergie to spend on his squad in a bid to encourage investors to buy £500m-worth of bonds.

United's owners have taken the decision to increase their borrowing as they attempt to make the bonds more attractive to potential investors.

They believe the scheme will have more chance of succeeding - and bringing down their overall level of debt - if Fergie is able to strengthen his squad with big-name signings.

The Glazers' re-financing plan involves a bonds issue to ease the debt burden which is threatening to cripple the club.

But United's owners have also entered into a new credit facility to raise £75m to be used as 'working capital' – a transfer fund for Fergie.

110% wrote:You mean like an engineer

Many engineers, yes.

L r dd wrote:Sir Alex Ferguson will be handed £75million to spend on new players by Manchester United's owners in a bid to haul the club out of its financial crisis.

The Glazers have borrowed the money and will give it straight to Fergie to spend on his squad in a bid to encourage investors to buy £500m-worth of bonds.

United's owners have taken the decision to increase their borrowing as they attempt to make the bonds more attractive to potential investors.

They believe the scheme will have more chance of succeeding - and bringing down their overall level of debt - if Fergie is able to strengthen his squad with big-name signings.

The Glazers' re-financing plan involves a bonds issue to ease the debt burden which is threatening to cripple the club.

But United's owners have also entered into a new credit facility to raise £75m to be used as 'working capital' – a transfer fund for Fergie.

So they're gambling with 75 million pounds? Is that the single biggest bet ever been placed?

Bubbles wrote:

110% wrote:You mean like an engineer

Many engineers, yes.

You're welcome (for the clean drinking water, food, house, heating, transport, internet etc.)

110% wrote:

L r dd wrote:Sir Alex Ferguson will be handed £75million to spend on new players by Manchester United's owners in a bid to haul the club out of its financial crisis.

The Glazers have borrowed the money and will give it straight to Fergie to spend on his squad in a bid to encourage investors to buy £500m-worth of bonds.

United's owners have taken the decision to increase their borrowing as they attempt to make the bonds more attractive to potential investors.

They believe the scheme will have more chance of succeeding - and bringing down their overall level of debt - if Fergie is able to strengthen his squad with big-name signings.

The Glazers' re-financing plan involves a bonds issue to ease the debt burden which is threatening to cripple the club.

But United's owners have also entered into a new credit facility to raise £75m to be used as 'working capital' – a transfer fund for Fergie.

So they're gambling with 75 million pounds? Is that the single biggest bet ever been placed?

The thing is, as has been mentioned by many others, the Glazers would have no problem selling Utd if they decided to - probably for a significant profit - so although it appears a big gamble - in the longer run, I don't think it neccessarily is.

Lets hope SAF buys the next Nani, Anderson and Berbatov with it The three of them cost about £70m

is this £75m on top of the Ronaldo money that he already had available to spend but chose not to?

Borrowing money to try to encourage investment in a failing company reminds me of something.

Ah yes:

http://gawker.com/5447339/lloyd-blankfein-finally-explains-the-financial-collapse-in-laymans-terms-we-forgot-about-the-money

Adem Ljajić has signed for Fiorentina after United didn't take up their option.

Going on previous transfer market dealings by Pantaleo Corvino and Slur Alex I'd say Fiorentina have probably signed an absolute gem

Ljajic was always the signing, we were told repeatedly by United fans that Tosic was just a makeweight/babysitter

Ljajic is like a hybrid of Gerrard and Kaka, but with better athleticism and creativity. Tosic is like an undiagnosed Luke Chadwick.

Thanks!

You know how U*d had a deal with Sporting for all their best youngsters....well we have signed a deal with Sporting to take all their best youngsters.....the next Nani is on his way

But at least its one over on the scum

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/19/manchester-united-finance-the-glazers

Glazers could take £130m out of Manchester United next year

• Small print in bond offer reveals shock provisions
• Owners able to get cut of money from player sales

The Glazer family, who own Manchester United, can take almost £130m cash out of the club next year alone if enough lenders sign up for the bond they have launched to borrow £500m for United.

Nestling in the small print of the 322-page bond prospectus are provisions allowing the Glazers to take £70m out of the club's cash reserves, which includes the money they have received from selling players such as Cristiano Ronaldo. The document also reserves for the Glazers the legal right to pay £25m out of the club in a dividend, and half of what is termed "consolidated net income". This is effectively the club's cash profits, which based on the most recent accounts would have meant £23m being paid out last year.

The bond's terms also note that the Glazers will have the right for £6m a year to be paid to companies they own "for administration and management services", and a further £3m "in respect of services provided by directors, officers or employees" of companies the Glazers use to hold their shares in United.

That money, added to the £70m and £25m one-off payments, plus the half of United's cash profit they can take out each year (equating to £23m last year), add up to £127m next year alone.

That huge figure is in addition to the straightforward payment of interest (yield) on the £500m the club will have borrowed via the bond, which at a mooted 9%, will be £45m. That will bring the total taken out of United to service the Glazers' borrowings, which were loaded on to the club after the family bought the club in 2005, to £172m next year alone.

It has become increasingly clear since the prospectus was launched last week that its principal purpose is to allow the Glazers to take cash out of United to reduce the amounts they owe in "payments in kind" to hedge funds, which are running at a punitive £14.25% interest. Standing at £175m in the year to 30 June, 2008, the "payments" accrued £25m interest in the year to 30 June, 2009, and so stand now at over £200m. That debt is secured on the United shares the Glazer family own, and it is clear their financial priority is to use United's giant turnover and profits to pay down that debt before the interest "rolls up" dramatically.

A calculation of the total cash which the bond would entail being paid out of United in dividend payments, the yield from the bond, management fees and the possible requirement for the club to lease the Carrington training ground, is more than £500m between next year and the maturity of the bond in 2017.

If the bond issue is fully taken up by lenders, it will mean that since the Glazer family bought United in May 2005 for £810m – £540m of it borrowed from banks and hedge funds – their takeover will have already cost United £340m in cash. That comprises £220m in bank interest plus "early-repayment premiums" made when the borrowings were first refinanced in August 2006. A further £120m will have been incurred in fees paid to bankers, lawyers and other professionals – the fees for this bond issue are noted as £15m – plus £35m incurred by the club's interest rate hedging arrangements.

On top of that, the "payments" have incurred interest payable of around £124m since the Glazers first borrowed the money to buy United.

A Glazer family spokesman, who also speaks for United on financial matters, declined to comment.

Nick Towle, chair of the Manchester United Supporters' Trust, said: "It is a shocking picture. These are immense amounts of money being leaked out of United to pay banks, lawyers, the Glazers themselves and interest, to pay for a takeover none of the supporters, or the United board itself, wanted.

"United's success and profits could have been used to keep ticket prices affordable or invest in the team but instead we see this heartbreaking waste, just because one family ultimately hopes to make a profit from the club."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/17/manchester-united-glazers-ferguson-resign-protest

Alex Ferguson 'must quit' Manchester United in protest at Glazer regime
• Letter-writing campaign proposed at fans' meeting
• Protest march planned for Milan Champions League game

Manchester United supporters fighting the Glazer family's ownership of the club are contemplating asking Sir Alex Ferguson to make the ultimate sacrifice and resign in protest.

The idea was put forward at a specially convened meeting of fans' groups to determine an action plan to drive out the Glazers. The Manchester United Supporters' Trust, which arranged the meeting before Saturday's 3-0 defeat of Burnley, are also exploring the possibility of asking Eric Cantona to act as their figurehead, and plans are being put in place for a protest march before the Champions League tie against Milan on 10 March.

More than 300 fans attended the talks and Johnny Flacks, a founding member and former chairman of the Independent Manchester United Supporters' Association, proposed a letter should be written to Ferguson asking him to step down as manager as manager.

"This is not intended as an Alex Ferguson rant," Flacks said yesterday. "But he claims to be a socialist, a former shop steward and a man of the people, so he must be horrified by what is going on. It would work only if thousands of people sent a copy of this letter to Ferguson letting him know that our fear, if the Glazers stay in control, is that his legacy is going to be destroyed. We wouldn't want that and I don't think he would either."

The fans' meeting was followed by sustained anti-Glazer chanting at Old Trafford during the Burnley game and stewards confiscated a large banner that was briefly unfurled at the Stretford End and read: "Love United, hate Glazer".

Ferguson has always defended the Glazers since the Florida-based family took control of the club, but he had expressed his misgivings before they moved into power and is now operating under strict financial constraints. The Glazers have raised the prospect of selling and leasing back Old Trafford and their Carrington training ground and are looking to borrow £500m in a bond issue, as a partial replacement for the £700m debts their 2005 takeover has loaded on to the club.

The supporters' groups vehemently opposed the takeover in the first place and appealed for Ferguson's help then as well, without any success. Nonetheless, the idea of asking Ferguson to resign will inevitably provoke widespread opposition and, in some cases, shock given his importance to the club and his status as the most successful manager in the business.

"That is the ridiculous scenario," Flacks said. "We are talking about a manager who has achieved so much for the club and has created the monster that is Manchester United. But we have to look at the greater good and at the moment we have the ludicrous situation where a club that gets over 70,000 supporters is losing money.

"This would be Ferguson's chance of saying that something had to be done. He would be looking after the club in the longer term if it meant the Glazers would sell more quickly. And if he said he was going to resign, maybe that would also encourage potential buyers to hurry up."

Flacks has known Ferguson for many years and was so close to him at one point the United manager would regularly attend IMUSA meetings and invite him to the old Cliff training ground. "Moving to Carrington was his baby and he must be horrified that the Glazers could now be thinking of selling Carrington and then arranging for it to be leased back," Flacks said. "That would make Manchester United no better than a non-league club not even owning a training ground."

The Trust has pointed out that Flacks's comments do not necessarily represent those of the group as a whole.

A march before the Milan game may involve a concerted effort to leave the stadium with large expanses of empty seats at kick-off, with the protestors not entering the stadium until five or 10 minutes later. There will also be a campaign to encourage season-ticket holders not to renew if the Glazers are still in charge.

Privately, one member of Ferguson's staff has already expressed his support but the captain, Gary Neville, has made it clear he wants no part of it. "We're always very well protected and we never get involved in the financial side of things There have been talks and rumours over the years going back to when the Glazers took over, and even when Michael Knighton nearly took over in the 1980s. As players we never get involved in those things; our job is purely on the pitch and we allow people who are paid to do jobs in other areas of the club to do their job. It's nothing to do with us at all."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8470595.stm

Crazy numbers. On a year we made the cl final and sold a player for 80 million the debt goes up by 20 million.

They should just sell the club before they kill it.

what stupid c**t would buy a club with such high debts LOL

this club is finished for years

César Salazar wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8470595.stm

I am so sad about the Mancs's situation. They are definitely at the crossroads of their existence. Psst, the Glazers are broke, really broke. Their Tampa Bay Buccaneers team is in shambles economically and on the playing field.

Them Glazers want to create more cash out of thin air, but EVERYONE sussed out this Ashkenazi Jew trick already, and no one is buying, NO ONE wants to do business with them. NO ONE TRUSTS THEM.

Could yesterday's match be the first nail in Manchester United's coffin. Fergie went all out to win AND LOST!

His "noisy neighbor" may become the new MANCS and he and his Mancs may be 'history'.

Özil wrote:what stupid c**t would buy a club with such high debts LOL

this club is finished for years

It's that stupid yanks fault to start with, if only they had a German owner

last hope will be an arabian sheik

yeah i know, the whole world wants "deutsche Präzisionsarbeit"

Updating "where are they now" column - Dong Fangzhuo is being tested by Legia Warsaw

O'Shea may be out for the rest of the season according to BBC.

The only United defender who isn't inury prone is out for the season

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/8472295.stm

John O'Shea is likely to miss the rest of the season because of a leg problem.

Oooh!

Another blow!

Despite his obvious limitations O'Shea has been a key squad member since breaking into the side, managing an average of 40 appearances a season in the past 6/7 years. Arguably one of the best utility squad players of the Premiership era.

To be honest i couldn't be less bothered about a player getting injured. He did well last year but he wont be missed by me. Rafael >

adds some spice to our bet Lrd as O'Shea was competition for the twins.

Currently I lead 21-7 but anything can happen

Indeed it can. Valencia has become one of the first names on the teamsheet recently which i guess makes it difficult to mount a big comeback. But if Rafael can start regularly, then the odd sub from Fabio or Valencia being rested for games could see me catching up by 2 on certain weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8475317.stm

Manchester United raise £504m in bond issue

Manchester United have successfully raised £504m through a bond issue, which will cover most of what the club owe to international banks.

The deal means the Premier League club will be able to pay off nearly all their outstanding debts of £509m.

They will face an annual interest bill of £45m a year on the bonds.

The sale comes after figures showed debts at the club's parent firm, Red Football Joint Venture, rose to £716.5m ($1.17bn) in the year to June 2009.

Pounds and dollars

The bond was sold in two tranches, one of £250m with a coupon rate - or interest rate - to bond holders of 8.75%, and another tranche of $425m with a coupon rate of 8.375%.

However, unlike the debt at present secured against the club, the seven-year bonds will not mature until 1 February 2017.

The annual interest bill on the bonds is close to the £41.2m in interest paid in the last financial year.

But by converting the money owed to banks into a bond, it means the club will be free of the potentially strict financial conditions imposed by lenders.

On Thursday, it was confirmed that the club had signed a three-year sponsorship deal with Turkish Airlines to take over as the club's official carrier.