U*d ticket row continues

COTR wrote:I'm not sure the Glazer's ever intended to be in it for the long term when they negotiated the terms of their loan

They basically bought United on credit and hoped to finance the cost of this credit by stealing huge chunks of the profit, relying on the market price to increase rapidly and a huge profit resulting from the sell off

It wasn't an overly risky strategy pre credit crunch given United's power, however it is now at the whim of the banks to see what happens next. I don't see any way that the club can meet the terms of these facilities outlined on the loans (if the report is correct) so unless it is somehow restructured (which would require a very quick recovery in the credit markets over the next few years) then the only solution they have is to sell

The club as a whole is really in no danger as there will always be buyers willing to take over, especially if they can rape the Glazers on price in the process. The only people who currently stand to lose from this are the Glazers if they end up selling the club for less than they bought it. Although I should add that if the Glazers have secured the loan against the assets of the club, rather than their own assets, then there is a real chance of some sort of losses being realised by the club

And at worst, they can probably just sell Old Trafford and lease it back. Football clubs, esp. big ones like Manchester United, will always survive in one way or another, regardless of what financial troubles they may encounter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/mps-call-for-end-to-huge-club-debts-1671627.html


WOW, didn't know Platini had this much leverage at the British parliament!

Or could it be that he is right about something after all?

MPs accuse Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool of 'financial doping'

Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool have been accused of engaging in "financial doping" by a parliamentary committee.


In 27 recommendations at the end of a year-long inquiry, legislators have urged England's football authorities to curb "ludicrous levels of borrowing" and the use of profits to service large debts.


The All Party Parliamentary Football Group has echoed the agenda of the world governing body, Fifa, by calling for heavy scrutiny of business plans ahead of any club takeovers. The group has also backed Fifa's "six-plus-five rule" that would impose limits on foreign players, urging the British government to lobby the European Union to overlook its treaties on free movement of labour.

The key warning in the report is that while football appears to be surviving the initial impact of the recession, the meltdown in the markets that has claimed major financial institutions operating risky business models should serve as a warning to the clubs.

"The financial world has learnt a serious lesson in the last year that living by the old adage 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' can lead to catastrophic results," said the Labour MP Alan Keen, who chaired the inquiry. "There is a real danger that English football could go the same way.

"Corrective action needs to be taken now to address serious weaknesses in the governance of the game as well as severe financial imbalances.

"Lack of proper governance and financial instability are the two fundamental vulnerabilities to the success that English football has enjoyed in recent times.

"Our report includes tough measures to improve the way the game is run and to combat 'financial doping' whereby short-term success can be bought at the expense of long-term financial stability."

Can't see how what Chelsea are doing is financial doping or whatever that is because they are borrowing from their owner. And Man Utd/Liverpool aren't loaning these sums to pay off their players or for transfers.

I don't understand that at one point they want to maintain that these teams stay competitive in Europe but at the same time they want to enforce the 6+5 rule

I think it would be quite harmfull for England unless they found a way of slowly introducing it over like 10 years or so because that is about the time it will take I figure for changes in the youth academies to take place. Also don't think they will be able to rely on taking youngsters as I think Platini might change some rules to protect clubs from losing their young talents.

Super Madrid wrote:I simply don't get why they would allow SAF to spend soo much money on players like Nai/Anderson/Berbatov when they know that are in a thight situation. Surely this will mean cut off spending for a while or is this more of an attempt to keep being succesful and hoping it will generate the money needed?

The Glazers bought Man U in 2005, I think. While financially the world was a different place then and it should have been easier to borrow the money to buy the club if memory serves they ended up having to borrow about 275 million from hedge funds which charged them over 14% interest. If they'd been determined to get a good deal then they wouldn't have taken those loans, because just to service those loans you need 38.5 million pounds a year. And that's without spending a dime on actually repaying the money. 38.5 million pounds a year is a lot of money in football terms, and that's without even considering the interest on the other hundreds of millions they borrowed at lower rates. 38.5 million pounds will buy Dimitar Berbatov and pay his wages for a year, probably with a little left over.

So why indeed are the Glazers, on top of the debt they've created to buy the club, spending large sums on players who could potentially be very good but could potentially be not so good? I think they always intended to renegotiate some of the loans, particularly the hedge funds, but found this difficult for the same reason they found borrowing the money difficult in the first place - investors didn't think the Glazers could make Man U that much more successful than they already were, and so didn't see significant profits and so charged high interest rates. Then the credit crunch happened and now there's no realistic hope of renegotiating the hedge fund loans.

So, faced with this situation they've gone for broke, like a guy on a losing streak who starts betting larger and larger amounts of what he's got left in the hope of a big win putting him ahead. By throwing money at the squad they are trying to ride out the storm, hope the credit markets improve or the value of the stock of the club rises sufficiently that they can sell a small stake for some ready cash to pay down some debt or whatever.

if United were in serious trouble the signing of Berbatov would make no sense. They spent £50m this season on largely unnecessary players, Tosic and Llallic kind of make sense if they are as good as their fee indicates and they will remain an asset for the next 5 years or so.

Last season they managed to recoup about £25m by selling youth team players, this season I think only Chris Eagles left. This could explain why Fergle has insisted on playing so many of his shit youngster in high profile games, publically declaring his faith in them. He can probably count on another £25m in the summer from the sale of Welbeck, Gibson, Campbell Eckersley and Nani, and could probably do something similar every season as well as getting inflated fees for his mediocre veterans, Fletcher, O'Shea, Brown and co. I can't see United having any real problems, the club can always be sold and the debt will be serviced one way or another.

UNITED have increased their season ticket prices by £1 a match for next season.

The Reds have bucked the trend of Premier League clubs, several of whom have already announced price freezes and reductions for next season.

Supporters have already reacted angrily to the increase which – if the reduction in VAT is included – amounts to between 4.3 and 5.3 per cent higher.

But United are unrepentant. A spokesman said: “We are still on average turning away nearly 5,000 people per game, and more for bigger games like City, Arsenal and Liverpool, and we believe it represents good value for money.”

In the past, United have claimed that their prices compare favourably to those of Chelsea and Arsenal, but both those clubs have announced price freezes for next season, along with Wigan.

Manchester City will cut prices by seven per cent and Bolton, West Ham, Sunderland, Everton and Blackburn will also reduce admission prices as the recession bites.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From MEN