Page 1 of 2

A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:32 am
by 10.Goater_Legend
One thing at Manchester United isn't going downhill: their debt
Manchester City, rather than United, are entering the new decade with the cocksure strut of a financial powerhouse

Manchester United became liable to pay £263m in interest alone in the first three years after Malcolm Glazer and his family took over the club in 2005. Photograph: Brian Bahr/Getty Images Sport

Apart from the snowfall which smothered the Carling Cup semi‑final between Manchester's two clubs, 2010 has dawned to wildly contrasting fortunes for City and United. Sunday's 1-0 FA Cup humbling by Leeds was accompanied by reports that United's owners, the Florida‑based Glazer family, are trying again to refinance the £700m debts which their 2005 takeover has imposed on the club. For City, Saturday's 1-0 Cup victory at Middlesbrough has been followed by the solid news that Sheikh Mansour, City's Abu Dhabi owner, has personally invested £395m in the club since he took over 17 months ago, converting all of it into shares, not loans.

In simple terms, the lottery of English football clubs being companies up for sale on the open market has delivered a winning ticket to the Blues, not the Reds. Mansour has made an enormous financial investment in City, while the Glazers, since they bought United in their bitterly contested takeover, have given the club not one penny to spend. Quite the opposite; their ownership has drained the club of huge sums of money. In only three years up to 30 June 2008, the closing date of their most recent published accounts, United became liable to pay a staggering £263m in interest alone. Despite that, the capital lump sum which United owe to banks and hedge funds has actually snowballed by £159m, from £540m in 2005, to £699m in 2008.

That increase is accounted for partly by the very high interest charged on the £275m the Glazers borrowed from three hedge funds to buy United. When the entire debt was refinanced only 15 months later in August 2006, the hedge fund debt had risen by £79.1m, which included £13.2m for "early redemption". The refinancing paid that off, leaving United with £525m owed to banks and £138m owed to hedge funds. An estimated £29m was paid in professional fees then, principally to bankers, lawyers and accountants. Reports that the Glazers have appointed two banks,JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank, to seek refinancing again with bank bonds should be understood in that context: huge fees will be charged, there are likely to be early repayment premiums again on the £175m hedge fund debt United now owe, and the refinancing is likely to increase the total debt owed.

The Glazer family's spokesman refused to comment this week on those reports, and both JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank issued no comments. However, City sources indicated the reports are correct, and the refinancing is thought to be concentrating on the hedge fund debt, which is accumulating interest at 14.25%. The interest is rolling up: £38m interest was payable to the hedge funds in 2006-07; £23m in the year to June 2008; £25m to June 2009. By the time the capital is due for repayment, in August 2017, if it has not been refinanced and already paid off, the accumulated capital will have risen from an initial £138m borrowed from hedge funds, when the Glazers refinanced in August 2006, to £580m. That is in addition to the £524m of bank and other borrowings which United owed at June 2008.

The club and the Glazer family's spokesman have insisted that despite the interest payable, £69m in the year to 30 June 2008, which helped push United from an operating profit of £80m to a £43m loss, Sir Alex Ferguson has money to spend. Ferguson has maintained since the summer that he has not done so because United-calibre players are not available, and there is not "value in the market". He argues that players are overpriced, partly because of Mansour's intervention.

After United lost the Champions League final in May, Ferguson might have been expected to substantially strengthen his squad, but instead, Cristiano Ronaldo was sold to Real Madrid for £81m, and the manager signed only Antonio Valencia, for £17.5m from Wigan, Michael Owen, on a free transfer, and Gabriel Obertan, for £3m from Bordeaux. Whatever their protestations that money remains available, United's weakening through injury, occasional underperformance and Ferguson's dismissive approach to buying players means United are simply not carrying themselves as proud, cash-rich, Premier League champions with the Ronaldo money still in the bank. Time is surely running out for the argument that the debts – now, with interest, certainly more than £700m, vastly more than any other English club – are not financially constraining.

The Glazers have overseen a period of sustained success at Old Trafford, winning three Premier League titles and the Champions League in 2008, and Ferguson has always spoken supportively of their regime, which he finds easier to deal with than the regulated stock market-listed entity United were before. United insiders credit the Glazers with bringing in some of the roster of sponsors whose lucrative deals reflect the club's global presence and popularity. However, by far the largest proportion of United's record £257m turnover was still earned in the UK in 2007-08, and the largest proportion, £101.5m, came from match days at Old Trafford.

There, ticket prices have been increased significantly since the Glazers took over, a policy presented as a commercial virtue when they sought the refinancing in August 2006. Although United still boast awesome near-76,000 full houses for Premier League matches, and 74,526 witnessed the Leeds crash on Sunday, tickets do now remain on sale for most matches. United's spokesman, Phil Townsend, confirmed this week that bookings of corporate hospitality packages are down in the recession, and a third-round FA Cup exit will not have been in Ferguson's plan for the season or the Glazers' financial projections.

Stories have seeped out of United this season about rounds of quite meagre cuts, and Townsend acknowledged that the club has indeed been looking to cut costs. Twelve staff have been made redundant recently, he said, although he pointed out that this was from around 550 people employed in various departments.

"Like all other businesses in the current financial climate we have been looking to keep costs down," he said. "The demand for match-by-match corporate hospitality packages has gone down, depending on the fixture, but our 55,000 season tickets are sold out. We present a stable business model, the interest payments are serviced from the operating profit, and the club has said there is money for the manager to spend."

It is difficult to decipher how far the Glazers' own fortunes have been affected by the economic downturn, because they operate principally as private investors in the US. The family's charitable foundation says of Malcolm Glazer on its website that he "owns, has owned or has been the largest shareholder" of companies including Harley Davidson, Formica, Tonka, and Omega Protein, but some of those interests were sold off several years ago. The US property industry, in which the Glazers are significant investors, particularly in shopping malls, via their First Allied Corporation, is one of the sectors most pulverised by the economic typhoon.

The family's NFL franchise, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, enjoyed sustained success under the Glazers, winning the 2003 Super Bowl, yet have just concluded a miserable season, finishing bottom of their division with three wins from 16 games. Media reports, never denied, consistently said the Bucs were spending $30m (£19m) less than the permitted $100m under the NFL salary cap; the system allows franchise owners to take surplus money out for themselves. In January last year, the Glazers replaced the veteran, Super Bowl-winning coach Jon Gruden with Raheem Morris, who at 32 was the youngest coach in the NFL. The Glazers are still hailing that as a "bold decision", but the series of defeats have led to profound disillusionment among Bucs fans, who have also endured ticket price rises, and crowds at the Tampa Bay stadium have declined.

With a United squad looking suddenly threadbare, and a vintage manager due for retirement himself before too long, United supporters cannot help but see parallels between Stretford and Florida. Duncan Drasdo, chair of the Manchester United Supporters Trust, said this week: "We warned from the beginning that the Glazer takeover would saddle the club with huge debts and now we can see them biting. If it were a race, then United are dragging their owners behind them like a tractor, while City's owners are providing rocket fuel."

Before the Glazers arrived in 2005, nobody could have foreseen this bizarre reversal in Manchester. United, then the world's richest club, are lurching into the new decade with punishing debts, while City, of all clubs, are being roundly criticised after the sacking of their manager for being too ruthless, driven and improbably rich.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-c ... azers-debt

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:39 am
by ian494
Wow, good find.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:44 am
by spiv
Excellent, very good reading that was.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:06 am
by Lev Bronstein
Excellent read.

However, loads of businesses are in a similar boat. I suppose it's a question of if the financial institutions have enough faith in Utd as a business, if they do then they'll find a way of keeping the boat afloat. Should, heaven forefend, they start to slip such that CL qualification is uncertain, or even fail to get out of the group stages, then they could go belly-up very quickly. One thing that is remarkable about the present epoch is how fast things can fall apart for an apparantly solid club. Leeds are an obvious example, but include Sheff Wed, Coventry, and Southampton. The bigger you are the harder you fall.






I have a vision of the future. In the decades to come I'm sat in an old folks home surrounded by the younger members of my clan. As a special treat the telly is showing the Conference play-off final between Utd and Kendal Town. Naturally, I'll be shouting for Kendal. The young ones will look at me with sad, sympathetic eyes, wondering how I could harbour such bitterness and prejudice when the world has moved on.

But you, my fellow blues, those of you granted life to see those days, will remember fellow strugglers who kept the flame alive during the dark days, with fond memories of those who have passed away: you, my fellow blues will understand.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:10 am
by dazby
More stories like this please. Ones where United are shit and we are on the up.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:19 am
by eastlandsblue
Good read, but as hopeful as we are, they'res not much chance of them going under. The Glazers, arnt behind the door when it comes to buisness, and will be waiting for a billionaire to takeover. The only problem for rich owners like ours is, they'res not much chance of ever seeing their investment again. But in The Sheikhs case, he probably knew that.

The only chance the rags have, will they find one willing to go up against ours.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:48 am
by dazby
the hope is that the Glazers will be stubborn bastards and struggle with the debt for as long as possible without selling the club.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:01 am
by eastlandsblue
dazby wrote:the hope is that the Glazers will be stubborn bastards and struggle with the debt for as long as possible without selling the club.


I agree mate, we live in hope

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:14 am
by Curlie
So what's the bottom line here.
City's bank account is in the black and the scum's is 700M in the red, with interest mounting?
Is that the simple version?

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:17 am
by The Man In Blue
Curlie wrote:So what's the bottom line here.
City's bank account is in the black and the scum's is 700M in the red, with interest mounting?
Is that the simple version?


sort of. we still need CL qualification to shore up our operating losses, but you got the bit about the scum spot on.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:04 am
by RodneyRodney
One good point about all this is that players' ganets , (sorry agents !) are going to look at headlines coming out of Portsmouth this week and think "I don't want my boy in that situation in a couple of season's time" . These people aren't thick , they read the papers and they follow the smell of money , which we've got lots of. . . . .

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:21 am
by Im_Spartacus
Curlie wrote:So what's the bottom line here.
City's bank account is in the black and the scum's is 700M in the red, with interest mounting?
Is that the simple version?


Puts it into perspective about us "ruining football"

Our owner has put in £395 million, and we have a tasty looking squad. He has another £300m to spend go before we get to the stage where he has spent equal to the cost of united's debt. Add another few hundred million to cover the cost of buying the club, and why would anyone want to invest upwards of £1bn to make the club debt free and get a return on investment of perhaps 1/2%.

United's dominance of the game is currently built on a foundation of debt, and its now coming back to bite them on the arse. Whilst everyone talks about what happens if the sheik fucks off, the owner cant fuck off, because nobody else will be able to take on the liabilities of the playing staff's contracts, hence nobody will buy the club as it is unviable, so he has to stay here for the long haul. Same with Abramovich and Chelsea.

Perhaps it is becoming clearer report by report that the reason we are ruining football is because the "old order" monopoly in England and also in Europe will change, and the losers will be the established clubs who are based on debt.

Its hard for even the most blinkered of United fan to argue that against the FACT that slowly declining investment in the playing staff over the last 3 years is eating away at the quality of the squad, and as Giggs, Scholes etc draw towards the end of their career, the decline in the quality of the playing staff is happening at an increasing pace.

All looks a bit gloomy for the rags fortunately.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:24 am
by Mike J
how the fuck are they allowed to get away with being in so much debt (im a bit shit with things like this).

anyway no doubt they would have a long list of buyers if it gets really bad.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:27 am
by lythamblue
Just to provide another slant on this.

As none of us own shares in our football clubs and therefore don't profit or lose from financial matters and performance ..... surely all that matters to us is winning trophies.

As things stand, the Manures are still more likely to win major trophies this year than we are.

Yes, bad finances should EVENTUALLY take their toll in the long run we have closed the gap over the last 18 months or so, but still have a long way to go to match their performance on the pitch and off it in terms of global support and branding.

I believe they will be taken over before things are allowed to get too bad ..... They can be bought for under £1 bill and as a global brand ...... that is a cheap opportunity for someone.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:29 am
by Im_Spartacus
Mike J wrote:how the fuck are they allowed to get away with being in so much debt (im a bit shit with things like this).

anyway no doubt they would have a long list of buyers if it gets really bad.


As I wrote above - any prospective owner would need to have a billion just to buy the club and clear the debt.

That is £1bn just to stand still.

If they dont clear the debt they will never turn a profit.

Beyond that, they are unlikely to see a profit for a long long time as the squad by next summer will need serious investment.

The only way I can see United getting out of this, is by turning them back into a PLC as effectively a public share offering will be the only way to raise much of the money needed to clear the debt without having one stupidly rich person prepared to pay £1bn.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:33 am
by ant london
lythamblue wrote:I believe they will be taken over before things are allowed to get too bad ..... They can be bought for under £1 bill and as a global brand ...... that is a cheap opportunity for someone.


I don't agree with that slant.

It is a global brand but a hugely limited one IMO. The revenue streams that a football club's "brand" can be spun out over I think have been (and continue to be) proven to be capped at those which are related to the sport (merchandising, TV, media content etc).

Sure you can brand up other bollocks like credit cards and the like but how much revenue is there in that for an incoming investor? Not all that much if you ask me.

The Manchester United brand cannot be compared to something like (say) Virgin and be seen to have a premium value over that due to a normal football club. Sure they have more potential revenues due to greater global reach but I do not agree that this is a valuable "brand" akin to something that could be used across (say) the FMCG sector

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:36 am
by CityFanFromRome
Great read that one. Hopefully the Glazers keep the club and keep struggling with debt until they finally go bust.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:44 am
by lythamblue
ant london wrote:
lythamblue wrote:I believe they will be taken over before things are allowed to get too bad ..... They can be bought for under £1 bill and as a global brand ...... that is a cheap opportunity for someone.


I don't agree with that slant.

It is a global brand but a hugely limited one IMO. The revenue streams that a football club's "brand" can be spun out over I think have been (and continue to be) proven to be capped at those which are related to the sport (merchandising, TV, media content etc).

Sure you can brand up other bollocks like credit cards and the like but how much revenue is there in that for an incoming investor? Not all that much if you ask me.

The Manchester U***d brand cannot be compared to something like (say) Virgin and be seen to have a premium value over that due to a normal football club. Sure they have more potential revenues due to greater global reach but I do not agree that this is a valuable "brand" akin to something that could be used across (say) the FMCG sector


You are assuming that their eventual suitors would only buy the club in search of operating profits...... which may not be the case.

They wouldn't be the first football club bought as a 'PR' excercise would they????

Let's face it, we are now an extension of the Abu Dhabi Tourist Board (fine by me) ..... someone might consider them in a similar vein.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:49 am
by ant london
yeah I grant you that there is that possibility

BUT it would be a fucking enormously costly investment to get hold of said PR boosting brand

Which would include having to either pay off or service multiple tiers of expensive debt

AND

Having to make significant investments (in terms of player acquisitions) to maintain the value of that brand (which would involve having to take on Abu Dhabi's brand vehicle head on)

You'd have to have extraordinarily deep pockets, it's possible but I can't see it to be honest. I can't see any immediate problems at Man U but I don't think it will be an easy couple of years for them financially.

Re: A nice read :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:55 am
by Niall Quinns Discopants
lythamblue wrote:Just to provide another slant on this.

As none of us own shares in our football clubs and therefore don't profit or lose from financial matters and performance ..... surely all that matters to us is winning trophies.

As things stand, the Manures are still more likely to win major trophies this year than we are.

Yes, bad finances should EVENTUALLY take their toll in the long run we have closed the gap over the last 18 months or so, but still have a long way to go to match their performance on the pitch and off it in terms of global support and branding.

I believe they will be taken over before things are allowed to get too bad ..... They can be bought for under £1 bill and as a global brand ...... that is a cheap opportunity for someone.


unfortunately I have to agree.

Sad truth is that there will always be interested buyers for clubs like rags and Liverpool. And as said they are huge global brands.

I said it to my rag mate, who was down about it all, at the time of their takeover that these people were never going to be in it in long run anyway. I think they saw value for English football clubs rocketing and decided to buy the club, only to sell it in ten years for profit. The fact that they financed roughly half of the takeover with short term high risk, high interest loans they were never going to deal with operating profit anyway, would certainly indicate that way.