|
||||
|
||||
I remember John Giles talking about chairmen in general, he always regarded the best ones as those who kept their noses out of things and left the football to football men.
In this respect, the Glazers are undeniably "good chairmen". They're at least intelligent enough to be less likely to interfere with the running of affairs in the way Abramovich is. To my (very limited) understanding, it seems like the PLC was ripe for takeover. An underexploited resource featuring sub-par sponsorship deals, and (like it or not) the nonsensical situation where matchgoers at OT were paying considerably less for the privilege than those at Stamford Bridge, Highbury (or even Spurs?). I'm not sure that all this wistfulness at the demise of PLC ownership really reflects the reality of that period. The club was no more "our's" then than it is now. We were the customers of a rather fat business that was owned by everyone but the fans. For me, what's happened has been the right move but the wrong new owners. Someone who had a bit more cash to put up front would have been far preferable but there's aspects to having "ignorant yanks" running the club that aren't so bad. Ferguson has essentially been given free rein to run the football side of the club (which I like) and being under American ownership I suspect (but only suspect) does have advantages in terms of corporate sponsorship and developing revenue streams abroad. Before anyone says I'm neglecting the huge black shadow of the debt, I'm not, but given we currently have access to two young lads who are going to be marketing cash cows throughout their careers, I'm fairly confident that that debt will prove to be manageable. If Utd turn out to be as profitable an investment as they hope, there's also the possibility that it might be to their advantage to sell the handball team and use the proceeds to tackle the debt at OT - if that's the profitable move. We're all frustrated at the Glazers tying their fortunes to Utd in this manner but I'm afraid, given the circumstances, I'm going to have to wish them the very best of luck. If they're a success, I think we end up better off that we were as a PLC. But that's just my un/ill-informed tuppence worth. I'm sure those who fancy themselves as having the inside track on all things Utd will be on shortly to batter my pig-ignorant head. |
|
||||
|
||||
Maybe it's as simple as that for some of us
Quote:
"Ignorance is bliss." |
|
|||
|
|||
But that
Quote:
They have done nothing of the sort. If they leave United a smouldering ruin, they'll still be able walk away quite happily. Why should they care? They had a punt, it didn't come off, and somebody else has paid for it. |
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not arguing with any of this. I also find the concept of a leveraged takeover and "manageable debt" utterly £#%&!ing absurd but then, I'm a card-carrying leftie, all these corporate types are £#%&!ers in my book. I don't think there's much of an argument here. What you call willful denial, others might call adopting a pragmatic approach to the situation going forward [spit, awful term, apologies]. The fact of the matter is that the Glazers have now tied themselves into long term ownership of Utd barring some oil-rich sheikh looking to take it off their hands. What we're arguing about on this thread is whether they can do a good enough job of it to stave off the threat of meltdown their takeover has caused. I suspect the first part of their rationale, that the club was an underexploited resource and that operating debt-free was a rather overly conservative state of affairs is probably correct. I also suspect that the principle of moving from PLC to private company (if not the specific means used) is preferable. I also know that (particularly since refinancing) we will get no answer to whether the "head in the sand, wait and seers" or the "chicken lickens" are correct for a number of years. My own feeling on it is that, whether they had much of a clue one way or another, circumstances are such that they are on a winner. They've got in bigger and better sponsorship deals, they now have an American-owned "soccer" team to sell to the States and its vassals, the guaranteed television revenues have soared already and, flukiest of the lot, Ferguson has pulled a possible league title out of nothing and has a wealth of talented youngsters bursting through, potentially saving the Glazers millions. If you want to go very conspiratorial on it, maybe it's not a lucky coincidence, they might have known all about the football side of matters before they ever took the plunge... |
|
||||
|
||||
Incidentally, apart from the utterly ungrateful shower down at Chelsea, all football fans are in the situation of being asked to pay the club's debts and fund player transfers while the exec's claim their big salaries that we pay.
What is the alternative? There is no going back in time to have us set up as per Real Madrid or Barcelona. Presumably we were very grateful for Louis Edwards and his ilk putting in a modicum of cash at the time. If that hadn't happened, who knows where we'd be. Perhaps a "sleeping giant" like Wolves. I don't have much time for the theory that Utd "had it coming to them" because of the mythical cash we were always getting from being a PLC. However, the fact is that as small a sum of money as it seems in retrospect, the money that was made through floating the club meant that we have had our noses in front of all our competitors with OT throughout the Premiership years and this is a game of fine margins. There's always been an outstanding debt there of a sort. Here's something more to the point, we were all told that fighting off the Sky takeover was a great day for the club, like £#%&! it was. Don't hear much from the "chicken lickens" who were at the front of opposing that now. |
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
i imagine they might have some kind of plan but that's another story - they aren't likely to let us in on it any time soon. i'm sure they are quite capable of £#%&!ing it up as well and wasn't saying otherwise and dodger where you get from that that i think it's all alright then is anybody's guess. you just made that bit up didn't you! |
|
|||
|
|||
what would've happened if we had finished outside the top 3? And no cup competitions?
people would've been called to be hung. The sad reality of this season (despite a great return to glory) is that the modern Manchester United is defined only by trophies and success. The rest doesn't really matter and will only be questioned once we get knocked off our pedestal. |
|
|||
|
|||
The debt
Quote:
And only the interest is being paid - not any part of the principal. It is possible (and the likely kind of possible, not the merely theroetical kind) that increasing the debt was the only way to meet the interest payments. But the good news is that this refinancing package has lowered the interest payments from a huge amount we cannot afford to a slightly less huge amount we still cannot afford. Hooray! |
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'll bet they could pay off the debt if they sold their stake in the Tampa Bay £#%&!aneers. |
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quality post, although I felt the PLC was functioning well and in financial terms it was generating enough revenue for us to be contenders in the transfer market. I am not sure MUFC needed to become a private interest. Obviously the debt is key to all of this, and that is what preys on my mind. |
|
||||
|
||||
I share Tropical's view on this, I'm afraid.
Thankfully I'm not one of those who does the "I told you so" thing, so I'm still highly delighted that we are achieving so much this season. I have no doubt at all that several who see things the way I do would have delighted in United's failure this season, were it to have happened (and I certainly don't want this to look as though I'm suggesting Trops would have, don't think that of me).
My views stem only from reading about the Glazers 2-3 years ago, and to be honest, the only thing you see in that is a catalogue of disaster or paper trails which mainly lead to Glazer companies being bought by Glazer companies using money which they don't even have... As for the sons, anyone who hasn't read all about zap.com needs to do so before thinking they're remotely clued-up. I may well be misinformed, and subsequently very wrong on my opinion of the Glazers, but Bose's question about them being forced into buying the club out is certainly not out of the question having read what I've read. It seems anything Glazer puts his own money into, he gets burned on. Maybe that's why he turns his attention to where there's easy pickings, such as his own sister (for money which was rightfully hers), FFS...and supporters of sports 'franchises' such as Tampa Bay Buccaneers (and we all know how he treated their fans) and Manchester United, who would leave him high and dry (or sunk) but for his trump card - their loyalty. I pray that I've misread the situation - because if not, save for a knight in shining armour, there's only one end result. |
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not so sure
Quote:
Put it this way: if they're anything like me, they're very fond of being right. They're just far more fond of United. I would be delighted to be wrong about the whole damn thing. Unfortunately, every bit of available evidence, and every logical conclusion, suggests I'm, um, not. |
|
||||
|
||||
Some juicy TV revenues to be had as of next season.
Would personally cite that as evidence that the doom scenarios will* be proven wrong, particularly if United are still competing at the very top of the sport. Not sure about the latest Bose thoughts on the football business of course since not read it yet. but as someone said earlier in the thread (celtbion?) there is at least as much chance that the glazers saw the TV money as there is of anything Bose has to say. these TV rights struggles aren't exactly a new thing. Money is the incentive for them being here - and that's where the money is at. edit: *as in will probably be ;-) |
|
||||
|
||||
I must stress that I am against the Glazers, but the talk of it being the end and how we will fold as a club in a few years is utter %@#$&!s. The only thing I would argue for them about is it's made Fergie sort himself out, he had to start performing, and this season proves Fergie was to comfortable and arguably wasted a few seasons, and the wage bill etc has been cut down and players bought who are needed and are definitely good additions, not wasting it gambling on players. Of course some will sight that cutting the wage bill is to cut costs and pay the interest, yes it is, but it's also good business, the PLC was probably throwing silly money away, the Glazers are simply running a tighter ship. Again I am against the Glazers and that is the only thing I can argue for them.
|
Similar Threads for: Life under Malcolm Glazer | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Malcolm Ebiowei | AK14 | Football | 27 | 26-06-2022 08:20 PM |
Malcolm Glazer is dead | Clarkie | Football | 261 | 31-05-2014 03:32 PM |
Malcolm Glazer dead | lookingforeric | Love United, Hate Glazer | 3 | 29-05-2014 12:09 AM |