Glazers turn down £1.5Bn bid.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

When you bought your house did you inherit the previous owners mortgage?

No. But the Glazers may want the debt to remain with the club, not them pay it off.

They could easily make more than £500m by not selling is my point. The profit being offered isn't sufficient to make it worth selling their main cash cow. If they sit tight for the next 15 years as owners, without risking or doing anything themselves, how much would they make?

If they were making near £1bn profit, then they would probably sell.

Originally Posted by celtbion

Do you think that they won't fill the ground anyway?

Average attendence is down this season but by less than 500.

Even if thousounds fail to renew there are a number of ways that United can sell those tickets not least of all they could increase the away allocation for certain games.

It would take at least 10,000 not renewing to have any effect which is unlikely.

Ticket prices are frozen this year and J P Morgan has indicated a reduction in the sale of hospitality in the coming years. In addition, there will be a reduction in turnover this year due to the early exits from the two cups.

It may well be that the figures for 2008/9 or 2009/10 are the best the club ever generates.

If that is the case, the chances of United being worth more than what it is now are slim; especially when you take into account the need for replacements for Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Van Der Sar etc in the next few years.

If we agree that £90m profit is the best we can expect, based on last year's earnings, take from that £45m to service the bonds and a wedge to address the issue of the ever increasing PIK debt, is there enough left to strengthen the squad to the level needed to compete at current levels?

Now what happens if the earnings and profits fall?

The Glazers should consider ANY bid, very carefully.

*On the issue of tat sales, Manchester United Merchandising Ltd controls the football schools, the MegaStore, the sale of all merchandise, both here and overseas. MUML is a 100% owned subsidiary of Nike Inc and Nike pays Manchester United £23m a year royalty in exchange for this ownership.

Originally Posted by redloner

Ticket prices are frozen this year and J P Morgan has indicated a reduction in the sale of hospitality in the coming years. In addition, there will be a reduction in turnover this year due to the early exits from the two cups.

It may well be that the figures for 2008/9 or 2009/10 are the best the club ever generates.

If that is the case, the chances of United being worth more than what it is now are slim; especially when you take into account the need for replacements for Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Van Der Sar etc in the next few years.

If we agree that £90m profit is the best we can expect, based on last year's earnings, take from that £45m to service the bonds and a wedge to address the issue of the ever increasing PIK debt, is there enough left to strengthen the squad to the level needed to compete at current levels?

Now what happens if the earnings and profits fall?

The Glazers should consider ANY bid, very carefully.

*On the issue of tat sales, Manchester United Merchandising Ltd controls the football schools, the MegaStore, the sale of all merchandise, both here and overseas. MUML is a 100% owned subsidiary of Nike Inc and Nike pays Manchester United £23m a year royalty in exchange for this ownership.

At last, someone who knows what they're talking about.

Originally Posted by redloner

Ticket prices are frozen this year and J P Morgan has indicated a reduction in the sale of hospitality in the coming years. In addition, there will be a reduction in turnover this year due to the early exits from the two cups.

It may well be that the figures for 2008/9 or 2009/10 are the best the club ever generates.

If that is the case, the chances of United being worth more than what it is now are slim; especially when you take into account the need for replacements for Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Van Der Sar etc in the next few years.

If we agree that £90m profit is the best we can expect, based on last year's earnings, take from that £45m to service the bonds and a wedge to address the issue of the ever increasing PIK debt, is there enough left to strengthen the squad to the level needed to compete at current levels?

Now what happens if the earnings and profits fall?

The Glazers should consider ANY bid, very carefully.

*On the issue of tat sales, Manchester United Merchandising Ltd controls the football schools, the MegaStore, the sale of all merchandise, both here and overseas. MUML is a 100% owned subsidiary of Nike Inc and Nike pays Manchester United £23m a year royalty in exchange for this ownership.

Nice one as ever RL.

So how can a company making £45m annual profit possibly have risen in value from £700m to £1.5bn in a few years ?

If they can really only take £25m-£50m out of the club each year without affecting the value, surely such a big profit on the £200m they actually put in in the first place would be a no-brainer.

I can only assume that they calculate that the value will rise long term ?

Originally Posted by Surfers do Charlie

I can only assume that they calculate that the value will rise long term ?

TV/Internet rights are expected to bring in much more cash in the future.

IIRC United made a gross profit of about £30m in 2004 and the Glazers paid over the odds at £3 per share (or £790m) in 2005. Since then, turnover and profits have increased, so you'd expect the value to increase at the same time.

The thing is, it's finite. You can't expect to keep on increasing income even with the captive audience of inelastic demand from football fans. Income will be down but greater investment is needed, so what will give?

United can't choose not to pay the bond interest. The Glazers could leave the PIK debt for a year or two, but at 16.25%pa from August, that's £25m a year they have to find extra before 2017, before the bonds are up for renewal.

Originally Posted by Liu Jian

At last, someone who knows what they're talking about.

He's a clever old sausage Mr Loner

Originally Posted by LaPaz

Average attendence is down this season but by less than 500.

Even if thousounds fail to renew there are a number of ways that United can sell those tickets not least of all they could increase the away allocation for certain games.

It would take at least 10,000 not renewing to have any effect which is unlikely.

Best would be to take up the option to renew so that match day fans are full of beligerents but spend nothing at the game.

I think they would find plenty ways to fill the stadium anyway and won't succeed in hitting them in the pocket.

The media campaign is a better bet. Sponsorship cash is where its at and damaging the image of a Glazer run Utd is valuable.

Equally, could the Knights get "backing" of a form by way of sponsors willing to come in and be associated with the fans campaign?

Originally Posted by BarryX

TV/Internet rights are expected to bring in much more cash in the future.

If they could negotiate their own tv rights deal then they would be making obscene amounts yes.

At the moment they are tied to this PL collective bargining thing so I'm sure that this is the one thing that made the Glazers initially buy the club and why they still want it so much,they thibk that they'll get individual negotiation rights at some time

Mobile phone rights might be worth something with the advances in smartphones etc. Not sure if that's currently covered under any collective agreement

Originally Posted by celtbion

Best would be to take up the option to renew so that match day fans are full of beligerents but spend nothing at the game.

I think they would find plenty ways to fill the stadium anyway and won't succeed in hitting them in the pocket.

The media campaign is a better bet. Sponsorship cash is where its at and damaging the image of a Glazer run Utd is valuable.

Equally, could the Knights get "backing" of a form by way of sponsors willing to come in and be associated with the fans campaign?

In the main match going fans aren't beligerent, if they were they wouldn't pay £40+ to go to the game. They go because they want to watch United and the vast majority don't really give a toss about Glazers they only care about United winning & won't stop going until either United stop winning over a number of seasons or the prices rise to such an extent they can't or don't want to affoed it (or a mixture of the two).

Haven't United announced 2 or 3 major new sponsors sing the current G & G campaign got underway so it doesn't look like sponsors care more about being associated with United that any dissatisfaction with the fans.

That said I believe the G & G campaign has been a major success without it I'm certain ticket prices would have gone up again this summer so the Glazers must be concerned about it.

stop offering the @#%&!s big money and explain how little the club could be worth to them.

Originally Posted by celtbion

Do you think that they won't fill the ground anyway?

There's less and less chance every time someone makes this kind of point. It doesn't even affect you as you don't have an ST as far as I'm aware. We should all be behind all protests even if it makes only a tiny difference. We need all the help we can get. Stop talking it down.

Originally Posted by BarryX

TV/Internet rights are expected to bring in much more cash in the future.

Correct, I don't think match day sales are bringing in as much as the tv deal. Obviously withdrawing this would make the difference but it's wrong to assume the club's revenues have peaked.

Originally Posted by jem

stop offering the @#%&!s big money and explain how little the club could be worth to them.

Correct. They're staying as long as there's money to be made. We can make sure they don't make any money.


Do you remember the story in the press where he challenged his mothers will? There wasn't that much money in it and he was already rich. The legal fees were being paid by the mothers estate and even though he kept losing, he was heard to tell his lawyer "Keep going until the money runs out". It'll be the same with United.

"Do you think that they won't fill the ground anyway?"

If enough people didnt go, then no they wouldn't fill the ground.

Green n Gold untill the club is sold * but we'l give you the money which enables you/gives you the reason not to sell *

just out of interest, how many of you have been "boycotting" - virtually or completely - since before 2005

If the gimps are banking on the collective tv rights breaking up in to individual rights they'll have a long wait.. It'll never happen.. Italy had individual tv rights for years and are now going back to collective tv rights and in spain all clubs bar barcelona and madrid want collective tv rights.. Hopefully daddy gimp dies soon, which leaves one less Glazer in the world..

SAF signed a green and gold scarf h'apparently http://therepublikofmancunia.com/pic...nd-gold-scarf/

i warning should be given.

"except the big or expect skips and pizzas" with one of these attached ""

Originally Posted by Spiffy

but it's wrong to assume the club's revenues have peaked unless there is a major change in the broadcasting revenue brought about by new technology

I hope you'll forgive my qualification here. J P Morgan feel the short-term prospects are poor, with resulting reduced revenue. Technological improvements may provide new opportunities but I still feel where the club/Glazers see new potential revenue, I see millions of people with little money who will change sports before they pay to watch football on a screen 3" x 2".

Do you remember the old idea of Pay-Per-View? Sky had a separate channel and you paid £45 for a season ticket to watch the PPV games? What happened to that? Genuine curiosity here. Has the idea of PPV in the domestic market been abandoned?