Worried about the debt at United ? What are YOU going to do about it?

just because one family ultimately hopes to make a profit from the club

sadly, as so often, that is only part of the truth

the whole truth is that it's more than just the glazers who are milking united, and you have to look at who facillitated the takeover and what their motives were and still are. just using the figures in that article:

£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.

this is no less dispicable than what the glazers aim to do, and currently dwarfs the money they have actually taken out themselves does it not? and that's not even counting the interest that the industry has greedily 'stolen' from united.

I know it's the sun, but if there is any truth to this then what a £#%&!ing embarrassment.:shakehead:

[SIZE="4"]Glazers Send an SOS to the Players and Staff

By PHIL THOMAS

THE Glazer family have gone cap in hand to Manchester United's players - effectively asking them for a multi-million pound loan!
United stars were stunned by the handout request when they arrived back last week from their Qatar training camp.

Players were handed a prospectus, as owner Malcolm Glazer attempts to raise a staggering £500million through a bond issue to refinance huge debts.

And SunSport understands even the lower paid Old Trafford staff have been offered the 'opportunity' to invest in the club by the American owners.

A United insider said: "The players don't know what to make of it, really.

"Most are bemused that the people who pay their wages are basically trying to find out if they can have some back.

"A few of the lads know a good investment when they see one, but not too many seem prepared to put their money where their mouths are!"

United are believed to be offering investors an annual return of seven per cent on the bonds, which start at £50,000 a block.

But City experts say returns are dependent on continued success on the field in the years ahead.

The insider added: "There have been people working at Old Trafford for many years, on low salaries, worried about their futures.

"Yet now they are being offered the chance to stretch themselves even further. It's a joke!"

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...Utd-stars.html

Originally Posted by Sandman

I know it's the sun, but if there is any truth to this then what a £#%&!ing embarrassment.:shakehead:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...Utd-stars.html

surely that cant be true

they are £#%&!ing @#%&!s if it is though.

Originally Posted by Sandman

I know it's the sun, but if there is any truth to this then what a £#%&!ing embarrassment.:shakehead:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...Utd-stars.html

I've been saying since the summer that the Ronaldo sale was the tip of the iceberg.

We're like a giant rich man's mansion englufed in flames. All the neighbours are standing there having a good old laugh at our expense whilst the owners attempt to put out the inferno with a bottle of Evian.

United stars didn't seem particularly "stunned" when I saw them on saturday

is there a big game coming up or something?

Originally Posted by koppas

That is actually a great idea.

But, after they turn the phones off, then what?

Sign language?

that piece of article in the sun is the reason no one takes media seriously these days.

and I don't see what's the difference in glazer's making £130m out of united to how much gibson has made out of middelsborough or whelan makes out of wigan.

you can't expect people to invest the money and not take out money.

the fundamental flaw was in the decision to let a single person or family have control of a sporting institution. From that moment on, today's situation was an absolute certainity unless they changed the rules in between which didn't happen.

This will continue until the british public and government develop some spine and get a decision by which sporting clubs become a non-profitable organization. Upon which the leeches like glazers will die one by one .

Originally Posted by rafabio

and I don't see what's the difference in glazer's making £130m out of united to how much gibson has made out of middelsborough or whelan makes out of wigan.

you can't expect people to invest the money and not take out money.

the fundamental flaw was in the decision to let a single person or family have control of a sporting institution. From that moment on, today's situation was an absolute certainity unless they changed the rules in between which didn't happen.

This will continue until the british public and government develop some spine and get a decision by which sporting clubs become a non-profitable organization. Upon which the leeches like glazers will die one by one .

ha ha £#%&!ing ha


seriously, £#%&! off and die.

Originally Posted by rafabio

and I don't see what's the difference in glazer's making £130m out of united to how much gibson has made out of middelsborough or whelan makes out of wigan.

you can't expect people to invest the money and not take out money.

the fundamental flaw was in the decision to let a single person or family have control of a sporting institution. From that moment on, today's situation was an absolute certainity unless they changed the rules in between which didn't happen.

This will continue until the british public and government develop some spine and get a decision by which sporting clubs become a non-profitable organization. Upon which the leeches like glazers will die one by one .

In a normal business situation this is true, but there are some differences here.

1. It was a highly leveraged purchase so the gimps didn't really invest

2. Most of the liability is on the club, if the gimps get their way and pay off their liabilities through their dividends and fees etc, then their risk is 0, but the club's risk remains high.

So although what they did is legal, you can't really say that they deserve the profits because they took a risk and invested, because they really didn't. Gibson and Whelan probably took more of a risk and thus deserve more of the rewards...if there are any

Originally Posted by rafabio

and I don't see what's the difference in glazer's making £130m out of united to how much gibson has made out of middelsborough or whelan makes out of wigan.

you can't expect people to invest the money and not take out money.
.

Which money was this that they invested?

worth a reminder
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...+united&hl=en#

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

Which money was this that they invested?

read the article above. they invested just under 300 million of their own money. they may be @#%&!s but no need to gloss over the facts. same for borsuk. it just weakens the overall argument against them.

Originally Posted by Sloppy

Sit down Wez!!!

Originally Posted by Albert Tatlock

In a normal business situation this is true, but there are some differences here.

1. It was a highly leveraged purchase so the gimps didn't really invest

2. Most of the liability is on the club, if the gimps get their way and pay off their liabilities through their dividends and fees etc, then their risk is 0, but the club's risk remains high.

So although what they did is legal, you can't really say that they deserve the profits because they took a risk and invested, because they really didn't. Gibson and Whelan probably took more of a risk and thus deserve more of the rewards...if there are any

I was purely talking in legal terms.

although glazer's are @#%&!s, if it was not them, it would be some others. What I am getting at is that entire system is wrong. And whoever are fighting they should fight towards changing the entire system. It should not be only about united, but any sporting institution.

Basically any sporting institution should be non-profitable organization for the fans and by the fans. Fans put in their money not intending to make profit but to enjoy, to follow their team and for entertainment.

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

Which money was this that they invested?

They haven't but that's many buisnesses run. They take debts on future assurances and people's investement in it through markets hoping that at some point of time they break even. So with very little outlay of their own they will have multi million company to own.

Originally Posted by 42ndstreet irregular

Sit down Wez!!!

How did you know that was me

Originally Posted by rafabio

I was purely talking in legal terms.

although glazer's are @#%&!s, if it was not them, it would be some others. What I am getting at is that entire system is wrong. And whoever are fighting they should fight towards changing the entire system. It should not be only about united, but any sporting institution.

Basically any sporting institution should be non-profitable organization for the fans and by the fans. Fans put in their money not intending to make profit but to enjoy, to follow their team and for entertainment.



They haven't but that's many buisnesses run. They take debts on future assurances and people's investement in it through markets hoping that at some point of time they break even. So with very little outlay of their own they will have multi million company to own.

why?

we live in a corporate world.

once utd floated on the stock market the club was corporate. the fan was then seen as a customer and not a supporter.

i don't really care who buys the club as long as they are wealthy enough to be able to run it.

the glazers weren't/aren't big enough to own a club like utd. (that's the problem)

i'm pissed off because they are raping the club and taking the club down the swanny.

atm, selling the training ground looks like a definate.

what's next? OT itself?

utd fans need to come together, the fanzines need need to talk to each other and sort something out.

scarf's, shirts, is all well and good, but why not a mass £#%&!in pitch invasion during a key game. (milan at home)

what's the worse that can happen?

nft.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

why?

because unlike any other business customers don't put their money in and expect more money on that back. Here the investment is one sided where the money goes in and never comes back.