Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Sullivan
Are you sure they were both 11%, I thought another was 15. Anyway...
so 36% + ACS.
Can anyone tell me the 3 rises from the 3 seasons before that?
|
right...
the 11% each year since the glazers was right - the season before that it was 12% in 05/06.
don't forget that it is interest charged on the previous seasons price - so it is actually a lot bigger than just adding the percentages up
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/20...nited_fan.html
Quote:
Price not right for United fans but just the ticket for Glazers
The government gave the green light to the Glazer's Old Trafford takeover in belief that ticket prices would not increase
David Conn
January 16, 2008 12:46 AM
The government was told that Malcolm Glazer's sons were promising not to raise ticket prices at Old Trafford when the family took over Manchester United in the summer of 2005. Ministers were briefed that the assurance had been given in a meeting by Joel, Avi and Bryan Glazer, and partly in consequence the government was advised not to intervene in the United deal or introduce a requirement that those taking over football clubs prove they are doing so "in the public interest".
Yet since the takeover United's average ticket price has increased 11% in each of the two seasons the Glazers have been responsible for pricing, on top of a 12% increase in 2005-06 which came into force before they took charge. Those hikes, combined with the new automatic cup scheme, which forces season ticket holders to buy a seat for every cup match, have become the most resented features of the new regime, with many fans saying they can no longer afford the prices.
In written advice to the then sports minister, Richard Caborn, in July 2005, released by the government after a request by a United supporter under the Freedom of Information Act, an unnamed civil servant, believed to be a senior adviser in the department for culture, media and sport, wrote that "the Glazers ... have indicated that ticket prices will not be raised". Summarising the background to the takeover, the adviser said that in meetings in early July 2005 with the FA, Premier League and government "the Glazers took the opportunity to offer reassurances ... that ticket prices will not automatically rise".
That advice on ticket prices, combined with the Glazers' promise to keep United within the Premier League's collective arrangement to sell TV rights and to make "significant funds" available to buy players, persuaded Caborn not to push for a "public interest" rule.
United, however, reject the government's record of that meeting. "It would be unthinkable for any business to promise not to raise prices at all," said Phil Townsend, United's spokesman, who was at the June 2005 meeting Caborn held with the Glazer brothers and David Gill, United's chief executive. "Our notes show that ticket prices were mentioned only in passing. The main thrust was collective selling of TV rights and the maintenance of community programmes, and the owners gave reassurance on both."
Townsend added that the discussion on ticket prices had been similar to the comments Joel Glazer made the following day on United's in-house channel MUTV - still the only interview the Glazer family has given to explain its purchase of United.
"This club's ticket prices will always be competitive with other ticket prices in the Premier League," Joel said. "We are not looking to outprice the supporters because if you do that you have lost the lifeblood of this club ... The game has to remain affordable for everybody and we'll continue to carry on that tradition."
United argue that the 76,000 sell-outs at Old Trafford demonstrate they have honoured that commitment, and that tickets, despite the increases, remain affordable to most. At £25-£44 they clearly are competitive with other Premier League clubs.
"For the quality of football, we believe £25 is a very good deal," Townsend said. "We're proud of the spread of ticket prices, with juniors paying only £10."
The civil servant who gave the advice to Caborn has since left the DCMS, which was unable to confirm precisely what had been said at the meeting. Caborn himself, who was succeeded as sports minister by Gerry Sutcliffe last June, agreed that ticket prices had not been discussed extensively but said he was "very disappointed" that United had since increased them so steeply. He regards the price rises as a betrayal of the political support he gave the Premier League in its battle with the European Commission to maintain collective selling of its TV rights.
At the time there were genuine fears that the EC would succeed in banning the 20 clubs, on competition grounds, from selling their matches together as one league, then sharing the money out. Instead each club would sell their own matches, meaning the big clubs would make much more money than the rest, destroying the sharing which maintains the 20 clubs at least on the same financial planet, if far from on a level playing field.
Many in football then feared the Glazers would break United out of the collective arrangement, to keep all the money, and Caborn pressed them for a commitment not to do so. They agreed, saying they were happy with the Premier League's system, and the UK government backed the Premier League at the highest level in Brussels, ultimately successfully. The EC climbed down, allowing the clubs to sell their rights collectively, with only limited competition to BSkyB's monopoly required. The Premier League then reaped its staggering £2.7bn 2007-10 deal, worth £40m on average per season to each club. Caborn argued that the bonanza should help subsidise ticket prices to families and younger people who, paying full price from the age of 16 at most clubs, have largely been priced out of the grounds.
Several clubs who were struggling to fill their grounds did reduce prices; some, including Chelsea, froze them, but United imposed double-figures increases.
"I felt it was my duty to challenge the Glazers on collective selling," Caborn said. "They gave an absolute assurance they would maintain it. The clubs received a windfall and I said the money should enable them to reduce ticket prices to people who couldn't afford it. I am disappointed that was not followed as vigorously as it could have been."
Sutcliffe, himself lambasted after criticising United's ticket prices last November, says he stands by his comments, including that "ordinary working people face being priced out".
Supporters' groups who opposed the takeover argued that the Glazers would load United with the debts the family took on to buy the club and would increase prices to fans to help pay the interest. Despite the success on and off the field at Old Trafford now, they believe they have been proved right - £525m debt is secured on the club. Gill, announcing record income of £245m last week, accepted that, from the £62.5m post-tax operating profit, £42m was paid out in interest. A further £135m debt, rolling up annual interest of 14% (£20m) a year, is secured on other Glazer assets, but they are seeking to load that on to United too when market conditions enable them to refinance.
Gill argued that a prime benefit of the takeover had been to speed up decisions, so that players such as Owen Hargreaves, Carlos Tevez, Nani and Anderson last summer could be signed quickly rather than having to be approved by two boards as when United were a plc. United, football's powerhouse commercial machine, are clearly making enough money from TV and their fans currently to service the interest, but many fans, paying 38% more for tickets than three seasons ago, plus the ACS, still struggle to accept the takeover.
In the advice to Caborn his civil servant wrote: "There is a great deal of work for the Glazers to do in terms of winning over the fans." For all the exuberant brilliance of Sir Alex Ferguson's team, that remains a work in progress.
Owners under scrutiny
The advice to Richard Caborn and Gerry Sutcliffe, then a minister at the Department for Trade and Industry, reveals that civil servants were adamantly opposed to a new rule subjecting club buyers to more stringent checks on their financing and intentions. The DTI said any such measure would "raise difficult questions," including having to justify "why sport is special compared to other industries". Yet a growing body of campaigners argues that clubs should be treated differently from purely commercial companies. Philip French, the chief executive of Supporters Direct, said: "The authorities deserve credit for introducing 'fit and proper person' tests for owners and directors. But consideration should now be given to requiring greater transparency on who owns a club, its debt and potential owners' commitments and ambitions for a club."
[email protected]
|
|