The Glazers.
-
Pink Final
- Manchester; football, music, fashion, industry, history
- Posts: 7607
- Joined: 03 Aug 2018, 21:11
- Liker gitt: 27254
- Liker mottatt: 17787
Det stemmer [mention]Pangaea[/mention].Pangaea wrote: ↑23 Sep 2020, 12:09 Poenget er jo nettopp at de IKKE har investert i klubben. Den ble kjøpt opp med finansielle tjuvtriks og ble belånt opp til pipa og vel så det. Siden har de tatt ut og bekostet klubben for over en milliard pund. Helt sinnsyke summer. Jeg ønsker ikke en sugardaddy.....det har vi heller aldri trengt. Klubben var selvfinansiert og veldig godt drevet
Manchester United var den best drevne klubben i Europa.
Etter at Glazer’s kjøpte opp United har omsetningen økt.
Men, veldig mye går ut igjen på helt andre ting enn fotball.
Swiss Ramble har skrevet om dette i mange år.
Jeg prøvde flere ganger i fjor å dra igang diskusjoner på United.no om United’s reelle kjøpekraft.
Trodde aldri den lå på £200m i ett enkelt vindu.
Noe til og med den glimrende journalisten Bjarte Valen skrev i fjor.
Nylig hadde han årets beste artikkel på United.no - der han bl.a brukte Swiss Ramble som kilde ([mention]Blodfink[/mention] linker til Swiss Ramble lenger opp).
I artikkelen kom det fram at Glazer’s har kostet Mufc £838m de siste 10 år.
Fordelt på:
£488m i renter.
£251m i avdrag.
£99m i utbytte.
Jeg tror svært få av oss vil ha sugar daddy’s.
Vi vil bare ha tilbake den veldrevne klubben vi holder med.
Glazer’s har ikke investert 1$.
Men, de har kostet Mufc enorme summer.
De bruker Mufc som melkeku.
Manchester United uten Glazer ville vært en helt annen klubb.
Ser man på selve strukturen i klubben, så er den også fryktelig.
Det sitter folk på toppen (de over Solskjær) som verken er interessert i fotball, eller kan fotball.
Og, de elsker ihvertfall ikke Manchester United.
Det er denne gjengen, ansatt av Glazer’s med Woodward i spissen som skal bestemme det sportslige.
De er så kompetanseløse at de har vært ei gullgruve for sleipe agenter.
Det er en grunn til at verken Guardiola eller Klopp ville ta i United med ildtang.
De vil ikke jobbe for folk som ikke har sportslige ambisjoner.
Solskjær er nok på hylla under disse to, rent fotball faglig.
(Som leder av mennesker tror jeg han går begge en høy gang).
Selv om Solskjær kanskje ikke er verdens beste manager - så er jeg så utrolig glad for at nettopp han
er United’s manager midt oppe i all galskapen.United har faktisk fått en manager som setter klubben først, til og med foran seg selv.
Ingen av de to - tre forrige var i nærheten av det.
Men, nå sporer jeg av.
Solskjær skal jeg komme tilbake til i riktig tråd.
Football Pink Final, Manchester’s saturday Pink - 1904-2000
Swiss Ramble med nok en interessant tråd, denne gang om omsetning på kampdag og hvor mye klubbene taper på å spille for tomme tribuner. Viser at vi kommer til å tape ca "en Sancho", mest av alle, dersom dette varer hele sesongen.
Når det er sagt: De taper mest fordi de tjener mest. Så prosentvis er tapet neppe verre enn for andre klubber.
Når det er sagt: De taper mest fordi de tjener mest. Så prosentvis er tapet neppe verre enn for andre klubber.
Sorry for at denne er lang, men bak betalingsmur (The Athletic) så håper det går greit å lime den inn. Litt mer innsikt i klubbens finanser og rapportene om at klubben MÅ gå £65 millioner i overskudd.
Explained: Why Manchester United’s profit must not drop below £65m
By Laurie Whitwell 2h ago 19
In the small print of File Number 001-35627 lodged at the US Securities and Exchange Commission is a clause that does, on the face of it, in these straitened times, threaten to have some bearing on Manchester United’s approach to signing players.
The document explains the fundamentals of United’s finances and, for those who know where to look, spells out the extra insurance that lenders have over the club’s debt repayment. United owe £175 million on a loan from BofA Securities (formerly known as Bank of America Merrill Lynch) and have £330.8 million outstanding on “senior secured notes” — effectively bonds to investors. The half-a-billion-pound deficit is a legacy to the Glazer family’s leveraged buyout.
To obtain that money at modest interest rates, United agreed a specific caveat with lenders. According to this “covenant”, the club’s profit must not dip below £65 million in a rolling 12-month period, as taken every quarter. EBITDA stands for “earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation”.
So every three months, when United announce their accounts to investors, the total for the previous year needs to be at least £65 million, or the banks have a legal right to act.
Think of it as football’s spin-off to Speed, the 1994 blockbuster. Except, it is Ole Gunnar Solskjaer at the wheel of the bus rather than Sandra Bullock and the consequence for failure to stay above 50mph is not as explosive.
The clause was reported this week by the Football Bureau of Investigation on Medium.
Kieran Maguire, a lecturer on football finance at the University of Liverpool and author of the Price Of Football blog, says such terms are normal for commercial loans.
“If you look at the way the market normally lends, there will always be caveats,” he says. “Any other business, nobody would blink. But it is rare for English football clubs.
“Most in the Premier League are privately funded — Roman Abramovich, Shiekh Mansour, Fosun, Tony Bloom – and many find it hard to get traditional loans because half are at risk of relegation. Banks don’t want to be lending in those environments.
“Manchester United are different. They are as copper-bottomed an investment prospect as you could expect. They have regular cash flows; quite an attractive proposition. But the covenants are there as protection.
“Just in case Man United go a bit mad in terms of spending money, these act as penalties for poor use of cash as far as the lenders are concerned.”
That kind of control from across the Atlantic sounds unpalatable to anyone who believes clubs should prioritise the interests of their supporters over shareholders but — to continue the Speed analogy — the bus has long since left the depot on that one.
The question now is whether the covenant has any meaningful impact on how United act. It is important to note here the £65 million EBITDA does not include transfers — given it is before amortisation, which is how player acquisitions are recorded in the books — but wages do come into the equation. Though Jadon Sancho’s prospective transfer from Borussia Dortmund stalled over salary for a number of weeks, a resolution has been found, so it would be incorrect to say the clause weighed in the minds of chief executive Ed Woodward and chief negotiator Matt Judge.
United’s wages are the highest in the Premier League at £332 million annually (Manchester City’s are £316 million, Liverpool £310 million) but their wage to turnover ratio of 54 per cent is third-lowest in the division (Wolves’ is 53 per cent, Tottenham Hotspur’s 39 per cent) and with Alexis Sanchez now off the accounts, there is flexibility.
That comfortable balance between revenue and salary is the mode for how the Glazers themselves want United run, rather than as a special observation to the banks, but nobody at the club denies the £65 million figure is a consideration amid this pandemic.
Typically, there is a remote chance United break the clause. In the past decade, the lowest EBITDA the club posted was £92 million in 2012. Last season, it stood at £186 million.
But at the start of lockdown, sources said the club estimated a hit of £115 million. Match-day revenue alone is down £4 million for each game held behind closed doors and that is before the broadcast rebate comes into the equation. On the flipside, United’s Champions League qualification ought to generate a boost of £100 million.
The unknown, of course, is how long fans will be kept out of grounds and in those circumstances, a glance in the rear-view mirror is inevitable.
There is a get-out to any breach. A pass will be granted in a season when United do not reach the Champions League group stage but it can only happen twice — in non-consecutive years — before the loan is due for repayment in 2029 or the bonds mature in 2027.
The doomsday scenario if United did fall foul? The banks would be entitled to call in their money and bankruptcy could follow.
The reality is somewhat different. It would not make sense to blow up the bus, Bullock and Keanu Reeves. At interest rates of between two and four per cent, United make the banks money.
The club also have good relations with their lenders and a resolution would be expected. When United broke the covenant on their payment-in-kind loans in 2010, the response was a rise in the interest rate, from 14.25 per cent to 16.25 per cent.
United also have the same £65 million covenant on the £150 million revolving credit facility taken out with BofA Securities at the start of the pandemic. They have drawn down £140 million for use on cashflow, rather than transfers, but there are some close to the club who note Premier League rivals are working differently.
Tottenham and Liverpool both attempted to use public money to furlough staff — before fierce criticism prompted U-turns — and are now making multi-million-pound signings regardless. Spurs have gone further, utilising the government’s COVID-19 business rescue scheme for a £175 million loan. Though the money is not going directly on recruitment, the breathing room it provides to enhance Jose Mourinho’s squad is undeniable.
An abuse of taxpayer funds that may be, but there are other fans who will look at United’s caution in context of the £65 million covenant and decide it goes too far the other way.
“Our financial structure has supported strong and consistent investment in the team over many years and we remain committed to this approach,” said a United spokesperson. “We are continuing to explore options for strengthening the team but we would be irresponsible to ignore the huge economic impact and ongoing uncertainties created by the pandemic.
“Our covenants are based on earnings before amortisation and therefore exclude spending on transfers.”
United would point to a net transfer spend of €175 million since last summer — the highest of any European club — as evidence the clause has no material effect on their recruitment.
Only time will tell whether that changes as the pandemic continues to have an impact.
Explained: Why Manchester United’s profit must not drop below £65m
By Laurie Whitwell 2h ago 19
In the small print of File Number 001-35627 lodged at the US Securities and Exchange Commission is a clause that does, on the face of it, in these straitened times, threaten to have some bearing on Manchester United’s approach to signing players.
The document explains the fundamentals of United’s finances and, for those who know where to look, spells out the extra insurance that lenders have over the club’s debt repayment. United owe £175 million on a loan from BofA Securities (formerly known as Bank of America Merrill Lynch) and have £330.8 million outstanding on “senior secured notes” — effectively bonds to investors. The half-a-billion-pound deficit is a legacy to the Glazer family’s leveraged buyout.
To obtain that money at modest interest rates, United agreed a specific caveat with lenders. According to this “covenant”, the club’s profit must not dip below £65 million in a rolling 12-month period, as taken every quarter. EBITDA stands for “earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation”.
So every three months, when United announce their accounts to investors, the total for the previous year needs to be at least £65 million, or the banks have a legal right to act.
Think of it as football’s spin-off to Speed, the 1994 blockbuster. Except, it is Ole Gunnar Solskjaer at the wheel of the bus rather than Sandra Bullock and the consequence for failure to stay above 50mph is not as explosive.
The clause was reported this week by the Football Bureau of Investigation on Medium.
Kieran Maguire, a lecturer on football finance at the University of Liverpool and author of the Price Of Football blog, says such terms are normal for commercial loans.
“If you look at the way the market normally lends, there will always be caveats,” he says. “Any other business, nobody would blink. But it is rare for English football clubs.
“Most in the Premier League are privately funded — Roman Abramovich, Shiekh Mansour, Fosun, Tony Bloom – and many find it hard to get traditional loans because half are at risk of relegation. Banks don’t want to be lending in those environments.
“Manchester United are different. They are as copper-bottomed an investment prospect as you could expect. They have regular cash flows; quite an attractive proposition. But the covenants are there as protection.
“Just in case Man United go a bit mad in terms of spending money, these act as penalties for poor use of cash as far as the lenders are concerned.”
That kind of control from across the Atlantic sounds unpalatable to anyone who believes clubs should prioritise the interests of their supporters over shareholders but — to continue the Speed analogy — the bus has long since left the depot on that one.
The question now is whether the covenant has any meaningful impact on how United act. It is important to note here the £65 million EBITDA does not include transfers — given it is before amortisation, which is how player acquisitions are recorded in the books — but wages do come into the equation. Though Jadon Sancho’s prospective transfer from Borussia Dortmund stalled over salary for a number of weeks, a resolution has been found, so it would be incorrect to say the clause weighed in the minds of chief executive Ed Woodward and chief negotiator Matt Judge.
United’s wages are the highest in the Premier League at £332 million annually (Manchester City’s are £316 million, Liverpool £310 million) but their wage to turnover ratio of 54 per cent is third-lowest in the division (Wolves’ is 53 per cent, Tottenham Hotspur’s 39 per cent) and with Alexis Sanchez now off the accounts, there is flexibility.
That comfortable balance between revenue and salary is the mode for how the Glazers themselves want United run, rather than as a special observation to the banks, but nobody at the club denies the £65 million figure is a consideration amid this pandemic.
Typically, there is a remote chance United break the clause. In the past decade, the lowest EBITDA the club posted was £92 million in 2012. Last season, it stood at £186 million.
But at the start of lockdown, sources said the club estimated a hit of £115 million. Match-day revenue alone is down £4 million for each game held behind closed doors and that is before the broadcast rebate comes into the equation. On the flipside, United’s Champions League qualification ought to generate a boost of £100 million.
The unknown, of course, is how long fans will be kept out of grounds and in those circumstances, a glance in the rear-view mirror is inevitable.
There is a get-out to any breach. A pass will be granted in a season when United do not reach the Champions League group stage but it can only happen twice — in non-consecutive years — before the loan is due for repayment in 2029 or the bonds mature in 2027.
The doomsday scenario if United did fall foul? The banks would be entitled to call in their money and bankruptcy could follow.
The reality is somewhat different. It would not make sense to blow up the bus, Bullock and Keanu Reeves. At interest rates of between two and four per cent, United make the banks money.
The club also have good relations with their lenders and a resolution would be expected. When United broke the covenant on their payment-in-kind loans in 2010, the response was a rise in the interest rate, from 14.25 per cent to 16.25 per cent.
United also have the same £65 million covenant on the £150 million revolving credit facility taken out with BofA Securities at the start of the pandemic. They have drawn down £140 million for use on cashflow, rather than transfers, but there are some close to the club who note Premier League rivals are working differently.
Tottenham and Liverpool both attempted to use public money to furlough staff — before fierce criticism prompted U-turns — and are now making multi-million-pound signings regardless. Spurs have gone further, utilising the government’s COVID-19 business rescue scheme for a £175 million loan. Though the money is not going directly on recruitment, the breathing room it provides to enhance Jose Mourinho’s squad is undeniable.
An abuse of taxpayer funds that may be, but there are other fans who will look at United’s caution in context of the £65 million covenant and decide it goes too far the other way.
“Our financial structure has supported strong and consistent investment in the team over many years and we remain committed to this approach,” said a United spokesperson. “We are continuing to explore options for strengthening the team but we would be irresponsible to ignore the huge economic impact and ongoing uncertainties created by the pandemic.
“Our covenants are based on earnings before amortisation and therefore exclude spending on transfers.”
United would point to a net transfer spend of €175 million since last summer — the highest of any European club — as evidence the clause has no material effect on their recruitment.
Only time will tell whether that changes as the pandemic continues to have an impact.
post liked by: Blodfink
So kva gjør man då, som United supporter?
Eg trur at so lenge Glazer eige United so vil denne "sirkelen" gjentas i det uendelige, til vi supportere gjør noko med det.
Sirkelen der vi ansetter manager som støttes greit med nye spillere første året, vi klarer 3-4 plass, som resulterer i CL, so eit år uten støtte på overgangsmarkedet med resultat at vi ikkje klarer CL, og manager blir sparka.
Glazers bruker United som melkeku. Det er kjent.
So kva gjør eg da som supporter?
Aksepterer eg det?
Slutter eg å bruke penger på United? Boikott.
Dersom supportere i heile verden slutter å bruke penger på United, kva vil da skje?
Frustrert, og føler at jerngrepet Glazers har på United og oss supportere ikkje blir tatt på alvorav oss supportere.
Er vi fornøyde med 3-7 plasser i 20-30 år?
Eg trur at so lenge Glazer eige United so vil denne "sirkelen" gjentas i det uendelige, til vi supportere gjør noko med det.
Sirkelen der vi ansetter manager som støttes greit med nye spillere første året, vi klarer 3-4 plass, som resulterer i CL, so eit år uten støtte på overgangsmarkedet med resultat at vi ikkje klarer CL, og manager blir sparka.
Glazers bruker United som melkeku. Det er kjent.
So kva gjør eg da som supporter?
Aksepterer eg det?
Slutter eg å bruke penger på United? Boikott.
Dersom supportere i heile verden slutter å bruke penger på United, kva vil da skje?
Frustrert, og føler at jerngrepet Glazers har på United og oss supportere ikkje blir tatt på alvorav oss supportere.
Er vi fornøyde med 3-7 plasser i 20-30 år?
post liked by: Pangaea, Blodfink
-
Blodfink
Topic author - Donor
- Posts: 14624
- Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 11:57
- Liker gitt: 23311
- Liker mottatt: 19269
Massive samlede protester vil påvirke, Liverpool gjorde det. Ved stadion, på stadion og i byen. Og de lyktes med å bli kvitt sine tidligere eiere. I Manchester er det splitt i fansen, noen skylder på ditt, noen skylder på datt. Står ikke samlet.
Boikott er effektfullt, har fortsatt ikke tenkt meg til Manchester før eiere og styret er borte...Og administrasjonen. Men de merker nok ikke så mye til min protest, men om millioner av fans gjorde det så ville de merket det.
Boikott er effektfullt, har fortsatt ikke tenkt meg til Manchester før eiere og styret er borte...Og administrasjonen. Men de merker nok ikke så mye til min protest, men om millioner av fans gjorde det så ville de merket det.
LUHG!
Ed Woodward ønsket å sette britisk overgangsrekord for å hente Jadon Sancho i overgangsvinduet, men fikk til slutt tommelen ned fra eierne, da de mente totalrammen ble for mye i dagens situasjon. Sier ryktene. Ryktene sier også at total prisen kunne komme opp i 2,5 milliarder NOK.
-
Pink Final
- Manchester; football, music, fashion, industry, history
- Posts: 7607
- Joined: 03 Aug 2018, 21:11
- Liker gitt: 27254
- Liker mottatt: 17787
Det stemmer dessverre.
De er bedre organisert.
Så må noen vesentlige forskjeller vektlegges.
Liverpool Fc holdt på å bli satt under administrasjon, bankene presset på.
Hicks og Gillett risikerte å ikke sitte igjen med noe.
Dessuten fikk de hjelp innenfra.
Christian Purslow, en mann ansatt av Hicks og Gillett begynte å jobbe for salg av klubben, mot sine sjefers vilje.
Den tredje faktoren var at Lfc gikk på billigsalg.
Man United er verdt et helt statsbudsjett - hvem kan egentlig kjøpe Man United?
Glazer’s sitter mye, mye, mye tryggere økonomisk og juridisk enn hva Hicks og Gillett gjorde.
Football Pink Final, Manchester’s saturday Pink - 1904-2000
-
Blodfink
Topic author - Donor
- Posts: 14624
- Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 11:57
- Liker gitt: 23311
- Liker mottatt: 19269
De sitter trygt bl.a fordi fan-basen sprøyter inn penger til noen de ikke liker. Uten fans som spytter penger etter dem, hva er klubben da?Pink Final wrote: ↑06 Oct 2020, 23:05 Glazer’s sitter mye, mye, mye tryggere økonomisk og juridisk enn hva Hicks og Gillett gjorde.
LUHG!
-
Pink Final
- Manchester; football, music, fashion, industry, history
- Posts: 7607
- Joined: 03 Aug 2018, 21:11
- Liker gitt: 27254
- Liker mottatt: 17787
Det er sant, den verdensomfattende fanbasen generer penger inn.
Men, å organisere fanbasen i hele verden tror jeg er umulig.
Det gjorde heller ikke Liverpool.
Deres motstand var vel først og fremst i selve Liverpool eller?
Å demonstrere på stadion, ved stadion og i byen er umulig akkurat nå, med covid-19.
Men, enig i at det burde vært gjort mer.
Skjønte aldri helt green and gold, bortsett fra det estetiske.
Tror ikke det skremte Glazer’s så mye.
Så er det jo fryktelig enkelt for oss å sitte på tastaturet å fortelle fansen i Manchester hva de burde ha gjort.
Football Pink Final, Manchester’s saturday Pink - 1904-2000
-
Blodfink
Topic author - Donor
- Posts: 14624
- Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 11:57
- Liker gitt: 23311
- Liker mottatt: 19269
Poenget mitt var ikke å gjøre eksakt som Liverpool-fansen. Et opprør mot Glazers og Woodward må skje globalt, siden omtrent halve Old Trafford er "turister" på tur. Glazers tar vel ikke 5 øre for å bytte ut engelske fans med asiatiske velstående fans f.eks. Eller skandinaviske for den del.
Green&Gold var bra synes jeg, men det ble splitt mellom fansen. Den aksjonen ble ganske godt lagt merke til, og ble faktisk støttet av Beckham og Solskjær, spent på hva Ole sier om det i dag. Tipper han også kunne tenkt seg andre folk over seg, uten at han kan gå ut å si det, selv om han burde gjort det i mine øyne.
Men da er han ikke manager lengre selvfølgelig.
Jeg boikotter, bortsett fra Sumo-abb...Vurderer å kutte ut helt...Men det er jo kjipt at elendige eiere skal frata fans gleden. Men må si jeg har respekt for Manchester-folk som kutta ut tvert i 2005. Det er sånn vi alle burde vært, men vi lar oss kjøpe...
Green&Gold var bra synes jeg, men det ble splitt mellom fansen. Den aksjonen ble ganske godt lagt merke til, og ble faktisk støttet av Beckham og Solskjær, spent på hva Ole sier om det i dag. Tipper han også kunne tenkt seg andre folk over seg, uten at han kan gå ut å si det, selv om han burde gjort det i mine øyne.
Men da er han ikke manager lengre selvfølgelig.
Jeg boikotter, bortsett fra Sumo-abb...Vurderer å kutte ut helt...Men det er jo kjipt at elendige eiere skal frata fans gleden. Men må si jeg har respekt for Manchester-folk som kutta ut tvert i 2005. Det er sånn vi alle burde vært, men vi lar oss kjøpe...
LUHG!
-
Blodfink
Topic author - Donor
- Posts: 14624
- Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 11:57
- Liker gitt: 23311
- Liker mottatt: 19269
Denne gjengen kan kjøpe United, uten at jeg vet hvor glade de er i fotball. Men penger nok har de. Mr Masayoshi, Japans nest rikeste mann kan kjøpe United alene uten å låne...Forbes har lister på det meste 
https://www.intermiamicf.com/en/club/ownership
https://www.intermiamicf.com/en/club/ownership
LUHG!
Nå hadde jeg riktignok bestilt billetter til hjemmekampen mot Linz, som ble kansellert pga viruset (som hadde blitt min første tur på kamp), men jeg har ikke brukt en krone på drakter osv siden Glazers tok over. Det merker ikke de, og hadde ikke brydd seg uansett, men det er viktig for meg. Det er min lille protest mot galskapen deres og det fiendtlige oppkjøpet.
post liked by: Otac, Blodfink