Jump to content
IGNORED

The old Man Utd Thread

ThePixelbarks

By ThePixelbarks
in Sport

 Share

Recommended Posts

bowser123

bowser123

Posted
Posted
I'll be upgrading my membership of MUST to a full one, and any United fan should join! Spread this amongst your friends, and of course on facebook/twitter too. Of course, MUST will never be able to get the cash up themselves; but if they can mobilise the fans in support of a 'Red Knights' takeover, of course the prospects look fantastic. I hope it doesn't come to a boycott though.

Exactly. I've never been a fan of MUST, they seemed to be bluster and little else. However, any past misgiving must be put aside and people should sign to MUST. Getting the 100,000 names they want won't achieve anything in terms of affecting the Glazers right now. What it will do though is focus all groups to one cause. For too long the fan base has been split into many factions, all wanting the same thing but pulling in different directions and ultimately achieving nothing.

What G+G has done is make publicity that has been overwhelmingly positive. We can protest if we win, lose or draw. The stereotype Utd fan can join in, sure they may not know what the scarf is really on about but they'll want in. Again on the face of it it's nothing, that on it's own won't achieve anything.

But the momentum is building. You put the little pieces together and it's a cohesive argument that we want change. The media has picked up on it, and be it by genuine care or desire to print "anti" MUFC stuff, the message keeps on going. The group can now focus plans for going forward.

Ultimately though all this is nothing to the Glazers. They've shown they don't care what fans think. I think they're concerned- stewards at Wembley were instructed to remove G+G banners, Glazer stooge Gill has done more in the past month press wise than the past 5 years- but ultimately this concern won't be enough to get them out. The only thing that'll get rid is hitting them where they hurt. I think G+G is great, but to a point. I mean if you pay me £50 a week I'll let you stand in my garden and call me a dickhead for 90 minutes if you want. People pay to protest! So, yeah, "We shall not, we shall not renew".

What is very clever though about todays statement is apparently we're real close to the time of the season where tickets must be renewed. Prices will almost certainly rise again, so people have a choice- pay what you can't afford and continue as we are, or take action.

What MUST and The Knights must do though is somehow make a scheme where if you boycott you go on some priority list to get your ticket back. I know people who still go who feel similarly to me. Thing is they've had the ticket in the family for generations and fear giving it up now, only for the club to change hands and then not be able to get a ticket again. So they renew. :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liamness

Liamness

Posted
Posted
What MUST and The Knights must do though is somehow make a scheme where if you boycott you go on some priority list to get your ticket back. I know people who still go who feel similarly to me. Thing is they've had the ticket in the family for generations and fear giving it up now, only for the club to change hands and then not be able to get a ticket again. So they renew. :wub:

Yeah, this is exactly why I hope it doesn't get to a boycott. We want the core fans to be at our matches, not pressured out by price, or the owners being cunts. Regardless, unless more than half the 55,000 walk, I'm sure the waiting list would make sure the Glazers don't feel a thing. We just have to hope this 'the club is not for sale' is just posturing, it's mad to be in so much debt, and offered that kind of money and not take it. It's not like they've worked hard to transform the club, or anything. In terms of assets, and performance off the pitch, we're basically the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowser123

bowser123

Posted
Posted

The waiting list is a fallacy. They had a list of 30,000 names on email that registered an interest. Come the time to pay though, the numbers who'd pay didn't materialise. How do I know this? Well you can buy a season ticket today if you so desire. If you live in Manchester and read the MEN, for months now they've had tickets on open sale for league and cup games. The recent WHU game was even advertised a few weeks in advance. They lie and say returned tickets, but that's bullshit as unwanted tickets go on the official tout, Via-go-go. I've read of people who've boycotted being rang up and offered the ticket back.

Do you see what I'm saying though about coming into my garden and abusing me for £50? People pay to protest, it's so perverse it's brilliant. Seriously, they're definitely concerned. Ultimately though how else will they be rid of unless people walk? Did you see the prospectus and the amounts they can take out in dividends if they so desire? You said about 1 billion being a good deal, they'd make 300M. They can take more than 300M from the club before they continue selling everything

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowser123

bowser123

Posted
Posted
Did you see the prospectus and the amounts they can take out in dividends if they so desire? You said about 1 billion being a good deal, they'd make 300M. They can take more than 300M from the club before they continue selling everything

Replying to myself, how shit. But yeah:

Still not 100% certain the Glazers are planning to asset strip our club for years to come?

Some simple questions: why bother creating the accounting room to grab £400m and and pay it out to the owners?

If asset stripping is a scare story with no foundation, why have thy deliberately made it possible?

If you were a benevolent owner who put the interests of the club first, would you create the accounting mechanism to pay out £400m?

Click me for the full thing. It's a brilliant blog, that I'm sure has been linked before but well worth linking again. This sort of stuff is usually derided as a scare story. The thing is it's based entirely on facts and figures the club itself produced in it's prospectus for the bonds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fatbob

fatbob

Posted
Posted

Well, they've said they have around £800 million of it in theory, with a further £200 million in dept.

It is unlikely the Glazers will sell though, they've set themselves up nicely to take more out every year before selling whats left in 7 years.

The only way they will tempt them out of that plan early is with a stupid bid of £2 billion or something. Their profit from the sale has to sizably more than what they plan to take out.

I'm not even convinced a boycott will work, as they can still take money out, so it could just potentially limits the club's spending. Plus most of the money now comes from abroad, and I doubt Asia will boycott. :)

Manchester United ----> Underpants -----> Profit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowser123

bowser123

Posted
Posted
The Red Knights should have bought the club when it was actually possible to buy it.

There's no chance they'll be able to raise the money, or even convince the Glazers to sell.

So let's do nothing and leave it as is. We've won the league and everything, you know!

I'm not even convinced a boycott will work, as they can still take money out, so it could just potentially limits the club's spending. Plus most of the money now comes from abroad, and I doubt Asia will boycott. :)

The latest report from Utd itself said it had a turnover of 256 million pounds. 101 million of this was from match day. 90 from the media and 64 from commercial activities. So, nearly 50%, is hardly an insignificant amount is it? I seriously doubt the likes of Nike and AON would be very happy knowing that people won't buy shirts anymore and who would want to be directly associated with a company thats in open war with its customers?

What you're forgetting is they currently can't even make a profit in a record breaking season, with an advance upfront payment from the shirt sponsors and a record TV deal (without selling Ronaldo). How'd they get on with such a drastic loss of money from customers?

http://andersred.blogspot.com/2001/01/down...-resources.html

You want 22 of 43 from the bottom link, Manchester United Ltd (formerly Manchester United plc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowser123

bowser123

Posted
Posted

But it works both ways, doesn't it. Had more fans not made a bigger effort in 2005 then they wouldn't even had taken over, would they? So just because the wait and see's didn't act then, they can't act now? Course they'll sell. They're business men with no interest in the club other than money. Make it abundantly clear they won't get any more cash and they'll scarper sharpish. It'll also show any future leech just what can be done.

Anybody catch that thing on five live last night about football finances? It's on the iPlayer if you want. But, yeah, the highlight (apart from the Utd fan laying into David Gold) was a very interesting point that made the FA spokesman squirm.

The FA say they're OK with any kind of takeover as long as it's legal, because that's basically what the government said. So, leveraged buyouts (the sort that took us and Scouse) are fine, if morally repugnant to the fan. The interesting thing though- it's legal for one company to buy a competitor. See Kraft, who make some confectionary, buying another confectionary company in Cadbury. Would the FA allow us to buy a massive share in say Bolton? Would they hell. The FA need to recognise that just because it's legal doesn't make it acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eats hoops and leaves

Eats hoops and leaves

Posted
Posted

David Gill is such an unpalatable little troll. Look at this, from here.

Manchester United's chief executive, David Gill, last night rounded on the figurehead of the Red Knights group that claims to be preparing a bid for the club. Keith Harris, the former Football League chairman whose Seymour Pierce stockbroker has been at the centre of several club takeovers, was dismissed by Gill as a publicity seeker.

"Keith Harris will go anywhere there is publicity and we accept that; it's his modus operandi," said Gill. "But if you look at his track record in football it is nothing to write home about."

Gill was referring to Harris's recent attempts to find buyers for football clubs. He has not completed a takeover deal since putting Thaksin Shinawatra in control of United's rival Manchester City almost three years ago. Even that was undone after 14 months when it became clear that Thaksin's conviction on charges of corruption meant he would fail the Premier League's fit and proper persons test.

However, Gill's attack on the man fronting the Red Knights shows Old Trafford is feeling the pressure from the group of wealthy bankers and the fans' green-and-gold protests. "It affects us," he conceded.

Despite the hostility towards Harris, prompted by the latter's call last month for supporters to boycott the club, Gill was complimentary about the other figures involved in the Red Knights group. They include blue-chip corporate notables such as the former United director and Goldman Sachs chief economist, Jim O'Neill, and the club's former legal adviser, the Freshfields partner Mark Rawlinson, who he described as "credible people".

"They are not misguided," said Gill. "They have their own views and they are sensible, intelligent people. But the structure we have in place today, we can live with it. Our financial results and our financial projections demonstrate that."

United's six-month figures to the year-end 2009 were released on Tuesday and reflected a much-improved picture on the previous year, with pre-tax earnings of £56.5m, up from £36.5m.

Speaking at the Soccerex conference in an interview with Matt Lorenzo, who has been a friend of O'Neill's since their time together at Sheffield University, Gill insisted the Glazers would not relinquish control of the club. "The [Glazer] family aren't sellers," he said. "There has been no indication to me they want to sell. The Red Knights can come with a proposal but they won't sell the asset. It won't go anywhere."

Despite a doubling of the membership of the Manchester United Supporters' Trust movement on the back of the Red Knights' announcement, Gill was dismissive of their scheme. They hope to bring together 40 high-net-worth individuals, each contributing upwards of £20m towards the buyout, the balance of a £1bn offer being made up of debt. "I don't know how it would work," he said. "I've been involved in football since 1997 and travelled a lot with Manchester United. I've been to a lot of clubs in Europe and the best clubs, the better-run clubs have clear, single decision-making [processes], it's quick and efficient.

"I don't see how if you've got a number of very wealthy people being involved – they don't become wealthy through luck – those sort of people want to be involved in the decision making,

"The key clubs, [Roman] Abramovich at Chelsea, Mansour [Al-Nahyan] at Manchester City, [silvio] Berlusconi in Milan, even the key decision maker at Madrid is not all those fans, it's the president. I'm not sure what the endgame is but the endgame is irrelevant because the owners are long-term investors and want to keep the club for many years to come."

One difference between the Glazers and the examples Gill cited, with the exception of Mansour, is their low profile. Yet Gill made a virtue of that. "They watch every game on the television and I think they have been supportive," he said. "We've got many examples of owners who have come in and run a club, picked the team, been very visible at the ground and in the press.

"They've taken the view that they're not here to do that. They've got a good management team in place, a fantastic manager in Sir Alex Ferguson. In order to control the asset and get the most of the asset they have those people there to manage the business that they've bought but I don't think their lack of attendance should be taken that they're not very passionate about the club and very interested in how they do. That isn't the case."

In the past Gill had been highly critical of the leveraged Glazer business plan that has now caused so much anger among the club's supporters. But despite the fact this is at the root of the current rebellion by fans, Gill defended the American owners.

"When they first approached us in September 2004, we looked at it [their offer] and we felt at the time that the level of debt they were proposing and business plan underpinning that debt were too aggressive," he said.

"We were public in terms of our opposition to that and they revisited those plans, changed the structure of the financing, revisited the business plans underpinning that financing and that culminated in the takeover in 2005.

"We didn't as a board, recommend the offer, it didn't go with a board recommendation but as directors we were obliged to put it to the shareholders and they accepted that and so we move on."

Gill's challenge is that a significant number of fans will not move on until the Glazers move out.

There's no way that choice of words isn't a deliberate (copyright MK-1601) attempt at winding fans up further. Way to endear yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eats hoops and leaves

Eats hoops and leaves

Posted
Posted

OMG it gets even better!

Gill said that the proceeds of the £81m sale of Ronaldo to Real Madrid have been ringfenced for squad strengthening. He also said that the club's £709m debt was serviceable and that it was only because of Ferguson's thrift that the funds for player recruitment have not been spent. Asked if there was still money for United to maintain their recent primacy in the Premier League, Gill said: "Without doubt."

He said: "We're looking at players all the time. The money from Ronaldo is in the bank account, let's be clear on that. Alex has been very clear, he's not going to go out and pay for a player just because everyone else thinks we should do that. He's a Scot, he wants value for money. He's not going to waste it."

:D:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fatbob

fatbob

Posted
Posted

We should be ok until Rooney breaks his foot.... Berbatov is getting better at the moment. Good news about Hargreaves, although I don't want to get my hopes up too much.

In other news: Joe Cole is still unsigned by Chelsea.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fatbob

fatbob

Posted
Posted

01 Van der Sar

03 Evra

05 Ferdinand

06 Brown

15 Vidic

16 Carrick

17 Nani

18 Scholes

25 Valencia

28 Gibson

09 Berbatov

Substitutes

12 Foster, 02 Neville, 21 Rafael Da Silva, 13 Park, 24 Fletcher, 26 Obertan, 32 Diouf

The full lineup there, good to see our first choice defense out for the first time..... ever. I wonder how Berbatov will cope on his own..

All those people whining about Rooney trying to get out of England duty can just about shut the fuck up well and truly now I guess. :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept