“Subscribe

These Manc Fuckers.

Eggs66

Subscribed
So in essence - they have taken a club that was debt free...and saddled it with hundreds of millions of debt whilst creaming money off the top for themselves. Saying they have spent big on transfers is sadly missing the point of HOW they have financed the deals to the detriment of the club. Not surprised their fans are pissed off.

(ditto developing the ground etc)
 

What?

Subscribed
I never really understand why the fans concern themselves with financial results either good or bad. There's nothing they/we can do about it and as long as the net result is a decent football team let the money men screw each other to their hearts content. This big six bollocks is another matter all together and the Mancs that protest sensibly have my full support
 

Brusselsfox

Subscribed
Having had two days to think about this I am more confused than ever about what the 'fans' actually want. I get they want the Glazers out .. but to be replaced by who or what? Someone else .. even richer .. who just puts money in but doesn't look to get any return? Doesn't really make any sense at all. Only people like Gulf states rulers or Russian oligarchs who need to do some reputational (or even money) laundering would possibly be interested .. and what sort of competition is that? . Changing the ownership structure in England to more like the the German 50+1 model might be great .. but over time that would help small and medium sized clubs to compete with the big boys rather than help United to 'Win. Maybe I am missing something but I think probably most of the crowd on Sunday are simply pissed off by the fact that during the Glazers time Man U have become the 'poor neighbours' of Man City. That's all .. nothing really to do with ESL or anything else. .. And by the way if it were Huddersfield or Burnley (or even Newcastle or Leicester) fans who had broken into the ground and caused a match to be postponed because they didn't like the owners the media (especially Sky) would be screaming blue murder and demanding points deductions. The hypocrisy is stunning!
 

haardaarss

Subscribed
Courts - it would take someone better at finances than I to explain it better....but I understand it is how they get the money for these big transfers - so they borrow large amounts of money leveraged against the value (and future tv revenues) of the club. THE CLUB is then liable for the debt (not the owners)....and the club pays it back. Meanwhile they enjoy the fruits of the revenues. Something like that.

Maybe this helps better than I am explaining it:

Are Manchester United in debt?​

Manchester United are in debt and the club's net debt as of September 24, 2019 was £203.6 million ($254m), down from £301.7m ($373m) on the previous year.

They did, however, announce record revenues of £627.1m ($782m) and an operating profit of £50m ($62m) for 2019, with the club "committed to winning trophies".

The club had been debt-free until 2005, but debt has risen and fallen since then, reaching a peak of nearly £778m in 2010.

Why are Manchester United in debt?​

Manchester United's colossal debt is the result of the takeover of the club by the Glazer family in 2005.

The Glazer takeover of the Premier League giants was controversial because it loaded £525m of debt onto the club - through loans secured against its assets - in a move known as a 'leveraged buyout'.

Prior to the purchase, Manchester United had been debt free.

A refinancing of the debt occurred in 2010 when it had risen to over three-quarters-of-a billion pounds.
a quick google search of "leveraged buyout" will tell you all you need to know, but two minutes of all that might also explain why some folk prefer looking at other things on t'interweb.
 

Walthamstowfox

Subscribed
The German 50+1 model is often cited, but Bayern Munich still win the Bundesliga most years.
There are ways around it too( Daggers & Swabian are probably more informed), RB Leipzig managed to skirt round it.
Leverkusen & another club I can't remember ( Wolfsburg? ) I think for those 2 clubs it's because they have been in the same ownership for so long & were originally set up for the employees of the factories.
 

Filbo65

Thatched roofer
Hardly syphoning funds from the club. The world's most expensive defender. One of the world's most expensive midfielders. Manager pay offs. Almost a billion spent on the squad.

Hardly a board with no interest except line their own pockets.

Oh and the development of OT.
Isn't one of the gripes that they haven't developed OT?
 

Blue City

Subscribed
I never really understand why the fans concern themselves with financial results either good or bad. There's nothing they/we can do about it and as long as the net result is a decent football team let the money men screw each other to their hearts content. This big six bollocks is another matter all together and the Mancs that protest sensibly have my full support
Couldn’t agree more ...all those years we suffered under Shipman etc creaming money from selling the best players leaving behind a mediocre club at best.. at least that’s all a distant memory
 

MrTeabreak

Subscribed
I never really understand why the fans concern themselves with financial results either good or bad. There's nothing they/we can do about it and as long as the net result is a decent football team let the money men screw each other to their hearts content. This big six bollocks is another matter all together and the Mancs that protest sensibly have my full support
Your a fan of a club that went into admin due to poor financial management, and only saved by the largess of fans, local businesses and ex-players.

Big money clubs like Man Utd, Real, Juventus, all have huge debt, but they can service it due to big turnover, when the turnover drops it's like the bank calling the note in and they start to panic.

If the finances are transparent to fans, they can see this kind of thing coming and at least try to head it off at the pass, and vote with their feet.
Nothing makes a businessman sit up and take notice than when his revenue stream is threatened.

This is one reason why a banning from europe would be a good punishment for ESL clubs.
 

ElmetFox

Subscribed
I am in the Souness camp of believing that the Salford fans were only moaning because they had been knocked off the perch that they believed to be their birthright. The ones who had a principled objection to the Glazers did indeed vote with their feet and set up a new club. As supporters of Leicester City we should tread carefully on the subject of sanctions given how we dodged a points deduction when we went into administration.

But if there are to be sanctions the BCCs should be banned from Europe from the first season they become eligible, in the case of Arsenal, if ever, and Salford should have a points deduction as a deterrent to stop fans preventing matches being played.
 

hackneyfox

Subscribed
I am in the Souness camp of believing that the Salford fans were only moaning because they had been knocked off the perch that they believed to be their birthright. The ones who had a principled objection to the Glazers did indeed vote with their feet and set up a new club. As supporters of Leicester City we should tread carefully on the subject of sanctions given how we dodged a points deduction when we went into administration.

But if there are to be sanctions the BCCs should be banned from Europe from the first season they become eligible, in the case of Arsenal, if ever, and Salford should have a points deduction as a deterrent to stop fans preventing matches being played.
We didn’t dodge a points deduction, they didn’t apply at the time.
We were also more than ten points clear.
 

Bruin

Subscribed
So in essence - they have taken a club that was debt free...and saddled it with hundreds of millions of debt whilst creaming money off the top for themselves.

The Glazer takeover of the Premier League giants was controversial because it loaded £525m of debt onto the club - through loans secured against its assets - in a move known as a 'leveraged buyout'.

Which is exactly what Looney Toons did @ LCFC, albeit on a smaller scale, but the most scandalous aspect of that takeover being that a purpose-created loan company was set up to do it. True, the Club wasn't debt-free but the principle is the same.

Far be it from me to speculate on actual events surrounding the above, but it is fun to play around with possible scenarios arising. Just look at what you could do if you hadn't passed the 'Fit and Proper Person' examination (which Mr Mandaric clearly did) and were of somewhat dubious character (which Mr Mandaric clearly isn't):

You could buy a footy club with a serviceable debt for a song (perhaps £1), then set up a specialist loan company to service that debt. Hey ho, happy days! You own both companies so your left hand can then set an artificially high interest rate that your right hand has to bear. This remains balance sheet money until the club is sold, whereupon you cash in your interest coupons to jack up the price to the new owners without ever having to have that cash in the first place.

Even better, if the loan company is based offshore without a British national/taxpayer as director, there is no incumbence to declare the original source of the loan to HMRC. Some people - usually those in the justice system such as the City of London Police, judges or the Crown Prosecution Service call this practice 'money laundering', but let's not get bogged down with terminology, eh?

Having put the infrastructure into place, we can now dream up methods of further hocking our slave. If, as there was in LCFC's case, a mortgage or restructured repayment arrangement on the stadium, the debt can be taken over and serviced from the loan company without hard cash being laid out in its respect. Low interest is replaced by high interest giving us a debt which has now become a profit generator.

To compound this, total autonomy also offers a confluence of golden tributaries one of which could be whereby an unscrupulous owner will operate with just one agent. It works like this: The owner and the agent form a company together. The manager is handed a list of the agent's players to identify any whom may fit requirements. The manager makes his choice of a player, worth say for the sake of argument, £1m. The owner approaches the player's club and begins negs. They agree on £1m. The owner then doubles the offer to £2m on the proviso that the selling club accept an invoice to £670,000 as Agent Fees. A further invoice is then rendered to the buying club and all is paid into the partnership which has cleared app £1m. The buying club are saddled with a bill for £2.3m for a player worth less than half that, which will be added to the operational loan for when the club is sold.

Any of this sound familiar?

It is of course nothing but wistfulness on my part. I could be ever so wrong - but I could be ever so right.

BLUE ARMY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

oxonfox

Subscribed
I'm just sooooo pleased we have got our lovely owners, I don't care wot happens to other clubs and their owners.
 

DagenhamFox

Blue Roofer
All Premier League club owners are in it for the money. Our owners are in it for the money.

The big difference is ours are football fans. Given their attendance at the Middlesbrough League Cup final in 97 you could argue they are Leicester fans. They want to invest and see real improvements to their team, their stadium, their training ground all to try to get more success. To win trophies. Their main driver is not the money although this clearly is a factor and I’m sure they are doing very well out of the club.
 
“Subscribe
“Subscribe
Top