The club wasnt being run brilliantly at the time of the take over. Infact I recall the old PLC wanting Fergie out or at least some of the shareholders. Much calmer behind the scenes now with SAF doing the football stuff and the suits doing what they do best. Its not perfect, nothing ever is but its far from the worst set up in the world.
Not in any way down to the plc imo. As UIR says, they hamstrung SAF as much as they supported him. We weren't a million miles away from how Arsenal are being run now, albeit with a far superior manager. If we'd had KKK in charge back in the 90s we'd probably not have won a single trophy (ok, maybe a Carling Cup or two). We were free of debt, but debt is only a problem if revenue and earnings don't cover the debt payments. And whilst we didn't have debt, we were making dividend payments to shareholders including scummy bastards like Magnier and McManus, who were actively harming the club to try and get even with SAF over a horse. The club was successful, but back then it was entirely down to SAF. The main reasons for our success were not the owners, but SAF's ability to bring through Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, Butt, Neville, Neville, Brown, O'Shea etc, as well as identifying fantastic bargains like Cantona, Solskjaer and Johnsen. SAF only got funds to spend after he'd actually won titles, and even then we were often left with our second choice players - Ralph Milne after we missed out on Gazza; Cole after we missed out on Shearer; Sheringham after we missed out on Shearer again; Kleberson and Djemba-Djemba instead of Essien etc. The only big buy the board actually supported SAF with was Rooney, and even then they openly admitted that was the transfer budget for two seasons, so had we still been owned by the Plc in 2005 then we would have had no money for VDS, Park, Vidic and Evra. Also we hadn't been winning major trophies every year - the lack of determined investment by the board was really hurting us back then - we came 3rd in 2002 with no trophies, 3rd again in 2004 with only the FA Cup to show for it, and trophyless again in 2005. By then the plc model in football had already begun to fail. Since the Glazers took over the only trophyless season we've had apart from the first one was last year, and we were a whisker away from winning the PL then. Ultimately, the Glazers did not work out that the annual profits would cover the interest. They worked out that our commercial revenue, which was pitiful in 2004 at around £45 million, of which around 50% was purely the big kit deal, could easily be doubled or trebled with a good and focused commercial strategy. Which they have done.
am surprised tbh by your support to the Glazers, I agree with most points, meanwhile I think UTD still out paid other clubs at that time , especially with more success were coming and club financial were growing, look to how much we paid for alike of Veron, RVN, Rio, Rooney..etc just years before glazers came in .. and don't worry we will start make big dividend payments soon. like the Galzers didn't !!they already milked the club out of 500 Billion to pay debt and own private issues .. and sorry we win those times bcz of Sir Alex and we are winning bcz of Sir Alex now. previous owners were not a punch of idiots !! they did well and if we had that financial boom we are having now bcz of TV money, they would had spend more ..not their mistakes that price money back at 1992 was £190m which was jumped to 110 times more to £1.782bn now ... remember it was the old owners who expanded the brand to Asia and other countries not Galzers.. they supported SAF with ridiculous money at that time.. which could be now equivalent to 45-50m to land best players. . don't get me wrong, previous owners were not the best but Galzers are punch of cowboys who drained the club
When we got Rooney didn`t SAF have to go before the board cap in hand as we had already spent our budget? I am sure something was said at the time about shareholders having to forego their dividend`s to get Roo. I could be wrong or it could have just been paper talk.
As others have said Glazers back SAF better than most previous owners especially the time we were a PLC. Didn't the PLC board block the buying of Ronaldhnio as well as initially blocking the purchase of Veron and RVN. Seems SAF always had to go begging to buy players even after United made huge profits from selling Beckham. Sure it'd be nice if we didn't have to service their acquisition debt but they have increased revenues massively, backed SAF with large transfer budgets and stay the hell out of the football side of things.
Had we not paid interest we would of paid dividends to shareholders and the more we made the more we would pay. So its possible we would of paid £500million out over the same period regardless of ownership. The only difference is who it goes to. Shareholders or Banks/bond issuers. Had the likes of Chelsea and City not appeared we would also be the biggest spenders and likely the most successful club in the land without question. Footballs a very different time to the days of Manchester United PLC and the only thing that has remained consistent is that United are the team to beat on and off the pitch.
It was in the annual report. The only way we managed to get Rooney was by SAF agreeing that he would count as two years worth of transfer budget - so that would have been for 04/05 and 05/06. In other words, under the plc we'd have had no VDS, Park, Vidic or Evra. They definitely refused to match Barca's bid for Ronaldinho, despite his fee eventually being the same as Beckham's. The initial issue with RVN was his medical IIRC, but they dallied for a fair time with him - lucky no other big clubs were interested or he could have gone the way of Shearer. And the counter of that - had we still been a plc we'd have been miles behind Chelsea and City. We'd probably right now be in the same situation as Arsenal - forced to sell Rooney to Chelsea or City as he ran his contract down, as they did with RVP, whilst ****ing over second rate replacements who turn out to be ****e.
I think the Glazers have been much better owners than they're given credit for to be honest. I think they're better than the PLC, better than Mansour and better than Abramovich. The PLC stifled the club more than they helped it, they took large dividens and getting the go ahead to make transfers was according to Fergie a painfull process. Yes we are in debt because of the Glazers takeover of the club, but the debt has been going down and it's been going down faster than a lot of people expected. As owners they have given Fergie funds when he's asked, they haven't blocked him and they haven't interferred in the way he runs things. Not only that but Uniteds financial growth has been terrific and the Glazers have been largely responsible for that.
Well we can't all have a billionaire splashing the cash without a care in the world, need to make money to continue success
This No one likes the way they took over the club, but they've done a good job since they've taken over. Fergie never seems to have a problem getting transfer funds and he doesn't have to squabble with the owners over everything ala Roman at Chelsea. the money left over after paying off the debt payments is clearly available to the club, and I imagine when the debts are fully paid off there will be even more money available.
Would the PLC have sanctioned 30 million for a 29 year old with a horrific injury record? Would they F--K. Not happy with the thought those chinless American wonders can sell up and walk away with a billion pound profit on their initial outlay, but if given the choice id rather stick with them as owners than roll the dice again.
long may that continue, I'm the one who gets to see them play My point obviously went over your head by the way, I'm saying why the **** are football fans arguing over ****ing fiscal reports and break even strategies? Go watch your team and talk about the games because this bollocks isn't what we should be arguing about.
Look. My point is not that the club is in private hands or that it is doing badly because of it. It is one thing buying a club because you have the billions like Mansour and Roman A and you splash hundred of millions to reinfornce the club and get top world class players. It is another buying the club by borrowing the money aginst the club's (not the purchasers) assets. You and I without the millions could have done that (if the bank was willing to loan us) !! The only reason we survived was because of SAF. Any other manager we would have been in the same position as the scousers: in the brown stuff and turned into a medium size mid table club.. I am glad that the club is doing well... despite the Glazers not because of them. I have just read that they yesterday took £150 million out of the club from the recent share sale... most of it in terms of family members being paid 10-20 million a go for consultancy fees. WTF is this if not pure fleecing of the most profitable club in the world?
Not really. We had a zero net spend on transfer from 1992 to 1998 - Cole, Keane, Cantona etc were all funded by player sales. It was only after we won four titles and two FA Cups that we got money for Yorke and Stam, and only after we won the Champions League we got money for Veron and Rio (still partly funded by profitable sales of Stam, Cole, Beckham etc.) Arsenal have had a low net spend, but only since 2006 when the plc couldn't handle the cost of the Emirates and they became a selling club. Prior to 2006 they had a positive spend pretty much every year, with big fees going on a regular basis players like Overmars, Kanu, Lauren, Henry, Wiltord, Jeffers, Van Bronck, Reyes, Hleb, Walcott etc. Definitely not a coincidence that when the transfer money dried up so did Arsenal's chances of winning trophies. It's why SAF is a far superior manager imo - he was able to win trophies in the 1990s when he had to sell to buy. When lesser managers like Wenger and Benitez have the same problem, the wheels rapidly come off.
Not really. Initial purchase price of Utd was £800 million, funded £250 million by the Glazers and £550 million by debt. Glazers also paid off the PIK loans which was a further £220 million, leaving the club with around £500 million in bonds. The Glazers have put around half a billion quid into the club, and still haven't taken that much out yet, whilst the value of the club has gone up by around £1 billion since then. If you have a half a billion quid sitting around the house, then feel free to try the same thing and let us know how you get on. And the problem with owners like Mansour or Abramovich is that they know they are bigger than the club so they do whatever the **** they want. Like booting out the manager, buying players they like, and just generally using the club to get their end away cos they can. The Glazers know they need to club to be successful in the long term, so they back the manager and give him what he needs. No way would I change the Glazers for Abramovich - you can guarantee if that happened SAF would have been sacked by now and we'd have Torres and Dzeko up front instead of RVP and Hernandez. Actually it was £26 million in combined consultancy fees. Much of which is related to the fact that three of the Glazers are directors of the club, replacing directors from the plc who were also paid huge amounts. The Glazers have taken a total of around £100 million out of the club, much of which came from the share sale when they sold 10% of the club. Hardly fleecing us, given that 10% of the club was worth around £150 million.
Who cares if Glazers sell some shares and pocket most of it, how does than impact Uniteds revenue? If anything they paid down some of the debt and our situation is better. Quit holding them up to unrealistic standards and be thankful we don't have owners like H+G screwing us over or some interfering PLC.
Chavs lose a game of football and the bling brigade's solution is to bench their 50million pound striker for another 50million pound striker to work with their 100million pound midfield. But don't even dare suggest they have to buy success or are reliant on Roman! Clowns.
