Club debt soars

From Sky Sports -

'Manchester United have announced their net debt has increased by almost £140m in their latest financial figures, even after posting another revenue increase for the first quarter of 2019-20.

The startling increase in debt levels from £247.2m to £384.5m, a rise of 55.5 per cent, will do little to appease disgruntled fans, unhappy with the way the club is run by the Glazer family owners and executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward'

How the hell is this even possible - get rid of the yanks and get in the Saudis.

 

This is so fkin sad! The debt has been more or less the same for over a decade. Those pigs are simply using the club as a cash cow to line their pockets. The real losers here are the fans.

 

The only good thing about this might be the fact that the Glazers are milking the club to line their pockets before selling. The debt was being 'managed' well for the last few years, particularly given that our revenues were stretched by lower prize money and eauropean tv revenues.

 

**** the Saudis.

 

Well who then? The Glazers are milking us dry because they need the money to plug the holes in their accounts elsewhere - I don't see the Saudis having to do that? Sadly there is no alternative - there is nobody else out there with the money to buy and operate an institution the size of Manchester United - if you're happy with the Glaze'rs ownership, then fine.

 

I'm not happy with the Glazer's ownership but the Saudis buying United would be the ultimate admission that the only thing that matters is money and glory. They kill people who look at them funny.

 

The Saudi Sovereign Fund would see Manchester United as an overseas investment - a tax break, they wouldn't be dipping into the club to take hundreds of millions out, by contrast, they would most likely invest in the stadium and the infrastructure of the club to increase the value of their investment - the complete opposite of what the Glazers are doing.

 

I do see the point that you are making. From business standpoint, there is no such things dirty money. Money is money. If ethical moral judgment of how capital came to be were to be applied to today's global capital allocation and transactions, the impact will be far reaching and no one would be spared.

Obviously, the natural emotional reaction from many supporters will be "**** the Saudis". After all, we have always accused City of selling out to oil money. But if we peel off the emotional response, then perhaps there is an argument to be had that it actually doesn't matter where the money comes from.

Do we want Americans again? Probably NO! Glazers are doing exactly what most American owners would do - turn it into a cash cow for themselves.

The only real answer for the supporters is Barcelona model which is owned by supporters. Unfortunately, I don't see that ever happening at United due to the complexities of implementing such model, at least from my perception.

So, the only options are - either we take the money from wherever the money comes from, or we continue under the Glazer. The former will be far better for the club.

 

For all your insulting remarks about Norwich, we are a solid,well run club that refuses to load up with any debt. If we go down,so be it,there is a lot worse places to be than the championship, we will come again. At least the club will be safe for the future

 

???

 

Apparently we shouldn't expect to beat the team that is currently bottom of the league, at home.

That's insulting.

 

Watford?

 

No, Norwich.

 

I saw an interview with Ole, and he said how proud he was that the players gave 100pc.

That's the sort of thing the QPR manager should be saying.

Not a manager of United.

 

The club has lost its identity under the Glazers anyway.

Maybe the Saudis would get a decent playing set up sorted, and at least you could build an identity on the field.

Who would have thought that the United way and the club's identity could be lost so quickly and for so long.

 

You can talk!

 

I don't get your point here.

What should he have said?

 

Watford were bottom when you played them. A bloke who goes in my local went to the game as a birthday present. Not seen him since, unfortunately

 

They were, yet it was away, not at home.

 

I didn't realise you'd differentiated between the venues. Sorry.