Respect. Interesting word. One thrown around with ease, abused at will. So misunderstood. Respect, they say, is the proper reaction to Malcolm Glazer’s death at 85. It is a demand for reverence that was never proffered a 136-year-old football club, pillaged for its glory and robbed of its soul. Respect is to not speak ill of the dead; to whitewash history, to let a man ‘rest in peace’ from across an ocean to a family home dripping in disdain for an asset stripped. No deference was ever offered, nor earned.
Glazer’s death after six years brutal illness and nine of callous ownership brings no tears and precious little peace. His impact on United will be felt years after the ashes are scattered to the winds.
The paterfamilias has long since withdrawn from active ownership, invested neither spiritually, or indeed literally, in a club that was bought on debt and devoured by greed. Yet, the octogenarian was never less than the family’s leader. It’s moral void and blackest heart.
Secretive and recluse in death as he was in power Glazer and family have never veered from a path that set out to extract greatest value from an asset leveraged and supporters made patsy for the Americans’ strategy. Respect? Pull the other one.
Nine years ownership and one thing can be said for Glazer – he went a long way to maintain a secret. More than four and a half thousand miles from United’s base at Old Trafford to the tax haven on Grand Cayman in the Caribbean Sea where the club is now registered. To his Tampa home and the State of Delware where United was first incorporated under the Glazer family. To the New York Stock Exchange where the club was listed in 2012.
Never, though, did Glazer venture to Old Trafford – the centre of a billionaire’s business empire, its crown jewel, the cash cow milked for every drop. The Glazers have never sought less than to minimise the tax burden, maximise profit gained, and interdict public scrutiny.
Supporters’ challenge, waxing from threatened violence to terrace unrest and astute financial analysis, was never broken though. Not in a decade of patronising indifference and Sir Alex Ferguson’s vitriolic defence. The Glazers’ debt, which has extracted more than £690 million in service, interest, repayments and other fees, assured that apathetic though the masses, the truth remained close. No guesswork will uncover what might have become if United’s fortune was reinvested not plundered. The imagination runs wild though.
Those at the forefront of a near decade-long protest remember well the Glazers’ takeover. The Coolmore scandal that ensured Ferguson’s acquiesce, David Gill’s duplicitous about-face, and more than £500 million loaded ominously onto the club’s books in 2005. It was a buyout leveraged at great risk while the Premier League’s dignitary sold tickets to watch Rome burn. The governing body was as absentee then as United’s new landlords have remained since.
It was a takeover every bit as tarnished as those engineered by the family in previous years. They ramped up both the shareholding and price with incremental purchases, leveraging against United’s value, and seeking to bet each way in a two-horse race. The dice were loaded in Malcolm’s favour; Ferguson, Coolmore and Gill scrawled a six on every face. There are many for whom forgiveness will never come.
In the intervening years there have been countless rounds of financial engineering. Each designed to secure the family’s position and to extract yet more cash. An aggressive merchandising and sponsorship programme, instigated to keep the treadmill turning, has pimped United’s brand to potato snacks, Saudi telecoms, tomato juice and beyond. The Glazers’ strategy has centred on the price of all, mindless to the value of anything.
Supporters are little more than wallets from where yet more lucre is extricated: the masses are customers, followers – sickeningly -‘social media reach’. Whether fans are foolishly loyal to the family, or permanently disenfranchised, it has made little difference to the Glazers’ model. The shirts may be Red, but cash is green. This was Malcolm’s bidding and his sons’ execution. None of it was respectful.
On the pitch United continued to win. Ferguson’s brilliance ensured that permanent under-investment, relative to rivals at home and abroad, had little short-term impact. Four Premier League trophies won between 2005 and 2013, one European cup and two further continental finals speak well of the Scot’s genius. Only the foolish believe that these trophies were garnered because, and not in spite of, United’s ownership.
Yet, this was a model that could never last. The squad left first to David Moyes and now Louis van Gaal was gradually eroded in quality as England’s nouveau riche and Europe’s established giants first caught up and then usurped the Reds. Drip by drip the club was stripped of its lustre. Twice in three years Manchester City has become England’s premier side. There is undoubtedly a long road back from here.
With Uncle Malc now gone talk will once again turn to the club’s future. More in hope, one suspects, than in genuine substance. Glazer siblings Bryan, Avram and Joel believe there are more riches to upturn; Darcie, Edward and Kevin, it seems, do not. The prospect of extracting more liquidity in New York is real even if an outright sale is remote.
It is a truism that whatever path the future holds Malcolm bequeathed not only his shares, but the key to the safe. United’s loss and supporters’ injury will be the remaining children’s gain. The question left unanswered remains: “for how long now?”
United’s violation is Malcolm’s true lasting legacy. More potent than any failing businesses, from fish oil to cheap strip malls, and a forever mediocre NFL franchise. And if the family is divided then it is nothing compared to the supporters: those who incoherently sponsored the ransack, and those who failed to hold the barbarians from the gates. The terraces may never be United again. “The takeover of Manchester United caused a lot of pain in this city,” said, pointedly, FC United’s Andy Walsh.
Respect? He amassed none and offered less. There are no tears for Glazer’s death.
Selfish!!
Under investment lol you spend hundreds of millions on players were buying the league way before city and Chelsea did the same. LOL what a load of bullocks.
It’s spending since 2005 we are talking about. Not only this, but you can’t accuse United of anything similar to Chelsea / City because everything United have spent is money generated by the club, not money brought in by a rich guy.
Besides, in the last five years, Manchester United’s net spend has been half that of Chelsea – and one QUARTER of Manchester City’s. Hardly comparable.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. May he rot in Hell.
Heh , heh ! If this is THE V Wilson who used to be on another site , sometime under a ‘different name’ , welcome.! Try the forum sections here …you’ll have great company !
Yes Mate even I recognised him. Had great fun there on other other forum discussing Footy and Man UTD with him. very aggressive talk though. I hope I can enjoy the same again.
Hey Groggy,
Good to see you mate. I have been visting this place for sometime now. And has not been active on RR like I used specially after Ian took it. Hope to see you here as regular.
Fuck off Glazers
It’s impossible to argue against anything you say.
Rant’s finest hour, a masterpiece of prime dialogue, description, analysis and text.
The “problem” should be laid at the door of the Edwards family – they took the club onto the stock exchange and into the world of 20th century finance. They took their profits and stole away, silently. The Glazers only followed their lead and brought new revenue streams to inflate the value of their investment. Let’s not forget that the Glazers put 250,000,000 quid into purchasing MUFC.
The reality of the situation is that MUFC is a huge enterprise in a capitalist marketplace. Who else but petro-tyrants have a couple of billion to lavish on a game played by grown men in short pants without expecting a return on their investment ? Self-righteous “more than a club” moonshine is just delusional. I might not like this state-of-affairs but unless I drop my sixty-year allegiance and take my “support” somewhere else, it’s a matter of stick-or-twist. I’m stuck – and the Glazers are the devils we know.
That said, the tone of this rant is deeply offensive, much like many of the comments on this site that personalize hatred of the Glazers while overlooking or forgetting that the Edwards family pocketed 100,000,000 quid and the Coolmore guys made even larger profits from their investments. The Glazers aren’t more (or less) unpleasant than their predecessors – they are the current owners and they wouldn’t have ventured into ownership if they didn’t expect to see profits.
In a very real sense, this season’s shenanigans with a “chosen” manager and the cluster-fuck that that produced means that its now time for the Glazers to stick-or-twist. They can no longer rely on SAF’s midas touch and playing in the big leagues mean that they have to swim with sharks. For those of us who view the club as a vehicle for entertainment, the roller-coaster has already left the station. Enjoy the ride. It’s going to be bumpy but it won’t be business-as-usual.
“Let’s not forget that the Glazers put 250,000,000 quid into purchasing MUFC.”
Total nonsense. Let’s scrap this bullshit right now. The money not leveraged against United’s assets (shares) was borrowed from Deutsche Bank, then refinanced as a bridging loan, and then refinanced against, secretly, in the US… before presumably whatever was left was paid off from the IPO proceeds. The Glazers exposure has been absolutely minimal and they have spent not a single penny of their own money for United’s benefit.
The tone is offensive? Why. Because the guy died I’m supposed to whitewash the past. Utter bollocks.
100 percent correct the world is now one blood sucking odious reptile less and the better for it. Just because he is dead doesn’t change what he was. Parasite!,
Is this what the anti-Glazer movement really believes ? Or is “Deadbeatmoyles” only saying what others are implicitly thinking ?
Denton – I don’t believe many people think this. Unfortunately part of every society contains ignorant bigots like “deadbeatmoyles”. He is from Poland. Maybe attitudes there are not as progressive. I really hope for the locals sale that it is not the case.
Deutsche Bank (or any other lender) would forward them that money against collateral on other assets. In that sense, you’re making a distinction without a difference – the Glazers were on the hook for the 250,000,000. Thus, you are quite wrong to state categorically that “The Glazers exposure has been absolutely minimal” although I am in full agreement with the second part of that sentence: “they have spent not a single penny of their own money for United’s benefit.” Your response is a classic half-truth masquerading as the whole truth.
Malcolm Glazer was a buccaneering capitalist; so far as I know, he never oversaw the pillaging of a country’s wealth or destroyed the lives of poor South Asians to build vanity projects in the desert or serially-abused human rights. In all those ways, he was a better alternative for the latest incarnation of MUFC than the petro-tyrants who have scooped up ManShitty or CSKALondon or PSG or Monaco. Indeed, the Glazers’ ownership of MUFC is not much different from John Henry in Liverpool or Stan Kroenke at Arsenal. Do you really think that Henry or Kroenke reached into his piggy-bank to pull out the bills to buy those clubs ? While neither you nor I may like this capitalist world-order, it’s the reality of late-modern life.
Get off your high horse – and pseudo-outrage. Just recognize that “more than a club” is just another asset in the capitalist world, a capitalist world-order where even ideas can be turned into “intellectual property”. The tone is offensive because you are mistaking the symptom for a cure.
As just don’t understand why people defend Glazer in anyway shape or form. He is a horrible man. I don’t need to meet him personally to realise that either. He’s not put a single penny in of his own money. If sport is anyway a business it’s an entertainment business. Anyone who truly understands football cannot say we have been entertained over the last few seasons at United. I watch United for entertainment purposes, not just pay to watch them grind out wins and then go home. United is about winning in style and we haven’t done that for a good while now, never mind just this last season. I for one am happy Malcolm Glazer is dead. Glazer, Thatcher, Hitler… all the same kind of person to me.
I just don’t understand why people defend Glazer. Is what I meant.
Denton – you’re massively wrong due to being completely ill-informed. Name the other asset. Please, I’m all ears. Go on. No? It certainly wasn’t the NFL team – prohibited by NFL rules. It wasn’t United Allied. Nor Zapata. Nor property. Funny how the initial loan was bridged within the year wasn’t it.
Glazer apologists like you have always been wrong. Football is not like any other industry. It’s protected for that reason in many countries. The irony being that the Glazers could never have forced through an LBO of this nature in the US. No US sports would have accepted it.
As for the rest of your comment, especially the bit about being on a “high horse” and “pseudo-outrage”, classic hypocrisy not to mention a personal insult.
“Denton – you’re massively wrong due to being completely ill-informed. Name the other asset. Please, I’m all ears. Go on.”
Golly, you have a point – Deutsche Bank might just lend me 250,000,000 without collateral. Or, maybe they’ll loan a similar amount to you and Alfonso and Pikey. Because, according to your logic, the Glazers got their loans without having any collateral.
One man’s personal insult is another man’s “high horse” and “pseudo outrage”. Grow a pair !
Denton – I see that you’re descending into personal insults now. The Bank loan was converted to PIK bridging loans inside a year culminating in 2006/7 with United paying over 80% of EBITDA (free cash flow) in interest. But of course that had no effect. You’re so ill-informed its painful. But like many people who are ignorant you cover your lack of knowledge by reducing the debate to a series of personal insults. I can grow a pair, I doubt you’re able to grow any more knowledge.
Brilliantly written.
Great stuff as always Ed.
Would a rich Arab or Russian done better?
Fergie wouldn’t sign overpriced players. Moyes couldn’t
Malcom Glazer was 86. Perfect article, kudos Ed.
Says he was 85 on ManUtd.com
Sickening words – classing the loss of a man’s life as inferior a loss to the supposed damages he has done to a fucking club were 11 guys run after a ball on a field of grass. Have a bit of bloody perspective and class, will you ?
This man was a shit house, simple as that. Why are you commenting on football if you think it is just 11 “guys” running after a ball on a field of grass? Too many people like you allowed to have an opinion on football.
Personally we never knew him and we still don’t even know his sons. They haven’t made efforts as far as I know to get to know us. No interviews, no explanation of their plans. OK I know they are not really football people and rightly wants to leave that part to people who knows people who knows what they are doing. They must have known that their take over wasn’t popular and something that split fans.
I’m indifferent to Malcolm Glazer’s passing but as a fellow human being who has lost family members I feel for them and that’s where it ends.
I want them out like most Reds but know nothing will change
To think he never set foot in Old Trafford. That is a new low.
He represents all that is wrong with the world. Conceit, greed, arrogance and deception. And he displayed all these characteristics whilst laughing at us in our own backyard.
Emotional and well crafted piece. Do not confuse the sentimentality of death with blistering veracity.Nor judgement with opinion
great article this
Good article that is, perfectly written. Well done sir.
That people is the sound of a nail being squarely hit on its head. Perfect summing up. Spread this article far and wide, people.
Ahhh yet another reason why football fans are frequently (and accurately) thought of as the lowest of the low…
To rejoice in someone’s death is rarely acceptable, but when it’s done over the fact that that person’s ownership of the football club they support didn’t please them then it’s just disrespectful and ignorant.
I know United fans rarely see sense but under the glazers your club has won the league countless times and the champions league as well as increase profitability.
Only an idiot would see that as a reason to insult a man who has just list his life.
1) Where’s the rejoicing?
2) Only the stupid would link Glazer ownership to success
3) Profitability – are you sure. Check the accounts
“Only the stupid would link Glazer ownership to success.”
This is just ridiculous – since 2005, MUFC have won the EPL title five times, won the CL once and been defeated-finalists twice.
This past season was a disaster but if you’re going to lay blame for that disaster then it’s properly put at the door of Sir Alex Ferguson who was badly mistaken in “choosing” David Moyes. However, if SAF had “chosen” LVG (rather than AgentMoyes) then I’d like to think that the past season would have been much less disastrous. The Glazers recognized SAF’s mistaken choice and took swift action to redress it – whether (or not) Louis Van Gaal is able to bring the club back to the pinnacle of success that it has enjoyed since 2005 is an open question. Like I said in my earlier post – enjoy the ride.
Denton – total rubbish. Explain why extracting £690 million from the club increased United’s success? Go on. No? This is really simple – the correlation between transfers and success is high, and between wages and success higher. Reduce, massively, United’s spending power = a reduction in quality at the club (at a minimum in relative terms, but also likely in absolute terms since it’s a competitive market). And don’t give me any nonsense about revenues either. United was once the market leader in revenues. Now behind Barca, Real, and Bayern.
Why am I still debating this. Moronic.
“Denton – total rubbish. Explain why extracting £690 million from the club increased United’s success?”
Once more you’re confusing the issue with half-truths. The point at issue is that you believed it was total nonsense to link the Glazer’s ownership to success.
I pointed out that the period from 2005-2013 was a time of unparalleled success for MUFC – in what parallel universe does it matter whether (or not) they “extracted” money from the club ? and from the club’s fans, too ? In every professional sport, owners print money that comes from the fans’ wallets – either directly through the turnstiles or, increasingly, through new revenue streams.
Did the Glazers kick the ball ? Did the Glazers make tackles ? Did the Glazers make saves ? Did the Glazers block shots ? Of course, not. They were the owners and under their ownership the men in short pants running around on a grass field won a lot of trophies.
Was this a necessary correlation ? I never suggested that it was – it might just have been a coincidence but the point at issue concerns the indisputable fact that this period of their ownership coincided with unparalleled success.
With regard to your back-up argument – “the correlation between transfers and success is high, and between wages and success higher. Reduce, massively, United’s spending power = a reduction in quality at the club (at a minimum in relative terms, but also likely in absolute terms since it’s a competitive market).” It might be proven correct in the future. We don’t know. You might be right – but, equally, you might be wrong.
One of the teams competing for the CL trophy this season had also won La Liga with a first-team purchase-cost less than their main opponent’s two most-expensive players’ transfer-costs. If all there was to this footie business was splashing-the-cash then there is no way that any team could compete with petro-fuelled clubs like ManShitty or PSG – their owners’ wealth makes Roman Abramovich look like a piker.
IF money-spent guaranteed success then a lot of the remaining romance of the sport would be lost. Fortunately, Athletico Madrid won on the cheap; Liverpool came within a whisker of fending off both CSKALondon and the petro-fuelled noisy neighbours.
In the final analysis, the competitiveness of the team on the pitch is only imperfectly-correlated with the money spent to assemble a winning group of mercenaries – no team is composed of eleven men born within a stone’s throw of the stadium. The two most “home-bred”” teams in the contemporary era – Barcelona and Bayern Munich – spend vast sums of money to supplement a core of home-grown players; MUFC did exactly the same thing when SAF hit lucky with the class of ’92. On the other hand, John Terry is the only home-grown player on CSKALondon and Iker Casillas is the only one for the CL champions.
I think it’s fair to say that spending enormous sums of money can get a team that can compete for trophies but it’s no guarantee of success. For every brilliant transfer like Wayne Rooney or Cristiano Ronaldo there are many duds like Fellaini or Shevchenko or Torres or Kaka or Zlatan (@ Barca) and so on. Of course, it’s much harder to win without any significant expenditure but that’s not really the point – the point is that MUFC have consistently had a very large wage bill and, over the past twenty years, UTD have consistently spent big sums of money on transfer fees.
As Revey Ace wrote earlier, “Fergie wouldn’t sign overpriced players. Moyes couldn’t.” No one knows what LVG will do. And that uncertainty is part of the excitement of the coming season.
If the Glazers had spent 680,000,000 million on transfer fees over the past eight years and would dole out something like 150,000,000 this summer would it make them more virtuous ? would it make you happier to support UTD ?
Denton – actually there have been plenty of studies on the correlation between financial power (wages/transfers fees) and ‘success’. You’re wrong again. It’s becoming a pattern.
Brilliant Piece Ed. I salute you. Summed up perfectly.
Perfect article. I walked away in 2005 because of that scum riddled family. Will never go back till the lot of those parasites are gone.
Glazer and all his family can rot in hell. My son and I walked when those bastards took over and we will never return while they remain
What a great read a lot of us utds fans knew the score when they took over and when we got £80mill for ronaldo and none it was spent it was steady a downturn only fergie getting a pint out of an half pint pot as kept us at the top so it will be intresting to see if any money will be invested no tears here
Ed: I love the pod and usually agree with your analysis-but on this one I have to reluctantly disagree.
The £600M figure that the Glazers have allegedly stripped from United does not take into account the dividends that the PLC was paying out prior to the takeover. Nor does it attribute any of the commercial revenue increase realized under the Glazers to their enhanced commercial activities. And, it does not reflect the beneficial tax benefits from debt financing.
I realize that many Glazer critics view the team’s marketing approach as unseemly-I view it as owners monetizing a under-marketed brand under the PLC.
That the Glazers bought the team with other people’s money doesn’t bother me-and investor (debt or equity) would have require a return. That the ROE is enormous under the LBO is good for the Glazers-and frankly no consequence to the team.
Every doomsday scenario predicted since 2005 (that the team would go bankrupt, that the team would not be able to compete, that the debt would not be refinanced, etc.) has not come to pass. But, the Glazer critics say-not to worry-this time we’ll be right.
The scenario now is that under-investment has crippled the team and will make it impossible for United to rebound from this year’s disaster. We’ll see-but given the track record of the doom and gloom brigade since 2005-I wouldn’t bet on it.
Ken – you’re conflating a few different arguments and, to be honest, it doesn’t do you any favours. Why is it that those who defend the Glazers are so ill informed? Or perhaps its’ the other way around, so let me help you out by taking it point by point.
1) The total cost is a touch over £690 million in interest, debt repayment, and other fees. (It’s not an allegation – you’re simply telling an untruth). There is £347 million in debt still to come so the total cost if (and its unlikely, but for arguments sake…) United are ever debt free will be significantly north of £1bn. Until 2014 every year the Glazers had been in charge had cost between 30% and 80% of EBITDA in interest repayments. Or to get really basic about if somebody spent 30-80% of your wages with no gain to you, you’d be pretty angry about it. “No consequence to the team” – At best total nonsense.
2) The savings from dividends (if we make a generous growth assumption of say 8%), taken from the based the PLC paid in the years before takeover, is around £80m.
3) Savings from UK corporation tax at around £120m over the past nine years.
4) You do the math, as our American friends like to say.
5) Revenue increases are a) matchday income from the rapid increase in ticket prices 2005-2010. b) PL media rights increase, which the Glazers had nothing to do with, c) Champions League rights increase, ditto, d) commercial income from sponsorship. Funny thing is for all the praise the Glazers are given here they’ve actually slipped behind Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich.
6) Doomsday scenarios. I don’t know of too many decent financial analysts that thought United would go bust (I didn’t predict it if you were on this site back in 2005-2009), neither did Andy Green, although we know just how close Liverpool came to meltdown (“one day away”). United’s leverage at its peak was 7x income, which was a lot higher than at Liverpool’s at its peak. When debt and interest payments were at their highest, and United’s income somewhat less, United was in a far riskier financial position than today. A champions league failure away from a firesale, perhaps. It was a massive debt gamble.
7) Will the Glazers allow United to spend some of the club’s own money? Maybe. Amazing. We’ll see though… a lot of spin so far, not much action.
8) If you’d like to have a financial debate here, I’m all up for it, but given the above comment I doubt you are.
Ok. Even accepting your numbers the offset to the 630M is 200M-so net effect of the Glazers is 430M. And then I think you still have to credit the Glazers with additional commercial revenue that would not have been realized under the PLC.
The takeover was predicated on the assumption that the brand was not being fully realized-and it looks like that was correct given commercial revenue growth.
And, yes-reading financial analysts at the time-some predicted that Carrimgtion would have to be sold to provide cash that would be needed due to thin EBITDA margins.
Did the Glazer takeover result in higher finance costs than would have happened under the previous PLC? Yes-is it £630M: no. If it’s £200-£300M over 9 years that’s at most £35M per year-and that is using the years when debt as a share of EBITDA was at its highest and commercial revenues had not yet been fully realized.
Again-given the success of the team since 2005-not sure how the financial engineering of the takeover is an issue.
Call me whaever names you want. I’m from New York-I can take it.
Sorry-typo: meant 690 not 630M. And, the Carrington sale is one example of scenarios predicted by analysts who were skeptical of the takeover. In general there were many who said that the Glazers would be unable to make the deal work-and that clearly didn’t happen.
Moreover-United’s current dent service as a share of EBITDA is very manageable and the club’s valuation now is greater than when the Glazers bought the team.
Ken – debt service is manageable now, but it was at 7x EBITDA four years ago and between 2005/2010 there is little doubt United fell behind others in the financial stakes.
Actually Carrington is owned by a separate company in another piece of financial engineering. But don’t conflate other people’s arguments with mine. Let’s stick to the point. I’m saying that the leverage, which has cost United £690m gross/£490 net, has damaged the club. You say it hasn’t. I say that’s just plain nuts. Given United’s position as the worlds leading club (!) the money sucked out has damaged United’s standing, success, brand and trophy haul… and will do unless there’s a very large reverse this summer and the next couple of windows. One trophy is three years…
Ken – why would the additional commercial income not have been realised? United isn’t unique in the market, and in fact is not the leader in this aspect either. Don’t give the Glazers too much credit. You don’t think a PLC board wouldn’t have commercialised too? What evidence is there for that when the sole motivation of a PLC is to maximise profit. Of course they would have commercialised. That said, the Glazers are very aggressive, milking the brand for everything. This, I would argue, is tactical (any sponsor will do) not strategic (fewer bigger partners). I suspect they’ll hit the ceiling with this approach before Bayern do (who use the latter approach).
I’m afraid you’re thinking narrowly on the link between Glazers spending and success though. United’s two leading players 2005 – 2009 (Rooney, Ronaldo) were both signed prior to the takeover and the gradual degradation in squad quality has undoubtedly happened. You can’t possibly argue otherwise. Even spending in the past two years has not reversed the trend, which is why there’s now widespread recognition that heavy spending is needed.
I haven’t called you any names. I’ve questioned your knowledge on this subject. There’s a difference. I’m right here too. You’ve even tried to jerrymander the numbers in your latest comments. You are wrong. The cost is over £690m. The saving is at best £200m in tax/dividends. That’s *almost* £500m in net costs over 9 years. Or, £55m per season for the benefit of having the Glazers in charge. I don’t know on what planet you’d have to be on to not think that invested in the team (transfer/wages) that wouldn’t make a difference.
Ed:
Ok. How about we agree that the net costs of the takeover are no more than £500M? So maybe you’ll stop saying £690M as you’ve noted that is not accurate.
Regarding the commercial revenue. We’re having a similar discussion on RedCafe. Someone posted this analysis of commercial revenue:
Pre-Glazers
2000 – 2001
United 217.2m
Chelsea 118.4m
Arsenal
Liverpool 137.6m
2001-2002
United 229.5m
Chelsea 143.4m
Arsenal 141.4m
Liverpool 154.6m
2002 – 2003
United 251.2m
Chelsea 134.3m
Arsenal 150.1m
Liverpool 149.3m
2003-2004
United 259.4m
Chelsea 217.5m
Arsenal 174.1m
Liverpool 140.2m
2004-2005
United 246.4m
Chelsea 220.8m
Arsenal 171.3m
Liverpool 181.2m
post-Glazers
2005-2006
United 242.6m
Chelsea 221m
Arsenal 177.4m
Liverpool 176m
2006-2007
United 315.2m
Chelsea 283m
Arsenal 263.9m
Liverpool 198.9m
2007-2008
United 324.8m
Chelsea 268.9m
Arsenal 264m
Liverpool 210.9m
….
2012-2013
United 423.8m
Chelsea 303.4m
Arsenal 284.3m
Liverpool 240.6m
United’s commercial revenue has increased more than their EPL peers under the Glazers. That United’s commercial revenue is within shouting distance of Bayern is a measure of United’s acumen-as OT’s naming rights have not been sold and England’s domestic market is smaller than Germany’s.
I’ll be conservative-and attribute £20M per year in commercial revenue to the Glazers. I don’t think there is a coincidence between United ramping up its commercial activity and the Glazer’s ownership of an NFL team. As you have an American wife-I’m sure you’ve seen how aggressive sports is marketed over here-and the PLC did not market that way. Would they have done so? Maybe-but the track record suggests it would not have been as effective as under the Glazers.
That reduces the net annual amount of the takeover to £30M. Not chicken feed-but less than the headline amount. So-there’s some nuance here. But-according to most of the posters here the Glazers are leeches sucking £690M out of their club. That narrative just isn’t true.
Regarding buying players-is there any evidence that, since 2005 we lost out on a player we really wanted because of being outbid? Would Neymar, Ibra, Bale, etc have come here if the Glazers weren’t owners?
In fact, seems to me that United don’t have a great track record in attracting too-class foreign talent from non-EPL teams over the last 7-8 years. Maybe that was Fergie’s strategy-but that didn’t change pre/post Glazers.
And Fergie has always maintained that he had the money he needed under the Glazers. Maybe I’m ignorant and I’ll-informed, but that’s what Fergie said.
Ken – the figures you’re quoting there are revenue not commercial income.
Commercial in 2005
Bayern – £69.6m
Real – £56.9m
United – £47.8m
Barca – £30.0m
Commercial in 2013
Bayern – £163.1m (increase of £93.5m post 2005)
Real – £151.4m (increase of £94.5m post 2005)
Barca – £151.2m (increase of £121.2m post 2005)
United – £117.6m (increase of £69.8m post 2005)
Can we end this argument that somehow the Glazers are marketing geniuses that have bucked the market trend?
On the costs to United – the gross is £690m, the net ceteris paribus is £490m. If United had spent all that money on players/wages/transfers the tax/dividends wouldn’t have been paid either!
Please stop trying to jerrymander the numbers. “I’ll be conservative-and attribute £20M per year in commercial revenue to the Glazers.” and “That reduces the net annual amount of the takeover to £30M” is just made up. You’ve no basis whatsoever to make that statement at all.
Fergie did say that. Then again they paid him £8m/year, didn’t they. Still on the payroll now.
Great piece Ed, well done.
Shed no tears for the passing of that profiteering carpet-bagger from Florida.
In addition, II look forward to not shedding a tear when I eventually learn of the passing of the son of a Salford meat-packer and a couple of Irish bloodsuckers.
Oh come on people, dont try to over-mourn this parasite. Fuckin thief, did nothing to even beging to earn ang kind of respect, an some of you scold us for being happy the he is gone
The cunt has lives long enough to enjoy his money and greed, and could not care less for your callings for respect.
Fuck respect, call it as you see it – thief is gone, fuck him.
Jewish mafia will go on, unfortunately
Deadbeatmoyles – I’m not accepting racism on here. Since your comment has already been seen/read/viewed I’ll leave it. People are smart enough to reject that bollocks. But you, your email address, and your IP are now blocked. Don’t return.
Well said Ed. At the height of the takeover and protests outside Old Trafford etc, there was plenty in US media claiming the protests were anti-semitic! Like any criticism of Israel is accused of the same. LUHG must ensure criticism of that bunch of florida scum is nothing to do with them personally, everything to do with their rapacious capitalism.
“A brilliant piece of observational, well informed and passionate writing” = pryme red
The old man lead a full and parasitic life,
our misery is set to continue
Watching SAF ride off into the sunset, I felt like that little cross eyed kid in the old black and white cowboy move….
“Come back Shane, come back”
don’t think anyone really expected hitting the earth with a bump was going to hurt this much, Moyes wasn’t really Alex’s first choice, no one else wanted the job
Not arrogant, just debtor
Ed: Even if United had used all of EBITDA for acquisition-that would not reduce taxable income to 0 as player acquisition costs are amortized over the player’s contract term. Assuming we spent £100M in a given year on players with five-year contracts, that would reduce taxable income by £20M.
Anyway-the logic of an LBO is that a company’s current management is not maximizing EBITDA-and so the debt used to finance the takeover is serviced by increased EBITDA. Seems to me the Glazers correctly observed that United’s EBITDA could be increased.
One argument is that they got lucky-that the EPL/CL TV rights went up at the same time the Glazers bought the team. Maybe-maybe they were just lucky. Maybe any other owner would have increased commercial revenue at the same rate-or did even better. Maybe.
But-maybe the Glazers saw the unrealized potential in the EPL and United, and correctly guessed that there was upside. Maybe they knew Fergie was a genius and the team in 2005 was well-placed to compete at a high level without too much investment for 7-8 years, by which time the debt would be at manageable levels and EBITDA could be used to refresh the team.
I agree that the next 2-3 transfer windows are critical. The team needs at least 2 new starters. On the other hand we’ve spent nearly £100M on transfers over the past three windows-so there’s some evidence of management understanding the need to restock. This need is in part due to some players (Cleverly and Anderson at CM and Buttner at LB) not progressing as hoped. Not sure that’s a result of under-investment.
Ken – amortisation makes no difference when viewed over a four/five year period. As for the Glazers’ foresight I doubt they could foresee the massive increase in PL and CL rights. Maybe they thought they could go it alone with TV rights and got lucky. They thought they could increase commercial income sure, but then, as I said below so did *everybody* else. Arsenal, Chelsea, City commercial income increase is even more dramatic than at United, Real, Barca, Bayern. A rising tide really did float all boats.
But, again, that’s a different argument to what is done with that increase, isn’t it. Glazers used it to pay debt and enrich themselves (immediately via ‘management fees’ and through capital appreciation) not for the benefit of the club. Ever. The increases in income at Real, Barca, Bayern are all for the benefit of the club. City/Chelsea for their owners egos. Arsenal we’ll see but Kronke shows no signs of wanting personal short-term income. Point being United is the only top club used as a profit machine for the owners at the club’s expense.
I really can’t see where you’re going with this. Football simply isn’t just another industry where there are no losers in an LBO. It’s an arms race – the more arms you buy the more you’re win. It’s a very tight correlation. (R=.72 & R=.9 transfers/wages). The Glazers net held United back. The sooner they’re gone the better. That’s from a financial and fan point of view.
Ed: I was merely pointing out that it would have been very difficult to get taxable income to 0 by using all EBITDA on transfers. We would have had to increase our wage bill by an enormous amount on top of the amortized transfer fees.
I think It’s difficult to compare United to Spanish or German teams-both in terms of revenues and their ability to build an elite squad. Bayren are able to get German-based players which come up and are trained under a domestic player development infrastructure that is better than in England. Aside from Thiago-has there been a transfer target that chose Bayern instead of United because we were outbid?
Barca have obvious advantages in player development over just about anybody. That leaves Real-and yes-their finances are pretty awe inspiring. That some of their funding comes from sweetheart deals with the local government is something that we can’t do much about.
In fact-I think you’d agree that recently all of the EPL teams are falling behind Bayern, Real and Barca. That’s not because of the Glazers-but because of some structural differences (I think) between English and German/Spanish football.
Let me ask you this-what players do you suspect would have come to United since 2005 that went to another team because we were cash-strapped? Would we have been better with Nasri and Snejder-two players I remember people clamoring for us to buy.
Ken – why speculate, but I know that the huge sum wasted on various bankers would have been put to better use on the pitch. As for the Bayern/United question. Which players are you talking about that both clubs have bid for exactly? Most deals are done behind closed doors with no bids going in until the deal is sealed (unless you’re Ed Woodward). United certainly looked at bringing in Neuer, Ribery, and tried to get Robben prior to Chelsea.
Not sure you can make that statement about the structural advantages either – its too easy to try and dismiss Barca/Bayern/Real as not relevant to this debate, which started with your claim about United’s commercial genius. I’ve heard this nonsense about sweetheart deals often – it’s certainly no longer true. The big one was the sale of a training pitch (City centre pitch) to the local council which sold it on to developers. Certainly wouldn’t be classed as commercial income though! As for Bayern/Barca… hmmm pretty dodgy logic. Catalonia is no bigger than United’s playground in the north east, Bayern aren’t in a vacuum and in any case its a very global game.
Ed: I suspect United thought they were pretty well situated. Prior to this year (the less said the better) United had the highest point total in the EPL for three straight seasons.
I think the problem is that players who are now in their primes (Nani, Valencia, Evans, Welbeck, Hernandez, etc) have not done as well as expected. Fergie thought these guys would be the heir apparents to the class of 92. That hasn’t worked out.
Our academy has not produced much recently-and that’s hurt. Giggs and Scholes probably saved us at least £100M in transfer fees over their careers if we had to purchase players of similar quality.
All I’m saying is that drawing a straight line between the Glazer’s LBO and our inability to compete with Real, Bayern and Barca this year is a stretch. You and Paul said on the pod that re competed against Real in last year’s tie, so we weren’t too far from the top.
Saying we should spend money is fine-but obviously if that money went for Andy Carrol and Fellani-then that would be really stupid (oh wait, erm). We obviously would have had to spend wisely.
You’re establishing a hypothetical counterfactual: that the PLC (or another owner) would have spent £100M per year on transfers-and that would have resulted in a stronger track record since 2005.
That would suppose all EBITDA (or a good portion of it) would have been spent on players (maybe, maybe not), most of those players would have been better than those who actually played for United (maybe, maybe not) and our record would have been better than winning the league five times and participating in three CL finals. Again-maybe, but hard to imagine.
I too am worried about the squad-but that’s because so many of our players who should be the spine of the team regressed-and did so even more under this past year’s manager (who will go unnamed). Again-I fail to see that’s the Gazer’s fault.
Sorry-more on this. I think, from a marketing perspective it!s hard to dismiss that Real Madrid have a pretty unique position as a top brand among Spanish-speaking countries which makes it very valuable as a marketing platform. And, in past years Real benefited from pretty lax lending (as did everybody in Spain, unfortunately).
Again, Germany is a larger domestic market than the UK-which makes Bayern a different platform for German companies than United.
I realize this is what you do for a living-so I’ll tread lightly here. But still-comparing Real and Bayern to United in terms of commercial potential may not be a simple apples-to-apples exercise.
The point I was making for Barca is that their success has been party a function of La Masia, which we don’t have. And no doubt their revenues from the Middle East doesn’t hurt.
The point is that United did very well to compete against these guys until the past year or so. You characterize this as the Glazer LBO chickens coming home to roost.
It seems that you dismiss an alternative narrative odd offered by Denton and myself in this thread. That’s fine-but my guess is that the truth is more complicated than you describe in your original article.
Ken – this is becoming circular. I don’t think your argument about Bayern isn’t right. Football is a global market, they’ve exploited it – it’s not about size of England v Germany. Just look at the PL overseas rights for evidence. As for Barca there’s nothing structurally different about La Masia or in fact non-replicable. It’s an academy. United have one of those too. It used to produce lots of players as well.
But on the point that I’m dismissing the ‘alternative narrative’ proposed by you and Denton that the buyout had no effect or – in Denton’s case – a positive effect, then yes, I am. It’s total, utter, ridiculous, nonsensical, indefensible, nonsense. Hope that’s clear enough!
This isn’t the Glazers fish oil business or strip malls where the leverage can creep up – and as long as the asset’s value doesn’t collapse – while servicing the debt down then all is good. The effect is on the pitch – where fans want to see the club spending its cash. The Glazers care little for that. Fans do.
Ed: You dislike the Glazer regime:
– You don’t like it that they’ve undertaken initiatives to minimize tax liability–whatever. Any profit maximizing firm does the same.
– You don’t like that the Glazers have raised ticket prices, etc. Doesn’t bother me–seems like United ST prices are pretty reasonable given other entertainment alternatives.
– You don’t like the sponsorship deals because you see them as tacky. I don’t care–if selling United’s name brings in more money-so be it.
I don’t like the Glazers, nor do I dislike the Glazers. I’m indifferent to the Glazers. Football, as you well know is a cut-throat business. United are operated as such-fine with me.
I don’t really care about leverage or debt or anything regarding United. As a United fan I just want them to win. And, since 2005 I’ve been pretty happy with the results. This year of course is an exception.
I assume that you think we could have had even better results since 2005 under a different type of owner who presumably would have spent a greater share of EBITDA on players–OK-that’s your opinion, as much as you aver it as fact.
I think the next few years will be the litmus test for the Glazers. Fergie is no longer here and the core of the most recent championship team is aging.
If we become another Liverpool circa 1990-present , or AC Milan or another fallen European giant then the Glazer critics will be proven correct. But even you say that we’re in pretty good financial shape now-with manageable debt and projected EBITDA of 100M pa. That should allow us to continue refreshing the squad.
For me, the Glazer legacy is still TBD.
Ken – please take this in the right spirit but I think this comment reveals a lot about you as a fan. I only ever have this kind of debate with US-based fans. I think I’m ok saying that given my situation!
– How many times do you make it to a United game a year? A few, none, ever? Any of those is ok, but it will colour your perspective. You don’t think of United as ‘your’ club. It’s just another form of entertainment to pass a couple of hours on the TV.
– Know anybody who has been driven away because of the costs? Perhaps permanently? Do you really think watching United is like any other form of “entertainment choice”? Shall I go to the cinema, out to eat or Old Trafford tonight?
– You’ll never have the same passion for the club or perhaps any. It isn’t “your” club. You’re dismissive of the anger because you don’t and can’t understand it. I think that explains a lot about the diversionary conversation on here.
Ed:
Let me tell you about my beloved New York Mets. The owner, Fred Wilpon lost money in the Madoff scandal. Although Wilpon assured Met fans it would have no effect on the team-the Mets’ payroll is miid-table and have not been competitive since 2007.
I really don’t like the Wilpons be use the team’s performance has suffered. I don’t see this at United.
Regarding sports in general-the costs to attend have gone up everywhere. I understand that back in the day things were cheaper. That’s not the Glazer’s fault-every sport has gentrified.
Yes-as a good liberal I rue the trend in sports that it’s become too expensive for many fans. But-that seems to.be the case for all entertainment. I feel even more sorry for parent with children who want to attend a Miley Cyrus concert-who must pay a fortune.
I get the feeling that the Glazers, for some embody a lot of what is perceived to be wrong with sports. That’s fine-but as owners to me they seem no different than many other owners.
Ed, I’ve greatly enjoyed the debate with Ken and it is honestly refreshing to hear new views. The bit about your exchanges with U.S. based fans is illuminating. I think some of the views of those of us with either U.S. roots or who live there now are at odds with your typical Salford-based fan and the reasons may be cultural. A U.S. fan wants his team to win but understands the need for his team’s owner to make money because that profit drive is shared by the fan. This is manifested many ways but a typical disconnect I observe is the u.k. Based fans who rip others for supporting the Glazers by buying shirts, tickets, Sky. To a U.S. fan, this is what you do as a fan. Another disconnect is probably faith-based. The U.S. is still predominately a religious country so the passing of an owner, even one say as reviled as the Glazers would not earn “rot in hell” posts or death threats (some of which Ive seen on the site) If some idiot did that, he would be shouted down. I understand your premise is typically–given United’s following, stadium, profile and revenue, we should be the biggest swinging ____ in the transfer market. I think what Ken and others are saying (many U.S. teams-Cowboys, Nets have gone the big spending route w/o trophies) is that we don’t know what would have happened. Bottom line is you may argue to what extent United is the biggest due to its foreign fans but you can’t then criticize their style of fandom. That’s having it both ways, mate.
twisted – well the vast majority of united’s revenue is not made from overseas fans, at least not in any direct sense (yes I know the strategy is to monetise brand reach). We can all have different perspectives on what’s right and wrong here. The argument that ‘this is how capitalism works’ is ok, but one I view as nonsense given 150 years of this industry’s history. And a major failure of the Glazer family not to recognise the cultural imperative in England, or if not a failure one they simply didn’t give a toss about. (since I’ve written most of a book on it I do consider myself an expert). Where I do get angry is false presentation of the figures. To argue that the ‘cost’ of the Glazers is less than it really is, or to pretend that extraction of that cash had no impact is simply a lie.
Regarding the cost of the LBO-this is an analysis from 2012 by a poster on RedCafe who is a pretty sharp financial analyst. It details the overstatement of the LBO costs-and I think does so in a pretty convincing manner.
What we know has left the club:
£311m – Interest and cash restructuring charges (mostly unwinding the interest rate swap)
£10m – Loans to the kids (although they should come back at some point)
£20m – “Management” fees, etc (The is after tax assuming around £30m in actual fees – might be a little more by now, but it hasn’t shown up in the accounts yet)
So the total cash outflow has been about £340m.
So why aren’t the issue costs in there?
Essentially because that is money that was never “in” United – those costs were added in to the amount of the debt. These are costs that would hit United if we ever used internally generated cash to pay down the debt. However, that is unlikely to happen. (A more likely scenario is that the Glazers do a partial IPO and use the funds to retire the debt – if that happens they will have to give up a little more of their ownership because of the embedded costs making the debt larger. In essence, they will pay the issue costs themselves.) The increased debt amount does mean that our interest bill is somewhat larger, but that is offset by our ability to amortise the issue costs – makes it close to a wash.
What about the PIKs?
Sorry, nothing to do with the PIKs as they don’t seem to have cost us a penny. (Actually, because their issue costs were amortised and the notional interest was used to offset taxes, the PIKs made us quite a lot of money – something like £40m in taxes saved. Weird.)
What would have happened if we were still a PLC?
The truth is that we will never know so we have to make assumptions. The most common underlying assumption is that the PLC would have generated the same revenues as the Glazers, so that’s what I’ll use. I’ll also use the same costs. (That’s probably unrealistic – I’ve already charged the Glazers for their fees, so as a minimum I ought to reflect the additional consulting fees that would have been needed to enable us to ramp Commercial in the way that it has been done.) Anyway, on that basis, taxes would have been in the £120-140m range and dividends in the £80-100m range. (Dividends would depend on how much of the Ronaldo windfall went out as “Special” dividends. The PLC appeared to be paying out about a third of such gains. Taxes depend on the abilities of the lawyers/accountants to minimize them.) So we’re looking at a total outflow in the £200-240m range – which puts the “Glazer tax” in the £100-140m range. Not £500m, but still enough to be angry about.
Remember that, for the Glazers, this is the worst case scenario. If the PLC revenues were lower (and/or the costs higher) the “tax” would be lower. In fact, if the PLC hadn’t got their finger out in Commercial (where revenues had been flat for 6 years) and/or hadn’t raised ticket prices, the 50% of turnover cap would have noticeably restricted transfer spending which might have been a problem. Oops – this last bit sounds like an apology, but I’ll leave it in anyway.
Ken,
There’s full analysis out there so I don’t need to repeat it here, but the figures and paragraph you quote isn’t right. Not even close. And to be honest I’m really furious that you would present a set of figures that are not only wrong but look like spin. “We’ll never know”. Not true, not true at all, we do know.
Your third party analysis is not only wrong but basically just made up. It is not right to present old, incomplete analysis from an unnamed third person without challenging it. Even a basic beermat analysis would note some glaring errors:
Complete lack of forex
Missing bridge conversion repayments
Early repayment fees no included above
Interest on PIKS (they were on the books for the love of God)
Debt issue costs (unamortised) – not even mentioned
The interest bill alone (in black and white on the books, not in doubt, you can’t argue about it) is more than £350m. Add in on-the-books fees, derivative losses and debt repayments and that’s hugely north of £600m.
Nice write-up. Nonetheless, since no blood was shed during Glazer take-over and management of United, I will keep business “Business” and take his death as a human death.
Had he been a murderer or Facilitator of Death, I would speak otherwise.
Ed.
I am so impressed by the rationale, the logic, the depth of argument of your postings in the face of attempted ridicule by the Glazer apologists. Great stuff!
The spin is terrific isn’t it.
Ed:
Through August 2012 Andersred estimates the gross cash costs of the takeover to be £530M and net as £350m. These are along the lines we discussed earlier. See his post here:
http://andersred.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2012-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=15
I’ve excerpted the post:
The key issue with the IPO is not however the share options that will be granted, but the continuing financial costs to the club of the Glazers’ ownership. I thought it might be helpful to set out the costs and savings that stem from the financial structure that has been in place since 2005. There have been a few comments on this blog questioning the financial costs of ownership so I wanted to set them out again in full with full sources.
The costs divide into several categories. Firstly “cash costs” of £402m, money paid out of the club’s coffers. The most important element of this is interest (£295m). Second are the limited repayments of debt since 2005, these comprise £37m of the original bank debt and £93m of repurchased bonds. Please note I have not included the repayment of the PIKs as the club did not pay for this. Adding these together we get costs of £531m, around two thirds of United’s total wage bill over the last seven years to put the figure in context.
For information I have also set out various costs paid by the taking on of additional debt rather than paid out of cash flow. I have not added this £79m to the £531m as there would be an element of double counting (I include repayments in the cash costs so can’t include debt additions too).
There are two key savings from the financial structure totalling £180m, firstly the dividends which the plc used to pay and secondly corporation tax saved because interest payments are tax deductible.
I have assumed dividends would have increased 8% per year from 2006-2012. This compares to 7.6% per year growth in the seven years up to the takeover and is faster than the 7% growth in EBITDA seen since the last full year of the plc (2003/4).
Corporation tax is as set out in the Manchester United Limited accounts (but not paid because of deductible interest higher up the corporate structure).
The net cost: £531m – £180m = £351m is a vast number. It is the gross transfer spend of the club in the ten years from 2001/2 to 2010/11. It could alternatively have funded a 60% ticket price cut in every year since the takeover. It could have been used to build out Old Trafford to be a 100,000 seat stadium. It was used for none of these things. It is the cost in cold hard cash of the Glazers’ ownership.
Crucially, this figure ignores the fact that even after all this waste of money, the club still has £437m of debt on the balance sheet and that this will still be around £360m after the IPO.
Ken – Andy has done an update to this post IPO, which you would know since you’ve been trawling his site. Why present old data as new – twice! I’m beginning to doubt your motivations. He’s done a very detailed model on this.
Ed:
The latest Andersred blog post on this issue from May 2013 states the following:
“As I have frequently pointed out, the interest bill from all this debt has totalled c. £350m since the takeover and the total cost (including fees, derivative losses and debt repayments) is almost £600m. Paying interest has taken far more of the club’s cash than has been spent on transfers.”
Presumably the offset of dividends and interests still apply.
Sorry-I can’t find a more recent analysis on Andersred that gets to the £690M gross costs.
Ken – Andy has done updated analysis and not published, but it has been shared with a number of outlets.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/10629327/Manchester-United-continue-to-pay-the-price-for-the-takeover-by-Malcolm-Glazer-and-his-family.html
http://www.independent.ie/sport/roy-keane-united-paying-the-price-for-cutting-corners-on-transfers-29999124.html
http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2014/02/14/4619328/glazers-must-share-blame-for-manchester-united-troubles
As a side note I also note your defamation of me on Red Cafe. Please assume that our conversation ends here and that we’ll deal with that through more formal channels.
https://www.nqatpod.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Untitled-1.png
Wow, saw that screenshot. Defamation? Really?
It’s interesting that revenue argument in terms of overseas fans. I would argue that everyone seems to agree that Champions League money is vital to United’s finances . But when United were knocked out, overseas friendlies are devised as an answer to make up the shortfall. But overseas revenue doesn’t matter? Overseas television revenue, while paltry in comparison to the U.K. Deal has grown year on year. Do you think Chevrolet would be the shirt sponsor if there were no American fans? I’ve attended quite a few games at OT in corporate seats and have met quite a few Yanks and Aussies in them. TBF foreigners are the only folks who can be talked into paying those package prices. Do revenues from OT ticket sales track the nationality of the purchaser?
I’m sure the numbers bear you out but to thumb your nose at U.S. Fans is frankly offensive. A rot in hell Malcom piece is easy Ed. More challenging would be an overseas fans don’t matter or they aren’t true fans or United isn’t really their club piece. Now that would generate some buzz.
This is a gross over-reaction and a deliberate misrepresentation. You’ll point to where I “thumb my nose at US fans?” You can be offended if you like but I didn’t bring nationality into it. I said – accurately – that direct revenue from overseas is small. Champions League pool money is based on the domestic market, which is pretty basic knowledge. Do I really need to spell out difference between direct and indirect revenue? I even said its clear United’s strategy is to ‘monetise brand reach’ – ie association with sponsors (like, funnily enough, Chevrolet). I couldn’t have been clearer, but yet you’re seeking to turn this into a question of nationality. Very poor.
Funny how we both took it the same way Ed. Misrepresenting? You say first his comments reveal a lot about him as a fan. So that’s patronizing. Then you say u only have this kind of argument with U.S. Based fans. That’s going from the specific to the general right? Then you go on to ask if he ever or never goes to games–something overseas fans can rarely if ever do which then leads to your conclusion that it’s not his club and he can’t understand the plight of the fan who’s been priced out. This is not a leap on my part. Either write more clearly or own up to what you say. I enjoy the Rant and cogent analysis but when you write something that’s taken as divisive by more than one person from the same nationality before u accuse folks of misrepresentation, look in the mirror.
twisted – I’ve written to you offline about this, which you didn’t respond to. What exactly is it that I should “own up to?” Spell it out rather than hiding behind insinuation. If you’re suggesting that I’m using nationality as a stick to beat either Glazer or readers on here with then you’re totally wrong.
“US-based” is not a nationality. In the same comment I also talked about perspective on the issue. I believe there is a cultural and business perspective on football that is very different in the US (where both ‘Denton’ and ‘Ken’ are based) to that in the UK. Specifically football fans in England are deeply embedded into a culture of 150 years of ownership that (more or less) revolved around fans not a globalised search for profit. US-based fans and owners, it seems, do not recognise this culture and ride roughshod over it.
Andy Mitten had a similar view here:
http://www.espnfc.com/club/manchester-united/360/blog
Fans who do not go to games will have a different perspective again. Sorry if you don’t like that, but its true.
If my article about Glazer was taken as “divisive by more than one person from the same nationality” perhaps that’s less to do with my article and more to do with them. At no point in the article do I suggest it is the Glazers’ nationality that is the problem, rather their sharp business practices. Divisive is what the Glazers have done to United’s fanbase. You seem to care less about that than trying to attack my credibility.
As an aside, but hardly relevant, my wife, son and 50% of my family are American. I’ve lived in the US, worked for the past 15 years with US companies, and now visit for around six weeks a year on various business and personal trips. I have a very good perspective on US business culture as it differs to the UK.
The previous comment on Red Cafe accused me of being an anti-semite, Ken followed up by implying I said he knew nothing because he’s American. Neither is true, both sought to deliberately misrepresent. “The action of damaging the good reputation of someone.” I gave Ken the option of correcting his comment, which he has now done.
As a US based fan, I am one that has been frustrated by the glazer regime. I’m not an economist and many of these numbers thrown around do little for me. What I do know is that I have always loved the history of United. The leveraged buyout of the club by disinterested Americans has been difficult. Other U.S. based owners, who clearly bought into teams for the money, have been more actively involved than they have.
The fact that they came in and immediately plunged the club into debt has left us all with a very bitter taste in our mouths. Having SAF in charge certainly saved them further humiliation and if it were not for his ability to squeeze 10-15 extra points out of a season it could have been much worse.
It has also left me (and I’m sure many others) wondering what could have been in these years since the buyout. Which players have we missed out on that could have added additional Champions League trophies? Imagine if the team were not left with this debt and could have rebuilt following Ronaldo’s exit? Could we have bought the players needed to win the CL last year even? Unfortunately, we will never know.