Manchester United’s owners are seeking to issue a £600 million bond in a bid to ease the club’s mounting debt burden, as Rant reported on Sunday. The bond, which in practice effectively swaps one kind of debt for another, will theoretically cut the overwhelming annual interest burden on the club – now at more than £70 million and rising.
But what does it really mean? Rant explains…
What does United owe?
When the Glazer family bought the club in 2005 they did so using two forms of debt in what City insiders call a leveraged buyout. Firstly, the family borrowed a touch over £130 million from various New York-based hedge funds. These so-called Payment-In-Kind (PIK) loans, which the family is ultimately responsible for meeting, roll-up interest annually. Secondly, the Glazers borrowed hundreds of millions more in principle cash debt from banks, including JP Morgan. In 2006 the family refinanced this debt placed it on the club’s books, securitised against the shares and club assets.
It is the PIK loans, which roll-up interest annually until the debt matures at a future date, that are causing greatest concern. In this case the interest charged is widely reported as an eye watering 14.35 per cent annually, with the maturation date in 2017. By then the initial £130 million loan will have reached £580 million.
The principal cash debt now stands at £519 million, according to the last published accounts, which are more than 18 months old. These loans are relatively inexpensive, attracting interest at between two and five per cent annually. Cheap money in times of extreme illiquidity in the commercial lending market.
Together – and with an assumption of interest added over the past 18 months – United owes more than £700 million.
What is a bond issue?
The Glazer family has asked US bank JP Morgan to explore a bond issue in which the club will effectively write IOU notes to potential investors who buy debt. On these IOUs the club promises to pay investors their money invested plus interest at a fixed date in the future. The success of the issue depends on how many investors buy United’s bonds: a factor of risk (default) versus potential rewards (interest payable). The risk to investors is diluted by spreading the debt among many parties.
Why refinance now?
The Glazer family has sought to refinance the PIK loans on many occasions over the past two years but the global recession has reduced to almost nothing the amount of money available on the commercial debt market. Unless the family can refinance it will be liable to pay the huge PIK loans in full on maturation. A firesale of the club – stripped of all its assets – is the inevitable outcome.
What are the advantages of the bond issue?
A successful bond issue will swap one kind of debt for another kind of debt but at a far cheaper interest rate. For the Glazer family this makes complete sense by removing the burden of the punishing PIK loans. The club’s books would actually be laden with more debt, although this point is moot: the Glazer’s debt, is effectively the club’s debt anyway.
What are the catches?
The principal bank lenders have a say in the running of the club under the terms of the £500 million cash loan but only if United does not meet certain financial targets. The club is meeting those targets but as preferential lenders JP Morgan and others expect the club to pay down some cash debt in addition to the PIK loans. This is why a full-scale £600 million bond issue is now mooted. This may have the effect of increasing interest payments on some parts of the club’s cash debt.
What do the fans’ groups say?
Manchester United’s Supporters’ Trust (MUST) questions why “any potential bond investor [would] be prepared to take on this risk if the return is going to be less than the current lenders receive and now in an environment where the risk is clearly much higher than the time at which these loans were first negotiated?”
“Is the financial situation for the Glazers as bad as recent speculation has suggested?” asks the group.
“Despite the extra income from TV and the huge ticket price rises they have been clawing back expenditure both at Manchester United as well as at the Tampa Bay Buccaneers where fan discontent is starting to mirror that at Old Trafford.”
“Whether they do manage to shift the debt onto other lenders the situation for United fans and our club will be little changed – weighed down by the millstone of the Glazers debt and with the supporters having to foot the bill through ever increasing ticket prices and reduced expenditure on players,” the group said in a statement.
“The Glazers have taken us from being a club that were the richest in the sporting world to now the most indebted. In the four years before the Glazers’ takeover Manchester United invested over £80 million in the form of players like Rooney and Ronaldo. In the four years since the Glazer takeover the turnover has doubled but, despite protestations to the contrary, independently published figures suggest the net transfer spend is now negative.”
“This is surely the time for the Glazers to exit and make way for a new investor interested in working with the supporters to build a stronger football club and business together,” it concludes.
What about transfer spending?
Simple arithmetic says that to pay down cash debt and account for rolled-up interest on the PIK loans United cannot spend more than £20 million per season. Even that figure is optimistic. Money from the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo remains unspent. The question is whether the Glazer family pays down debt more quickly than in the past or reinvests in the squad.
Will a white knight save United?
This is highly unlikely. While United is heavily indebted the club is as the leading sports franchise by the influential US-based Forbes magazine, ahead of Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins. With a market value reaching more than £1.3 billion, any investor in the club will need seriously deeps pockets. In comparison Roman Abramovic has invested a total of around £400 million in Chelsea, including buying the club, paying off debt and bringing in new players. Meanwhile, Sheik Mansour’s investment in Manchester City totals just £304 million.
So what does the future hold?
United must refinance or the club’s indebtedness will continue to climb sharply in the coming years. While the club can meet cash debts through revenues, the looming maturation of PIK loans is wiping out almost 100 per cent of the club’s annual profits. Despite making a pre-tax profit of £88 million, debt repayments, transfer spending and rolled-up interest meant United’s holding company – Red Football Joint Venture Limited – increased its indebtedness by £33 million in the last published accounts.
The catch: there is little incentive for current investors to swap cash debt for a bond and the financial market is still deeply frozen to commercial borrowers.
The club has doubled turnover in the past four years through strong growth in TV, commercial and match-day revenues. It may need to do so again in the next four years simply to stand still. The alternative is a frozen transfer budget and inevitable player sales.
Interesting article.
I doubt many people will sign up for the bond out of protest.
Again this is line with the theory that there will be no spending in the window. Fergie will be aware of some of the above and will have to make the best of what he’s got – and that probably includes somebody like Nani!
you think investors give two hoots about protest and have any interest in the politics of the club and the beliefs of the fanbase?
investors will simply be looking at the bottom line and the chance of seeing a return on their investment. There was recently speculation that a middle eastern consortium was interested in purchasing United, but were given a firm hands off warning from the Glazers, ergo the Glazers dont want to sell and people are already looking to put money into the club; doesnt look so dire in those terms does it?
we are so bloody screwed !!
I have been a United fan for more that 40 years. I firmly believe we need a couple of bad seasons, possibly get relegated to rid us of the Glazers…
The article is interesting only in its supposition. Assuming that your numbers are correct thing here are two very interesting points. you say 1) United owes more than £700 million.s. and 2) With a market value reaching more than £1.3 billion. What you are saying is that our debt is only about 53% of the value of the asset. This would mean the club is NOT highly leveraged and is in a good position. IF again the numbers are correct a bond for 600 million on a value of 1.3 billion would be a great success as investors would be covered quite easily. I think a simpler situation is the Glazers want to refinance very expensive debt which was taken out when rates were high and rates are not historically low. VERY sensible.
Yes, you’re right. Two caveats though. 1) Value is subjective since the company is not public any more. 2) Football isn’t a normal business. In normal business a leveraged buyout at 53%, as you say, isn’t horrendous. But in football profit = transfer spend = success = additional revenue. Definitely not a normal industry.
Something is only worth 1.3bn if someone is prepared to pay it. A single investor would see more value in buying smaller (and building up a different) club. (Chelsea et al)
This is a slight aside but untied are at a disadvantage to a potential single investor. These investors often do it to increase their own profile, which would be hidden behind untied’s massive global brand (i.e. you don’t know who owns coke or mcdonalds)
I will admit i’m a city fan but I am genuinely concerned for untied. This is no way to run a business. I am a great admirer of utd for their achievements in the game but especially the way they put Manchester on the global map. Utd is synonymous with Manchester.
You will never go out of business as you have genuine assets but you will drop down the ladder if there is no squad investment.
have to wonder whether the new rules for champions league entry are a factor in all this. if i remember correctly, clubs will have to break even to enter from 2012.
assuming fergie has been allowed to keep the ronaldo money, the glazers seem to have been running the club by using profits to cover debt/interest repayments, and by stumping up roughly £20 million a season from their own pockets to cover transfers.
since the club is now valued at £1.3 billion, and debts at £700 million, the glazers are currently in profit by around £600 million. so the money they have stumped up for transfers has certainly payed off!
but like i said.. this model wont work from 2012. in order to break even, the profits will have to cover interest repayments AND transfers. ie no money for transfers. so why then, has david gill been been one of the biggest supporters of this rule change?
because he knows that no other club in the world can match united for profits! for us to operate under these rules would be difficult. but for clubs like chelski, citeh and ronaldos facists, it will be completely impossible!
united are the greatest club in the world and so suitably we have the greatest number of supporters in the world. roll on 2012!
There’s a little point that gets repeated regularly whenever UTD’s finances are discussed.
THE PIK loans, the ones that seem to be causing most concern, are in the name of the Glazers, not UTD. Its the Glazers responsibility to pay this interest, not UTD’s. Sure the money comes out of UTD’s profits but the Glazers have other income avenues to pay the interest on the UTD loans. After all as a family unit they’re supposed to be worth over $1 billion. Where UTD come into the picture is if the Glazers default on an interest payment. But would anyone expect the Glazers to dump UTD when they could sell one of their lesser value assets in the US to meet their obligations?
Should the Glazers get into a situation that they have to sell HURRIEDLY, then UTD’s perceived market value will fall and they’ll be plenty of potential buyers ready to swoop.
I believe that the recent speculation about Liverpool being bought by Arabs has ceased because these potential buyers might be waiting for the Glazers to fall over.
Time will tell.
The only way the glazers can clear this debt is to sell debt for shares and make united public again, you cant go private on a club you had to borrow £500 mil to buy in the first place! well they’ve proven this themselves!
they either sell up completly or sell debt for shares! that is it, cant and dry!
Remember though, United is this biggest brand in world football, surely if everything went horribly wrong, some insanely rich person would want to buy Uited simply for the prestige of owning such a club. It is not like we are a Leeds or a Portsmouth who are/were smaller clubs which are/were in a perilous financial condition.
I do hope some billionaire from China or India can come and buy the club out of debt. The situation now is getting worst and if we don’t do anything quick, the debt will keep increasing and i wonder what the future is for the club.
If the club is worth anything like £1.3 billion (though isn’t this just a $/£ conversion from Forbes’s very, very rough guess of $2Bn?) then the Glazers could just refloat it on the stock market and make a big profit. This would be good for the club too. We’d probably end up paying in the region of £25m a year in dividends, much less then the interest we are having to pay under the Glazers.
One other point – I’d take issue with your doomsday scenario: “A firesale of the club – stripped of all its assets – is the inevitable outcome.” This will never happen. The assets of the club are much less than its value as a going concern so it would never make sense to do this. This is why the analogy with Leeds is false: Leeds never made a profit so it always had a negative value as a business.
Editor, you are getting very close to the point I was making. Revenue at the club were very lob sided with most revenue coming from seat sales and nothing great from anything else. pre Glazer we had no debt, revenue from seat sales and a hopeless marketing effort to increase either share price or revenue from non seat sales. THIS is what made us such a lovely target and can only thank GOD that the Glazers did come in because if we got a Roman or Gillett + 1 we would be in massive trouble. The Glazers have started to generate income from other areas of the business but we still need to be better at it. Look at Real, they can spend 80 million on a player borrow the money with the assurance that shirt sales alone will pay for it or make a massive dent. What are our chances? We have people moaning about ticket prices yet we are cheaper than most top clubs across Europe. We do not go out and buy shirts, rather look for knock offs which cheats the club out of revenues. profit = transfer spend = success = additional revenue NOT always, how much more success would you want in the last 5 years? OK another CL would have been nice but really your equation does not work. We have spent on Berba, and got nothing much. We have the funds for transfers but SAF will always look for value.
I wouldn’t look to Real as a model of financial prudence. Nobody in the sports business community believes that Real actually made money from the Zidane transfer, for example so Kaka, Ronaldo and the rest won’t either. Truth is if it weren’t for regular local government and even bank bail outs Real would have to live in the – sorry for the pun – real world with everybody else.
shit.looks like we have got ourselves in trouble here. Who will buy the club now?.
Editor- Agreed but you said profit = transfer spend = success = additional revenue. Real had no profit but had massive amounts to spend and have had little success lately and yet they have additional revenues. So your formula is flawed however we have had quite a bit of success, have not done well when buying a BIG name and have actually done very well when paying smaller amounts for players with talent and developing them- There are many of these through our history but very few BIG names we have bought that have gone on to be great. In fact I cannot think of a player who has been a BIG name that has fulfilled what we thought they could do. Anyway I digress. I do not believe the debt is so bad that we cannot deal with it. I DO think the best interest rate needs to be obtained at every chance, its just plain silly to not try and drive down interest payments regardless of the amount. There will be no fire sale, the Glazers will not walk away regardless how M.U.S.T want them too and it would be better for us to support and pull together then allow NAY sayers try and wreck our club.
This is really sad. Hope we will not go Portsmouth’s way.
Lloyd, I agree with your comments as you seem to have a clear understanding of the situation. I was a member of MUST but have left as I think they are useless at what they do and have no chance of doing what they say they will. What has happened to all the money they collected? has it made a difference for the good to our club or is it used just to rubbish us? We should start an anti-MUST group and support the club and owners as worldwide business is difficult at the moment not just in football.
Glad to see some sensible comments on here about yet another sensationalist article about how we are doomed. If the profit wasn’t going on debt then the Glazers could well just pocket it so what difference does it make what they do with their money. As long as they service the debt, which they have always done, and provide money for transfers, which again they have always done then there is no real problem.
I think the word you’re looking for is factual, rather than sensationalist. Another fact: net transfer spending under the Glazer regime is negative.
Why don’t they try a fan scheme, I would be proud to have a certificate on my wall that states how much I have helped United instead of winge about it. Im sure I could find a couple of hundred quid, maybe a little more. Get a newsletter, free match programme sounds the biz to me. Im sure Im going to hear from everyone that to run a scheme like this is expensive, well the tax office can do it so nothings impossible. Plus I’ll also here I haven’t got any money, don’t invest then, but I bet youve got the addidas top and Nike trainers and Wii gamepox plus with PSP I phone attatchment and a Honda Civic with 8 spoilers.
Glazers give me a chance to help, I’d be honoured.
Lloyd is a Glazer PR shill.
1. the plc was pretty good at marketing actually. To say otherwise is Glazer pr nonsense. What extra have the gimps brought? AIG to replace Vodafone? Vodafone quit, AIG was closely allied to the hedge funds that funded the Glazers so they had to join forces to ensure the new shirt sponsor paid more than Vodafone. Other ‘partners’ like Asia air etc. Sure but the biggest increase in revenue still comes from matchdays where as we all know the gimps have ratcheted up prices every year, along with parking etc, not to mention to automatic ticket scam.
Lloyd screams ‘thank God the glazers came instead of Roman etc’. Er the plc did not need anyone to come in, they were doing very well as it was. The only mistake was not having a poison pill to ward off predators.
Finally Lloyd claims nonsensically that ‘ we are cheaper than most top clubs across Europe’. Please Lloyd, provide a price comparison of OT with Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and the San Siro. Sure, OT is cheaper than Chelsea and Arsenal but only just, and the rate the gimps are wacking up prices that will change soon. Manchester is not London.
The wreckers are the gimps and shills in their employ who attempt to blind fans with PR.
In any event event even if they manage to sell the bond, why should the banks who provided loans lower than the PIKs accept that the PIKs be paid off first? The former are more preferred creditors.
As others have said the PIK’s were taken out in the Glazers name, they were taken out because the money they were making from other ‘investments’ was higher than the interest rates. You don’t pull other investments when you can take out loans whose interest is lower than the earnings. They could cover the PIK’s at any time when they were taken out and even with the economic crisis its highly unlikely imho its swung so far that its unmanageable.
And those wishing for buyouts from ‘rich backers’. Do you guys not pay attention to whats happening across the city or at Chelsea. The Glazers look like angels compared to other foreign owners who just throw money at buying players that the Manager doesn’t want and even interfere with team selection.
JA, here are the prices in Euros. As you will see Manchester United is cheaper if you want to do the German clubs help yourself- These are prices from the clubs websites. As for doing well as a Public company!! Good grief you really understand very little. We were going nowhere as a PLC it was a way for the Edwards to make a fortune out of the club, there was no other reason to become a PLC. So your argument is null and void.
Barcelona
Grandstand €82 to 100
Sides upper tear €68 to 85
Behind Goals €42 to 52
Real
West side
lowe stand €120
upper €120
Grandstand 150
1st tier €120
2nd tier €90
3rd tier €75
4th tier €45
East side
lowe stand €120
upper €120
Grandstand €160
1st tier €120
2nd tier €90
3rd tier €75
4th tier €45
Manchester United
North/South Stand Centre €43.80
North Stand Upper Wings € 41.11
South Stand Wings €41.11
North Stand Tier 2 Centre €38.43
North Stand Tier 2 Wings €36.65
North/ South Lower Wings €36.65
North and South Lower Centre €38.43
North East Quadrants Tier 2 €36.65
North West Quadrants Tier 2 €36.65
North East Quadrants Tier 1 €33.00
North West Quadrants Tier 1 €33.00
East Stand Upper £36.00 €32.20
West Stand Upper €32.20
East Stand Tier 2 €32.20
West Stand Tier 2 €32.20
Family Stand €30.38
North Stand Tier 3 €29.50
East Stand Lower €24.12
West Stand Lower €24.12
Lloyd I’ve been to both Real and Barcelona many times and didn’t pay anywhere near that. You’ve quoted executive seat prices only – a very quick visit to FCBarcelona.com shows me that I can buy a ticket for €41. That was the first thing I clicked on so probably not even the cheapest.
Anyway, the Pound/Euro exchange rate has shifted more than 40% in the past year, so you can’t rely on that to support your Glazer-loving thesis. Fact: ticket prices at Old Trafford have risen hugely under the current regime.
More to the point you’ve got all your numbers wrong. Take the first in your list. North/South Stand Centre is £49, which is €54 at today’s mid-market forex rate.
Maybe but I do not think so I took the prices straight from the website. If however that’s the case I apologies. As for Glazer loving, No more like Glazer realist Supporters ask the club to buy these big names and spend, spend, spend yet whine about ticket prices for a club that has won the EPL,CL plus a host of other honours in resent history. The facts are the Glazers own the club and I am of the opinion that I supported the club before the Glazers and do not jump ship or start speaking ill of the club just because the owners change. Yes I am pleased the Glazers took over the club and not some rich Russin play boy or two old gits from the USA that cannot speak to each other, or the “now you see it now you do not” money from Dubai.
Ned
You say – Fact: Net spending under the Glazer regime is negative.
You act as if this is because the Glazers have been tight! We sold a player for 80 million pounds for gods sake!
Why dont you give some CREDIT to the man who is really responsible for us having negative spend AND 1 EUROPEAN CUP & 3 PREMIER LEAGUE TITLES DURING THAT TIME
Alex Ferguson
As the man himself said the Glazers have never refused him money
get a grip ned
All fascinating stuff, even the spin from the pro-Glazer side.
Good job. It is crazy because from a financial point of view these numbers make no sense. This would not work in any other industry or sector.
You have to ask where is the underlying value?
The value of players themselves is suspect since the term of their contract, their age and viability come into play.
So you’re left with the assets, the stadium, the franchise, the office furniture, the equipment, the training ground etc.
If I were an bond investor I’d have to ask does it add up. Will the money continue to flow?
What happens if they start losing because they can’t spend on players like Man Shitty, Chelski, Real or Barca?
What happens when they fall out of the top five and intot he middle of the pack and become a survivor like Wigan or Spurs for a decade? Good enough to stay in but not good enough to challenge for the top or the FA cup …maybe a chance in the Carling. No Champions League and not Europa?
Let’s see we;ve lost to Burnley, Fulham and Leeds (!!!) we’ve got mf playing defence.We’re down to our second keeper. We;re stuck with Nani because no one wants him, Hargreaves is crocked, Scholes wants out, Neville’s a shadow of himself sometimes….man wake up, the cracks are all over the place. We’re lucky to finish top five this year with the latest news about Vidic.
And we have no money to spend. That much is clear. The Gaffer can hold the company line as long as he wants but he’s like the captain on the Titanic. Only this time the iceberg is the massive debt that’s torn a hole in the hull.
We’re vulnerable and our age is showing. There’s some young talent in the ranks but we need a few transition players to get us there.
But with the debt at the levels it is and the terms of the debt so oppressive…hard to see how the refi is going to help.
Going public again may be another option but one that is not likely the Glaxer’s favourite option. Still a public offering of the world’s most stories club could be the life line out.
And maybe that’s the Glazer’s plan all along. Like good VC investors, they buy up a public asset, make some improvements and then get out after five years and hope to turn a profit.
knowles – well said !
Lloyd, as the ed has already pointed out, your ticket prices are selective and dubious as a like for like comparison! I agree the share listing was purely a vehicle for Edwards to make money, but as for absurd and patronising allegation that I know very little, that is exactly that, patronising and nonsensical. I was no fan of the plc but it did manage to expand the stadium to the current capacity (the plans and funding were already in place before the glazers arrived), they had bought properties around the ground with a view to further expansion (which I understand, the glazers have since sold), funded Carrington, bought all the players Ferguson asked for (and paid the fees in full up front), had cash in the bank and no external debt. Dividends were a drop in the ocean compared to the glazer induced interest payments,not to mention no sign of loan repayment. What exactly was the plc doing wrong? Not ramping up ticket prices? Not introducing the scandalous automatic ticket scam? The board had a policy of keeping prices reasonably affordable. Now the glazers are the only ones who put prices up, all other clubs either froze or reduced prices. The atmosphere in the ground is terrible. And as the glazers have vastly increased the number of season tickets, in order to get money up front, one of the biggest USPs of a season ticket – that you were guaranteed a ticket for big matches and cup finals, is now impossible.
The glazers HAVE to squeeze every last cent out of the fans and hustle for sponsors simply to stand still and pay the interest, the plc commercialision drive was to make the team better, the ground better, and keep tickets affordable. For all its faults, the plc model worked. How can you possible claim it was going nowhere? Biggest groudn in the country, best team? Affordable ticket prices? That is exactly where they should have been going.
It need never have been a question of the glazers versus hick/gillette or some dodgy russian or sheik. With the proper poison pill against hostile takeovers in place, the plc model would have been absolutely fine.
it’s ok saying a plc would be fine but it is because it was a plc that the shares were able to be acquired by a single individual. the supporters need to get their hands on this club and if it means having some lean times to be able to afford it that may a price worth paying.
ja: >>With the proper poison pill against hostile takeovers in place, the plc model would have been absolutely fine.<<
Ah poison pills, now you're talking. But are they legal on the UK stockmarket? I've only heard of them in reference to American companies.
Oh dear, what a sticky financial mess you have got yourselves in!
so will a leeds happen to us?
Like most other contributors here I am far from being a financial guru, just a humble Manchester United football fan.
These are the FACTS of our club since the Glazer family officially obtained full control of the club in June 2005 following 2 seasons of failing to win the Premiership.
2005-06 – 2nd, Carling Cup Winners
2006-07 – CHAMPIONS,
2007-08 – CHAMPIONS, Champions League Winners
2008-09 – CHAMPIONS, Champions League Finalists, Carling Cup Winners, FIFA World Club Cup Champions
2009-10 – Half way through the season (19 matches)
40 points without Ronaldo, Tevez and the worst injury list in the Premiership eg Van Der Sar, Vidic and Ferdinand missing many matches. No big money signings.
Same stage 2008-09 – 41 points
There’s no argument that the quality of football is not what we have been used to (Opinion not Fact) but then neither has it been in the Premiership as a whole (Again, Opinion not Fact)
Should we fail to retain the Premiership this season I will not be at all surprised. As a matter of fact, I never expected us to simply because winning it 4 seasons in a row is a huge ask, something which has NEVER been done in the history of the game in England.
The question therefore has to be, are we panicking because we have been so spoiled by our success for so long?
What are going on about? What has success on the pitch got to do with the glazers. These are down to the players and the manager. It is also a fact that the net spending on transfer since the glazers took over is positive so they have not spent a single cent on players. And I may add that the players and manager that contributed to these success can not last forever and are in need to be replaced.
Or are you simply saying we do not deserve future success because we have too much successs in the past?
No Rick, I’m just saying that success in football goes in cycles. Remember when we went 3 seasons without winning the Premiership? The Glazers were not involved with the club until the third one.
If success on the pitch is simply down to the players and manager which is a fair point, why is failure only the fault of the owners?
You’re right when you say that the manager and players can not last forever which is why Sir Alex is doing his best to rebuild the team as he has successfully done many times before.
We’re stuck with the Glazers for now and maybe the best way to get rid of them is not to win any silverware for a couple of years.
Frank Scicluna – I say I have to agree with you that to win a consecutive 4th title would be difficult to say the least, however I would never want us to not win silverware or even worse go down. (I know you never said that) This is a very slippery slope as you know from the 70’s and 80’s which I personally don’t wish to experience again.
However, I think we need to get behind the players and manager at this time. We need to continue winning silverware and show the world we are still and always will be the greatest club in the world.
By continuing in this way, I see 2 choices, the Glazer’s stay but we are still the best or they sell to someone else? Hopefully, to us, the fans.
Looking forward to see if you crash and burn, which would make the Premier League interesting again, after 17 mostly boring years.