God, you guys are good. Your arguments are so well articulated and persuasive that you have talked me round.

Think for yourselves and stop following the shit MUST have brainwashed you with.

Michael. The Glazers do NOT have the club in around £1billion of debt. Where did you get that from? have you been reading those headlines that say that the Glazers’ businesses have an estimated £1.1billion of debt? That is NOT all Manchester United’s debt. The Glazers have several business interests and these £1.1 billion debts are secured against £2billion assets.

In other words, they could, in theory, sell the lot and stick £900 million in their pocket.

Manchester United is around £500million in debt and this is covered by the recent bond issue now which pays out 8.75% interest per year.

The revenues Manchester United generate are more than enough to cover that.

The club is running at a profit and in the long term, inflation will take care of the £500 million debt.

What people are getting confused with are the PIKs (around £220million). These are the Glazers personal debts. They are nothing to do with Manchester United but as the Glazers own Manchester United then there is obviously a concern that the Glazers will use part of Manchester United’s profits to pay them off.

As the owners, they are perfectly entitled to take profits from the company and pay off their personal debts if they wish. You might find that unpalatable but it is a fact of life.

However, this has still not been proven. It looks likely that that will be the case but they could pay them off by selling some of their many other assets.

Revenues ARE growing all the time. Matchday revenues are a significant part of the revenue but they aren’t everything – they don’t even cover the players wages, in fact.

Turnover was £121.7million in 2008 and it was £144.7million in 2009.

I actually think that Obertan, Smalling, Hernandez and Diouf are all exciting prospects but you choose to pick out Michael Owen as an example of our recent purchases.

Excuse me if I am wrong but didn’t the Academy just win their own Premier League.

And didn’t the Reserves just win their own Premier League North too? And did they not go on to win the North v South play-off final?

We also had three of our players in the 18 man Euro U17 Squad which recently won the Euro U17 Championship. Sam Johnstone, Tom Thorpe and William Keane.

If you don’t take any encouragement for the youth side of things from any of that then, I don’t know what to say. I watch the Academy and Reserve games as often as I can so I do have some clue what I am on about.

“But the stark reality is that no football club, or any business, can continue to operate fully under that level of debt”

You don’t really need to tell me how to run a business because I run my own but that is simply not true. Debt is not a problem so long as your income can maintain the interest payments and Manchester United are making more than enough to cover the debt interest. The longer the debt is held, the better it actually becomes because of inflation.

£500million is a lot of money now but how much will £500million buy you in 10 or 20 years’ time? Due to inflation: much less! It actually becomes, in real terms, a smaller amount of money even though the figure remains the same.

If you have problems understanding that, ask a grown up to explain.

I’m sorry my friend but you have been fed the doom and gloom from the anti-Glazers and you have swallowed it all hook, line and sinker.

It is the same doom and gloom that has been fed to us since 2005 and all I have seen is the most successful period ever. We can argue about the future all day and all night but as you say, time will tell.

As for the debt regulations. If you are referring to UEFA’s Financial Fairplay thing (or whatevr it is called) then what UEFA are trying to do is ensure that teams only spend a % of what they bring in. In that respect, Manchester United are actually in the strongest position of any team in the premier league with the possible exception of Arsenal.

It is the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City who need to get their houses in order.

Seriously mate. I respect the fact that you have come on here and have taken the time to put your point across without resorting to slurs and insults but the source of your knowledge on the issues is well… plain wrong.

Hi Monred. Thank you for posting. It is refreshing to hear a more sensible view on the situation.

I take on board everything you have said. Your concerns are genuine and are probably shared even by the most staunch supporters of the Glazers.

However.

“It assumes turnover will continue at current levels, no doubt with a figure factored in for growth in markets that have not been fully exploited.”

I think this is correct and this is what has happened (remember, the Glazers took over in 2005, not 2010 – their plan was formulated at least six years ago).

The markets not fully exploited include Matchday revenue (they have increased ST prices), sponsorship deals (they continue to vigorously pursue all of these avenues) and TV money (which has increased considerably since 2005).

None of these things look like dropping “unexpectedly” in the foreseeable future (but, I get your point, it is the UNforeseeable future that you are concerned about).

“Whether the downturn is caused by an economic recession, or, say, failure to qualify for the Champions League the consequences of either is both unknown and worrying.”

Aren’t we already IN an economic recession? Their First Allied business was the most vulnerable to this scenario but even that turned a profit last year. As for the Champions League. How many consecutive years have we made the CL now? I don’t know off hand but is it 18 or so years?

The revenue generated from the CL is obviously massively important and because of this, it is in the Glazers’ best interests to ensure that the manager has the funds available to buy the players who will ensure that we continue to at least qualify for the CL every year.

I would, however, like to believe that the Glazers have considered the possibility that we might not make the CL one year (despite what a certain TV programme tried to suggest, they are NOT a bunch of garden gnomes!).

“Whichever business principles the Glazers, and their supporters, apply to the debt management plan grass root supporters will not be easily convinced, or, indeed, appeased.”

Tell me about it!

I do hope however that continued success on the pitch will win them round eventually though and we can all be a happy family again because I genuinely believe that the warring between fans and the protests are far more damaging to Manchester United than anything the Glazers could do to us.

It is also easier to reason with someone when their minds aren’t being poisoned against your stance by the lies and misinformation of others who have a vested interest.

I have no vested interest either way. I am just a fan who doesn’t see it as all doom and gloom. The glass is always half-full here.

Cheers, TPL. Well, you would have thought so, wouldn’t you?

Fair enough Chris. I appreciate your comments.

Just a couple of things though…

If that advice was coming from a financial analyst who was completely independent and not associated in any way with the very people who are trying to devalue the club in order for them to buy it on the cheap, then I might agree.

If I had scrutinised his figures and found them to be without error then I would agree.

Unfortunately, I have to say that I looked at one financial analysts figures and found that he didn’t satisfy either of those misgivings I had.

So, I had to take a look for myself and form my own judgement that is not based on so much emotion.

What part of the club’s recent finances do you have issue with? The ever increasing revenues or the fact that the debts are now packaged in a fixed interest bond issue and so are no longer at the mercy of the bank’s interest rate fluctuations for the next seven years?

You do confuse me though because in your very next breath you say, “All of which should be well within the reach of a club that continues to turn an obscene amount of profit.”

Make your mind up. Are the finances in a bad state or are we making an obscene amount of profit?

“Those of us who do hold the moral high ground do so because we’re not stupid enough to sit back and watch our club die a slow death at the hands of that family of incompetent, greedy, self-serving swindlers. And if you can’t see that the club’s in trouble now, then you won’t until it’s too late to do anything about it.”

I’m sure I heard all that five years ago. Change the record, will you?

Here’s something you might not have read:-

“They have been great owners and there’s no reason to think otherwise. They have supported me every time I have asked them and we have already spent £20m on young players. Chris Smalling cost us £10m, [Mame Biram] Diouf was £4m and the Mexican [Javier Hernández] was more than £6m. Because we are not signing signature players people think we are not moving forward – but we are.”

Sir Alex Ferguson, a few weeks ago.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/12/manchester-united-ban-players-glazers

@Chris – I didn’t mean to split hairs. I hate it when people do that myself. The point I was making (regardless of which word you used) was that in order to make one point, we were in an awful financial position but in order to make another point, we were making “obscene profits”.

Anyway.

Some people “get” what the Glazers are doing and some people just don’t and I have found that it is very difficult to to get people to see it the way I now do.

What MUST are doing is bringing everyone’s attention to the debts and usually in a sensationalist way.

You cannot JUST look at the debts without taking into account the income though.

The Glazers’ whole business model is based on buying with loans and then increasing the revenue in order to pay off the debt.

Revenues have gone up across the board since the Glazers have taken over but anti-Glazers give them no credit for that. The line is “well, it would have gone up whoever was in charge”.

However, the Glazers must have seen Manchester United in 2003 (or whenever the idea to buy the club was formulating in their heads) and spotted several opportunities for massive improvement in the business side of things.

If the PLC were squeezing every last drop out of the business side then the Glazers would never have got involved because there would be no room to improve, remain competitive AND pay off their loans.

It’s very easy to look at how much the Glazers have cost United since they have taken over but this must also be balanced with the increase in revenues since taking over.

In short – there are two sides to a balance sheet.

If you want an example of where Andy Green’s figures are not quite what they seem, check out his “Cost of the Glazers” figures (which have been taken on with relish by MUST).

The bottom line figure is £437million.

That figure includes an £83million PiK repayment and a £10million loan.

The only problem with that is that NOTHING has been taken out of the club to pay off those PIKs yet. Also, a loan is not actually a “cost” in the strict sense of the word. It suggests that at some point, you are going to get it back.

Also, as pointed out, his figures don’t include corporation tax and shareholder dividends which would have been payable had the club remained as a PLC. When prompted for these, Andy Green gave me something like £130million for the two so, strictly speaking, he should have taken those away from his headline figure in order to represent a “true” cost of the Glazers.

So, you see, figures can easily be manipulated depending on what you want to achieve.

I’m not the most intelligent person in the world but I don’t think I’m thick and I have to be honest, I look at some of the stuff on Anders’ blog and I don’t have a clue what it is going on about. Every other word is an acronym and every third word is a figure.

It is so far above my head that he could be telling me that 2+2=5 and because of the way it is presented, I wouldn’t be able to spot the error.

However, what the example above showed me is that Anders is now well and truly part of the anti-Glazer propoganda machine.

If there is a figure and official estimates say that it could increase by something in the region of 7-9%, he will use the upper or lower figure depending on which makes the Glazers’ situation appear in the worst light.

As for the Fergie situation, the line in the quote which was of most interest to me was the: “They have been great owners and there’s no reason to think otherwise.”

As for the money situation. I don’t know. The balance sheets showed a cash balance of £95million in the last quarterly report so the money is there iif he wants to spend it. He says he doesn’t feel that there is value out there so he isn’t spending it.

Of course, the anti-Glazer spin on this is that he has no money because of the Glazers.

I am prepared to accept either view. I am not so naive either.

The thing is, we are not in a competition where the object is to spend the most money, the object is to win trophies and on that score, I have few complaints.

The next couple of years are obviously crucial. The old guard need replacing and we will have to wait and see if Fergie can do it. Personally, I wouldn’t bet against the big man.

Some people aren’t willing to give him the benefit of the doubt though (which, after 24 years of dedicated service to the club, he thoroughly deserves) and want to bail out on him right now in order to save us from some future, unspecified horrors and put us in the hands of some future, unspecified owners who may or not be better than we currently have.

Some so-called fans are even advising that you do this very thing.

I’m just not one of them, that’s all.

@Chris – By the way. Those two newspaper articles. The first one. Forget it. That figure has been completely and utterly discredited (even Anders has said it isn’t true and specifically wanred MUST not to use it because it is incorrect). It is something to do with financial claptrap again where the Glazers intentionally did a bit of financial housekeeping (presumably to bring the profit down so that they didn’t pay corporation tax) which then gave off the impression that there had been a loss. Without the Ronaldo sale, this “housekeeping” wouldn’t have been done and we would have been in the same situation overall.

The second one. They still seem to be referring to the Ronaldo sale to justify the claim that the model can only work when players are sold.

Personally, I wouldn’t put much stock into the what the Guardian says. The Guardian have their own agenda and it does not include being nice to Manchester United. The only reason I used a Guardian quote myself was that was the only place I could find it and it wasn’t a third party quote. It was a quote from the horse’s mouth.

@ Dave – Hi and thank you your comments. You must have submitted your post as I was writing my post to Chris.

1) you say the debt is easily managed but if we didnt sell ronaldo wouldnt the club have made a heavy loss? or have i got that wrong?

The club would NOT have made a heavy loss if we hadn’t sold Ronaldo (I mentioned this in my post to Chris above).

2) with the new bound issue thats in place will the club be in a postion to repay the full debt of 520 mill? in 2017 or will we be re financed again?

I can’t say for certain but it is now my belief that the debt will be refinanced. I think I have finally got my head around how the Glazers do things. Basically, they use inflation to tacvkle the debt.

The current bond issue expires in 2017. Due to inflation, £500million will buy less in 2017 than it does today. Another seven years – same again. I know it sounds crazy but whilst the interest might appear large today, by 15-20 years, it will be far less of a problem. The club could be raking in £700million a year by then and paying out £40million in interest.

Unfortunately, some people will probably still look at that £40million and say, “Just think what we could have spent that on!” but I can’t help those people no matter how hard I try!

3) my biggest worry is the glazers just want to cream as much of mufc.s cash as they can before they decide to leave as i dont belive they have any love for the club or the fans at all as more and more working class and esp for me local youngsters people cannot afford or find it harder n harder to attend old trafford

The way I look at it is this. They can only take profits from the club if it is making a profit in the first place. In order to make profits, the club has to be successful on the pitch. The big sponsorship deals aren’t given to middle-of-the-road clubs. To get the Champions League money, you have to qualify for the Champions League.

Basically, in order to make money and build Manchester United’s value, they have to make the club as successful as they can.

If they don’t provide Fergie with the funds to maintain a competitive squad, we don’t win any more trophies, we don’t qualify for the CL and they don’t get their money.

If they can do all these things, why would they leave? If you had a business that was worth over £1billion and was paying you a decent wedge every year, why would you leave it? You would do everything you could to maintain it, surely?

As for the season ticket prices. You have my sympathy. I sincerely hope that the Glazers listen to the fans on this one and do something to make them more affordable, especially for kids who, lets face it, are the future of the club. The Cup Scheme thing was the most stupid idea ever.

I have to point out though that I am not some kind of official spokesperson for Manchester United or the Glazers!

@Dave – Whatever happens with the Glazers and their business plan, Manchester United will always find a buyer. It is too big a club to just disappear. If the Glazers get it wrong, they will lose the club.

Whoever owns a football club, there are always risks. Look at the state of affairs with some other clubs at the moment. It seems there’s not a month goes by when one club somewhere is not going to the wall.

Personally, I do believe that the Glazers have this under control and, as time goes by, it will get easier for them to manage the debts (due to inflation and the rising revenues).

Despite all the doom and gloom no one has been able to put forward one single doubt about Manchester United’s ability to pull in the money.

The doubts are about the team and its ability to compete when players such as Scholes, Giggs, Neville and VDS retire but I put that down to natural worry amongst fans whenever a big name player goes.

Think of all the great players who have left down the years. United just go on and on.

The big one will be when Fergie retires but that will be the case whoever is in charge.