ManU Green and Gold

[beorhthelm]

I don't get your point.

read Richie's blog then.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

It's the same as ANY club. They have proper passionate fans, and they have (OK in their case a lot more by percentage) their share of Noddy, glory-seeking fly-by-night fans.

If we were successful we'd have them too. But it wouldn't take away the fact that there are still loads of hardcore lifelong Albion supporters. United weren't always as successful as they are now, before Fergie it was something like twenty odd years since they'd last won the league. But they still got 35,000 in most weeks, which by the standards of the 1980s, was good support.

I accept it's fashionable to knock United fans, but its complete football-snobbery to brand them ALL as plastic glory-seekers and deny the existence of their genuine fans.

 

[Gritt23]

read Richie's blog then.

Naah, can't be arsed.

The example you cited was of fans wearing the Green and Gold at the game, and yet clutching a megastore bag. Of course it's a tricky situation for the fans who love the club but hate the owners. Do you buy tickets, do you subscribe to the tv channel, do you buy the merchandise.

At the end of the day, you are a fan of the club so you want to do all of those things, but you know the money is going to the owner, and yet somehow you still want to make your protest clear to all.

I just think that if ANYONE in the country should be able to sympathise with how tricky that scenario is, it should be us. There are plenty of Man Utd "fans" that you can tear apart for being the plastics in pubs around Brighton, but to assume that all of them is just ignorance. Those who are at the game, in the (relatively) cheap seats and travel to support the team are real fans like you and I. It's them who are protesting, and it's them that I have tremendous sympathy for, and empathy with. I would have thought we'd be pretty united (no pun intended) in that considering what we'd been through ourselves.

 

[Hannibal smith]

Those who are at the game, in the (relatively) cheap seats and travel to support the team are real fans like you and I. It's them who are protesting, and it's them that I have tremendous sympathy for, and empathy with. I would have thought we'd be pretty united (no pun intended) in that considering what we'd been through ourselves.

Indeed. Although there is an inverse snobbery thing going on here. Wrexham or Chester we are allowed to sympathise with given thier lowly status. Not so Man U as they are too big a club and we should therefore delight in thier downfall.

Taken from a Guardian article, I wouldn't be best pleased if I was a Man U fan either

The offer document reveals that on 30 June last year the club entered into a £2.9m-per-year agreement with SLP Partners, a company related to the Glazers. Since 1 July 2006 a further total of £10m has been paid in "management and administration fees".

"During the period from 1 July 2006 to the date of this offering memorandum, management and administration fees of approximately £0.6m, £1.8m, £1.4m, £3.1m and £3.1m were paid to our affiliates," it said.

As I said in an earlier post, nice work if you can get it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Indeed. Although there is an inverse snobbery thing going on here. Wrexham or Chester we are allowed to sympathise with given thier lowly status. Not so Man U as they are too big a club and we should therefore delight in thier downfall.

i'd accept there is a degree of reverse snobbery, but there really isnt much of a problem for fans to worry about at ManU and certinaly no "downfall". like Liverpool, the absolute worse case is if the debt wasnt paid the bank would take possession and new owners would be found. in fact would the bank even bother to find a new owner immediatly? they are money prints, even more if there isnt another managment team involved.

the news of ManU's impending death is a little premature.

 

[Gritt23]

The offer document reveals that on 30 June last year the club entered into a £2.9m-per-year agreement with SLP Partners, a company related to the Glazers. Since 1 July 2006 a further total of £10m has been paid in "management and administration fees".

"During the period from 1 July 2006 to the date of this offering memorandum, management and administration fees of approximately £0.6m, £1.8m, £1.4m, £3.1m and £3.1m were paid to our affiliates," it said.

As I said in an earlier post, nice work if you can get it.

I did some work the other week looking into the detail of the accounts at man Utd, and it's basically legalised corporate rape. the amounts they have extracted have been unbelievable, and it's little trick after little trick that has brought it about.

Whether it be loan notes that were issued at an unbelievable 14.25%, or converting loans in Bonds*, or indeed the exorbitant management charges you've already mentioned. It's an unbelievable set of events, and based on teh experience of the Tampa Bay Bucs, don't ever expect them to sink a whole load of cash into one of their teams. They spend as little as they can get away with.

* the point about bonds is that there are regulations stopping shareholders drawing cash directly from loans, but you ARE allowed to draw up to 20% of any bond capital raised. Handy eh?

 

[Spiros]

I just think that if ANYONE in the country should be able to sympathise with how tricky that scenario is, it should be us. There are plenty of Man Utd "fans" that you can tear apart for being the plastics in pubs around Brighton, but to assume that all of them is just ignorance. Those who are at the game, in the (relatively) cheap seats and travel to support the team are real fans like you and I. It's them who are protesting, and it's them that I have tremendous sympathy for, and empathy with. I would have thought we'd be pretty united (no pun intended) in that considering what we'd been through ourselves.

Can't agree with that. We were protesting about an owner who was trying to close our club down and walk away with any money left afterwards. As far as I can tell the Manu U fans are protesting about the owner of the club profiting from it's success, also the amounts they pay themselves may sound big but they are tiny compared to the profits that the club continues to make. The fact is that they've already won a trophy this season and are challenging for 2 others. Their manager says he has all the money to spend that he wants. The club continues to be profitable despite the debt it has. If Man U fans were so anti their club becoming a PLC and then being bought this way then they were pretty quiet about it when they were winning all those Premiership titles with the money raised from going public.

 

[Hannibal smith]

i'd accept there is a degree of reverse snobbery, but there really isnt much of a problem for fans to worry about at ManU and certinaly no "downfall". like Liverpool, the absolute worse case is if the debt wasnt paid the bank would take possession and new owners would be found. in fact would the bank even bother to find a new owner immediatly? they are money prints, even more if there isnt another managment team involved.

the news of ManU's impending death is a little premature.

I often read on here that the Albion could have died if we lost at Hereford in THAT season. One could argue that hyperbole is not entirely down to Man U fans as I don't believe we would have gone under as Doncaster and the like have shown.

As Gritt suggests above, the Glazers are legally removing money from the club much like Archer tried with us. I'm sympathetic even if Man U protests aren't exactly the miners strike, the fact they are doing something is commendable.

 

[Gritt23]

the amounts they pay themselves may sound big but they are tiny compared to the profits that the club continues to make.

Without selling their best player last summer they would have made a £40m LOSS, not a profit at all.

Debts are now £700m
Last years turnover was less than £300m
Profits (after getting £80m for Ronaldo) was £40m

That is not a sustainable business plan.

The owners are getting enormously rich in exchange for putting the club into a financial hole that they will only be able to extract themselves from if they one day go through administration, or get a multi-billionaire backer who chooses to backroll them. The size of the debt is such that there aren't actually many people on the planets with the wealth to do that on their own.

 

[beorhthelm]

...and based on teh experience of the Tampa Bay Bucs, don't ever expect them to sink a whole load of cash into one of their teams. They spend as little as they can get away with.

wont somebody think of the children of Stretford? many in football are saying thats exactly the sort of approach we should be taking. the background of running Tampa suggests they are not in it just to take all the money and run.

Without selling their best player last summer they would have made a £40m LOSS, not a profit at all.

Debts are now £700m
Last years turnover was less than £300m
Profits (after getting £80m for Ronaldo) was £40m

That is not a sustainable business plan.

and the profit before servicing the debt? or rather how well covered is the debt?

 

[Gritt23]

The background of running Tampa suggests they are not in it just to take all the money and run.

The Bucs are one of the lowest spending teams in the NFL, which as well as their well know "salary cap" they also have a "salary floor" so the NFL has rules governing the minimum an owner must spend on the team as a % of revenue. The Glazers spend somewhere near the minimum, as that doesn't have a particularly significant impact on their revenue streams as most of them are through the collective bargaining of the TV rights.

In short, they are tight buggers who got very lucky with Jon Gruden as Head Coach a few years back.

and the profit before servicing the debt? or rather how well covered is the debt?

It's not. Interest alone is running at about £48m a year, which is more than their profits last year even AFTER selling Ronaldo last summer. Okay, so that equates to an interest cover of 2x when looking at Profits before Interest and Tax, when most businesses will have a sticky time with the bank if it's less than 3. But unless the revenue stream from Real Madrid last summer can be repeated, then you are looking at break-even PBIT, leaving the £48m interest bill being the annual loss.

What's the medium term plan they discuss with the banks, to finance a debt over twice the size of their turnover? Increasing turnover? TV revenues are already at record-setting levels at a time when the TV companies paying those revenues must be fighting hard for their own best source of revenue ... advertising. It would be a difficult sell to the bank that you would be able to make a significant uplift in revenues, and even if you do, the players will only demand more of it.

Digging yourself OUT of these enormous financial holes is just not possible through annual profits. It will be quite a battle to even service that debt, as shown by last years results.

 

[krakatoa]

A boycott will be on the agenda further down the line, and best of luck to them in getting rid of the american leeches.

I believe United averaged 47,000 in the second division in the 70's - they may have plenty of glory seekers, but their hard core, local support is enormous.

 

[Storer68]

I often read on here that the Albion could have died if we lost at Hereford in THAT season. One could argue that hyperbole is not entirely down to Man U fans as I don't believe we would have gone under as Doncaster and the like have shown.

As Gritt suggests above, the Glazers are legally removing money from the club much like Archer tried with us. I'm sympathetic even if Man U protests aren't exactly the miners strike, the fact they are doing something is commendable.

Let me assure that had we gone into the Conference we would not have been able to fulfil our fixtures. Our experience during the first season at Pissfield showed how close we were to closure when we had to get rid of all the high earners at the club. It was only Doncaster imploding that saved us that season.

If only 2700 fans could be bothered to watch us play in the Football league, imagine how few would have ben bothered to watch us play Conference football. It was only the directors digging deep into their pocketswhich enabled u sto continue. The club had no assetts, in fact they barely owned a telephone, when Dick Knightb finally took over.

 

[Storer68]

But fans' suspicions that the club is seeking to silence their protests have been fanned as word has spread of the dismissal of one of Old Trafford's longest-serving stewards after he took back a banner seized from fans by his employers and attempted to return it.

Related articles
The title Race: And then there were two...
Nani insists he never considered quitting Manchester United
Search the news archive for more stories
Granville Boden, 53, a steward of 19 years' standing, was in position near the Old Trafford TV gantry before the home match with Burnley on 16 January, when he witnessed six quick response team (QRT) stewards from his own security firm seizing a banner bearing the "Love United, Hate Glazers" slogan from fans who had just arrived in the West Stand. Boden seized it back at the end of the game when he arrived at the building, at the back of the stand, where all staff from Controlled Event Solutions (CES) – United's main security firm – return their uniforms and radios. The club said last night that the incident and steward staffing are outside their direct control and CES were unavailable for comment. Boden was dismissed and said yesterday that the intense argument about the QRT's actions after the game reflected the way that staff are deeply divided over the Glazer campaign issue. "There was a huge argument among staff about what went on," Boden said.

"People had to be pulled apart after that incident. You don't work as a steward for financial rewards but because of your emotional commitment to the club. Fans have every right to say if something is wrong and to protest."

The force of the anti-Glazer protests had risen to a level where a banner during the Hull City home match on 23 January could not be removed, as supporters blocked the aisles to ensure security staff could not reach it.

 

[Gritt23]

If only 2700 fans could be bothered to watch us play in the Football league, imagine how few would have ben bothered to watch us play Conference football.

Assuming that they let us play Conference, as they are not adverse to demoting teams with financial problems. Boston got thrown down the ladder after being relegated from League Two. If relegation had led to financial problems, we could have been going the same way. Weren't Dover thrown down about 3 divisions from the Conference for financial problems?

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

What he said. They voted for this, this was what they wanted, this is how they became what they are now and why football is what it is now. You reap what you sow.

"You reap what you sow."

Sums it up well.

 

[Common as Mook]

BBC News - Manchester United in Telekom Malaysia sponsorship deal
Wish we had an "Integrated Telecommunications Partner"

 

[Easy 10]

Assuming that they let us play Conference, as they are not adverse to demoting teams with financial problems. Boston got thrown down the ladder after being relegated from League Two. If relegation had led to financial problems, we could have been going the same way. Weren't Dover thrown down about 3 divisions from the Conference for financial problems?

Quite apart from the financial problems, we were also homeless by then. Maintaining our League status that day was life or death for the club. I'm really not sure we would have survived had we gone non-league without a ground.

I honestly can't remember now, but by the time we went to Hereford for that final game, did we know by then that we'd be playing at Priestfield the following season ? Or did that arrangement come about during the summer ?

 

[Gritt23]

I honestly can't remember now, but by the time we went to Hereford for that final game, did we know by then that we'd be playing at Priestfield the following season ? Or did that arrangement come about during the summer ?

I think we knew we had an agreement with Gillingham, and that the FL had reversed their earlier position whereby they'd said we couldn't groundshare outside of Sussex. But I don't know if the Non-League had confirmed whether they were happy with it.

 

[Storer68]

I think we knew we had an agreement with Gillingham, and that the FL had reversed their earlier position whereby they'd said we couldn't groundshare outside of Sussex. But I don't know if the Non-League had confirmed whether they were happy with it.

I'm not so sure we did have an final agreement with Gillingham by the time of the Hereford game.

My recollection is that we simply did not know where we would be playing next season, except for the knowledge that it would not be at the Goldstone, as we did not know, until after the hereford game, whetehr we would still be a league club or not. We might have ended up at the New den.


If you want to know what might have happened may I suggest you grab a copy of this and contemplate the cover... especialy the words "9 YEARS" which is how long it took Hereford to get back into the League. And they HAVE A GROUND

At the time of writing (11/2/97)
Chairman Bill Archer was still pursuing his ill-conceived plan of a stadium at Toad's Hall, Hove.
February continued with a 1-0 home win over Exeter City, when although they had played an extra game, Albion were now only 3 points adrift of Doncaster. Away form was awful with a 1-2 defeat at Carlisle. The proposed fans boycott was abandoned for the home 3-2 victory against Swansea City. The first meeting between Richard Knight and Bill Archer took place on 23 February 1997.