14 Sep 2020 16:28:29
Just so you are aware of the impact of our debts. United have paid £209m in last 5 years to fund the Glazers' ownership structure: £120m interest plus £89m dividends. In the last 10 years they spent £838m on financing: £488m interest, £251m debt repayments and £99m dividends.

1.) 14 Sep 2020
14 Sep 2020 16:58:07
But now the club are worried about financial stability and want to ensure the clubs future. want to ensure they still get their payments more like. Those numbers are shocking and disgraceful.

2.) 14 Sep 2020
14 Sep 2020 18:49:05
It is absolutly apauling Red Man, just think what and where could be if we had owners who were interested and the club was progressive and did things correctly.

Makes it even more frustating with how we handle transfers and the codition of certain parts of the stadium.

Cannot wait for them to sell up. Who knows when that will be though with their valuation.

3.) 14 Sep 2020
14 Sep 2020 18:03:54
So why weren't we spending 200m a season before the Glazers took over then?

The answer is in two parts. Firstly under Glazer ownership we have seen a massive hike in revenue from TV and sponsorship. Not all can be credited to the Glazers, the TV money deals aren't negotiated by the club. But the plethora of of sponsorship deals bringing huge sums into the club have been a part of the Glazer plan and ownership.
Secondly, before Glazer ownership we had a large number of owners all of which received dividends every year. The issue is that under that type of ownership it would require a large number of people to vote against receiving a dividend in order to redistribute club funds towards transfers or improvements of the stadium or training facilities.

While the debt also means that a huge amount of club finances aren't leaving the club as taxes.

It's easy to look at the figures and think what could be if we didn't have the debt. But the reality is that without the debt a lot of that money that has gone on interest would have just left the club as taxes and dividends and very little of it would have worked it's way back to transfer fees and new stadium roofs.

The reality is that the club have outspent most clubs in the world over the past 7 years, spending close to £1bn. Sadly most of it has been wasted through poor management or as the Ed's might say amateurish running of the club. Bowing to fan pressure, not having a clear plan, not having the best people in key positions up and down the club. That isn't a lack of investment, but a lack of understanding.

Ironically maybe if the Glazers had a more hands on approach they might see some of the issues and fix them. For them the club is a 3.8bn assets they own, which gives them flexibility in their other financial ventures while requiring little to no input either financially or in terms of time. Consider them a holding company, owning but not being involved. Things will change if we get new owners, but not necessarily for the better. We could be bought by assert strippers, or as a play thing for a rich and powerful business person. Something to be picked up and paraded around until they get bored and move on to the next thing, only to be left on the shelf to gather dust.

4.) 14 Sep 2020
14 Sep 2020 20:24:04
Shappy I was going to post very similar thoughts. We are spending the same or more than we did at any time, the club is worth just as much as it was in the past, always in top 3 worth over £3 Billion. Just think if we had Mike Ashley as owner.

5.) 14 Sep 2020
14 Sep 2020 23:03:48
Another Great post Shappy. On the nose.

6.) 15 Sep 2020
15 Sep 2020 02:36:07
what a load of bs shappy, the money that utd spent on interest was money that would have been earmarked in every budget for interest. Had we no debt, much if not most of it would then have been utilized in other areas, transfers, coaching staff, training ground and stadium improvements etc. So suggest that a club like utd would have no clue what to do with millions of $ every year and would just let it sit in the bank and pay taxes and dividend on it is beyond stupid.

7.) 15 Sep 2020
15 Sep 2020 07:58:34
CSM, if the money didn't have to go on interest or debt repayment can you give me a reasonable reason for why the Glazers would choose to funnel that money towards the club rather than into their own pockets in the form of dividends?

Fans talk as if that money would have been used for us to sign Messi, Bale, Kroos, Ramos etc. But what evidence have they got that suggests the Glazers plan for he club is to spend all the money the club makes back on the club and not take the profit from their business as dividends?

Also without the debt the club would have to pay significant amounts in taxes which would decrease the amount of profit.

Simply put only one or two teams have out spent us over the past 10 years. The fact is that it has been spent very poorly. Had the 1bn or so that we have spent be used more wisely then we would have a squad on par With that of Man City, a better squad and arguably first team than Liverpool. That's without any more investment than we have had, just not wasting it on poor buys.

Mata (a player I really like) cost us 12m more than Liverpool paid for Suarez. Mata will leave for free or a nominal fee, while Liverpool sold Suarez for a huge profit. Hell Fallaini cost more than Suarez.

Mata was also one of the less disastrous transfers.

Our major issue hasn't been how much money we have spent on debt repayment or interest. It is how much we have wasted on poor buys from a club without direction or leadership. A lack of quality in the boardroom and the upper levels of management at the club.

8.) 15 Sep 2020
15 Sep 2020 08:19:55
Shappy they would have to funnel to the club because only so much can be paid to directors via fees etc, dividends are after tax, woodward is a nincompoop when it comes to anything football but even he won't be stupid enough to just let the club pay high taxes on profits, one of the big reasons utd have seen no infrastructure development at OT is because those require big expenditure, expenditure we had going towards interest. Even woodward with his all his incompetence would have shown glazers that sums spent there would lead to higher incomes which would lead to higher dividends for the glazers.

The billion dollar waste you point to are the best eg. of that, glazers could easily have muzzled woodward's sprees if they so chose, but they clearly didn't. They want their director fees and good dividend, they don't care what utd do with the rest of the money.

9.) 15 Sep 2020
15 Sep 2020 12:24:43
So what you're saying is that the Glazers have taken 99m out in dividends over a 10 year period. Less than 10m a year or around the same amount the club pay Juan Mata.

While 1bn has been spent on debt. However if the club didn't have to spend that money on debt then they would have spent it on what?

Do you really think that the club owners consider 10m a year between 5 or 6 of them btw is a good return?

Of course not. If they could have had more money out then they would have done. They are investors after all and the most important aspect is how much they can make.

They could have taken more out and not spent it on Di Maria, or Pogba or Lukaku and doubled the amount of money they have made personally. But they didn't, they allowed the club to spend huge sums of money. 1bn spent of transfer fees in 10 years, goodness knows how much on agents fees and taxes to make those transfers happen. While also committing to having the second largest wages bill in world football.

The position we find ourselves in has nothing to do with the debt, or how the owners have managed the finances of the club. They have made huge sums available for transfers and they have paid huge wages as well.

The problem has and continues to be the people running the club have no long term vision, aren't qualified or at least aren't the best people to be doing so. Blame the Glazers for that by all means, but you can't say they haven't given the club the money to be successful.

10.) 15 Sep 2020
15 Sep 2020 13:15:43
Shappy they haven't given us any money, the money we spend on interest and the money we spend on transfers is utd's own earned money.

I do not disagree with what you are saying about the lack of planning from the chinless wonder, but to the assertion you made in the original post that the had there been no debt the money used for debt would have just been taxes and dividend and wouldn't have been used for anything beneficial to utd.

11.) 15 Sep 2020
15 Sep 2020 13:41:05
Good post, Red Man. Always good to have a reminder.

12.) 16 Sep 2020
15 Sep 2020 19:12:36
Shappy,

Nonsense

Pre Glazers, as an example, we bought Rio Ferdinand for a world record fee for a defender, Rooney another.

Before the Glazers the Plc, who I was not keen on, yet we had no debt, funded the last major stadium work, it was money the Plc provided, that rebuilt the stadium. Since the Glazers arrived, nothing.

Justifying the debt on the basis of tax efficiency, that really is nonsense. Leverage can benefit a business but it depends what the money is spent on, this debt gave the club nothing.

Lastly “consider them a holding company, owning but not being involved”. They take millions in dividends so are very much involved. The £3.8Bn valuation, does absolutely nothing for any of us, only the Glazers Who will benefit when they sell.

13.) 16 Sep 2020
16 Sep 2020 11:23:33
CSM, the Glazers own the club, all money made by the club can potentially be claimed by the Glazers as theirs.

If you own a business and reinvest the money the business makes back into the business then that is still your investment. As fans we need to get our head around that.

We can't ring fence the money the club makes and the Glazers as separate entities. The Glazers own the club, all club assets, the stadium, the training ground, the offices, the players etc are under the ownership of the Glazers. All money the club makes is owned by the Glazers. If it is redirected back into the club then that is the decision of the Glazers, if it goes out of the club into their pockets then that is their prerogative.

Manchester United doesn't own the money it makes.

14.) 17 Sep 2020
17 Sep 2020 17:48:06
I am looking forward to Shappy providing details of the money the Glazers have given the club.