Jump to content

Glazers overseeing the destruction of Man U.


Parky
 Share

Recommended Posts

"The MU Finance plc prospectus, launched in the City yesterday, sets out the fortune the Glazer family have reaped from the club they borrowed £540m to buy. From 1 July 2006, in five separate payments, a round total of £10m was paid in "management and administration fees" to companies affiliated to the Glazers. Under the new bond issue, the family is entitled to be paid up to £6m by United in management and administration fees.

 

On 30 June last year, United entered into a consultancy agreement with SLP Partners, "a company related to certain of our ultimate shareholders", to pay up to £2.9m. On top of that, on 19 December 2008, each of Malcolm Glazer's five sons and one daughter, all of whom are directors of Red Football Limited, each personally borrowed about £1.66m from the club, a total of £10m.

 

Added together, the management fees, consultancy agreement maximum and the £10m the six family members actually borrowed from United make a total of £22.9m paid to the family and their affiliated companies in three and a half years.

 

No explanation was offered yesterday for these fees, or for why the Glazer family felt the need to borrow £10m from Manchester United. The Glazer family's official spokesman, who is responsible for discussing United's financial affairs, declined to comment."

 

 

Interest payments are currently at £67m a year.  :cheesy: And it looks like the whole Glazer family are at the trough to the tune of £23m a year payments to various entitites they run.  :snod:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd worship at the temple of Glazers if they manage to topple Cosmopolitan United, the God of the National Sports Media.

God bless their noble work.... ;D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Freddy Shepherd, Sir John Hall and their families, the former major shareholders of Newcastle United, made almost £146m from their years at St James' Park, according to figures released by the club. The accounts for the year to 30 June 2008 provided a final inventory of the two families' earnings, because they sold their shares and left the board after Mike Ashley took over Newcastle in June 2007.

 

The Halls, who owned a larger stake than Freddy Shepherd and his brother, Bruce, made £95,748,570 in total from selling their shares, salaries and dividends, while the Shepherds made £50,099,604 altogether.  :shifty:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Roger Kint

The only team in the world i'd actually love to see fail.

 

Prefer to see Chelsea just for the new age fans they have found, really wish they went tits up in 2003(?) when they were a knats cock from it ;D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Freddy Shepherd, Sir John Hall and their families, the former major shareholders of Newcastle United, made almost £146m from their years at St James' Park, according to figures released by the club. The accounts for the year to 30 June 2008 provided a final inventory of the two families' earnings, because they sold their shares and left the board after Mike Ashley took over Newcastle in June 2007.

 

The Halls, who owned a larger stake than Freddy Shepherd and his brother, Bruce, made £95,748,570 in total from selling their shares, salaries and dividends, while the Shepherds made £50,099,604 altogether.  :shifty:

 

Local heroes bless 'em.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness though, they bought the club (albeit with a huge loan) so they should be rewarded for the risks and should enjoy the benefits from owning the club. The amount they have taken out is relatively small compared to interest repayments..

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only clubs that regularly have made a real profit over the last decade are Arsenal, Villa and Spurs. All well run and resonably replenish the first team with good youth systems. A mix of these three should be our model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Manchester United will always have somebody to buy them if all looked like going tits up.Much ado about nothing tbh.

 

Won't be allowed in the CL if the new rules on debt come in.

 

Which they won't. Pipe dream to the extreme.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Manchester United will always have somebody to buy them if all looked like going tits up.Much ado about nothing tbh.

 

Won't be allowed in the CL if the new rules on debt come in.

 

That would be a good start but they'll still be some bumpkin billionaire somewhere to bail them out.Hopefully it will be another Mike Ashley type.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Liverpool and Man U seem to have got into this problem because they're having to compete with Chelsea (and now Man City) who are heavily subsidised from outside. It looks like the bigger clubs are now just as vulnerable as the smaller ones.

 

This can only get worse until these two problems are addressed -

 

1) The gaps between the income of the Champions League clubs and the Premiership, and between the Premiership and the Championship. These gaps are causing clubs to take risks to avoid relegation / stay in or get to the top four etc

 

2) The expenditure of clubs needs to be tied into their turnover. Outside subsidies on the scale of Chelsea and Man City have completely distorted the market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only clubs that regularly have made a real profit over the last decade are Arsenal, Villa and Spurs. All well run and resonably replenish the first team with good youth systems. A mix of these three should be our model.

 

I assume you're talking about the Doug Ellis run Villa here, not the Lerner run Villa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness though, they bought the club (albeit with a huge loan) so they should be rewarded for the risks and should enjoy the benefits from owning the club. The amount they have taken out is relatively small compared to interest repayments..

 

Are you being serious?  They bought the club with a loan that is against the club rather then themselves.  They've put none of their own money in and taken no risks at all personally and turned the club from a money making machine into one that bleeds money faster then Abramovich's wallet in the process.  For that fantastic job they've taken a £23m fee!, its almost beyond believe, would be terrible if it wasn't happening to such a horrible club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Liverpool and Man U seem to have got into this problem because they're having to compete with Chelsea (and now Man City) who are heavily subsidised from outside. It looks like the bigger clubs are now just as vulnerable as the smaller ones.

 

 

It's more than that. Both clubs were the subject of leveraged buyouts, meaning that the cost of their purchase is being met out of their revenue. Then factor in the effects of global economic meltdown and, yes, the difficulty of having to compete with Chelsea and Citeh who don't need to worry about balancing the books.

 

Man U would be doing fine, though, if it wasn't for the expense of transferring ownership to the Glazers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...