No guidance and no call for Q1 suggests the forecast isn't great given there's no chance of full capacity games this season if we're lucky we might see 50% full by the spring but given Manchester currently is tier 3 it's unlikely any fans will be going back to the stadium through the autumn months and possibly into winter.
Saw another tweet suggesting net debt is still £424m so after over £1bn going out in the last 15 years to service debts we're still in this position.
The tweet I saw said net debt was now £424m not totally sure what the different is between gross and net when it comes to debt as your not paying tax on debts. BBC report net debt as £474m.
Think from memory they borrowed something like £550m against the club from banks to buy it they then borrowed £200m directly from hedge funds that were secured against the Glazers not the club. So all in we were about £750m in with banks/hedge funds after the takeover they've paid off the hedge fund loans with share issues so they're gone the rest is bonds and bank loans.
When they sold shares first time round it was assumed the money raised would be used to reduce debt it wasn't at the last minute they changed the terms and took out about 50% of the money raised from the share sale for themselves.
Just scary how much money it has taken to just scratch the surface over 15 years will Utd ever be debt free again?
The only club in England that could withstand the horrors of the Glazer family is Manchester United.
I don’t know why, but l’ve always hated the parasitic way they have shamelessly sucked money out of the club.
You hate it because they are exactly what you said, parasites.
This club could have been out of sight by far the most successful in England by now if the Glazers wanted a winning football team rather than fat wallets. We'd have been look down at City and Liverpool for the last 7 years rather than up at them
...you are one of the very few giants of world football. That will never change.
You are right. With better ownership United could be unstoppable.
City will never be up there with United. Never. Even with their petrodollars.
Liverpool is a huge club, United is huge++
In reality there isn't a huge amount between Utd and Liverpool historically the thing was Liverpool didn't cash in like we did when football boomed in the UK through the 90's they fell behind and have now caught up both on and off the pitch.
Their owners are much like ours just with better PR they are in it for the money just like the Glazers but they recognise the value in being a well run club on the pitch whereas ours don't seem to care probably because they know no matter what the money will keep rolling in.
...in every way United and Liverpool are unmatched, unrivalled in English football. Clearly the top two. Liverpool, as you say, were left flat-footed commercially when the Premier league took off. And, of course, their dominance had come to an end, which didn’t help.
United set the pace commercially and clubs across Europe were scrambling to catch up. Most will never catch up. United, probably, still lead the way.
But Liverpool have now got their act together, on and off the pitch, which makes them a threat.
From the outside, Liverpool is run more competently than United, which could be decisive in the next few years. And they don’t have to contend with owners treating the club as their personal bank account.
I agree that money is the bottom line for both owners but...
...John Henry and co give the appearance of a certain sophistication...
...the Glazers, on the other hand, are hillbillies who discovered oil on their land...
...and it doesn’t stop gushing.
Not wanting to go into a history lesson but John Henry and FSG spotted an asset in trouble Liverpool were going bust the banks were closing in on them thanks to the previous owners who attempted to follow the Glazer model. It took them years to turn it around and really the big moment for them came when they got Klopp he's unified that club again at all levels on the pitch and off it the club seem to have got a solid setup for identifying talent and getting them.
I always felt as Utd grew during the 90's they looked at Bayern Munich as the bench mark of how a club should be run stability on and off the pitch maintaining long term success by dominating your domestic market. When Gill went and Woodward took over to me looked like the kind of Perez figure who yearned for the Galactico's of Madrid not realising the perils that come with that approach because these huge names in world football have never really wanted to come to the PL.
...l mentioned a few days ago how Hicks and Gillette were in over their heads, and through their mishandling of the club, lost it to FSG.
It’s the sort of ownership misfortune l’m sure you would welcome at United.
Well it's high stakes Poker Liverpool were in court filing for administration the banks had called in the loans and the club couldn't pay it was only at the last minute FSG stepped in to cover loans and take control of the club.
If Utd ever got themselves into that situation there's no guarantee that the white knight appears to rescue you and you'd be vulnerable to ownership from any sort of shady individual.
Sadly we've all had to learn to accept the Glazers ownership the thing that frustrates me about them is they could be running the club much more efficiently making every penny count towards success but they seem to just not care as long as the dividend comes they don't care if we finish 1st of 10th. I mean they surely must look at the money that's been p*ssed down the drain on players and managers and think have we got the right people making decisions here because we really could and should have the best of both worlds.