₦airaland Forum

weedtaker:
Still.. replacing a GOAT player like Ronaldo with Owen, Valencia and Obertan was comedy level.

weedtaker:
Schnerderlin wasn’t bad too, I remember how we were buzzing when we got him, it just didn’t work out. I think LVG had the worst luck here when it comes to transfers.

Depay was a good youngster destined for greater heights, Di Maria just won the MOTM in a CL final, Schnerdelin, Blind, Darmian, Herrera were all hailed as smart business.

Martial was even the signing that had question marks, now he’s the only LVG signing in our books.

Bombblacks:
Have the owners spent money on players or not? Is it the glazers that scot players and negotiate deals with other clubs?

Oasis007:


MUFC owner Avram Glazer refused to apologise to fans over the disastrous attempt to form a breakaway European Super League, when approached by Sky

Dude no even send una....... LMFAO!

https://twitter.com/SkySportsNews/status/1389696706875330561?s=19[/quote]Lol. Silly British media.

Expert17:
Alisson that won best GK/golden gloves in all competition that season.

I wonder why Van dijk can't help Netherland's defense.

Illimitable:
Van Dijk isn’t point and kill.

He raised Liverpool’s level by the power of 10 all by himself.

Bums like Matip, Gomez and Fabinho looked world class beside Van Dijk.

That’s what world class players do. They improve everyone else.

Maguire has made decent United defenders even look poor because they always have to stay beside him in case he’s exposed.

Illimitable:
The talk is always getting a Maguire a partner like he’s a bride.

When Van Dijk was signed by Liverpool, he made average defenders look world class all by himself. No one ever said he needed a fast, slow, obese, short, tall partner.

For £75m or £80m fee, a defender should be the solution to all defensive problems in a club. If Maguire needs another partner to function, why did he cost £80m?

Lana1:
Err maybe because the guy is just economics and vibes. Maybe because he knew next to nothing about the football side of things. If he knew anything about football he wont have sanctioned the majority of those deals like Schneiderlin or Fellaini.

Let's not even get started on the outrageous wages. All these yet the fools at the top left him in charge for so long.

Illimitable:
Ole only win games that don’t matter.

Beat PSG in 2019 only to go and lose to Barca

Beat PSG in 2020 only to go and lose to Basaksehir.

Olesexuals see progress though.

Odunharry:
Lol.. Good afternoon Baba, I'm trying to msg you. Check your mail

Illimitable:
As at then, Scholes, Giggs and many other players were due to be replaced. Ferguson worked wonders to make the team overperform to get 3 UCL finals in 4 years. He lost two out of them though and one would think if we had Ozil or Kroos in the 2011 CL final instead of Giggs/Carrick, the outcome would have been much different.

Like I said, Glazernomics led United to those two painful final defeats. I remember Ferguson used to say there was no value in the market then - and proceeded to sign Obertan and Tosic. Rooney had a bust with SAF asking why United have declined. Roy Keane also had a similar bust in 2005 that led to his exit from the club.

Glazernomics is poison!



And there lies the problem.

If they know nothing about football, how would they know the right football people to hire. City went all out to get Txiki Begiristain(Barca’s former football director) as their football director while Woodward was pretending to know what the job entails.

You only need to watch Man City’s Amazon documentary to see how that club is built with the sole objective of packing trophies. They have a structure and owners who won’t hesitate to pursue that sole objective no matter what it costs.

That is what any investor should care about. Football fans won’t care if Osama Bin Laden acquires their club as long as they keep bringing in the trophies. All the fans ever wanted is success and continued success. With the Glazers, we get debt and trophy drought.

I repeat, Glazernomics is poison!

Illimitable:
The previous owners sold their shares because of their beef with Alex Ferguson. They fought over the ownership of a racehorse and they wanted out.

British Government allowed the sale because of the taxes they would get from the deal. Everyone older than 5 knows that leveraged buyout does anybody no good - especially a cash generating outfit like Man Utd.



Plenty of clubs have hit 1 billion in player purchases in the last 10 years and United are the least successful amongst those clubs.

Have you been sleeping?

Illimitable:
While this is true, they compensate it by acquiring world class players and they land big trophies to sweeten the fans.

Real Madrid and Barca will not sign Bebe, Obertan and a crippled Michael Owen to replace a Cristiano Ronaldo. It’s impossible.

So no matter how you shake it, Glazernomics is poison.



United’s model is not a model, it’s a money grab. Stop calling it model. What sort of stupid model rewards shitty players with contracts you would give Messi or Ronaldo?

If Aguero was a United player, Woodward would be giving him a 6 year contract this summer to keep him until 37. How’s that a model? What is Phil Jones doing at United? What financial model in the world supports Phil Jones contract in 2019?




You are ridiculously naive in football finance to think the Glazers have any sort of financial model. It’s just a money grab. They have zero knowledge on how football works and this is why the biggest club in the world is now trophyless for the 4th year running.

Illimitable:
No one asked for them. No one wanted them. The club wasn’t in any financial trouble. They just arrived overnight and heaped loads of debt on the club. They don’t deserve more than £200m profit in 2010 considering they didn’t drop a single penny in the purchase of the club.




I should forget about the debt that has sucked £704m on interests alone? Are you alright? Without the debt, the £704m wasted on interest alone could have gone to buy more players or fix the dilapidated stadium that was leaking rain water few seasons ago.



The club generated close to £6 billion in that period. The club by itself, without the financial input of the Glazers generated that money on its own. Why are you making it look like the Glazers’ acumen brought that money to the table?

Were United not making money before the Glazers? Old Trafford had the largest club stadium capacity in Britain before the Glazers. United’s match day revenue was the highest in Britain before the Glazers. United also had the highest number of fans in Europe.

The club would have survived and be in a much better shape without the Glazers. If you are paying £707m in interest alone(excluding the debt repayment), you should worry about the debt. That £707m could have brought Neymar and Mbappe to Old Trafford.

Glazernomics is poison.

Illimitable:
This is also terrible business on their part.

United have the lowest amount of player sales in the top 6. If you go deeper, they are even worse than Everton and Southampton in the past 11 years.

Chelsea have made £707m in player sales, Liverpool made £552m but United could only boast of £291m sales in the past 11 years. Glazernomics is actually harming the club, not helping it.

However, through the United media machine that continues to lie to the fans, we overrate these parasites. All they do is dishing out contracts to players past their peak that nobody wants.

Explain to me why Jones hasn’t been sold. He’s barely kicked a ball in the last 3 years and the Glazers gave him a juicy contract for nothing. United are 8th in player sales. Shitty clubs like Southampton and Arsenal make more money selling players than United.

Are you sure the propaganda is BS or you have consented to Woodward pulling a thick wool over your eyes?

The mind boggles.

Illimitable:
Which commercial push are you talking about? Which other club didn’t implement an aggressive commercial push?

While it is true they tripled United’s commercial revenue from £173m in 2005 to £509m in 2020, Man City and Liverpool have overtaken the slumbering Man United in the same period.

Man City’s revenue grew from £62m to £478m
Liverpool’s revenue went from £119m to £490m
Tottenham’s revenue rose from £74m to £392m

The Glazers have been grossly overrated. With it without them, Man Utd’s revenue would have grown because of the amount of money pumped into football in the last decade.

Illimitable:
£200m profit was a lot of money in a football as at 2010. The most expensive player transfer as at 2010 was Ronaldo(£80m). £200m in 2010 would have bought 2 & half Ronaldos.

How much will buy 2 and half Neymars today? £220 * 2.5 = £550m. So you are saying £550m isn’t enough profit for the Glazers after 5 years of debt, high interest rates and repayments?

Really?

Illimitable:
They have been approached several times - they refused to sell. They were approached in 2010 by Red Knights.

The Glazers are greedy bastards. I don’t know how you can even lend any support to these parasites that have ruined United from the crust to the core.

They have paid themselves more than they have invested in players in the last 10 years.

olabode89:
You are the only one propagating this notion... lmao!

Yes, the Glazers took over the club using a leverage buyout that heaped a debt of about 600M pounds on the club,but they didn't break any law. The UK govt should have prevented the move but they failed to do so.

Whatever you say about the Glazers with respect to their handling of the club do not forget that they implemented an aggressive commercial push that increased our revenue substantially. Although the yearly 25M dividend payment they receive is a bad look for them when compared to other owners.

Illimitable:
They have been approached several times - they refused to sell. They were approached in 2010 by Red Knights.

The Glazers are greedy bastards. I don’t know how you can even lend any support to these parasites that have ruined United from the crust to the core.

They have paid themselves more than they have invested in players in the last 10 years.

Ebukacute:
Very interesting. My fear is that if by chance it didn't come to pass,dis place no go contain us and these scummies

Who Would Spend Billions to Buy Manchester United and Arsenal?

Without a European Super League, owners are left with teams whose value can only be realized by selling up.

Soccer is not a very good business. That’s why the billionaire owners of Manchester United Plc. and Arsenal F.C. wanted to join the ill-fated European Super League. Now that those plans have combusted, the owners are left with teams whose value can only be realized by selling up. The problem is, there are no rational buyers for clubs with a sticker price in the billions of dollars.

United fans perennially complain about how much money the Florida-based Glazer family has taken out of the club since buying it in 2005. From a combination of dividends, consulting fees, proceeds from the 2012 initial public offering and a $96 million stake sale just last month, the Glazers have received, by my calculations, about $375 million in cash from Man Utd since 2005.


As a headline number, that’s a lot of money. But it averages out to $25 million a year, or the same as the annual salary of David de Gea, the Spanish goalkeeper who’s reportedly the team’s highest-earning player. On that basis, they may not yet have even covered the cost of their initial investment 1 .

In other terms, however, they have recorded massive gains on what they put in. The family’s 790 million-pound ($1.1 billion) takeover was a leveraged buyout — it was funded by debt to be repaid from the company’s future profits. That debt has already cost Manchester United almost 1.1 billion pounds in the form of both interest and debt repayments. That’s money that could have been used on the playing squad, but has instead repaid the family’s takeover costs. That cash has translated into the Glazers’ 75% stake in the club, which is now valued at $2.1 billion. Even the dividends are partly debt funded.

Through this lens, the six Glazer siblings have generated a return of about 500% on their initial outlay. But because it’s mostly in the form of stock, the value is largely theoretical. They don’t have $2.1 billion sitting in a bank account. As long as there’s scope for the share price to improve, it makes sense for the family to hang onto it. The Super League provided such scope by promising not just to increase revenue but also to cap salary costs. Indeed Man Utd’s stock jumped 10% after the competition was announced, before falling again after the tournament’s rapid demise.

Since any imminent prospect of a Super League is dead, the club’s financial prospects will remain closely tied to its on-field performance. That and the lack of salary caps makes profit hard to predict — that’s unlike U.S. sports such as the NFL or NBA, where teams can’t fall out of the top division based on their performance, and there are strict rules about wage spending. No matter how much lucrative broadcast deals boost soccer revenue, the clubs just end up spending more on player salaries. In 2011, Man Utd allocated 46% of its 331 million pounds in revenue on wages. Last year, revenue had jumped to 509 million pounds, but salaries gobbled up an even greater proportion of income, at 56%.

As such, now seems as good a time as any for the Glazers to crystallize the value of their holding by selling it, and reinvest the proceeds somewhere else with better financial prospects, like an index fund.

The same applies to Stan Kroenke, the American billionaire owner of Arsenal Holdings Plc. Even though the team has spent less on the playing squad and has lower financing costs — it’s still repaying debt raised in 2006 to fund a new stadium — it’s less profitable than Man Utd. Unlike the Glazers, Kroenke has never extracted a dividend, and said on Tuesday that he has no plans to sell. However, Spotify Technologies SA co-founder Daniel Ek, a self-proclaimed lifelong Arsenal fan, has declared his interest in buying the London-based club.

Fans should be careful what they wish for. Although the Bloomberg Billionaires Index values Ek at $4.7 billion, 97% of that stems from his stake in Spotify. It’s hard to imagine the Swede selling down his ownership of the music streaming platform to fund a deal for the club, which was valued at 1.8 billion pounds when Kroenke completed his takeover in 2018. So any deal would likely require a lot of leverage, creating a situation akin to what happened when Manchester Utd was bought. And fans don’t like seeing profits go to pay off debt.

The problem for both teams is that without significant changes to the financial structure of professional soccer — at least to ensure sustainable profits — there aren’t many serious businessman who would pony up the cash to acquire them. What’s left are irrational buyers with agendas other than profit, such as sovereign wealth funds eager to burnish their nations’ standing.

A Super League would have made their teams profit machines. Its failure means the Glazers and Kroenke are now left holding assets that are extremely valuable in theory, but that generate little cash and whose value is all-but-impossible to realize in its entirety.

The Glazers invested at most 272 million pounds of their own capital in the club when they acquired, though it's possible some of that was also funded by debt. At 2005 exchange rates, that would have been $507 million.

kokaneprodigy:
I want to buy a property or business, what’s the seller’s business how I got my money and what I do with the business after change of ownership?

You really need to drop emotions and think this thing rationally.

MaziAlaye:
They said the Glazers are “taking from United” as opposed to? People are used to oligarchs and state owned oil rich clubs that they don’t know how businesses work anymore
Like these people think their investors are philanthropist and have no intention to make money.

kokaneprodigy:
Winning the league doesn’t automatically make you a big club, Leicester won the league few years back. So?
United wasn’t a small club when they bought it, in fact it was the biggest in England and among top 5 in the world.

United’s case ain’t same with City.

MaziAlaye:
Only one thing will push the Glazers out of United and that's a big fat cheque. Fans can scatter games from now till Jesus comes, that won't change.If fans badly want their club back,they should stump up the cash & pay. That's how to own & control any asset in real life.