₦airaland Forum

ChristineC:
you are intentionally mixing it up.
we have been doing sack and hire system that didn't work. it's the 5th manager in 7 years to stand in that dug out.
this is the point to try DNA, and it will be given time

Moyes was a DNA play, OGS is a DNA play. To some extent, LVG was a DNA play.

Mou gave us trophies, Mou was not a DNA play.

afrodoc2:
Maybe you think i am saying all this to defend Solskjaer. If they sack him today and appoint Tuchel or Nagelsmann i will be the first to share rice and plantain here.

However the origin of the problem is the aging and average squad Fergie left in 2013 that was as a result of years of spending Stoke City and Everton money while making Madrid and Barca money.

I still don't agree. Meanwhile, we already bought more that 28 players, (5 short of three squads) since Fergie left now, and most were established players before they join man Utd.

So how come no success, even though we have replaced the so called aging and average squad?

afrodoc2:
Objection. Speculation.
It is not only American owners that get articles written against them.

There have been articles against Abramovic, Ivan Gazidis, Mike Ashley, John Elkann e.t.c

Or is Bartomeu also American?

Lol, the whole world knows about the special enmity between Britain and America, it's been around for a long time. Anyway, I dont have the time to start talking/typing about it. Make the matter rest for here, Na me bring am up.

afrodoc2:
[/b]

1) Of course when their investment was in jeopardy they started investing. When they should have capitalized in the mid 2000s to build a dominant team they were spending less than Stoke City and Aston Villa.

phucking disgrace.


2) Irrelevant. Liverpool is owned by Americans too.

Maybe you still don't get it, Fergie left, reason we are where we are today. Debt or 2005 takeover is not the reason. We can't use the DNA thing to win trophies, we need a new system, sack and hire managers for success. That's my point. We have been spending since 2013 plus trying to do the DNA thing at the same time, but.no success. Can we just change the approach for once?

Please stop saying that these guys have not spent on the club. They are trying abeg.

afrodoc2:
[/b]

1) Of course when their investment was in jeopardy they started investing. When they should have capitalized in the mid 2000s to build a dominant team they were spending less than Stoke City and Aston Villa.

phucking disgrace.


2) Irrelevant. Liverpool is owned by Americans too.

Lol, how come there were several articles against the club owners before Klopp told them to shut up?

afrodoc2:
2005/2006: 23m 4th in the EPL behind Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool


2006/2007: 9m 9th in the EPL behind Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs, Newcastle, Everton, Bolton, Aston Villa, Charlton Athletic

These are the 2 years immediately after the Glazers (our billionaires) bought us.


2007/2008: 56.9 2nd to Spurs

2008/2009: 37.8 4th to Man City, Aston Villa, Spurs

2009/2010: 77m surplus mainly because of Ronaldo. Dead last in the league behind everybody.

2010/2011: 11.99m 9th in the EPL behind Man City, Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal, Birmingham, Stoke City, Wolves, West Brom

2011/2012: 48.5m 3rd to Chelsea, Man City

2012/2013: 66m 2nd to Chelsea

Source: transfermarkt.com

Notice how immediately real billionaires like Abramovic and ADUG bought their clubs those clubs shot to the top of net spend over the next 2-3 seasons while when our fake billionaires bought United we maintained 4th to 9th positions on net spend?

Notice how a club that keeps making millions more than everybody else in the league is almost never at the top of net spend table?

It is a phucking disgrace.

You are really using net spend for your analysis? Outflow is what matters here. Anyway, If i want to agree that Fergie did not do much in terms of spending, can we assert that Fergie already built a team that needed low average net spend per year vs the likes of City and chelsea that were nothing pre-2005?

Also, how come Man Utd is only second to City in spending since 2013? This actually disproves your assertion that the Glazers haven't spent much on the club.

Meanwhile, I struggle to understand what you mean by 'real billionaires' sha. Most billionaires have huge debt. The ones you are talking about have only decided to use structures to make the clubs have indirect exposures, thereby decieving several naive and ignorant football fans.

Better stop the emotional stuff, and for once accept that these guys are spending heavily on the club.

Just dont know why an average English man hates to see Americans control/manage their wealth, they prefer to have 'not too knowledgeable' investors from Middle East and Russia blow their oil money and their countries' fortunes on the UK economy. This has been going on for decades/centuries, go read about the development of Canary Wharf.

afrodoc2:
[/b]

Fergie was papering over the cracks by winning with weak squads full of bang average and ageing players.

When we should have been buying more world class players to add to the ones we had we were replacing world class players with non-footballers.

There is a reason Obertan and Valencia replaced Ronaldo.

But Fergie spent over 260m pounds between 2008 and 2013 na. How many clubs spent that amount in the EPL?

2007/2008: 61.8m
2008/2009: 35.75m
2009/2010: 21m
2010/2011: 27.2m
2011/2012: 52.9m
2012/2013: 63m

afrodoc2:
So it is the Glazers''s fault?

You have not addressed the issue which was the level of leverage involved in the purchase. The takeover was leveraged at the cost of future health of the club.

In 2005-2010 when we had 2 of the best young players in the world in Rooney and Ronaldo and should have been building on that to dominate Europe we sold Ronaldo and replaced him with Valencia and Obertan. E get reason.

Not all leveraged takeovers are the same.

What the Glazers did was what Hicks and Gillett tried to do at Liverpool until they were forced out. Na God save Liverpool, maybe they would have been fighting relegation now.

I already told you that leverage was and is not the problem. The club is spending, contrary to what you are saying.

Meanwhile, Ronaldo asked to leave, no?

Fergie won 5 EPL titles, 4 EFL, 1 FA Cup, 6 Community Shields, 1 UEFA Champions League and 1 FIFA Club cup = 18 trophies in 8 years, because he was the best. We cant replace him and we cant adopt same strategy (having a long term manager) going forward, football is evolving, better to adopt other strategies.

Man Utd DNA wont give us trophies, nah!

afrodoc2:
How is this related? Did i say clubs don't have debt?

Most of these clubs always had debt even while United was posting profit so what else is new?
And if this debt was accrued from financing player purchases it is one thing, but for a debt that was brought on by the club owners themselves on the club?

Or is your point that it is better for a club to have debt than for it to have profit?

How is United now paying off debt every year and not winning any titles better than United pre-2005 making profit every year and winning titles?

No, some of the debts owed by clubs were used to acquire stakes in the club a long time ago. That's my point. Owners, take loan, acquire, then put the debt in the club's books or in the holding company's books.

Debt is not the cause of the club's woes. Fergie left, that is why we are still trying to gain stability. Fergie won the UCL and several EPL trophies between 2005 and 2013. So, dont say debt put us in this mess.

afrodoc2:
Compare the debt profile of Chelsea before and after the acquisition. Compare the portion of the loan that was placed on holding companies and the portion that was placed on the club directly.
Then compare how much of his money he spent on the club.

Then add PSG and Man City to the comparison.

There is a reason British fans of Chelshit were excited a Russian was buying their club in 2003 but British fans of United were angry an American was buying their club in 2005.

Pretty much everything that the protesters predicted would happen has happened. It is left for financial men like you and Woodward to sell people moi moi and call it cake.

You still dont get my point. Chelsea does not have the debt in its books. But the holding company does. Man Utd owners should have also considered a holding company structure where the club has no direct but indirect debt.

PSG and Man City are indirectly funded by governments of Middle East Countries. So, they are anomalies.

AS Roma Over 250m Euros in debt

https://romapress.net/2020/05/15/roma-release-third-quarter-financial-figures-e278-5-million-the-net-debt/

afrodoc2:
You are looking for examples you brought Stan Kroenke, the only owner who is more miserly and worse than the Glazers?

I laugh in Catalan.

This is Juve, owing 452m Euros.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-why-juventus-football-club-123250324.html

afrodoc2:
The club was financially healthy and winning titles for years before the Glazers came, which is why they bought a debt free club and Abramovic bought a debt ridden club.

The Edwards family kept the club winning and in great financial health with ZERO debt while winning titles for years. You don't need to load the club with debt in order to ensure financial health.

Well, I guess the Glazers did not structure the arrangement well. Blame Woodward! They should have adopted the holding company structure. Shey you guys for no understand what is going on. I have given you two examples: Chelsea and Arsenal. Fact is, debt is very key to every company. The debt market is the biggest of all capital and financial markets in the world, it is about times two (2x) of equities market. There is a reason for this.

Afrodoc, Arsenal Fc is owned by Stan Kroenke. See the ownership strucure: Arsenal Fc's holding company is Arsenal Holdings Group, and Arsenal Holdings Group is owned by KSE UK Inc. that is 100 percent owned by Stan. Guess something, Stan borrowed 505 million pounds from Deutsche Bank to acquire Alisher Usmanov’s stake in Arsenal (not even 100 percent stake o).

Today total debt owed by KSE UK Inc. (whose only asset is Arsenal FC) is 700m pounds. So, it means that indirectly, Arsenal owes 700m pounds. Until you uncover these structures before you know what's going on. Of course, Arsenal FC has no direct debt.

Check the link below for further details:

https://www.arsenaltrust.org/feed/afc-finances/2020/AST-Debt-Redemption-KSE

Doc, let me tell you something. Most billionaires that own football clubs took debt to buy those clubs. Roman is an example, Chelsea is debt free today because he used a holding company to take debt, and then used the assets of the company (which is majorly Chelsea Fc) as collateral. The proceeds were then used to fund Chelsea's acquisition. Right now, it looks like Chelsea is debt free, but the parent company is owing, so indirectly, Chelsea FC owes Russian banks, and if anything goes wrong, the banks and lenders will go after the subsidiaries of the holding company.

Complex structures mask most of these arrangements, of course, the fans are happy that there is no debt in the books of the club, but ultimately, the club is actually owing a lot of money.

See some articles on the Chelsea FC acquisition. They said Roman put the loans in Chelsea's books initially, but decided to convert it to equity, which makes it look like the club owes nobody. However, the parent company still owes the banks.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/may/19/roman-abramovich-chelsea-loan-debt

https://sites.google.com/site/chiptonetatvidya023/ownership-and-finances

afrodoc2:
A few articles that touch on how those guys drained funds away from the club for years and were saved by SAF's ability to work miracles.
There is no surprise that IMMEDIATELY Fergie retired everything came crashing down.


https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/glazer-family-have-drained-1billion-from-manchester-united-10244576.html


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2012/feb/22/manchester-united-glazers-debt


https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-utd-news-finances-glazers-17296458

These are sensational stuffs from the media. Nothing has crashed, They've spent a billion over the years, but nothing is happening because they just have not found the right manager. It's normal. Liverpool was trophyless for more than a decade. That's why we need to forget talks about legacy. We should adopt styles used by other clubs. Fire and re-fire managers for success. The long term stuff is not going to work. Trust me.

afrodoc2:
This arrangement is in favor of the person making the purchase not the business being bought. Many United fans and other experts who went to Harvard, LBS and LSE were against the structure of that deal so don't give me agbalumo tales. LOL

Buying the club with loans and loading those loans on the club so the club gets to pay for its own purchase makes economic sense for the Glazers but not for the club.

Buying the club with Glazer money and leaving the club debt free makes economic sense for the club not the Glazers.

The Glazers chose the option that cost them the least but cost the club more . Real billionaires like Abramovic, ADUG, QSI chose the option which cost the club the least but cost them more.

If you are looking at the point of view of the entity being bought i.e Manchester United, this deal which brings unnecessary debt burden on the club is not good, but if you look at it from the point of view of the businessman who is buying the entity i.e Glazer, buying a business with little initial financial outlay from you and making the business pay for its own purchase is excellent business.

I am looking at it from the point of view of a fan of Man Utd, a club that was free of debt for 70yrs until the Glazers loaded it with debt.
You are looking at it from the point of view of the Glazers who bought a billion dollar business without spending a dollar.

Maybe because it's the first in football. LBOs make sense for every business, because of tax benefits as well as having the banks involved in day-to-day monitoring of the company to ensure prudence. As a fan, I would only be bothered if the shareholders dont make the investments. Meanwhile, you can always re-invest cashflows generated from a business into the same business, which is what the Glazers are doing. Of course, they are businessmen, but they've also continued to ensure that the engines run properly by spending over a billion pounds since they took over. How many clubs have done that?

Also, they've successfully maintained the financial health of the club. So what else does an average fan wants? Fact is, majority of football fans/supporters are just emotional and in the process make comments on what they know nothing about.

I feel like Man Utd fans (particularly those in Europe) are just angry that American businessmen are controlling one of the biggest club in the world. How much is the debt sef? Man Utd is valued at over $3.5 billion, which means the equity valuation (after deducting debt) is about $2.7 billion.

afrodoc2:
Allow that one to be misyarning.

Abramovic bought a debt ridden Chelshit and cleared their 100m debt within a couple of years.

Malcolm Glazer bought a debt free United and loaded the club with 600m debt.......but the Glazers are trying.

We should not be paying off any debt . The only reason the club has any debt to pay off is because the Glazers bought the club.

Lol....

Doc, leave finance and business management to them experts. Or better still, go to Havard, Wharton or LBS for an MBA, then come back to this discussion.

There is a reason such arrangements exist. The Glazers are doing well.

Panther7:
So when the club wants to secure loan from banks they put the players down as collateral? Ohh that's nice!

If you dont know, ask. Players are the key assets of a football club. Other assets include stadium, and maybe inventories. I am so sure the asset used as collateral was the stadium.

Meanwhile, LBOs sometimes can be on the back of existing assets and expected cashflows. So, for an entity that has few tangible assets, the banks would rely on future/predictable cashflows expected from the business.

Also, the club has been able to refinance the bank loans to bonds which require almost zero collateral.

Panther7:
They invested it in Hedgefunds not into the club.

Lol, they invested in players (assets of the business).

Panther7:
Afrodoc, Do you think part of the reasons Ferguson resigned was because he knew the Glazers couldn't keep up with the spending like City did?

What are you saying now, we spent close to what City has spent in the last 5 years. Where are all these yarns coming from now?

Opata yarns full this thread sha. It was a leveraged acquisition/buyout. (see details here https://www.comcapfactoring.com/blog/what-is-an-lbo-how-does-it-work/). LBO is good as it aids prudence. Meanwhile, shareholders still own the company, as long as you are generating sufficient cashflows to service your debt, residual income/cash comes to the shareholders.

Current standing (re: the debt) is 500m pounds which is less than the cost of 2 Neymars. Infact, if you factor in existing cash of 90m pounds, then net debt is just a little above 400m. See https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200521005296/en/Manchester-United-PLC-Reports-Quarter-Fiscal-2020

Of course, they could have used half of the money spent on the club to pay down the debt, but they invested it in the business, so why is everyone saying that they ruined the club?

These guys are trying abeg.

Abeg, the baby faced motivational speaker should improve ASAP or gedifokout of Manchester.

handelex:
Expert of all the big games we played this season, how many did we win and how any did we lose?

The small games nko?

Leyqute:
Not to pull him down but Kante can distribute the ball better than Herrera. Go watch his overall play, when he is not with the ball, not when he slides and marks someone.

I have read it all!

Nezzjnr:
We need to sign Lukaku so he can always wait in the box and expect balls to meet him for an easy Tap in

How many times did we complain that Lukaku wasn't using his body well to bully Defenders??


It seems some Folks here aren't watching the Italian league to see how his teammates gets frustrated if he can't handle a simple pass



Ole should sign Lukaku and Herrera unless he'll be sacked

What? You are a fuvking liar!

Expert17:
He will surely play some part,... I'm happy he will end up as a Treble winner in his 1st season.

Me too, I am happy for all dem Herrera, Lukaku, Sanchez etc...

Panther7:
where was the money spent on? Is united spending or overpaying for players?
United will continue to overspend when you don't have proper scouting departments and proper transfer policies, Imagine a club like United doesn't have a director of football?
Even the spending was down to a new manager coming in and saying "Get me player X and Y"
When has United buy ever been strategic in the last 5 years?
Just recently when Ole came we have had some sort of direction.
You are comparing United to City? a club that is properly run, identifies their target and go for them without making noise or arguing over transfer fee of 10M.
Even liverpool that hasn't outspent us you see the value of what they have spent.

Direction kor, roadmap niiii.

odizeey:
Baba if you need companion go open bible. No dey disturb me

eph12:
Only City has outspent us in the last 5 years. Let that sink in. Glazers have not been stingy with the money

Thank you jare.......some people will just come and be saying BS!

Expert17:
Herrera is limited but Fred and Mctominay is not limited

The same Herrera was our best midfielder from 2014-2019..

No o, McTom is very young and versatile, Herrera only knows how to man mark.