odizeey:

Ole na funny man.

We go dey all right.

If I keep yearning here till next season, he won't kukuma see me at all so I will keep looking at his rebuild like supervising a building renovation

Bjteensdes24:

If I keep yearning here till next season, he won't kukuma see me at all so I will keep looking at his rebuild like supervising a building renovation

Abi na. We go dey all right.

It's ok for Ed to serve as the CEO. He's an investment banker. He knows his onions in that regard. At the same time inorder to be able to balance the scale with respect to football knowledge there has to be a football director. Someone who's better equipped to handle to player deals.

MRTA7:
My point is, you cannot absolve the Glazers of blame because "They have spent money". There is a lot of blame to be passed around to explain why United are where they are right now.

The ownership shows we are just a club serving profits for the owners. They are pretty much doing the minimum required to keep the club's strong brand and cash flowing to keep the profits coming.

The ownership is the reason we have Ed, someone who knows nothing about football to be in charge of one of the biggest football clubs in the world. Ed has done well on the Business side of the club but the football side he should have no hand in. A lot of our operations shows amateur hour. We simply do not know how to operate like big club anymore and havent since SAF. Even SAF was propping the club up with his work despite having his hand tied behind his back. Maybe he knew he had to accept the Glazers because he's a major reason they were able to buy the club. so he also has a hand in this current state.

This is before we even get to the football side which is a whole other conversation but a lot of these issues can be traced back to the owners.

weedtaker:
I want Paris to lift the cup so that Neymar will be rightly recognized as the third best player behind CR7 and LA midget.

but its so obvious that Bayern will win the final without even breaking a sweat, very obvious its quite laughable.


again what was I thinking betting against dis side, no be even say na better team I choose, na shekpeteri. lol.

No reason am, deep down I wanted shekpe to win then

eph12:
Hopefully one day we will be that team that punishes others for not taking their chances and not the other way round.

Afrodoc2 won't playing Greenwood on the RW affect him? Looks like he's not really cut for that position

If it continues for too long it might. This season what he need most was senior minutes anyhow anyhow cos under 18 and under-23 were too easy for him.
Also he was not ready physically (at least pre-lockdown) to be battling with those huge CBs. Next season i expect him to start getting more minutes at CF where he can inflict maximum damage.

Panther7:
That doesn't explain anything it only explains the method of acquisition. Which still translates to hostile takeover.

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.

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.

nitrogen:


Lol....

Doc, leave 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.

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 is what makes economic sense for the club.

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.

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

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.

nitrogen:


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.

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.

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.

macjireh:

otem is a powerless god na
meanwhile see ur trophy for d season

Dibnim 1: 1 - 10
1. I am a chlorine to the bad gods. I weaken their bonds.
2. I have the potential of a potassium to displace every useless god.
3. I am the heat which makes the weak take courage.
4. I am the key which opens all cuffs.
5. I am the whirlwind sent to scatter the philosophies of Yahweh, Allah and their likes.
6. I am the house of words, the cave of histories, the mansion of knowledge.
7. I am the powerhouse of all good and penitent gods.
8. I am a great element among the functional groups of the universe.
9. I am the part of God(Existence) where universal histories are kept.
10. Within me is peace and peace revolves around me.

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

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

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.

nitrogen:
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

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.

nitrogen:
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

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.

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

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:


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.

nitrogen:


This is Juve, owing 452m Euros.

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

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?

Bjteensdes24:

So, are you saying the guy isn't trying is best enough and should be sold? Someone that really played well before being dropped back to the bench.. Do you even consider playing this guys week in week out and see if they deliver or not

Mctominay is not the fit for pogba and Bruno. man runs around like an overzealous headless chicken. Man is crap, only reason why top reds rate him because he’s a passion merchant. Offers nothing.

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.

nitrogen:


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.

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.

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!

nitrogen:


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.

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.

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?

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

TrebleChamp:
How much does Bayern Munich pay players like Lewandowski, Alaba, Alcantara, Muller and the rest per week? They don't earn as much as United players yet see their commitment on the pitch for their club. United will just be increasing salaries of players anyhow, some players at United are heavily over paid without any meaningful end result. They is no hunger, no commitment from our players, very lazy set of players we have....

It felt good seeing the spat between Bruno & Lindelöf after Sevilla scored, prior to it, we had not seen that in a long time.
At least, that way, everyone is forced to sit up or risk getting booted out asap.

afrodoc2:


If it continues for too long it might. This season what he need most was senior minutes anyhow anyhow cos under 18 and under-23 were too easy for him.
Also he was not ready physically (at least pre-lockdown) to be battling with those huge CBs. Next season i expect him to start getting more minutes at CF where he can inflict maximum damage.

Yeah I want to see him at that CF position. He should find more joy there

nitrogen:


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

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.