Evil Glazer takes over Man United

For what it's worth, although us WFC fans didn't lose a hugely successful club, we were about the proudest in the country at what we've achieved, so the sacrifice in forming AFCW was enormous, but absolutely unavoidable. One thing I can promise you - if the fans set up FC United, you will have the best fun of your football-supporting life.

Good luck regardless!

I know what you mean though

By which you mean he's never had anyone arrested or murdered, or made hundreds of millions at the expense of the Russian people?

Most Norwegians, though, are cool.

As a Leeds fan, I can agree with that completely. Good luck to IMUSA, SU and everyone else.

http://www.redcafe.net/showthread.php?t=76661

"...The fact is even if you dislike Glazer, he is a businessman and his first obligation will be to making money for himself to continue the success, not to pacify the shareholders as our current board's duty has been.

Those of you upset by this have every right to feel that way, as I do as well, but things are not always as bad as they seem. Change hurts and is very difficult to adjust to.

Many of you have mentioned Glazer's association with his Tampa Bay club. there were problems, but what everyone fails to mention is that he turned a perrennial loser into a champion after taking over. many of you point to their current plight and there is a reason for that. First of all, American football has a salary cap. Manchester United and the premier league and all of football does not.

Glazer will have no constraint on the finances to put a product of an already winning organization on an even higher level. Glazer may not be Abramovich in terms of wealth but I guarantee you, we will not be bitching about not having cash available as we've been this season.

Glazer tripled his Tampa Bay team's net worth in about 6 years. that was with a salary cap, and a very limited fan base of perhaps about 2 million at most and that was basically only in west florida of the U.S., with a team that did not have a large merchandise base or recongnizable brand. now he has a fanbase of 75 million GLOBALLY to work with, a massive merchandise machine in place, arguably the most GLOBALLY RECOGNIZABLE sporting brand in the world. I have no doubts he can do better with that base then the current board, and since many of us constantly complain about our gloryhunting element of fans, what do we care if Glazer bilks a bunch of gloryhunters in China and Asia and North America to put more money into the coffers?

Glazer is not our best friend, but neither is he our worst enemy. If we play our cards right and offer him our clear support of OUR CLUB which is in his hands, once this concludes, many of you will be pleasantly(grudgingly) surprised even while disliking him."

*xpost*

1) £20 million would buy about 2/3 of a player.

2) As I said at the start of this thread, it's £20 million more of OUR money, he hasn't got any, it's all borrowed and the debts landed on the club.

3) Chelsea are way ahead of us, and have spent over £200 million in the last couple of seasons. I don't really see how £20 million is going to bridge the gap.

4) If the price of paying off his debts is doubling or trebling ticket prices most fans wouldn't be exactly ecstatic about that.

5) If it was just about making a profit and winning trophies we wouldn't have fought so hard to block Murdoch taking over.

But hang on,Glazer's first obligation will be to the organizations who have lent him the money to buy the club. No-one can quite figure out how he'll do that. Will he invest in the team to buy more on-field success? That's risky and could take too long for him and the lenders. Has he gambled on some kind of Euro-league happening? Exclusive TV Rights? Putting up seat prices? At what point does he start selling off players if all or some of the above leave them with vastly increased debt in 3 years? (Just think of the interest rates on £300M)

Shame they need a keeper most of all, then.

As for Fergie's track record - I don't think it's fair to rubbish any of the above apart from Forlan (and even he did okay after a while, and has done very well at his Spanish club). But even if you do think they're all crap, all they do is offset the many excellent signings he's made. And you have to credit him with more than just luck in developing the core group of players who've served the club so well in the prermiership.

Having said that, I hope he does resign. As a neutral (well, Manchester-United-hating neutral), I want so see something else other than the same Fergisms. I'm bored of him.

Also, I'm fucking sick of this line that utd fans have been happy to take the ride - they didn't want the PLC - that was Martin Edwards cashing in his daddy's shares. The money funding everything else has been from revenue, not capital raised - the money from the flotation in 91 went to the redevelopment of the Stretford End in line with the Atherton Masterplan for OT of 1963. Since then, the 'market' or the City have put nothing in.

Glazer will bust the collective selling of TV rights apart. That's the cash cow - sell those right individually, get all the money to Man Utd, then resell them in N America and fuck the rest.

Ole Skolskjaer, Jaap Stam, Silvestre, Cristiano Ronaldo

However, Dave, is that the same Real Madrid who would and should have been football's biggest ever bankruptcy had the Spanish government not shockingly and probably corruptly helped them out to the tune of £200m?

Is that really true? Aren't the likes of Magnier and McManus 'the market'? They've been accumulating steadily over the years, haven't they?

How does fan ownership work in the Bundesliga? Are fans' trusts the majority shareholders?

As for Real - yeah, they're not the greatest example of fan ownership in terms of solvency, but I don't see people saying Leeds United shows how the privately owned model of football clubs is rubbish (apart from me, natch ;_)

x-post Yeah - but buying shares from existing shareholders results in a transfer of income between two third parties - the club never saw the cash from the Irishmen.

Bundesliga - German FA rules state that the club must be constituted under a legal form in Germany which doesn't allow share capital to be accumulated. Borussia Dortmund and Eintracht Frankfurt wanted to float, and the German FA insisted that these legal forms retain 51% of the voting rights.

x-post - but Dave, we're not comparing private vs public here, we're talking about the inherent issues with public ownership.

Arse to the Yankee, you're selling arse to the Yankee
You're Not Man U anymore
USA USA USA
Ever Seen Chelsea Win The League?

That's better.

Man U fans have been the most obnoxious bunch of holier-than-thou gloaters for so long (Liverpool were NEVER like them) that it's very hard not to be petty at times like this...

No, but transactions between third parties push up the share price thereby increasing the (notional) value of the club. That's how shares work after the initial flotation

But I'm not familiar with the history - does the 'club' hold shares which it can sell to raise capital? Is that even legal? Of course you can dilute the stock by issuing more shares - but I can't remember them doing that?

And yes, the club (or rather plc) can issue a set percentage of shares rather than the full 100%, and then have a new share issue at a later date. For example, AFC Wimbledon's IPO only put 25% of shares up for sale (we raised just over a £1m from it (I believe we only sold about 35% of the shares offered) but although we're a plc, we're not listed on a stock exchange and the shares do not, right now, have any financial value to speak of).

Companies regularly issue new shares (above and beyond the 100%) when they are buying out other companies. In theory, this shouldn't dilute shareholder value, as the new, bigger entity will be worth correspondingly more, though often it doesn't work like that.

Yes. Although it depends how much you pay for the other company, and how you finance it apart from the stock issue.

Do Real Madrid fans really own the club? I mean, I know 'the members' get to vote for a new president every so often (who is always some wealthy business tosspot), as they do at a golf club, but that is about the extent of their power. Often they are reduced to waving their hankies in orchestrated exasperation.

If this is true, I was once part-owner of Real Sociedad. I wish I had known. I wouldn't half have been cocky.

(I think there's a thread for this kind of thing.)

Players/Managers - not yet. A lot of wishful thinking rumours involving Eric Cantona and/or Sammy Mclroy, but I doubt that'll happen.

Game v AFCW - I had a look on the AFC Wimbledon site after you said that last week. I see you have a 'to be arranged' game on 23 July. I've arranged to go away for the weekend for my first anniversary that weekend - really can't see my wife wanting to cancel that for a friendly! (especially after we saw United in New York on our honeymoon, and she has zero interest in football)

FC United have officially joined the NW Counties League Division 2, and have set up a ground share with Droylesden (which has a capacity of either 3,500 or 4,500 depending on which source you believe). They are having player trials on Sunday (my birthday!).

Don't believe the hype / misinformation coming from Old Trafford. They announced "record season ticket sales" the other week. Firstly, this ignored the fact that the number of season tickets has been capped for years, but that they had just increased the number available on account of the fact that they are increasing the capacity of the stadium by 7,500 or so. Secondly, if you read the small print it didn't say they'd actually sold them, it just said that they 'anticipated' selling them. Thirdly, they still haven't sold them and have relaxed the criteria downwards so that people who applied for just 14 games last season (ie only applied for, never mind watched, less than half the games) are eligible to apply. Fourthly, these aren't extra, new customers, they are existing members.

Finally, the grand direct debit swindle. Many people did the same as me and cancelled their direct debit for membership after Glazer moved in, and wrote an angry letter to the club explaining why they wouldn't be going any more. What was the response of the club? To set up brand new direct debits anyway! Fortunately I noticed this last week and managed to cancel the new one as well, but the message boards are full of people complaining that the £23 has gone from their accounts even though they'd cancelled. Expect the next story to be "membership numbers holding steady".

i am also imagining all the FCUM fans carefully chopping up their old scarfs etc and then sewing them back together in the new order...

http://www.fc-utd.co.uk/images/fcunitedbadgepic.gif

The EGM last night was a cracking. Club formed as a not-for-pforit co-operative, one member, one vote. Their constitution is a nice piece of work ;-)

http://www.flagshag.com/unitedkingdom/manchestercity.gif

That's the old crest of manchester, and features in the current MUFC and MCFC badges. It's a reference to the Manchester Ship Canal, which is seen as embelmatic of the city's desire to remake the world (ie, why let being landlocked get in the way of having a bustling port).

Red faces over United prank
Chris Osuh
MANCHESTER United have launched an investigation after a prankster tampered with a giant neon sign at the Old Trafford stadium to spell out a four-letter word.

The sign - which normally highlights the club's name - stand dozens of feet above Sir Matt Busby's statue.

The sign was corrected after the M.E.N. alerted the club about the vandalism.

Joke

Manchester United played down suggestions the prank was connected to anger over the club's recent takeover. They said it was a workman's joke.

A spokesman said: "We have had contractors in doing work on the stadium. It seems someone has messed with plugs at the back of the lights as a prank.

"We would like to apologise to anyone that took offence - the sign now proudly says Manchester United again."

Of course, this has nothing to do with the Glazers. Oh no. It's 'one of the biggest holiday weeks of the year'. My sides, my sides etc.

Robinson

I guess I never properly understood the situation with MK dons & AFC wimbledon either.

Fantastic atmosphere. I turned up twenty minutes before kick-off, paid my seven quid, and joined the end behind the goal which was already packed and in full voice. They delayed the kick-off for ten minutes to let people get in - my end was closed about five minutes after I got in because it was full, but the singing never stopped. No exaggeration to say it was the noisiest, most passionate crowd I've ever been in. Although Gigg Lane is all-seater, it might as wel have been terraces because nobody was sat down anywhere. After about twenty minutes I was thinking 'this is great - I don't care if we lose 10-0', then we scored three goals in five minutes. The final score was 6-0.

I am in the middle of this picture, taken from a site called Kipax (surely a City reference??) which has got loads more images:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/jamiefake/IMG_18691.jpg

"I don't care about Rio, he don't care about me, all I care about is watching FC"

They're the messiah to our John the Baptist. I'm only 1/4 joking with that reference. Enfield Town are the creators of this essenian sect.

Although, obviously, you were completely against the move to Milton Keynes, in retrospect are you happier now that you have your own club, or would you rather Wimbledon FC still existed and were playing in (the old) division 3 (aka Cola League of Championship Heroes or whatever) at Selhurst Park? Or, more extreme, would you rather have the situation you have now or Wimbledon FC playing in the premiership at Plough Lane?

Even so, finishing in the top 5 gets us a play-off - who knows from there.

My favourote FCUM photos this week:

FUN!
http://www.fcumgallery.co.uk/daisyhill/images/Picture036.jpg

With a conscience:
http://www.fcumgallery.co.uk/daisyhill/images/Picture021.jpg

xpost - I can't really talk, as I wasn't a Womble until 2002. The common feeling I've heard expressed though is that regardless of how much fun everyone is having, they know that they could have controlled the club in (say) division 2 if the owners would have let them. The fun is tinged with the sadness of seeing a once-lovely club in its current state, and seeing the hard work they will have to put in to get back into the league. The only reason it is like this is through the sheer greed of a few people, and that hurts.

I still loved Wimbledon FC deeply by their final season (2001-2), but I was strictly armchair by that point - there was an aura of ickiness around the whole caboodle. So the founding of AFCW provided everything and more I could have hoped for - a new, successful, brave, pioneering club with astonishing support rising from the unequivocal evil of the MK betrayal.

BUT I wonder. If Koppel and the Norwegians had signed the club over to the fans, I'm sure it would have been a massive change in the way it was run and the emotional involvement I would have had as a fan. But it never even got close - I certainly never entertained the possibility - and I guess my fundamental feeling is that you don't miss what you could never have.

Glazer, who took over the Old Trafford outfit last June, said: "We are enjoying it greatly. It's a wonderful franchise and we just love it."

But he would not talk about fans' concerns over the future of the club.

The American, who was on his way to the annual NFL owners' meeting in Orlando, was asked: "Do you want to reassure fans about the future of Manchester United? Some are quite worried."

He replied: "I don't want to get into that now. I just want to say hello. I am here for a meeting."

Hello Uncle Malcolm!

Van Der Sar £2m, Park £4m, Vidic £7m, Evra £5.5m (Total cost £20.5m)

and these players leave:
Phil Neville £3.5m, Kleberson £2.5m (Total cost £6m)

Net spending = £14.5 million (compared to £18 million by Liverpool, £19 million by Newcastle, and £41 million by Chelsea (which was quite restrained considering the £240 million or so net spending since Abramovich arrived)).

So, there's still £10.5 million in the kitty for the season just finished. Plus another £25 million for this summer's close season deals. Plus £10 million which United are supposedly receiving from Chelsea as compensation for the Obi Mikel saga. Plus the considerable savings on the wage bill (next season's, that is) from dumping Roy Keane, not to mention from loaning out 19 players. Plus the anticipated £10 million from selling Ruud Van Nistelrooy. Plus the savings from making dozens of Old Trafford staff redundant. Plus the huge increases on ticket prices once again. Plus the expected revenue from an extra 7,500 seats next season. Plus the improved shirt sponsorship deal.

So, if he's a man of his word you would expect United to splash out at least £60 million this summer. As he doesn't have to start repaying the debt until the summer of 2007 I see no reason to doubt this will happen. Watch this space.

(If instead United spend about £10 million on, say, Joey Barton and Kevin Nolan, this will obviously because Ferguson feels this is sufficient to compete with Chelsea, and not because of any fear over debt repayments)