By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Protests at Old Trafford on 13:33 - May 3 by gazza1
Your points are noted.......
But the owners are ploughing millions & millions of £££s into the playing side of the Club, the Managers have a blank cheque basically, they talking next year about even more big signings.
You mention that the ground is showing signs of neglect most grounds are including Fulham and QPR.
I presume its a business to the owners, as long as they are supporting the football side of affairs (which they appear to be doing) I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. It isn't as though the Club has 'gone to pot' since they have been the owners.
[Post edited 3 May 2021 13:38]
Fulham not the best example as our owner is spending a fortune out of his own pocket building a very expensive stand that will increase capacity by 4,000. QPR’s owners have lost a fortune on their ‘investment’ without siphoning off millions. United’s owners and the financing of their takeover have extracted £1bn from the club, whilst amassing debts of £450m. That’s worth protesting about.
Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts
0
Protests at Old Trafford on 14:39 - May 3 with 1054 views
Fulham not the best example as our owner is spending a fortune out of his own pocket building a very expensive stand that will increase capacity by 4,000. QPR’s owners have lost a fortune on their ‘investment’ without siphoning off millions. United’s owners and the financing of their takeover have extracted £1bn from the club, whilst amassing debts of £450m. That’s worth protesting about.
Definitely worth protesting about Konk, but as in Karl’s video, not much will change. Has anyone ever been that angry about their club that they break into the stadium, throw camera tripods around and bottle police officers? I get the protests, but there were plenty of rent-a-mob in Manchester last night. I feel it has detracted from the genuine protesters.
Not much will change.
Did I ever mention that I was in Minder?
0
Protests at Old Trafford on 14:59 - May 3 with 1008 views
The club is quite able to manage with that level of debt. Can't really see what the Glazers have done wrong aside from running a business and paying themselves and their family very generous salaries. They have continued to spend money in every transfer window and are second in the table so not exactly mismanaging the club.
Smacks of them not winning a title for the last 10 years being at the root of this
0
Protests at Old Trafford on 15:06 - May 3 with 999 views
Protests at Old Trafford on 14:39 - May 3 by Mick_S
Definitely worth protesting about Konk, but as in Karl’s video, not much will change. Has anyone ever been that angry about their club that they break into the stadium, throw camera tripods around and bottle police officers? I get the protests, but there were plenty of rent-a-mob in Manchester last night. I feel it has detracted from the genuine protesters.
Not much will change.
I wasn’t commenting specifically on yesterday’s protest - violence and vandalism are never justifiable in my eyes - although I’m not completely against the idea of the pitch invasion - we’ve had them at Fulham in the past, so I understand it’s one of the few things you can do that effectively draws attention to a club being fuc ked over by the owners.
Ultimately, it probably won’t make much difference, but however opportunistic and insincere it may be, you now even have a Tory government talking about club ownership/governance. Probably too late for many clubs, but the government could look at introducing covenants like those that were central to the recent Wrexham takeover - Club cannot change name, club colours, cannot change badge without fan approval, can’t sell the ground without building a replacement within a small radius of the current ground, same with training ground, and loads of smaller things to safeguard the club’s heritage and future. It must be possible to stipulate something like that for all future sales of clubs in England?
I couldn’t pay out £££ for tickets if I knew the owners were taking the pi ss, so I would just stay away, but I understand people who feel that’s giving up/doesn’t bother the owners, especially when someone else will happily take your place. My neighbour was a Cardiff regular, but hasn’t been to watch them since Tan changed the shirts to red.
Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts
0
Protests at Old Trafford on 16:06 - May 3 with 929 views
Protests at Old Trafford on 13:20 - May 3 by Clive_Anderson
These debt based buy outs should be illegal, not just for football clubs, but for businesses as well. Borrowing money to buy something and then transferring the debt onto it after is just a complete scam.
It's just another method the elite has of making money and socialising any potential losses if it goes wrong.,
Having said that if Man Utd had that extra £1.5bn the last few years they probably would have won the league every year much like Bayern.
Protests at Old Trafford on 13:29 - May 3 by Northernr
I wonder if the solution/replacement for FFP lies in this comment. FFP is absolutely not there to level the playing field, because it does the opposite. The biggest clubs with the biggest incomes are still allowed to streak off into the distance, the smaller clubs with smaller incomes are just forbidden from trying to match their spend. In theory what it's meant to do is almost protect clubs from themselves, and I've heard execs at the EFl and whatever in the past talk it up saying look how many clubs we used to see go into admin before it, and how many we have now.
Surely a better, fairer way, of achieving that is exactly as you say - let owners spend what they like on the club, but forbid it in the league rules from them passing that debt onto the club. If Chansiri wants to buy Sheff Wrd and spent £100m not getting them to the Premier League, that's entirely up to him, but it's his money, and his debt, and if it goes wrong it's owed by him and him alone, he can't just walk out of Sheff Wed leaving them owing £80m or whatever.
Glazers want to buy Man Utd, fine, but they finance it themselves and that debt is theirs, not the club.
I'm sure there are rules for publicly traded companies that prevent this, and of course the owners would then have cause to say that if it does go well and he does get Sheff Wed to the Prem then he should be entitled to take all the TV money out for himaself as well. So not perfect, and I'm just rambling here, but it always occurred to me the problem wasn't necessarily the overspend, it's who gets lumbered with that debt - club or owner. Our owners to be fair to them just convert it into shareholdings, which is kind of the equivalent, and maybe that should be the rule.
Leveraged buyouts are routine in the financial world.
Although not publicly traded companies, remember Rover and BHS? Bought by complete grifters whose only goal was to line their own pockets before the inevitable final collapse. All legal, of course. Why wouldn't it be when we keep on electing governments full of grifters and scammers?
Protests at Old Trafford on 13:29 - May 3 by Northernr
I wonder if the solution/replacement for FFP lies in this comment. FFP is absolutely not there to level the playing field, because it does the opposite. The biggest clubs with the biggest incomes are still allowed to streak off into the distance, the smaller clubs with smaller incomes are just forbidden from trying to match their spend. In theory what it's meant to do is almost protect clubs from themselves, and I've heard execs at the EFl and whatever in the past talk it up saying look how many clubs we used to see go into admin before it, and how many we have now.
Surely a better, fairer way, of achieving that is exactly as you say - let owners spend what they like on the club, but forbid it in the league rules from them passing that debt onto the club. If Chansiri wants to buy Sheff Wrd and spent £100m not getting them to the Premier League, that's entirely up to him, but it's his money, and his debt, and if it goes wrong it's owed by him and him alone, he can't just walk out of Sheff Wed leaving them owing £80m or whatever.
Glazers want to buy Man Utd, fine, but they finance it themselves and that debt is theirs, not the club.
I'm sure there are rules for publicly traded companies that prevent this, and of course the owners would then have cause to say that if it does go well and he does get Sheff Wed to the Prem then he should be entitled to take all the TV money out for himaself as well. So not perfect, and I'm just rambling here, but it always occurred to me the problem wasn't necessarily the overspend, it's who gets lumbered with that debt - club or owner. Our owners to be fair to them just convert it into shareholdings, which is kind of the equivalent, and maybe that should be the rule.
Being saying this on this here website for years if anyone bothered to read my posts.
Yes, the law of the land may prevent such a thing being allowed, but a clever organisation (so in other words none of them currently in existence) could do something to make it a condition of membership. That is the secret here - yes the law of the land may enable you to borrow on the business, fine, do that, but not in our competition.
The problem (yet again) is that this won't work for the big boys nor those who think they've made it in the Prem. And that is where the problem lies; that top 6 run football, not the Premier League, not the FA and certainly NOT the EFL.
Protests at Old Trafford on 16:18 - May 3 by davman
Being saying this on this here website for years if anyone bothered to read my posts.
Yes, the law of the land may prevent such a thing being allowed, but a clever organisation (so in other words none of them currently in existence) could do something to make it a condition of membership. That is the secret here - yes the law of the land may enable you to borrow on the business, fine, do that, but not in our competition.
The problem (yet again) is that this won't work for the big boys nor those who think they've made it in the Prem. And that is where the problem lies; that top 6 run football, not the Premier League, not the FA and certainly NOT the EFL.
I agree with Clive and davman and have also been saying it for well a few weeks maybe.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Protests at Old Trafford on 16:18 - May 3 by davman
Being saying this on this here website for years if anyone bothered to read my posts.
Yes, the law of the land may prevent such a thing being allowed, but a clever organisation (so in other words none of them currently in existence) could do something to make it a condition of membership. That is the secret here - yes the law of the land may enable you to borrow on the business, fine, do that, but not in our competition.
The problem (yet again) is that this won't work for the big boys nor those who think they've made it in the Prem. And that is where the problem lies; that top 6 run football, not the Premier League, not the FA and certainly NOT the EFL.
On the point of law of the land v the organisation, you are quite correct and football has effectively opted out of normal insolvency law.
FA rules say that "Football debts" (e.g. transfer fees, players' wages) have priority. English law says no such thing, St John's Ambulance are entitled to get the same percentage as players and other clubs. But if you want to continue as a football club you need to meet FA rules and if you don't continue as a football club the value of the club immediately nose-dives. Therefore it is nearly always better for a majority of creditors to vote for a Voluntary Arrangement which pays the football debts, keeps the club going, and everyone else gets a percentage. Small suppliers, St John's Ambulance etc get out-voted and stiffed while players whose ludicrous wages may have caused the whole problem get paid in full.
They're "clever" enough to do that so if they aren't doing the other thing it's because they don't want to (i.e. you're right again in your last para.)
1
Protests at Old Trafford on 17:54 - May 3 with 765 views
Protests at Old Trafford on 16:47 - May 3 by CiderwithRsie
On the point of law of the land v the organisation, you are quite correct and football has effectively opted out of normal insolvency law.
FA rules say that "Football debts" (e.g. transfer fees, players' wages) have priority. English law says no such thing, St John's Ambulance are entitled to get the same percentage as players and other clubs. But if you want to continue as a football club you need to meet FA rules and if you don't continue as a football club the value of the club immediately nose-dives. Therefore it is nearly always better for a majority of creditors to vote for a Voluntary Arrangement which pays the football debts, keeps the club going, and everyone else gets a percentage. Small suppliers, St John's Ambulance etc get out-voted and stiffed while players whose ludicrous wages may have caused the whole problem get paid in full.
They're "clever" enough to do that so if they aren't doing the other thing it's because they don't want to (i.e. you're right again in your last para.)
Fascinating stuff, Rosie. Thanks.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
