Tuesday, 29 June 2010

Get your United season ticket at.... errrr.... White Hart Lane?

The club's attempts to sell season tickets have moved on to an email shot to all "One United" members....

This is the email that members received today:


Note the lack of green and gold (so before January), in fact note the t-shirts (so not a photo from the harsh winter months)....

Note the.... errrr..... blue chair.... note Anderson on the pitch (and relatively up with play too).....

And suddenly you realise that the razor sharp Glazer marketing machine is trying to offload season tickets at Old Trafford with photos of..... errrr...... United away at White Hart Lane on September 12th 2009 (the third goal by Rooney in case you wondered).....

Thanks goodness these brilliant people are in charge of our club.

LUHG

102 comments:

Terence said...

HAHAHAHA!!! Well spotted mate! Made me giggle.

Esquilax said...

Doesn't look like the bloke over Anderson's right shoulder is enjoying his time at the "Theatre of Dreams"!!!!

Cantona 7 said...

Lets hear Red Devil explain this embarassing marketing faux pas............

G.O. said...

I think the photo has appeal for a number of reasons but the absence of green and gold had to be a clincher and you can bet your season ticket (or your mortgage if you prefer) there's a "LUHG" T-shirt somewhere under the huge "Get your seat" sign.

Anonymous said...

I doubt it, they just had to go through god knows how many shots of the crowd to find one of people enjoying themselves.

Funny enough it's an away (imagine that) however as with most things United these days, just look at the state of that lot.

Team of mooparts

finneh said...

That's pretty funny :).

I have to say I've read a lot of people saying that the Glazer's have brought incredible financial expertise to the club (although I'd love to see the figures split into actual commercial dealings vs just ticket price increases and TV revenue which they have no control over) and that these expertise outweigh or redress the balance of the negatives associated with the ownership of the club.

I personally think this is utter BS. Surely most fans would agree that it can't be rocket science, negotiate dealings with foreign companies when you have a brand such as MU. The majority of these extra deals seem to come from Asia/US/Arab countries where football has only really become huge business in the past 5 years and to fail to tap these markets would be nothing short of moronic.

Essentially what I'm saying is: does any fan really think that MU as a PLC would have failed to recognise the opportunities in these markets and would therefore have kept the commercial revenue stagnant whilst all other large clubs were tapping said markets?

Ole1999 said...

@ Finneh
The only person who thinks commercial revenue has increased massively compared to matchday/media revenue is Red Devil.

Don't expect much insight from him though.

He refuses to accept the numbers on the financial statements - since 2006, Matchday revenue is up £37.5m, media revenue is up £54.2m and commercial revenue is up only £21.4m.

Instead, per Red Devil, commercial revenues increases have been huge - Red Devil will quote an unverifiable figure (one certainly not seen on the fin stats) of £200m in deals over 3 years.

Anonymous said...

Here we go, brace yourselves for more written diarrhoea of the Red Devil kind..........

Choccy said...

With a heavy heart and after nearly 50 years of attending OT, I decided enough was enough and it was time to give up our 2 season tickets for this coming campaign.

After all the talk from Gill et al that season ticket sales were good, I was still surprised to receive a letter from the TO this morning advising that the seats are still available.

No, I'm not even remotely tempted. I firmly beleive that we need to starve the parasites and the "body" will reject them eventually.

LUHG

The Red Devil said...

@all - Jaysus - Why is it all "as per Red Devil"???

I haven't made this stuff up. I am only quoting what I read for myself.

Here's a few others:-

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/05/glazer-not-selling-manchester-united/

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-17/manchester-utd-signs-sponsor-deal-with-winemaker-concha-y-toro.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_united/article7142353.ece

How many more do you want me to quote?

I'm sorry if you think that this is just me making stuff up but...

Please don't anybody ask me any questions about this. I am just making this one post on here.

People ask me questions, I reply and then get slammed for saying too much. So I won't be doing it anymore.

Ole1999 said...

@ Red Devil
You truly are hilarious. The people making the claims are David Gill and sources close to the owners.

Let's believe them - sure it's not in their interest to provide spin.

At the end of the day, the plc had ONE deal of £300m with Nike - the total time for that deal is 13 years.

It's funny how little information we have on these £200m deals, e.g. does it include the Aon deal and over what periods are the deals?

For example, you could say the increase in shirt sponsor revenue is £24m over 4 years or £6m a year - but David Gill is unlikely to spin it that is he?

No, it has to be a total,blanket, unverifiable figure of £200m.

The Red Devil said...

Ole1999 - the tone of your comments are pure Andy Green.

"You truly are hilarious." - that is exactly how Anders opens his posts.

I think Anders makes up pseudonyms and Anonymous aliases on here to back up his claims.

"The people making the claims are David Gill and sources close to the owners."

If anyone around here is qualified to comment on sponsorship deals, surely it is David Gill?

No, sorry. YOU are completely hilarious.

What you are saying is, "Don't believe the people who actually do the deals and know exactly what is going on with the finances. Believe me instead."

Sorry. No can do, Anders.

Ole1999 said...

@ Red Devil
You are always the one who gives out when people say you are a paid Glazer goon.

And now you make this outrageous claim yourself.

I am NOT Andy Green and nor do I claim to be.

Go back to the thread about the upfront cash received from the Aon deal where I politely disagree with Anders about his view.

You can't provide a counter-argument with a breakdown of the deals in question, so you have to resort to these lies.

Ole1999 said...

@ Red Devil
You are always the one who gives out when people say you are a paid Glazer goon.

And now you make this outrageous claim yourself.

I am NOT Andy Green and nor do I claim to be.

Go back to the thread about the upfront cash received from the Aon deal where I politely disagree with Anders about his view.

You can't provide a counter-argument with a breakdown of the deals in question, so you have to resort to these lies.

The Red Devil said...

You're Anders. Prove otherwise.

The Red Devil said...

"You can't provide a counter-argument with a breakdown of the deals in question"

Manchester United say that they have been done. It is for you to prove they haven't, Anders.

The Red Devil said...

Not nice, is it Anders?

Ole1999 said...

@ Red Devil
I refer you to a previous point made by YOU:

"29 June 2010 13:43

The Red Devil said...
@Choccy - The burden of proof is on the accuser. I cannot be asked to prove a negative, that is an impossibility.

What would you regard as satisfactory proof?

Would you like to go to a court of law with me and stand in the dock and make your accusation?

I would be more than willing to do this any day you like.

29 June 2010 14:04"

I would be more than happy to go to court over this, if you are.

The Red Devil said...

Ouch. Rapid response unit. You protest too much.

The difference is, people were saying I stood to gain financially from my stance. What have I cost you if my claims are wrong?

You're not in this for the money, after all.

The Red Devil said...

"That's a hilarious comment, real sixth form debating society stuff!"

A quote from an opening line by Anders on Redcafe on 23rd June 2010.

http://www.redcafe.net/f6/panorama-man-united-into-red-bbc-one-tuesday-8-june-298099/index38.html

Sound familiar? I can find more examples.

The Red Devil said...

Teehee... all good fun... just a bit of Ole1999 baiting, you understand. Otherwise you would go into one of your bullshit posts full of drivel.

The Red Devil said...

I belive the Glazers did anothe deal today with Thomas Cook btw.

It's probably not true though and even if it is, we probably got nothing out of it.

EastStand375 said...

I think it's about time that Anders/Ole1999 wrote a blog article about United's ever increasing commercial and sponsorship revenue. In their March bond issue research note J.P.Morgan estimated that United's commercial revenue will have risen to £120m by 2014/15 and admit that the club think they'll out perform that projection. That is an extra £50m a year based on the £70m achieved in 2008/09 which is extremely impressive growth by anyone's standard. The key point about this additional revenue is that the sponsorship deals have a profit margin of c.95%.

This growth in commercial revenue is absolutely fundamental to the future success of Manchester United and yet what does Anders say about it? He says the sponsorship deals are ''Nice-to-have'' but not that significant. That is an absolutely ludicrous statement and is impossible to take seriously by anyone with a decent understanding of the club's financials.

It's time to come clean, Mr Green.

Anonymous said...

@ Ole1999

A reconciliation for the 200M:
AIG - 56M shirt, plus 5M a year 5-year MU Finance deal
AON - 80M shirt
Nike - 32M
So that leaves about 7m short of 200M. Surely the 20 additional partners cover that 7m and a bit more?

Ole1999 said...

@ EastStand
"commercial revenue will have risen to £120m by 2014/15"

This is the best-case scenario under JP Morgan's report.

A more accurate assessment of their predictions (and that's all they are) is that the range will be £93m to £120m. This gives them scope to be wrong by £27m a year!!

BTW, JP Morgan really know their football - they predicted that England would win the world cup - how did that work out for them?

Anonymous said...

Red Devil said "People ask me questions, I reply and then get slammed for saying too much. So I won't be doing it anymore."

Didn't last long did it mate? No surprise there. Beats me why you post here, why not just stick to your own excellent blog?

The Red Devil said...

I'll gladly come and read yours if you tell em the url.

Oh, I forgot, I'm already here, aren't I Anders?

The Red Devil said...

@ole1999/Anders - "BTW, JP Morgan really know their football - they predicted that England would win the world cup - how did that work out for them?"

What a pathetic argument. My twelve year old son could do better than that.

Anonymous said...

United continue to sign new commercial deals, wow, we haven't done that before! Why didn't the PLC think of that! Them Glazers sure are geniuses. I hope other clubs don't cotton onto this idea of sponsorships!

*end of sarcasm*

In the 5 years pre-Glazer commercial revenues grew 150%

In the first 5 years of the Glazer regime commercial revenues have grown 50%

Anonymous said...

Wow, stupidity won the day. Amazingly evident the herd of followers IQ is less than a dead clock.

andersred said...

Red Devil - have you lost all sense of reason? Why would I make up aliases? Why would I make up aliases and then argue with myself?

The Thomas Cook deal had already been announced. I notice you can now book "match breaks" to Old Trafford throught Thomas Cook. For the scousers game, a double room in the Novotel on 18 Sep and two tickets in East Stand Tier 2 will cost £548. Laterooms show the same room for £115 so that's £215+ per ticket (plus free programme).... There's a word for that... oh yes, "touting".

anders

The Red Devil said...

@Anders - It seems wild and baseless accusations about a person's background, motives and identity are the way it's done around here so I was just joining in with the spirit of the blog really.

Strictly speaking, "touting" is the resale of a ticket for higher than face value. I don't think it is possible for Manchester United to "tout" their own tickets.

The room without a ticket is exactly that. A room without a ticket. If you want the guaranteed ticket for the match AND the room, you pay a premium.

It is up to the customer to decide if he/she wishes to pay that premium.

Anonymous said...

@ RD

RD said "The room without a ticket is exactly that. A room without a ticket. If you want the guaranteed ticket for the match AND the room, you pay a premium.

It is up to the customer to decide if he/she wishes to pay that premium."

A ticket outside the ground from a tout is exactly that, a ticket guaranteed. If you want the guaranteed ticket you pay a premium.

That's not touting either then is it?

The Red Devil said...

As I said, touting is the RESALE of a ticket.

Just let me say that again.

RESALE. Get it?

Big difference. Crucial difference. The difference between being a tout and not being a tout, in fact.

monsta666 said...

@ Red Devil

I don't think anders meant touting in the literal sense. The word tout was used as Manchester United were selling their ticket at ticket tout prices hence the usage of the term. As the price for a ticket in this offer is effectively £215 per ticket (for a Liverpool game) I don't think it is unreasonable to describe it as ticket touting rates.

The Red Devil said...

@monsta666 - No, sorry, he didn't say it was "ticket touting rates", he said it was "touting".

The point being that when you take Anders away from a spreadsheet, he doesn't have the first clue about what he is talking about.

i'm an alias of anders said...

It's official, Red Devil has lost the plot. Rewind to the point where he seems to break and I think we'll all see what has really ruffled his feathers...

red devil must be ignored said...

If Red Devil really works for the Glazer's and his task is to convince people to go against Andy's view point then he has failed - miserably. But if his plan is to distract and bore people to death with his inane drivel then he has succeeded - spectacurlarly. I visit this site to see what Andy has to say about what's going on with the management of our club but I, too find myself drawn into his drivel and maybe others are deterred because they don't see this as a place for serious comment on the the MUFC owners.

red devil must be ignored said...

By the way, the fact that Anders know what he's talking about when it conmes to spreadsheets gives me great comfort but also insight and guidance as to how to view MUFC financial results, reports and official club statements so i don't seem some patronising no-mark criticising his comment style, use of the english language, position of commas/semi-colons 'on my behalf', I'm quite capbale of doing that myself and keeping to the real issues i.e. Manchester United's finances and policies, which both appear to be quite scandalous, no matter what you say about aliases and what petty arguments you magically pluck out of nowhere.

Anonymous said...

Rather than getting bogged down in the semantics of defening 'touting', I suggest we call it scalping, which is the American term, and as the Glazers are Yanks, very appropriate.

The Red Devil said...

Ha ha.

I think you will find it was Anders who felt the need to pluck the "touting" thing out of nowhere.

It was, as usual, a very specific word used because of the negative connotation attached to it.

I just call it the business of Making more money for Manchester United.

Surely a good thing? No?

It's not me who has lost the plot.

Anonymous said...

The Thomas Cook package prices certainly live up to the 'no value in the market' claim

andersred said...

Hey Red Devil,

I'll happily concede that it's "touting prices" not "touting" under Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994!

I just thought it was ironic that this exciting new corporate relationship with Thomas Cook comes with official price gouging included... I know all the big clubs do these packages and the previous partner, Cooperative Sports Travel offered something similar.

anders

Anonymous said...

Is a disgraceful price, manipulating fans? YES! ....Next!

The Red Devil said...

Hey, don't get me wrong. I think you'd have to be a bit of a numpty to buy that package at that price but numpties are ten a penny.

I just don't see it as a bad thing because I am a filthy capitalist whilst most people on here are saintly socialists so I would expect disagreement.

What's the worst that could happen? The package doesn't get sold and so the room and the tickets have to go on general sale at the normal, individual and unpackaged rate.

For the sake of a bit of space on a website, it's got to be worth a punt.

Anonymous said...

@Ole1999

You've kept quite about the breakdown of commercial revenues I mentioned above. Easily covering the 200m you and Anders keep mentioning are imaginary figures.

Come on Mr. Vested Interests, tell me how wrong my breakdown of your supposedly imaginary 200m is.

RATS!!!

Ole1999 said...

@ Anonymous
First off ... I used the word "unverifiable" not "imaginary". Big difference.

Second ... the sources are David Gill and other sources close to the owners. In Red Devil's quest for "fair and balanced" information, not exactly either now are they.

Third ... the key here is the breakdown for the number of years in the deals. Then we can see how much EXTRA revenue the Glazers have actually provided to United through the commercial wing so that we can compare to the EXTRA costs they've brought.

Fourth ... if those REALLY are the numbers you should actually be thankful I've keep quiet on them.

The Red Devil said...

@Ole1999 - Admit it. You guys love me! :) You just can't stop bringing my name into it.

When I asked for a bit of fairness and balance, this is the kind of thing I meant.

If this was a downside to the Glazers' ownership, you would be all over it like a rash. Anders would be digging the dirt and leaving no stone unturned in his quest for "the truth".

Because it is a possible upside, you are not seeking to "verify" it. You don't want to even acknowledge that it is there and anyone who takes the reports coming from OT about the size of the commercial deals (the £200m) is merely ridiculed.

Fair? Balanced?

Anonymous said...

Ole and Anders,
Your vested interests in this whole spectacle is rather obvious. You are a bunch of knobs who think they know it all, and who align themselves with the same JO who is considered one of the biggest rats in the IB world. Yes, how apt to align yourselves with the same GS which has destroyed more value than it has created in the last few years.

How you mislead the naive into siding with your drama oriented analysis points to the work of con artists.

RATS!!!

Anonymous said...

A lie repeated enough times will sound like the truth. Won't it Mr. Anders!

RATS!!!

andersred said...

It's like having a tramp camped out in my garden having you on here Anonymous....

I'll give you some slack before I start deleting your rubbish in the hope you'd like to debate things.

This is what I wrote (in response to RD) about the £200m (at 17.08 on 29th June on the "How long do you have to wait on the “waiting list”?" comment section):

Your defence of the £200m is cute. I’m not disputing the number incidentally, I (and you) have no way of knowing its veracity, unlike every number I ever publish, it can’t be verified. I assume it’s includes both the Aon deal (c. £80m) plus the AIG deal (c. £56m) leaving £64m in deals achieved in five years but covering a similar period. Let’s assume they cover 5 years too, that’s £13m per annum in new sponsorship deals. Some will be needed to replace old ones (notice how we have replaced our “betting partner” for example) and some will be in addition. That’s a decent amount of money, but even if two thirds are new money, that’s only £9m per annum or 3% of annual turnover. Two thirds of the £64m is required just to pay the swap loss of course.

The Nike deal won't be included as the step up in income was set in the original (plc era) contract.

You refer to the £5m, 5 year AIG/MU Finance deal but I think that was the "potential" return which can't have been achieved as there is no mention of personal finance income anywhere in the bond prospectus.

I have no idea what this "vested interest" crap is about, I don't know what "JO" stands for, is "GS" Goldman Sachs? Are you referring to Keith Harris in those ramblings?

anders

Anonymous said...

Can i praise The Red Devil for his work on trying to counter all this negative posting in relation to The Glazer family Ownership of Our Club.
However Andy you too must be praised for your work in uncovering the various problems the Glazer Family face in the USA

However the Glazers are the Owners of our club and will remain so for the considerable future given the complete failure of the Green and Gold campaign and the disapperance of the Red Knights.
Perhaps Andy you could explain to the Ordinary fan in the same detail as you cover the glazer family Who the Red Knights where???

Ole1999 said...

@ RATS
Ah, would you get off the fence and tell us what you really think of us.

I would respond to your comments about the matter at hand ... being the extra revenue brought in by the commercial wing.

But, there weren't any, so what can ya do??

Patrick said...

I havent been convinced that the whole anti Glazer thing,I think many fans have been frightened into supporting the whole MUST campaign,which the Glazers through David Gill smashed inside of week.However i find that although Andy is Known to be on MUST side of the debate he has presented Facts in a very fan friendly way and will have my respect along with Red Devil who questions the facts presented for the Benifit of All Our Fans

Anonymous said...

Anders your due diligence is skewed. Based on your past responses, you only debate matters selectively, so I am surprised you want me to jump on the debate wagon. We both know your presentations are structured to create maximum drama and impact. Balanced reporting is definitely not in your vocabulary. I am surprised you haven't recreated Fergie's "No Value" quotes.

Ole can you spin it a bit further! Repeated lies can become the truth.

Fergie says "No Value" everyone thinks coz MU is broke. Red Knights say "No Value" and everyone thinks they are spot on.

Anonymous said...

If you keep on repeating "Repeated lies can become the truth" do you actually think it will come true??

The Red Devil said...

Blimey! What's going on here?

Double Glazed. said...

Acting surprised are we, Red Devil? You got some positive comments from "someone" so it's obvious what you've done.

While all looks healthy, red and rosy on the outside, Manchester United Football Club is rotting from the inside due to these earwig intruders and you lot are failing to look the facts in the face when they're staring right at you.

The Red Devil said...

Haha - I know you would like to think so but, I swear on my son's life, I am not responsible for those comments.

I put my name to everything I post (oh, ok then, I admit, I did post the one on the other thread about living in a cave, that was me - it was just my little joke.)

Could it be that others are twigging on to the fact that all is not as it seems around here?

I think you will find that "anonymous" ramblers supporting Anders still outnumber "anonymous" ramblers opposing Anders by about 100 to 1.

Go figure. Well, YOU started it.

The Red Devil said...

@Anders - "I have no idea what this 'vested interest' crap is about"

Welcome to my world. Nice isn't it?

Can you PROVE it though?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
andersred said...

Enough.

Patrick said...

Can i just ask where has the Red Knights/MUST gone??For weeks they where all over the media and then when the Glazers launched there PR operation and they disappear.Perhaps Andy you could give your view on why the Red Knights takeover plans collapsed so quickly.Just so we the ordinary fan can understand the goings on better

andersred said...

Patrick,

They haven't gone anywhere. If the Glazers won't sell at a sensible price nothing will happen will it?

No doubt they'll sell at some point and then we'll see.

anders

Patrick said...

I cannot understand why(perhaps someone with more experience will explain)why people think that the Glazers are overvaluing our club?I believe that it is the red knights who have undervalue our club.When one looks at the cadburys recent takeover is our club/brand not on the same if not greater value than that?

andersred said...

Patrick,

Any purchaser of any football club will have their own view on what the club is worth. "Brands" have value only in terms of the income they generate. For example, the "andersred" brand isn't worth anything at all despite being recognisable to United fans as it doesn't generate any money.

You can't just look at the price paid for a business like Cadburys and conclude that United is worth more. Kraft paid 13x EBITDA for Cadburys primarily because it wanted Cadburys' growth. You have to appraise United's growth profile and the risks to profits (cost inflation, performance on the pitch etc etc) over the next few years. Forbes used a multiple of 14x to value United. Is that right of wrong? Who knows, it's a matter of opinion.

Like I said before, the RKs will have their view on value and the Glazers will have theirs. Let's wait and see.

anders

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick said...

Thanks for your response anders although i fail to agree with some of your views and would tend to support the red devils view on things But you must be commended on the work you have done in order to better inform the fans
Respect
Patrick

Anonymous said...

"although i fail to agree with some of your views"

It's very simple then, put a counter argument to Andys comments and analysis. And by counter argument I mean based in fact, not "well I don't think so" or "I don't agree". For example, Andy has told you how Forbes calculated the value of United. You seem to think that is nonsense (even though JP Morgan, the Glazers bankers, agree with that valuation). So tell us why you think different. Explain how YOU calculate the value of United. Also explain to us why you think it would be good for Manchester United if the RKs, or whoever, paid way above fair value for the club.

Patrick said...

The Glazers are business people and will seek a massive return on what is the biggest club in the world.As for all the talk of debts and whatnot i have given an example of people in ireland who owe alot more than the Glazers and continue to return a profit.As for the dream of fan ownership if OUR CLUB is sold then it will be to someone outside of the UK and it will be for a massive return to the Glazers

The Red Devil said...

@anonymous - "Explain how YOU calculate the value of United."

That isn't really relevant. It is how the Glazers value it.

None of us really know what plans they have afoot for future income generation but I believe strongly that they do have ideas and they are not going to splash them all over the place because they want to steal a march on the competition.

This future potential is clearly a factor when they are deciding how much the club is worth.

I also disagree that a "Brand" is only worth as much as the income it generates.

Well established brands have a certain value because of how they are perceived by the public whether they are making money or not.

I can also tell Anders right now that this very site is worth money - even if he deleted all the content tomorrow.

Patrick said...

Agree with Red Devil.Our club is seen by many as a world wide brand that can produce millions of profits from its many millions of fans around the world be it in shirt sales or matchday tickects or MU tv.I look forward to a bright future for OUR club regardless who owns it

Anonymous said...

That isn't really relevant. It is how the Glazers value it.

---------

Of course it's relevant. A business is worth what it's worth. Of course you could overpay for a business, but then you'd be eating into future earnings to finance that overpay.

Which brings us to the RKs, or any other potential. You seem to want them to overpay for the club. Why? Doesn't make sense. Is it so that you could get some childish internet bragging rights about how much the Man U brand is worth?

Even if we do manage to get rid of your beloved Glazers then it's going to take a long time to repair the damage they've done. Paying over fair value would mean a longer time period to repair that damage.

Even a 'fair value' right now would be risky. Most revenue streams are clearly maxed out. Supporters have been gouged to the limit, and beyond. TV revenues seem to be near maxed out. And there are only so many ways in which you can whore the Man U brand. Then, most importantly, you have the performance of the team. If the succes dries up, and it surely will if we can't compete with the other top clubs in the transfer market, then the business performance will decline rapidly and so will the value of the club.

Smith said...

Red Devil

'I also disagree that a "Brand" is only worth as much as the income it generates.

Well established brands have a certain value because of how they are perceived by the public whether they are making money or not'.

Give us an example of such a brand/company that is making a loss but because it is perceived in a positive light by the public it is therefore worth something......?

Smith

The Red Devil said...

@anonymous - MY valuation of Manchester United is worth sod all. The Glazers are the owners, not me.

As the sellers, they are obviously looking for the highest price, a buyer will obviously be looking for the lowest price.

The end result is usually something in between.

I have no problem with anyone buying Manchester United, whoever they may be, so long as it is a purchase made with fair bargaining on their part and the Glazers.

What I find unethical is for the buyers to use a concerted propaganda campaign based on half-truths, smears and selective reporting to motivate the customers (the fans in this case) to boycott the existing owners' product or service in order to damage the business to the extent that the current sellers are forced to accept a valuation below what it would otherwise be.

The Red Devil said...

@smith - It's not something I have just made up. It's called Goodwill.

It is to be factored in when buying a business.

Patrick said...

Yes the only valuation that matters is that of the Glazer family.As for the Media elements of the Red Knights/MUST camp that has too disappeared after the Glazers launched there own Media campaign

Bose said...

RD

'What I find unethical is for the buyers to use a concerted propaganda campaign based on half-truths, smears and selective reporting to motivate the customers (the fans in this case) to boycott the existing owners' product or service in order to damage the business to the extent that the current sellers are forced to accept a valuation below what it would otherwise be'.

So your entire argument comes down to ethics?


Is it then 'unethical' to buy a previously well run, debt free football club, laden it with debt and then systematically channel funds out of said club to enhance your family's personal wealth to the detriment of tens of thousands of match going, merchandise buying, MUFC loving supporters?.............................YOU CLEARLY AREN'T ONE

Out of all the grade A generic rubbish you post on this blog that has got to be the best yet, quite an achievement.

LUHRD

Bose

Anonymous said...

@ Red Devil
You are the king of "half-truths, smears and selective reporting"

You just don't tell us what your motive is.

Smith said...

@ RD

Yes I understand the concept of goodwill but name me a successful business where when valuing the aforementioned business the goodwill is greater in monetary terms than a multiple x EBITDA or that of the net value of the company's assets?

Then name me a company making the losses you referred to which is worth any significant sum based on 'positive public perception' of the company's brand?

Smith

The Red Devil said...

@Smith - I am not sure what you are arguing about here.

Do you not think that the very name Manchester United has a value in and of itself regardless of the balance sheet?

Do you not think that future revenue streams that the Glazers are putting into place or may have already put into place have a bearing on their valuation?

I said, "Well established brands have a certain value because of how they are perceived by the public whether they are making money or not."

This very website is probably losing money because, as far as I can see, there are no advertisements on it and it appears to have no other streams of income attached to it.

It does, however, cost Anders in terms of time to maintain and update it.

I could take this website and have it earning money overnight. It is what I do. The reason I could have it earning money is because of its name and reputation.

What's your point?

You're going off on some mad tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with the valuation that the Glazers have of Manchester United.

Anonymous said...

Quinn Group Ireland it could be argued is worth 1billion with debts of over 2.5billion.As for taking money out of the club surely the Glazers are allowed to do what other business people do and take something out of whatever they own.Yes the Glazers do it in a very public way to OUR CLUB BUT Sean Quinn it is reported transfered 100 million out of his companies to his childern at the height of the tough Finance times in ireland and nobody was jumping up and down.What have the Glazers taken out of the Club in total since they took over,in terms of management fees and what not.Hardly more than 100million in a season anyway!

Patrick said...

The only valuation that matters at the end of the Day is that of the Glazer Family.As for taking monies from the club are people trying to say that if the Red Knights tookover they wouldnt take cash from the club in payment for there time and effort if they got control.Every Business person takes something out of any business they own,its just the Glazers do it and they are held up to be so bad for doing what anyother owner would do if they had control of such a Successful Global Football Club/Brand

The Red Devil said...

@Bose - Essentially, yes. I believe the way the campaign to get the Glazers out is unethical.

"Is it then 'unethical' to buy a previously well run, debt free football club, laden it with debt and then systematically channel funds out of said club to enhance your family's personal wealth to the detriment of tens of thousands of match going, merchandise buying, MUFC loving supporters?.............................YOU CLEARLY AREN'T ONE"

It is perfectly ethical to buy a business that was a PLC by buying up the shares fairly and squarely.

As the owner, it is perfectly ethical to take a cut for yourself.

As for "to the detriment of tens of thousands of fans" - as a fan of Manchester United then I should feel the same as every other fan. Why do I not? Because I am not a fan? Well I most certainly am and I am not going on that pathetic merry-go-round again. You can either take my word for that or just fuck off. I am past trying to be polite and accomodating on that one.

I personally, have received great enjoyment from watching United down the years and the last five years have been up there with the very best.

I'm sorry that your irrational hatred of the Glazers has ruined your enjoyment of the football over the last five years.

I just prefer not to let it ruin mine.

The Red Devil said...

@anonymous - My motive is the quest for the truth, fairness and balanced reporting of the financial state of Manchester United.

Patrick said...

Fair and Balanced reporting of the state of OUR club,it cant all be doom and gloom

Anonymous said...

Let the RK put a bid in and shut up all those who currently seem to oppose this debt related strategy.

Anonymous said...

Bose, is there ethics in Investment Bankers, the supposed core in the group of RK's?

Patrick said...

No would be the simple answer given the mess they(bankers) helped create

Anonymous said...

@Patrick you seem more than happy to blame the bankers yet ironically you seem to miss the point with the Glazers , give the common denominator in this story is leverage finance, ironic don't you think ....

Anonymous said...

@Patrick
"the state of OUR club"

No Patrick, it's no longer OUR club. As Red Devil reminds us it's THEIR club.

Patrick said...

Yes it is there brand /club.But that will never stop me or thousands of others flying into manchester to Support OUR Team regardless of who the owners are.I think the Red Knights went about thiings the wrong way.They should have had monies in place long before Keith Harris ran his mouth off to the BBC and whatnot.Instead we were given a running commentary on there collapse and ultimate Failure and in the end we never even got a face saving bid from them at a value they valued our club at.No they just disappeared.But fair play to them for having the Guts to try and get 25 people to buyout or club.It would have been interesting to see how things would or wouldnt change but sure we will never know now

The Red Devil said...

@anonymous - Spiritually, it might be our club. Legally, it is the Glazers club.

I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that you are entitled to any money in United's bank account just because you had been a match-going supporter for the last fifty years.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting how Patrick arrives soon after Red Devil says his "12 year old son could do better than that"

Patrick said...

I have nothing too do with RedDevil that i can assure you.Perhaps you could share your view on the Red Knights failure even with the backing of fans they still Failed to put a bid together

Anonymous said...

Yes anonymous, this is about leverage finance. So what is more ironic, that I support the current MU scenario, or that you support the MUST/RK scenario?

I guess you were in full support of the too big to fail scenario. Hey maybe the Bankers can turn MU into too big to fail. They seem good at risk analysis.

Anonymous said...

Anyone have any views on the disapperance of the red knights as the kid from ireland has said

Anonymous said...

They haven't disappeared. If you know anything about Bankers you should know they don't work between May and August, this is their summer vacation period. They'll be back with a bang in September.

jacqueline said...

The post was absolutely fantastic!I loved to read your article.ebay tickets selling Lots of great information and interesting to read, both of which we all need! You must be putting a lot of time into your post!