Friday, 11 June 2010

My advice – don’t renew

There are just two full days until the season ticket renewal deadline.  Judging by articles in the media and my own sources in the ticket office, tens of thousands of season ticket holders have not yet renewed and there is panic at the club.

For what it's worth, this is my advice for those considering what to do. It is my personal view only:

Any reduction in income will increase the chances of the Glazers selling our club.  They can only take out dividends if certain profit targets are met.  This makes them vulnerable to lower income.

The most effective action supporters can take to shorten the Glazers' ownership of our club is to not renew their season tickets for 2010/11.

I understand that giving up going to Old Trafford is an incredibly hard thing for fans to do, not renewing my own ticket has been very difficult. It was difficult too for the many fans who stopped going in 2005. Sacrifices are sometimes needed to achieve important change.

Many supporters will want to continue to go on an occasional basis and switching to "match-by-match" and reducing the money you pay the Glazers in this way is also helpful to the cause, although obviously has less impact.

I really believe that supporter action can accelerate the process of changing the ownership of our football club. It is not just tokenism. Ridding our club of the Glazers requires both an offer for the club and a willingness on the family's part to sell at a reasonable price. Non-renewal introduces risk to their business model and increases the chance of them selling.

Finally of course, all supporters should reach their own decisions and remain United in respecting the choices of others.



RobC said...

Agree with everything youv'e said there Andy. I won't be renewing our 2 season tickets either.

As I've posted elsewhere on your blog, the TO at OT seem to be wasting even more of the clubs money. I've always left it to the last minute to renew so I was surprised to receive two letters from the TO this morning reminding me not to forget to renew. This has never happened before so I suspect the renewals are considerably down on previous years.

Percy The Ratcatcher said...

Thanks Andy - I've just made that painful decision myself. I'm giving up a superb seat. But having handed over just under £1500 to the Glazers last season only to see it wasted on interest payments and their fees, I couldn't bring myself to bankroll them again.

Dr. Mark said...

Thanks for stating your position regarding renewal, Andy, and making such detailed and clear statements on the club's financial status in the last few months. I was fairly aware of what was going on, but you've opened my eyes even more.

It appals me at times to read the nitpicking from apparent United fans on here who seem to be more concerned with trying to prove they've got more financial acumen than you, than just accepting the basic, obvious truth that the Glazer ownership is at its core designed to extract the maximum benefit for the family at the expense of those who cumulatively have 1000's of years of emotional and financial investment in Manchester United FOOTBALL CLUB.

Hopefully, we've reached a watershed point in the history of the club where enough of us have realised that the only real power we have is to hurt the football club in the short term in order to rid us of the cancer.

If we can bring the Glazers (and the quisling Gill) to their knees, even if it results in 10pt deductions and a squad shorn of world-class talent, i'll take that. If people really are fans, there's only upside beyond that. What prospective owner would fuck with the United fanbase if they'd observed the Glazers being sent packing?

Keep up the great work, Andy, and if i ever spot you at an away game, i'm buying

John Rooney said...

Totally agree with your views on this Andy
I gave up my Season Ticket 2 years ago after having the same seat in J since 1979, i did this because of a combination of the unfair ACS and the Glazers debit mountain forced upon my club. I think that the intense level of fan power and pressure will soon have the effect we all want ie the Glazers out. Also after they have gone, its worth reflecting on how the fantastic green and gold campaign has galvanized reds from all corners of the globe behind a real force for change. Fan power indeed.

Dr. Mark said...

Oops....forgot the last bit of what i was going to say.

"Green and Gold 'til the club is sold" is not enough


...and don't anyone give me that shite about waiting lists, thank you

Anonymous said...

Anders thanks for all the details over the months -it has been essential in helping me take my decision. I sat my 11 year old down yesterday after asking him to watch panorama... not sure he fully appreciates all the details - but understands the high amount of his money that goes to the glazers rather than his club. ST's in family stand -so it is not really the cost -its principle. He has agreed to boycott. Given the dire financial position created by the Glazers it has been relatively easy for me to take the decision, but it has been extremely difficult to take away his childhood experience. In 2005 he was just starting to go -so I understand those who struggle to take the step. But it really is now or never ! I've given up our 2 ST.

Swef said...

We'll find out Dr. Mark.

If MUST fail's on this one...they have no option, non-renewals has to succeed.

RobC said...


@Swef: what's the alternative? The gimps are only motivated by money. Period. They have zero interest in what the club means to most proper supporters. Stop feeding the beast and they will have to sell.

Swef said...


What % of the UK population do you think is mired in:
-Mortgage debt
-Credit card
-Car loan
-Home equity

And how many of these would default if they went without pay for 3-4 months?

The Red Devil said...

I am stunned beyond words at this.

Percy The Ratcatcher said...

In the end, it's the only thing you can do to put pressure on the Glazers - if like me, you believe they are bleeding United dry, as well as putting the future of Old Trafford and Carrington at risk.

And that's what is at stake - it's much longer term than (say) missing out on the Champions League for a season. So boycotting the merchandise while handing over £1450 per season just doesn't cut it.

I'll probably take a One United membership, but I travel to games with a group of reds, some of whom either don't care about the Glazers (their line - we hated Edwards too, but kept going) or who can't bring themselves not to go. I get that.

So rather than apply match by match, I'll use their STs when one of them can't make it. This works out well for all of us: they get their unused seat paid for without Viagogo scalping £25 for the privilege, but the Glazers don't get another penny.

I'll miss some games, but that's the sacrifice necessary. Not that demand is as great as David Gill would have you believe. Last season, by a combination of match applications, viagogo and passed on tickets, my partner went to just 7 games - Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, AC Milan, Bayern, City semi and the Carling Cup final. All without a season ticket.

The Flying Munkey said...

Bravo anders

Swef said...

Anders I guess you have been busy, so I shall re-ask:

"What % of the UK population do you think is mired in:
-Mortgage debt
-Credit card
-Car loan
-Home equity

And how many of these would default if they went without pay for 3-4 months?"

Further of these maxed out debtors bordering disaster:
1. How many are MU fans?
2. Of the persons in #1 above, how many are shouting at the financial predicament of MU?
3. Regarding the MUST hierarchy, how many of them have their financial house in order?

Why the pot is calling the kettle black is my question?
Your response...

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but could you explain what possible relevance your question has? Other than some people might be mired in debt with maxed out credit cards, because they gave their card number to the OT ticket office to be forcibly charged through the ACS for tickets they did not want, or because in the first years of the Glazer regime thought the huge hikes in ticket prices were going towards transfers rather than interest payments and director fees to the Glazers.

Jörgen said...

This is the way to go if you want to make sure Carrington is sold.


I am going to have to applaud the way you've conducted your campaign these last few weeks. It has been perfectly timed. It's almost like you are an expert in PR.

So, where do we go from here?

Let's pretend this will force the Glazers to sell. My question is to whom? Can you influence to whom they are going to sell? What guarantee is there that the next owner will be better?

I suppose you still want the Red Knights to make a bid. There are no indications that it will not be another leveraged buy out.


RobC said...


I am going to have to applaud the way you've conducted your campaign these last few weeks. It has been perfectly timed. It's almost like you are an expert in PR............

As ever, Jorgen the glazer (paid?) apologist, sower of doubt and confusion, right on cue. Keep up the good work mate, you're doing a great job!

For the rest of us season ticket holders, well we're just going to have to follow our own path.

As Percy said above, having handed over around GBP2500 (in my case) to the glazers last season only to see it wasted on interest payments and fees, I too couldn't bring myself to bankroll them again.

Dr Mark's comments sums it up about just accepting the obvious truth that the glazer ownership is designed to extract the maximum benefit for themselves at the expense of us who together have years of emotional and financial investment in Manchester United FOOTBALL CLUB.

If you feel this way too, then don't renew.


Jörgen said...


Is it possible for me to disagree with you without being a Glazer apologist?

And as for the "paid" part I am going to have to semi-quote Anders: If you can find one tiny shred (just one) of evidence of that I'd be happy to see it.

If I was paid for doing this, don't you think I'd being doing this all day, rather than just every now and then. Tiresome and ridiculous to hear, frankly.

My compliment to Anders is an actual compliment, so need to make fun of it.

But I digress,

Let's again pretend the Glazers are ready to sell. Would you be willing to hand over GBP2500 to the new owners?

On what conditions? Do they have to tell you they don't want to enrich themselves first?

Do you think you will have a say in who are the new owners?

What indications do you have that a presumed new owner is more benevolent than the current one?

What will you do if the current owners sell Carrington to replace your season ticket income?

Let's start here and I'll continue with more questions later.

And btw, I'm sorry if I have confused you in any way. I really am trying to be as clear as possible.


Jörgen said...

Obviously, my comment should say "no need to make fun of it".


The Red Devil said...

Jörgen beautifully put.

What these people don't seem to appreciate is that we are NOT Glazer fans/apologists/employees or whatever slur they try to attach.

The Glazers are the owners so we are merely arguing from the default position. We are neither pro or anti.

To RobC, I am sorry that you "handed over around GBP2500 (in my case) to the glazers last season only to see it wasted on interest payments and fees".

What I saw was a team playing football who very nearly won the Premier League and were robbed in the Champions League Quarter Final.

How did you feel for the two seasons before last? Overcharged? Or did you get value for money?

Jörgen is absolutely right. Not renewing your season tickets will not affect the Glazers, you will simply be making a martyr of yourself for an unspecified cause.

When a United supporter effectively tells supporters to withdraw their support, I have to wonder if they have perhaps spent too much time staring at numbers.

The Red Devil said...

I hate to say this but I would laugh my arse off if the Glazers sold to someone else and MUST were cut out completely... again.

There would be some kind of poetic justice at least.

Matt said...

Swef. Quite a few. And, many will do just that. It has all happened before and will again.
Andy's point is that until the Glazers' came along United were not in that position. They are now. And for no other reason than the change in ownership.

The Red Devil said...

@Matt - And our point is that it happened and it happened five years ago. Get over it and support the bloody team.

Swef said...

@ Matt

I am not sure I follow your response. Please elaborate.

Anonymous said...

I walked in 2005 but applaud everyone who made this big step since, including, I hope, thousands more this summer. The Glazers are total parasites, and I can only think that anyone who simply says, ignore this just support the team, is acting like those rats infected with toxoplasma, a parasite that makes them seek out and be eaten by cats so the parasite can reproduce.

The Red Devil said...

@anonymous - the arguments get more bizarre by the second! :) A rat infected with toxoplasma? I'd better go and see my doctor. That does sound bad...

...just got back. He says I'm fine. I was just being silly and over-reacting to something I had read on Andersblog.

RobC said...

@Jorgen: you're right, I have no evidence whatsoever now or will I likely have, that you are a "paid" agent of the glazer regime. It may be total bollocks but I have this view simply because of what you have written over the last few blogs. It seems that you attempt to be even-handed when dealing with both sides of the argument, but to me you still gravitate towards a pro-glazer bias. And I don't think that anything you say will change that view.

@The Red Devil: same goes for you too mate. And no I've not spent too much time staring at numbers 'cos tbh, I let people like Andy and the Guardians David Conn do the sums and then present their evidence for me to then make my own judgement. My loyalty to United is based on nearly 50 years of emotional and financial investment, and my judgement now is that I can no longer justify investing any more of my money in propping up the present ownership of MY club.

And yes it was five years ago but I like many other Reds have not got over the hostile takeover, and there's no real likihood of that changing so long as the present regime (and crippling debts) are in place.

And really only a glazer stooge would say: "I hate to say this but I would laugh my arse off if the Glazers sold to someone else and MUST were cut out completely... again". I know MUST isn't liked in some quarters of our support but they've done more than any other organisation to try and put the spotlight on the secretive glazer regime than most. Hat's off also as previously mentioned to the Guardians David Conn for his financial investigations and also to Henry Winter from the Telegraph who recognise the problems at United stems from the glazers and their ruinous leveraged buyout.

Hope the toxoplasma gets better soon!

The Red Devil said...

@RobC - I respect your stance. I won't argue with you further on this one. It is clearly one that you have not made lightly. Peace.

Jörgen said...


It makes me happy that you at least think I am trying to be even handed. That's better than (being accused of) being a paid Glazer agent.

It's a shame you think there is nothing I can say to change your mind, though. I'd really want you to read my evidence below and tell me what you think.

When Anders claims that he is telling you the truth about First Allied Corp, he is really twisting it to fit his argument. How can I back this up? Consider this:

To estimate the value of the property that FA owns Anders uses to things, cash flows (from a report) and a cap rate (which is estimated by Anders).

The cap rate is a number that shows how risky a business is, so the riskier it is, the higher the cap rate.

The cap rate Anders is using is 8.5%. Using that cap rate and the cash flow from Anders spreadsheet, you will get negative equity, as Anders has shown.

Now, if you look at the industry development in cap rates 8.5% is rather high. The latest figure shows 8.34 as the average cap rate in the US (for 2010Q1). Using that cap rate (which is more current) will take us from 13.9MUSD in negative equity to 3.2MUSD in negative equity, all other things being equal. So, the loans are still above the market value for the property. But, according to Anders' spreadsheet, the net asset value of it would stand at 64.8 MUSD!

Source for the historic cap rates:

As you can see in the graph, cap rates peaked in 2009Q4. They are now on a sharp downward trend. This is where I think Anders went wrong. If you want to show how a company (or group) performs financially, you have to take the future into account. As markets stabilize the downward trend will continue, thus increasing the value of the property owned by FA.

Jörgen said...

Part 2

If we look at 2008Q3, when the credit crunch was in full swing, the cap rate was at 7.5% on average. This is a rate we could very well return to (and beyond)when markets stabilize. If we use this number, all other things being equal, the equity would not only be positive, it would be at 60.2 MUSD! The net asset value is 111.0 MUSD!

Even Anders, in the description of his methodology, concedes that it's difficult to come to a correct valuation of each and every property. Above you can see that valuation swings greatly with even the slightest change in cap rate.

We can also see that 8.5% (which is what Anders used) is probably too high and will give you a too low valuation. Furthermore, the cap rate is on a downward trend, which means that property values are rising again.

I do not claim to know what the right valuation is. All I know is that the value of properties like these are in an upward trend.

How come then Anders is so sure of his valuation as to say that they have negative equity? All I have done is to change one parameter in his valuation model. This is a parameter Anders himself thinks is difficult to estimate. By using business statistics from an established resource I can strongly question his conclusion that the First Allied Corporation are in negative equity. If not already now, it is likely they will very soon be positive again.

To me, it seems Anders used a cap rate that wasn't totally off, but just enough to fit his theory.

Let's move on to cash flows...

Anders is using cash flows from the documents he has given us links to. These cash flows are probably totally correct. But, they are cash flows from the worst year in history (well, may be since the 30's) for retail. While it may be correct in theory to use only these reported cash flows to estimate the value of a business, it's actually more interesting to know what future cash flows are anticipated. Especially if there are good reasons to think they will change.

Jörgen said...

part 3

Naturally, what drive shopping centres are retail shops. Retail shops thrive on consumer spending. Consumer spending really took off during 2009Q4 (but was also positive in 2009Q3) after slumping badly since the beginning of 2008.


Not taking this into account when calculating "run-rate" cash flows is a big mistake if you want to put a value on a business, especially when changes are so great. I don't know why Anders did not.

What I am saying is that Anders showed what it looked like right there and then. But that has no meaning, though, as we all know conditions have already changed for the better.

If you apply a 10% improvement in cash flow (consider that 2009 was the worst year ever, so it doesn't take much to accomplish that) will make 55 of the centres to manage their interest payments, although 17 will still see problems with their DSCR post IO.

The surplus cash flow will be at 13.9 MUSD so the owners can still easily shuffle things around to manage this.

The interesting point here is that equity with a 10% increase in cash flow and a cap rate of 7.5% will be at 123.2 MUSD. The net asset value will be 163.8 MUSD.

(May be I'm cutting a few corners here, it's getting late) This means that with highly probable numbers, we can get a net asset value which can free up cash of over 120 MUSD!!! (Can someone say remortgage?) What is there to say it isn't going to be more of the kind, because I am being conservative in my estimates (according to me, anyway)?

And I have yet to touch the occupancy rates!!!

What I am asking now is when I can do a little research, using Anders' methodology, and come up with numbers that paint a completely different picture, why do you take his words as gospel?

I sincerely hope that all people that give up their season tickets won't live to regret it. I really, really do. My fear, though, is that this is what is going to happen. Still, it is your choice and I respect that. We are all writing because we believe in the club and we want the same end result.

A long post and probably a little bit incoherent here and there (because of having to take a break every now and then, but not in logic I hope) but feel free to ask if there are any questions.


Victor said...

Just to add to what Jörgen and The Red Devil are saying:

people who want to "force" the Glazers out need to understand that any drop in profits will hit the team first.
No renewals=less cash for Fergie.
Interest has to be and will be paid regardless.

Fair enough if you don't like this ownership, don't buy tickets etc.

But, anders and others, do you really want to drive the club to bankruptcy just to change these people (not knowing who will come instead as Red Devil said)?

Anonymous said...

Jörgen, the valuation is a side issue, it is cashflow that is important. FA retrned a pre-tax profit of 9.7 m dollars. Anders' point is that this is far from enough to pay off any of the PIKs.
Victor. Of course, the club will probably suffer in the short term from a boycott. But it is a question of short term pain for long term gain. The club will suffer far more if the Glazers remain in situ.

bootsie said...


"people who want to "force" the Glazers out need to understand that any drop in profits will hit the team first. "

That's the main reason people want the Glazers out in the first place. The team is already being hit because of the drop in profits under the Glazers. The team needs major investment, but the money doesn't seem to be available. We've needed a left winger and an attacking midfielder for 2 years now, but we seem to be trying to stretch the resources we have to cover the deficiencies. How much longer can we rely on Giggs and Scholes?

We only made a profit last year because we sold Ronaldo. Without player sales this summer we'll make a loss this year. It looks like Vidic is going, plus the sales of Foster, Tosic and a handful of reserves may raise some capital for new players, but the sums involved means we'll be looking at cheap options rather than going after proven talent.

Jörgen said...


The valuation is not a side issue. It is quite the opposite! If the valuation on their assets is high enough the Glazers can remortgage, thereby freeing up cash to repay the PIK's without touching United.

With enough cash flow (to be able to service the new interest rates) this is perfectly doable and rather risk free as each shopping centre is non-recourse. As they have a total cash flow that is positive, they can shuffle that around (I don't want to get more technical unless someone asks for it) and manage to pay for all the shopping centres, even according to Anders' calculations.

Btw, the FA Corp did not show a pre-tax PROFIT of 9.7, they showed a pre-tax cash flow of 9.7 MUSD, but I assume you know this and that it was just a small mistake.

I believe that it is harder to get back in the top four than to remain there, once you are in. Therefore, I think the reasoning that boycotts will mean short term pain may be wrong. With a boycott we are instead risking long term pain for no (or little) gain. But I respect your stance on this.


Anonymous said...

The problem is that everything they have is mortgaged.

Re-mortgaging is not the answer, have you not lived through the credit crunch?

Even if the Glazers did remortgage they owe nearly 150 million on the Buccs, who can guardentee that the money will go off the PIK's?

Basically, given the interest rate on the PIK's it is pretty obvious that if the Glazers had the money then they would pay them off. The fact that they are jumping around trying to find money suggests that they haven't and the only money source they have is Utd.

I wonder if the Glazers would have got funding on buying the club if they had tried to do it 2 years ago? According to my brother (ACIB qualified) the answer is no.

Jorgen, one of my friends works in the same industry as First Allied, he says that the Glazers have no cash so it doesn't matter how you do your sums.

Whether Utd falls now or in 10 years time is immaterial, it is going to fall, personally I'd rather get rid of the cancer now instead of letting it eat more away.

andersred said...

Part 1
Thanks for taking the time to look through the data (I’m sure that puts you in a very small minority).

No thanks at all for the continued, baseless and unsupported assertions that I manipulate the figures to fit my point of view. I didn’t start this research with a point of view, I just wanted to know how the business was doing!

I disagree that the valuations are very important. The cash flow is everything in this argument.

Anyway, the cap rate of 8.5% isn’t plucked out of thin air, it’s the average cap rate for similarly sized properties in Dallas, Atlanta and great DC from loopnet, calculated on a weighted average basis. It’s what sellers are pricing their properties at right now, in real time.

Your article, which I’d already seen, talks about the data being skewed by “Class A assets”, that means proper malls, not strip malls. The market is no doubt nearing its cyclical trough, but the 8.0%-9% range looks like a reasonable level in today’s market.

Anyway, let’s discuss your strange statements on remortgaging possibilities as you clearly don’t understand the CMBS re-mortaging process. You need to read up about “defeasance”. Mortgages in CMBS are not repayable at the whim of the borrower, buts must be defeased, the process of swapping the security of the property for that of another asset, in this case US Treasuries. Simplistically, a remortgage of a property with a securitised mortgage involves the new loan paying for the purchase of sufficient Treasuries to recreate the cash flow of the property, leaving any surplus for the borrower. The cost of defeasance therefore depends on the relative level of the existing mortgage rate and yield on Treasuries. There are online defeasance calculators available (such as this one:

Look at an example First Allied property, one of the best ones with the most equity, City View Towne Crossing in Texas.

Occupancy rate 92.4%, DSCR a healthy 1.5x, gross value $19.8m, equity value $6.2m (LTV of 69%) on my 8.5% cap rate, or $22.4m and $8.9m respectively (LTV 60%) on a more bullish 7.5% cap rate.
I plugged the mortgage details into the calculator for defeasance on 1 August 2010 and the answer is below in Part 2:

andersred said...

Part 2

Results are based on the current market rates as of 6/14/2010 5:21 AM.



SECURITIES COST: $17,657,329.77

DEFEASANCE "PREMIUM": $3,685,054.08

Rating Agency Fee: $10,000.00

Servicer Processing Fee: $25,000.00

Special Servicer Fee: $0.00

Custodian Fee: $12,000.00

Servicer Legal Fee: $20,000.00

Accountant Fee: $3,500.00

Successor Borrower Fee: $7,000.00

Commercial Defeasance Fee: $13,000.00

Total Transaction Cost: $90,500.00

(Securities Cost + Estimated Transaction Cost) $17,747,829.77

So basically, repaying the c. $14m mortgage would cost $17.75m at current rates. Even at a bullish 7.5% cap rate (i.e. a gross value of $22.4m), the LTV on the new mortgage required to defease the old mortgage is 79%. On my 8.5% cap rate it’s 90%.

You just can’t borrow at those sort of multiples in this market.

I hope that sorts that one out. Remortgaging is not an option for this portfolio.

Finally, on “run rate” NCF. The run rate calculation is designed to bring the cash flows right up to date, by using the occupancy levels reported by First Allied TODAY. You talk about cash flows radically improving from 2009, but these are multi-year non-turnover leases. They don’t move on retail sales. The “run rate” calculations increased the NCF on 7 properties and decreased it on 10, in other words occupancy fell by more than five percentage points since 31 December in 10 and rose by more than 5 percentage points in 7.

Do you think rent rises are likely? Most centres are “over rented” (as is true of almost all US commercial property) as passing market rents are far lower than rates entered into before 2008. There is no reversion in this portfolio. How do I know that? Because we can see the passing rent from the CMBS filings and also see the asking rents from First Allied (via its listings on Loopnet).

Like I say Jörgen, top marks for looking at the data, but sadly a C+ for understanding and a D- for accusations of bias when every time you speak your own biases stick out for all to see.

Take care.


andersred said...

Sorry Jörgen,
One more thing I forgot to mention. The $9.7m is the run rate cash flow OF THE PROPERTIES. First Allied itself (the two management companies) will have costs that need to be deducted from that. I don’t know what those costs are so I haven’t even tried to estimate them. They employ c. 30 people in three offices so you can guess the number if you wish. The run rate cash flow post interest only periods will fall to c. $7.5m at current occupancy.

I’ve also, generously assumed that those centres with negative NCF are counted at zero, in other words that the family is not injecting equity into them and that P&I is being paid from reserves. The realtor responsible for University Plaza who was interviewed by Panorama said that the property was being supported with equity injections. If you count negative NCF at its actual value rather than zero, total cash flow falls to $7.5m or $5.5m post IO periods.

Even after First Allied costs are deducted, the number is pre-tax. The LPs are owned by Glazer family trusts, which although tax efficient, no doubt do incur some income taxes (at least what cash is extracted).

Net, net, I doubt the true cash generation of the whole portfolio is much greater than $2-3m per annum.


Jörgen said...

Well, having 95 MGBP in the bank (according to the latest report) and another 75 as a revolving credit facility doesn't spell cash strapped to me. It remains to be seen what will happen to that money, though. But, the bank would not offer them such a credit if it didn't believe the club can handle it. Ask your brother about it.

Of course the credit crunch had an impact on their original plans. Then again, not many can say it didn't, so you can't hold that against them.

Again, you don't have to have a degree to understand that this kind of LBO would not have been possible two years ago, but that doesn't mean that it was a bad deal. It just means that there was no money in the credit markets then. Businesses went bankrupt just because they couldn't finance themselves, in spite of being profitable, so there is nothing strange about this. I don't understand your argument there.

About the Bucs, their debt is about 13% of their value, part of the debt is connected to the stadium. I don't think this has any priority to be repaid any time soon. But I might be wrong.

As for your friend, even Anders says that the Glazers have cash. With the cash they are generating within FA, they can finance themselves. This is according to Anders' numbers that are from actual reports. So ask your friend if he has interpreted Anders' numbers differently, and on what basis. Alternatively, have him come on here and explain how he sees FA.

Why are you so fatalistic? If the Glazers forfeit on the PIK's, all that will happen is that United will have new owners. I don't think you can use the Bucs as an example of what will happen to United, because American football is an altogether different game.

The Bucs are a franchise with a draft system in place. The NFL is designed to not have long dynasties. Every team has to rebuild and some are more succesful than others. If you don't spend during a couple of years, you will end up last, but you are still in the league.

Jörgen said...


I kind of knew you had this already, but we have to start somewhere, don't we?

Unfortunately, I'm probably going to have to wait until next weekend to continue.

But I'm glad you like my effort at least. Moreover, It's good to hear even you believe they generate a positive cash flow though.

And for the record, I knew what you based your cap rates on, my point is that a samll change in cap rate makes all the difference.

Well, only shorter responses for a while, but I will try and reply properly later during the week. Hopefully, my grade on understanding will improve by then.


Anonymous said...

Jorgen: "Hopefully, my grade on understanding will improve by then".

And hopefully your grade for accusations of bias will improve also, but I won't hold my breath just in case..........

tier 2 red said...

Why don’t you set up your blog detailing any investigations you make? Or you could set up your own blog using anders data (its all public) detailing how the glazers really are ‘sophisticated real estate experts’ and how First Allied is in rude health, I would certainly log on to have a read. You seem to be straining at the leash to prove Anders wrong, nitpicking at figures that no-one out of finance really understands but every time anders has an answer, you seem to be nowt more than a bookkeeper.

Personally I think a lot of people have missed something that anders has mentioned a couple of times – mainly that Malc is incapacitated (being in his 80’s and having had 2 strokes) and that his sons are now running the business. To be fair Malc has an impressive business record building him self up from nowt. The sons on the other hand seemed to have little business savvy, even I can see re-mortgaging your entire portfolio just before the USA property market collapses aint the brightest thing to do. Whether they saw it coming or not their prime business is in trouble – interest free mortgages coming to an end, falling rents increasing occupancy rates, if your ever in the Little Hulton area of Salford I suggest to check out our local shopping area, and see how such shopping areas fair without a ‘big brand’ anchor.

Percy The Ratcatcher said...

As grateful as I am for all the research that's been put in on both sides of the argument, my feeling is that you can over complicate it.

What is beyond doubt is that Manchester United was a profitable, debt free Football Club. With its revenues (which I accept that the Glazers have increased, though often at the expense of match going fans), we should be at the forefront of the transfer market. Instead, as Fergie has said, we're no longer in the same market as the big boys.

Which is a travesty for one of 'the world's biggest football club'(s). And that's not because we don't have a sugar daddy - I don't want one, thank you very much. It's because we have the complete opposite, a set of owners who couldn't afford MUFC to begin with, and whose debts we're now servicing.

Only the Glazers are responsible for this situation - even David Gill is only a well-paid apologist for them. I want them to go. They won't respond to the obvious antipathy to them in the stands, so my final choice is not to renew, because it is the only power I have left to oppose them with.

I seem to have been joined by thousands more in making that painful decision.

David said...

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and are constantly airing them on here, but, the facts remain that 5 years ago we had money, hard cash, in the bank and NO DEBT. Percy is spot on as is Anders (and I for one am grateful for the Anders blog for keeping us informed of how our beloved club is being raped of money by people who are only out to enrich themselves), investment!! forget it. For me, anyone who stills argues the Glazer families/David Gills position is missing the big issue, because, I honestly believe that where we are now, we probably have 2 years before everything goes south, and that my friends will be a very sad day

Anonymous said...

Tier 2 Red,
or indeed look at Avram Glazer's running of an internet venture funded by Malc's Zapata. Another ignominious failed business venture. As they say in Lancashire "clogs to clogs in 3 generations". Spot on for the gimps I would suggest. Only question is whether they destroy United too in the process.

Anonymous said...

Percy is correct. People over complicate things.

It's really very simple. The interest on the debts that the Glazers have imposed on our previously debt-free club is £70m a year. Or putting it another way, around £200,000 every single day. I don't know why people get so blase about these numbers, the amount of cash that's leaving the club just to fund the mortgage the Glazers used to buy the club is truly heartbreaking.

I really do find it laughable when the usual suspects try to say "oh it's only £300m they've cost us, not £400m, so everythings ok". Are you Glazer apologists for real?!

We're the most profitable football club on the planet but we've been reduced to paupers by those collosal debts imposed on us by these despicable cunts.

They've raised ticket prices to the point where much of our core support has either been priced out or have decided that they can no longer personally finance the Glazer occupation. The Glazers have ripped the heart and soul out of this football club that used to mean so much to so many people.

Andersreds brilliant work has simply confirmed what we all suspected about the Glazers and Uniteds 'business model'.

When we one day get the Glazers out, and we will, I hope that the Glazer apologists never associate themselves with Manchester United Football Club in any way ever again. I charge you with crimes against Manchester United, and I find you guilty.

tier 2 red said...

"clogs to clogs in 3 generations"
Great stuff, y'learn something new everyday

Percy The Ratcatcher said...

Strange. When I log on to the official site, I'm still being invited to renew my season ticket, although the deadline has been and gone.

Surely it should have been snapped up by one of the many, many thousands on the waiting list by now ?

Jörgen said...


Even though I sometimes accuse Anders of being biased it's a "domestic" thing. I will still stand up for him at any time against any outsider. I'm sure he would do the same for me.

We are all reds and we are all doing what we think is best for the club. While we may debate things, sometimes rather harshly, we debate amongst each other.

It would be a sad day if we were to shut out fellow United supporters, merely because they are of a different opinion.

So please, don't be so dramatic and encourage debate instead. It will only make us stronger in the end.


BS said...


Any indication of the number of season tickets renewals from your ticket office sources at the club?

Article in the daily mail today claiming renewals are similar to last season but they don't qutoe any figures or a source for their claim.



andersred said...

It's all gone very quiet (except for that Mail article which was pathetic).

The only thing I've heard relates to Execs where I'm told they've held no less than three(!) "crisis meetings" in the ticket office....


BS said...

Ok thanks for that.

Hopefully there is a great need for crisis meetings.

They will probably extend the renewal window no doubt.

Time will tell.



RobC said...

No doubt the statement from Gill et al about renewals when it eventually comes, will have a hefty dose of spin attached.

In the meantime, come you journo's reading this blog, you know the deadline has passed, hit the phones and get asking some awkward questions!

Dr. Mark said...

@ andersred

No doubt the TO will be sending out more "not threatening, but just warning" letters to Execs

On a related note, I'm fascinated by your jousting on RedCafe with the Glazer stooges/demanders of balance (delete as appropriate). I hadn't quite realised that a possible immediate effect of a ST boycott would be to prevent the parasites from taking the 50% CNI dividend which they need to pay off the PIKs

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

I cancelled my club membership last week. Imagine my surprise to receive an e-mail today asking me to "Watch out for my Season Ticket Information Pack" in the post and providing a handly link to this

Surely they wouldn't have to do this, they led me to believe that there was a waiting list of people queuing round the block for season tickets.

Desperation takes many forms it would seem

Anonymous said...

Season_Ticket_waiting_list_booklet.pdf is that link - not sure it wrapped properly

Anonymous said...

Re: the "clogs to clogs in 3 generations" quote above. The glazers seem to be so good at business that they're on course to beat that in just one generation.

Trouble is, they'll take United down with them if they don't see the sense of selling before the "brand" gets too tarnished.

Anonymous said...

I joined the ST waiting list two days ago. To my surprise I received an email today inviting me to phone the club on Monday to buy a season ticket.

So there we have it...the season ticket waiting list is two days.


Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for your recent enquiry to join the season ticket waiting list.

I can confirm you have been added and can call us from Monday 21 June on 0161 868 8000 to purchase a season ticket.

Many Thanks



DavidC said...

Look people we spent half of last season chanting anti glazers instaed of for the team.We are meant to be the supporters...shall we get on with our job...get behind the lads...wear our club colours and get our trophy back.How about that eh? We know the situation but we lost the league and our priority has to be getting it back. Not re-newing only hurts our club not the glazers who just re-jig finances to cover gaps. The money we dont spend in re-newing will hit fergies transfer pennies and we need to spend. So come on guys...lets sing for the lads and get our Trophy back home.

Percy The Ratcatcher said...


I understand where you're coming from David, but to me it looks incredibly short-termist. There's an assumption there that if we get behind the team and we win trophies, that will prevent the damage that the Glazers are doing to United.

My illusions about that were shattered by the bond prospectus, which made it clear that the Glazers need to bleed United dry to finance their ownership... and in the end, that is what will prevent United from achieving, not any fan resistance.

So in the long-term, I feel I'm doing far more to support Manchester United FOOTBALL CLUB - by denying the Glazers my hard-earned cash - than I am by paying it over to service their debts and consultancy fees.

They need to go, and free United from the mountain of debt they - and only they - have shackled us with.