|
Post by petetheloon on Apr 15, 2005 12:00:26 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Alti Shrew on Apr 15, 2005 12:05:33 GMT 1
that's a particularly ignorant view of the situation. United fans understand fully the implications of listing for the club, hence why Shareholders United works to bring together fans shareholdings to give them a voice in how the club is run and influence siituations just like this. If Glazer gets the club he will ensure TV rights are negotiated on a club by club basis... a bad thing for all of football in view of united's profile, so don't see this as a problem for United fans, this is a problem for football fans in general.
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsAde on Apr 15, 2005 12:10:34 GMT 1
Is it basically that 1 he borrows the money (£300m) 2 he pays off the current share holders 3 he then owns the club, but has to pay off the loan with income but if income drops, the debt increases due to interest payments of £25m added to the loan each year or he re-sells the shares at £3.25 each.. ?
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Apr 15, 2005 12:10:59 GMT 1
but floating on the stock market was going to make this inevitable at some point. thats the nature of the stock market, that people play it to make money and thats exactly what Glazier is doing.
if they didn't want this happening they should have remained privately owned, but they went for the millions instead. I don't remember any Man U fans moaning when the club was floated.
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 15, 2005 12:12:23 GMT 1
be interested to know how much money they've made from floating on the stock market and subsequet investment.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 15, 2005 12:45:02 GMT 1
If Glazer gets the club he will ensure TV rights are negotiated on a club by club basis... a bad thing for all of football in view of united's profile, so don't see this as a problem for United fans, this is a problem for football fans in general. Can you explain why...I'm a tad confused?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2005 12:46:49 GMT 1
I'm guessing that it would mean that the big clubs could negotiate, and get, far much more money to have their games televised by the smaller clubs therefore increasing the income gap and making the Premiership etc less competitive.
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 15, 2005 12:49:22 GMT 1
well united would make more money if they could seel their individual tv rights themselves as opposed to sharing group revenue with the likes of wba, brum etc.
If tv rights were left inb the hands of seperate clubs, you'd get 4/5 clubs who'd sell their rights for a small fortune, whilst the likes of charlton, fulham etc would be left selling their rights for peanuts which would only increase the schasm between the rich and poor.
God knows where this would leave clubs like STFC and other league clubs who get a percentage of the collective premier$hite tv deal
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 15, 2005 12:51:02 GMT 1
Can you explain why...I'm a tad confused? If its an individual fight the top teams will get the lions share, who wants to pay to see say Fulham V Charlton who both at the moment get an equal share of a premership deal, on the otherhand perhaps the BEEB, ITV will be able to pick up the scraps?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 15, 2005 12:53:27 GMT 1
I'm with you...sommat along the same lines as Celtic and Rangers up north? Dont they get a fair bit more than other clubs for TV coverage? Caused a bit of a stir I seem to recall...with other clubs considering leaving Celtic and Rangers out in the cold?
Which leads me on to my next point. I've always found it a little difficult to understand how the larger clubs can broker these deals? Surely the other, so called smaller, clubs can make a stand as the bigger clubs can't play each other week in, week out. No matter how big a club is...without the other clubs to play and compete against they are nothing?
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Apr 15, 2005 13:00:13 GMT 1
but if Man U wanted to do this then they would go ahead and do it now and not wait for Glazier to come in and do it?
They do have shareholders to keep happy after all
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 15, 2005 13:05:15 GMT 1
I was chatting to an ex-Chelski fan the other day, who really believes the premiership bubble is leaking, he finds more interest now in lower league football than the top, he knows plenty of others who feel the same, mostly from London clubs. He thinks the lack of competition is going to get worse and all the glory hunters are going to go elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 15, 2005 13:05:55 GMT 1
i think there has to be 2/3rds majority amongst the premiers**te clubs before such decisions can take place.
Seem to recall the EU trying to break up the current agreement, and change it so that the tv rights were sold on an individual basis.
|
|
|
Post by Mr T on Apr 15, 2005 13:22:41 GMT 1
yeh i think i remember it too but fortunately it didn't go through.
I wonder what will happen if he does get man u, cos it seems all man u fans are against it aswell as various member of the staff. would ferguson's position be in question? would fans boycott the matches?
|
|
|
Post by Alti Shrew on Apr 15, 2005 13:38:55 GMT 1
United will be able to negotiate an individual contract for TV rights soon, its currently against EU policy the way TV rights are done on a collective bargaining basis...
however the current board have the long term interests of the club and the competitive league they play in at heart... not short term gain, ala glazer when he needs to recoup his £300 million dept.
if its allowed to happen Salop would suffer from loss of revenue on a larger scale than ITV digital!
...and yes fans would boycot the club, discussions are underway to do an AFC wimbledon and set up a new club, this is not fantasy, it will happen if Glazer takes over. It already has support from 20,000 shareholders United members, and significant financial backing from leading reds. imagine a new non-league club with that type of weekly support... it wouldn't be long before the club would be back in the league...
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Apr 15, 2005 13:58:15 GMT 1
But it all leads back to the point that if the fans don't want someone strolling into their club and do this then they should not have floated on the stock market.
The stock market is full of people like Glazier who are out to make money through exploiting it anyway they can.
and if people are stating that with the TV rights deal that it will create a bigger void between them and ordinary clubs, then what have the millions these clubs have made out of floating done? Answer: They have created the ever increasing void by being able to pay big fee's and over inflated wages.
Top flight Football has been heading this way for a long time now due to the greed of the top clubs. Was it not Man Utd that moaned about the Champions League not being seeded so the fans get to watch the big games later in the competition? which loosely translates as we should be able to go further as we are a big club and we should make more money because nobody likes watching the little teams.
The top clubs are just greedy full stop
|
|
|
Post by CuyBlue nli on Apr 15, 2005 14:07:25 GMT 1
The fans didn't float the club though. Were fans happy with the money generated? Probably. Do fans have the right to be pi$$ed off? Absolutely.
Many Man Utd fans do not like the direction that the club has taken, and I do think that a new club is a distinct possibility.
Should there be a European League? It'll happen sooner or later, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Alti Shrew on Apr 15, 2005 14:07:51 GMT 1
I think you'll find it was not the fans who floated the club, but a certain Mr Edwards and Company who were out to make a quick buck.
There are many people like myself who have been following United for longer than we care to remember, now not wanting to be nostalgic but i long for the days when you could walk up to the gates and pay to get in at half the relative cost of football today, stand on the terrace and watch a decent game of football at OT. Hence why when i'm not at United i watch salop... i have no other link than an uncle who used to go when he lived in Shrewsbury, but it feels more like realfootball than the premiership ever does. But it doesn't stop the fact that first and foremost i'm a united fan, and i don't want the final piece of our soul sold out to a short fat yank out to make a killing off the back of football fans like you and me.
either way, you have to recognise that this is bad for football, not just United...
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Apr 15, 2005 14:25:04 GMT 1
I totally agree.
One day someone is going to get hold of one of these top flight PLC clubs and take them for a ride. It WILL happen sooner or later.
But all the fans who got excited by the up side of the stock market meaning they could by expensive talent are not seeing the downside of the stock market in that anyone can try and get their hands on the club. Its a double edged sword, and you shouldn't moan when it happens because that was the risk the board was taking, and if the fans didn't want this then the floating should have been opposed, not the takeover bid.
Even if Glazier doesn't take over, there will be countless after him with the same intentions and they can't all be opposed
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on Apr 15, 2005 14:39:00 GMT 1
I don't recall any demonstrations/protests when Shrewsbury were selling shares. But I would imagine many demonstrations if a potential hostile takeover, or even merger, were to surface.
A hostile takeover is worth protesting - even if you willingly bought shares in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Apr 15, 2005 14:55:31 GMT 1
Shrewsbury are not on the stock market and are privately owned. The board issued a set number of shares to raise revenue for the club, and allow fans to have a stake in the club.
In order for someone to buy the club the board would sell up in the same way that you would sell your car or house.
In the public domain the shares are out there for anyone to buy, hence Glazier buying them all up
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on Apr 15, 2005 15:36:18 GMT 1
Pete - I understand the point you're making re Pvt vs Public. I might be wrong, but if shares are out there, they can be bought/traded? Not sure really on the legal stuff here.
But, I think we can agree that whether it be Chester or Manchester, US investers are not welcomed.
A thought here - could all the individual Shrewsbury share holders "give" their shares to the Fans Trust?
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Apr 15, 2005 15:50:46 GMT 1
I doubt very much that enough shares were issued to allow someone to take over.
I could be wrong. not too up on private share issues if someone could clear this up?
|
|
|
Post by Stevenelsonfanclub on Apr 15, 2005 16:52:07 GMT 1
I'm with you on this Pete, the Man Utd fans want the best of both worlds.
They were quite happy to take the benefits of the flotation and then, for some bizarre reason, seem to think that Man Utd is a club with a conscience and have the fans' values at heart! They have reaped the rewards of that flotation and the global brand strategy and flotation benefits and now they are challenging their status because it doesn't suit them.
They can indeed form another club if they wish, but I imagine the well-oiled marketing machine at Old Trafford will really go into overdrive!
With a hostile take-over, there is a shareholding threshold, after which other shareholders legally have to sell their shares to the majority shareholder. I'm not sure what the levels are though these days!
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Apr 15, 2005 17:18:01 GMT 1
I'm with you on this Pete, the Man Utd fans want the best of both worlds. They were quite happy to take the benefits of the flotation and then, for some bizarre reason, seem to think that Man Utd is a club with a conscience and have the fans' values at heart! They have reaped the rewards of that flotation and the global brand strategy and flotation benefits and now they are challenging their status because it doesn't suit them. Disagree. When United floated on the stock exchange the protests were long and vociferous and the scenario facing them now was predicted. Very few match going fans supported a flotation that was engineered by one man alone, Martin Edwards. The man who put not one penny into the club but who walked away with nearly £100 million in salary and shares. Sure the fans have since enjoyed some of the benefits but they would still have been the best supported and most commercially successful without floatation. Rush to mock now but bear in mind that the fight that loyal United fans are making at this time has massive implications for english football. As is often the case, where United lead in off field initiatives others will inevitably follow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2005 17:53:32 GMT 1
I'm with you on this Pete, the Man Utd fans want the best of both worlds. They were quite happy to take the benefits of the flotation and then, for some bizarre reason, seem to think that Man Utd is a club with a conscience and have the fans' values at heart! They have reaped the rewards of that flotation and the global brand strategy and flotation benefits and now they are challenging their status because it doesn't suit them. They can indeed form another club if they wish, but I imagine the well-oiled marketing machine at Old Trafford will really go into overdrive! With a hostile take-over, there is a shareholding threshold, after which other shareholders legally have to sell their shares to the majority shareholder. I'm not sure what the levels are though these days! To follow your argument though, you'd also agree that all Telford fans who supported Andy Shaw's plans at Telford (99%)wanted the best of both worlds and thus when they went bust, should have essentially just been ok with that? b******s mate.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Apr 15, 2005 18:02:43 GMT 1
This is just typical of a very arrogant Man Utd. This is what happens when you are so used to getting your own way all the time and then wham reality comes to the party with an invite so you have to let it in. Utd and the fans decided to float the club, no one forced them and now when they don't like something that is perfectly fair they start moaning and spreading scare tactics. Utd may now realize that the sun does'nt revolve around them and swallow a reality tablet provided by a free market economy. Bugger off man utd and take your self rightious attitude with you.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Apr 15, 2005 18:10:00 GMT 1
Utd and the fans decided to float the club, no one forced them and now when they don't like something that is perfectly fair they start moaning and spreading scare tactics. I think your original post mentioned self rightious. Quite appropriate don't you think ? Don't let any facts stand in the way of your prejudices will you.
|
|
|
Post by skunkie on Apr 15, 2005 18:22:10 GMT 1
Man United used to be the best,now they are not.They see millions of pounds being pumped in to transfer dealings,the teams like chelsea now bringing in Fantasy teams into reality,and Man U are green with Envy becaues as a world wide marketable brand the PLC sees the re-embursement of share holders as their only priority.If you play with the big fish,watch out for the financial sharks.
|
|
|
Post by Stevenelsonfanclub on Apr 15, 2005 20:20:29 GMT 1
Mr Welshshrew. I agree totally with your statement, even though it was obviously an attempt to undermine my stance on this subject
My thoughts on Andy Shaw were well-documented on here, and elsewhere, well before the news of his bankrupcy.
I was always of the opinion that I believed in him for each day that I awoke and he was still there! I never felt his intentions were truly honourable, but he did back the club to a greater degree than anyone else has in recent times. I was fully aware of the perilous position the club was in, but was powerless to do anything about it!
Indeed, I also tried to assist the old club after his demise and then became heavily involved with TUISA and the Trust afterwards. I was there at 23:15 one Friday night last May, with Lee Carter, Shakey, Tricky, Ian Tyrer, David, TonyW and Phil Tooley from Supporter's direct, when we realised that the old club was a lost cause and we had to try and plot a new beginning, that is one of the hardest things anyone has to do.
I acceopt fully that we are where we are now becuase, on merit, we deserve to be here (or lower) I have no issue with this, I do not believe we "belong" to play at any given level of the football pyramid, unlike fans of other clubs I could mention.
In addition, I have enjoyed this season immensely, expecially since Christmas, I have supported the club financially more than I ever have done before. I am proud of what has been achieved.
I am not bitter about the past, I accept it and move, I celebrated heavily when we beat Crewe, I felt lower than ever when we wound the club up, i accepted the good times, along with the bad, thats the deal.
Of course, I wish we were still in the Converence, but I am sure we will fight our way back through the leagues to that sort of level in time. It won't be easy, but we won't rest until we do it!
This, of course, is not b******s, as you put it, it is a statement of fact, I am not bitter, but this situation has made me more reflective on football.
I have no suympathy for MUFC fans, as I expect none for me, accept the good times, accept the bad times, unless you are the majority shareholder, there's bugger all you can do about it! If your club is your club, you keep on going and accept it!
|
|