Edwards on Glazers and United's Debt

[Frogfish]

"It concerns me that the club are in so much debt," he said. "The club are not in control; that family are in control of the debt. I can understand where the fans are coming from with their concerns. The crunch time will come when they [the Glazers] exit. Will they saddle the club with the debt or just sell the club on for a profit because that's all they are interested in? How will they leave the club?"

 

[Squiggles]

The thing with United is it's certain in the short-term that they need more upheaval than we do, simply because they have more senior players to replace, as well land the right manager to replace Ferguson.

They're still heavily reliant on Giggs, Scholes, VDS, which will take some shrewd and possibly hefty spending.

It depends how their profits fare for the next few years but I'm not convinced I'd rather be in their position than ours.

It's amazing, and a credit to the clubs PR, how little press coverage their finances receive.

 

[Judge Jules]

I wouldn't disagree in general, but I suspect it has a lot to do with Murdoch's sizeable investment in them via Sky.

 

[LarryHagman]

[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=36336.msg959950#msg959950 date=1255012507]
I wouldn't disagree in general, but I suspect it has a lot to do with Murdoch's sizeable investment in them via Sky.
[/quote]

I mentioned something similar to a mate. Man U will never go under, Sky would bankroll them if they were stuggling. It would keep their telly afloat.

Is there something in the air though? Both Man U and Chelsea have made statements this week about what they would do were their benefactors removed, or decided to leave.

 

[Asbo]

Isn't it to do with the new CL ruling that Clubs in debt won't be eligible?

 

[737Max]

[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=36336.msg959950#msg959950 date=1255012507]
I wouldn't disagree in general, but I suspect it has a lot to do with Murdoch's sizeable investment in them via Sky.
[/quote]

I thought SKY weren't allowed to purchase shares in football clubs due to it being a conflict of interest? And when they the MMMC looked into it SKY were only allowed 20% ownership?

They're not bankrolling Utd now as they sold all their share to the Glazers right?

 

[Judge Jules]

Sky were certainly allowed to invest directly at one point. I remember because Granada had a (rather smaller) investment in us, and there were one or two discussions on KopTalk at the time about whether posters would accept Sky's investment instead/as well, if it meant more money (most people said yes, if I remember rightly).

TBH I wasn't aware of Sky selling out to the Glazers, so I can't comment on that directly. As Larry indicates above, though, Sky would soon find a way to step in if some unexpected problem were to seriously threaten United and, by extension, the profitability of Sky's investment in footy coverage.

 

[Ryan]

[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=36336.msg960089#msg960089 date=1255029060]
Sky were certainly allowed to invest directly at one point. I remember because Granada had a (rather smaller) investment in us, and there were one or two discussions on KopTalk at the time about whether posters would accept Sky's investment instead/as well, if it meant more money (most people said yes, if I remember rightly).

TBH I wasn't aware of Sky selling out to the Glazers, so I can't comment on that directly. As Larry indicates above, though, Sky would soon find a way to step in if some unexpected problem were to seriously threaten United and, by extension, the profitability of Sky's investment in footy coverage.
[/quote]

9% if I remember correctly.