rss twitter facebook mobile

Red Issue’s Open Letter To Sir Alex

Dear Sir Alex,

As lifelong Manchester United fans, we are disappointed and concerned by quotes attributed to you in a recent interview. Many of us are the same fans who protested to denounce Cubic Expression back in 2005. These are the same fans who had previously offered you their unwavering support during your private dispute over Rock of Gibraltar’s breeding rights, despite Cubic Expression raising some very pertinent questions. In the spirit of fairness, we would like to invite you to clarify these comments by responding to a brief summary of our concerns:

1. You suggested that ‘the majority of real fans will look at it [Glazer ownership] and see that it’s not affecting the team’. Can you clarify what constitutes a real fan?

2. With thousands of fans leaving the club in protest over the Glazer regime, do you consider these time-served reds to be less than real fans?

3. Have you personally met with any of the dissenters to determine how deep their commitment and affection for United may be?

4. What are your thoughts on an atmosphere which gets markedly worse each season as more and more local, traditional fans are marginalised and alienated from the club?

5. You are also quoted in the interview as claiming ‘I’m absolutely comfortable with the Glazers situation. They’ve been great’. You are clearly aware of the opposition from the United fan base – does that not make you uncomfortable in any way?

6. What, in your view, would constitute poor owners?

7. You have repeatedly claimed to have been backed financially whenever you have requested transfer funds. Is this your only consideration when determining what represents great ownership?

8. You continued the interview by saying that, ‘the salaries, agent fees – is just getting ridiculous now’. Whilst we agree in tone, it does represent a sea change in attitude from pre Glazer transfers. Agent fees in both the Ferdinand and Rooney transfers were criticised at the time for being excessive, so why does the club now refuse to meet market conditions for the top players?

9. Do you believe Jorge Mendes’s £2.6m cut of the Bébé transfer, a full 35% of the total fee paid, represented good value?

10. With more than £250k leaving the club each day to service the Glazer debt, totalling over £500m since the takeover, is it so reprehensible for us to question your constant references to ‘value’?

Given your personal background and previous support for fan involvement we hope you take the trouble to respond to our deep concerns about both the club’s situation and the wording of the interview quoted.

Concerned Manchester United Fans

About Scott

Scott is the editor of Red Matters - 50 Years of Supporting Manchester United and an author of Play Like Fergie's Boys and Not Nineteen Forever. He writes for ESPN, The Metro and Bleacher Report. Follow @R_o_M on Twitter.

View all posts by Scott »



  1. Giggs12Gerrard0 says:

    From the banks of the river irwell to the shores of Sicily……

  2. CedarsDevil says:


    Do not waste your time mate……..I will not give you the time of day…..Keep having digs at me though, good for a laugh

  3. Mikekelly12 says:

    We will fight fight fight for United until we win the football league…….

  4. feedthatllama says:

    Man U is da best. Go rooney. I think dat SAF needs to invest in 2-3 world class playerz. Please just a few mor playerz so we can compeet with City. For me martinez and kaka and maybee messi. Yes Glory Glory Man U!!!

  5. CedarsDevil says:


    All together now

  6. Mikekelly12 says:

    Maybe we’re wrong pal. Maybe we’re missing something and Sir Alex is a cunt?! Maybe when World Class comes back with his insider information he will clear things up like he did earlier with his paraphrased “straight from the horses mouth” bombshell.

  7. CedarsDevil says:


    Its a piss take mate…………Such ungrateful cunts make me sick

  8. parryheid says:


    Are you suggesting as an employee he is not worthy or hasn’t earned an allocation of shares in the club?All the privatised industry employees got a share when floated.All major companies give share allocations to employees and in the insurance industry every body same thing.Banks even every account holder with a minimum sum in the account got a bounty provided you were over a certain age probably even you Did you refuse it?

  9. World Class says:

    You said my comments were based purely on conjecture alone. I proved to you that it was not the case. In the same interview with SAF he said that the Hazard deal fell trough because we valued him at well below the figure he went for. As for the bebe deal, I can only go with what I read. ofc I can’t tell you WHY the Bebe deal was conducted amicably and back it up with an article from the BBC… As for your question: Would I place all my money on the fact that it is just a trick to get people to buy season tickets? Certainly not. I guess we will know after the transfer window has closed.

  10. World Class says:

    Are you illiterate? Never did I say that I have some insider info.

  11. CedarsDevil says:

    Yes Mike is illiterate, did you not know that? He is just of them simple folk who loves United with a passion…….

    World Class

    Ever been to a match you tit? Highly doubt it, probably one of them arm chair fans with an idiotic opinion

  12. Eddie Crewcut says:


    The 1970′s was before my time, but I’ve been a supporter through some pretty cack days in the 1980′s (I remember being at a particularly crap game against Southampton in about 1988 – getting hammered 2-0 at home). I cried my eyes out. I’ll love United come what may, no matter what happens. I also happen to think that I’m a blind moron for having such an attitude.

    We see these massive increases in revenue streams at the club, and see that the money is going elsewhere. I think that many fans would grudgingly accept the ticket increases if we were watching world class players everday.

    They can argue about agents fees, wages and transfer fees, but the simple fact is that these things are led by market forces. They’re here to stay. If you want to buy a Rolls Royce in football these days, you have to pay the going rate. If you won’t pay the going rate, you have to buy a cheaper car.

    “Product” was a turn of phrase, don’t read anything in to it. The sentiment remains the same though. They’re asking us to pay more for something that simply isn’t as good, and they’re doing it off the back of mine and everyone elses blind loyalty.

  13. Mikekelly12 says:

    World Class
    I fail to see where you have “proved” this? Or why Sir Alex’ comments were silly?

  14. World Class says:

    Haha… Here comes Cedars, the ultimate Fan with a capital F. Debating is not his forte, but he is great at talking shit and attacking posters when their opinion differs from his own. (NOTE: You’re on a blog) You are laughable.

  15. World Class says:

    read my comments again, I have clearly stated why his comments re agent fees are silly. The level of the debate on this blog is seriously lacking.

  16. Mikekelly12 says:

    World Class
    Now now… Thats just getting personal. I am not illiterate, however I am dyslexic. I really do wish you hadn’t made this a personal attack! No, you did not say that, but as you based your argument on facts and figures, I assumed that you would only use them as the basis of an argument if they were indeed fact. In which case you must have had insider knowledge?

  17. World Class says:

    I have based my arguments on two articles:
    the bbc one posted earlier and the interview with SAF:

    Still think that #9 is a very valid point, and something most here just brushed under the carpet.

  18. Costas says:

    @World Class

    Point 9 is a valid one. It’s something I myself mentioned when Fergie slated Hazard’s agent for his demands. All of a sudden, we are acting as if we never did business with agents.


    Morning mate. I just thought I’d save him the trouble. Maybe he should start posting under that username instead of making a fool out of himself.

  19. World Class says:

    Thanks. Not totally crazy then after all.

  20. Mikekelly12 says:

    World Class
    I will rise above your inappropriate comment, which makes your user name slightly oxymoronic as you are indeed classless! However, I will persevere and attempt to get my point across, which really should not have been that difficult.
    You say Sir Alex’s comments are silly because United “purportedly” paid Jorge Mendes £3m in fees. Correct me if I’m wrong but I haven’t seen Sir Alex quoted on the question of this “purported” payment to Bebe’s agent. Sir Alex then says that the deal for Hazard didn’t go through because United didn’t value him at the price he was being sold, not because of agents fees? He does point out that Agent fees are “ridiculous” and that Chelsea are understood to have paid £6m in fees. So tell me, why is this silly?

  21. Wakey says:


    Yes I know how much the interest payments are but it’s a meaningless number in reality ESPECIALLY in relations to transfer fees.

    Let’s have a look at some facts
    - During the Glazers ownership we have the 3rd highest transfer spend in English football. Only City and Chelsea have spent more
    - We have had between 120 and 150 million in the bank during most of the glazer ownership
    - we have had bids over 20mill accepted for Benzema, Villa, Hazard, Silva, Nasri, Sneidjer

    So we are the 3rd highest spenders only beaten by the two sugar daddy clubs who have spent stupid money and our spend could have been over 150mill more (admittedly if we had got some of those we wouldn’t have been after some of the others). Unless you think the ‘leaches” as people like to call the Glazers are so concerned with looking good to the United fans do you really believe tey would leave so much money in the bank when the interest rates are so low that the rate of inflation is higher meaning it’s losing them value. It was there for transfer fees.

    The sticking point in the bids where the player didn’t come have been a combination of players preferring Spain or simply down to wages. Wages that the only way we can increase how much we can offer is by increasing revenue. Revenue being the figure BEFORE interest deductions so the Interest means nothing to wages

    As for why it’s generally meaningless. It’s a figure without any context. In reality most if not all that 500mill would have gone out the club in pretty much any other ownership type (sugar daddy owners excluded) via things like dividends. If the revenue increases and costs decreases had been maintained the dividend and tax bill would have been in the same ball park. People will say that the Dividend wouldn’t have to be paid but the club always did pay a dividend and the fact that we can service the debt means the money for the dividends would have been there so there is no reason they wouldn’t have paid them

    If Dividends were much lower then the only reason for this would mean that either revenues were down on the Glazers or costs were higher thus profits were hit but in that case it hardly makes the club any better off.

  22. World Class says:

    I’m sorry that you have dyslexia. But I felt you played me for a fool when blatantly saying that I claimed to have inside information. Hence the question.

    Why is it silly? See Costas’ comment. Was able to put it clearly in two sentences. I guess he is a better man than I am. Also, I’d say the BBC is a pretty reliable source and that there is no smoke without fire.

  23. Red Devil says:


    Without even going into all other points – I have answered them in another thread –
    Just because Dividend were paid in the past, doesn’t mean we would have to continue to pay dividend – especially not at the rate of ~75 m per year that we are paying on the debt (or 55 mn per year to account for taxes at 27%) as has been the case with debt.

    Besides, its not as if the Glazers have not been paying themselves a dividend over and above the interest costs and constant use of club money to buy back debt. Interest fee loans (later waived) and other payments quite clearly documented but you always choose to ignore those.

    Just to re-iterate my point that dividends were not necessary – I take it you are not a big fan of shares that dont pay dividend – and hence consider this ridiculously overpriced IPO by the Glazers as a stupid move as i not only does bring back all the listing fees, etc etc that we were keen to avoid, but also raises the tax rate to 35% and doesn’t plan to pay any dividend at all.
    NO ONE should be subscribing to this IPO because not only does it pay no dividends, but also has just 1/10th the voting power of the shares owned by the Glazers

  24. g-man says:

    Fergie’s been a great manager. The best. But he’s not bulletproof. If he hadn’t fucked up over the horse mess we would probably not be in this jam. And what a jam it is. I guess life was never meant to be easy for us fans. Where the fuck is the FA in all this? How could they have ever let the sale to the Glazers go ahead in the first place? (I know this territory has been well covered but gee what total neglect of the game by the ruling body!).

  25. DreadedRed says:

    Red Issues letter is written by semi-literate, disingenuous rabble-rousers.

    A shameful, underhanded and manipulative attempt to deceive United fans, with an obvious disregard for truth. A sneaky, deceitful attempt to to trap our gaffer into providing ammunition that will be used against him in the selfish hope that the Glazers too will suffer.

    Pertinent, fair questions could have been asked, but weren’t. Instead, they chose to lie, and ask questions based on their lies.


    Questions 1, 2 and 3 are based on the false premise that SAF implied that the anti-Glazer fans are not real fans. The semi-literate self-serving deceivers chose to distort the gaffers comments. Actually, Sir Alex describes two groups of fans. A minority of real fans are anti-Glazer, the majority of real fans are more realistic. These 3 questions are valueless, and are designed to distort the truth and trip up Sir Alex. They are cancerous, selfish, dishonest and intended to destroy the fabric of our Club.

    Question 4 should be directed at the cause of the stated malaise. The anti-Glazer activists are absolutely responsible for the departure of previously Red fans. Further, the rules in place at Old Trafford to protect match-goers from harm caused by unruly crowds, have changed the way that supporters behave. These rules now exist because of changes to England’s laws, which was a reaction to crowd-control failures that caused death and suffering. The stadiums are unfortunately not designed to safely hold dancing, jumping, leaping or even standing fans. It seems that United are keen to improve the atmosphere at OT, and have already attempted to create a safe and legal area for boisterous fans. This problem requires alterations to the existing seating, which will reduce the stadiums capacity. Despite the loss of revenue and the capital expenditure required, I believe it is only a matter of time before the necessary alterations are sanctioned by the owners.

    Question 5 is written by puerile malcontents dismayed at hearing that the Glazers do not restrict Sir Alex. Instead of being pleased to hear that SAF is not negatively affected, the questioners childishly bleat “We don’t like them, you don’t care about our feelings, we are important, you mustn’t be truthful, don’t you care about our agenda?”

    Questions 6 and 7 are irrelevant and an obvious attempt to find a stick to beat SAF or the Glazers. The fact is that whatever does constitute poor owners in SAF’s view, does not apply to the Glazers. Instead of being openly happy to hear this, Red Issue immediately look for other avenues to attack from. This shows that their intention is not to find the truth, but to find ways of attacking United, Sir Alex and the Glazers.

    Question 8 is asking United to pay whatever is asked for new players. That philosophy would be a perfect answer to Question 6 – what would constitute poor owners? Disregarding value and price in the hope that it brings short term success is a trait we can do without.

    Question 9 is based on a lie. It implies that Mendes cut was not warranted. Mendes partly owned Bebe, and the owners of a player’s contract are entitled to receive a percentage of the players sale price, in direct proportion to their percentage of said ownership. If 3 people own a horse, and they sell it, the sale price is shared by the 3 owners.

    Question 10 is written by an idiot. Who cares if the questioning is reprehensible? Certainly not those who are asking the questions. Ask as many questions as you like, but do so intelligently and from a base of factual knowledge. In order to consider a player as ‘good value’, one must be familiar with the thousands of considerations that apply. Only those with pertinent understanding of the transfer being mooted should attempt to evaluate the cost’s validity and worth. Sir Alex’s ability in this regard is oft-proven; the vast majority of those who question his evaluation do so without knowledge, understanding, ability or intellect.

  26. Zibbie says:

    Dr Dread my hero.

  27. parryheid says:

    World Class.

    The BBC are a pretty reliable source? Of course they are didn’t they already prove that with their expose on managers and agents on the take over the past few years.

  28. SeanOneil says:

    We need Fergie to Stand up to the owners much like the fat spanish waiter did to his american owners

  29. sam says:

    Its amazing how pathetic some people are, I go on city blogs to have a laugh at what shit they say. Any city fan who does the same would have a fucking field day here. We disagree over issues, so what, doesnt mean everyone has to start insulting each other, like its a civil war. Also I saw a comment that basically said if you’ve never been to a match your opinion is worthless. Im gonna level with you guys ive never been to old trafford, my parents arent in to football and dont earn a lot of money, so Ive never wanted to burden them with a trip to old trafford. My dad works 7 days a week which isnt legal im pretty sure, so he couldnt even find time to go at the moment. However that doesnt mean im less passionate about Man United than someone who’s a season ticket holder, and its insulting that someone believes my opinion is inferior because i havent been to a game, if you still believe that after Ive explained my side of it to you, I think your very ignorant, and ignorant people arent worth listening to.

  30. Wakey says:

    @Red Devil

    And once again when a company has a policy of regularry paying a dividend they DON’T usually decide to suddenly change or change its percentage of profits that are paid as dividends. We can all pretend that suddenly the PLC would have said ‘sod the shareholders, we are making a profit that we won’t ever spend on player or facility improvements but we are just going to sit on it’ but let’s get realistic because that doesn’t happen. And the simple fact is that the club couldn’t spend the massive amounts in the bank as it was so its not even as if increased spend on players was going to reduce profit and reduce the dividend due. The £500mill extra would have been sitting in the bank because the restrictive element is the wage budget which once again is on REVENUE not profit.

    And I haven’t ignored the management fees in my posts but they are largely irrelevant as the management fees REPLACE management fees under the PLC for specialist services provided.

    As for the IPO it will sell and well to the target audience. It’s aiming at a different kind of investor than the PLC was for example. Not all investor are looking for Dividends or voting rights, they just want stock which will rise in value regularry which you would expect even at that price it will as there is a lot of room still for growth (as the $600mill chevy deal shows)

  31. NotoriousRedDevil says:

    Why are most in denial over the Bebe transfer?

    We paid £7 million, its been reported in several publications including the investigation over the transfer with Guimares.

    We took a punt looks like it didn’t work out end of story.

    Not the first time we’ve taken a punt and it won’t be the last either.

    No need for everyone to say we didn’t fork out the fee when we blatantly did because as players go Bebe has to be one of the worst to pull on a United shirt.

    He’s made it as a player, just not United class.

  32. rickmedlocke says:

    It would definately be preferable if Fergie stuck to talking about footballing matters rather than wade into this. The man is an absolute legend but this reflects poorly upon him, especially given his background as a shop steward.

  33. Red Devil says:

    Management fees and interest free loans (later waived) are different things and the scale of those fees is much larger in todays context than under the PLC

    So finally you do accept that there would have been 500 mn in the bank, rather than 420 odd mn owed that we have now….?
    And why would we not have spent those 500 mn…? Is there a legal rule that doesn’t allow PLC’s to spend more than 50% of REVENUE on wages…? That was just an internal ball park rule. We could easily go upto 60% or so if we did not have such massive interest payments below EBITDA and still generate a healthy profit for the club…

    The dividends could have been reduced or even stopped…there are many examples of companies successfully changing their dividend policies…it DOES happen mate…just because you arent aware of it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. The shares would just have changed hands to people who are patient enough to wait for an increase in value as you argue for the current IPO above. And the increase in value that they would have achieved then is far greater than any increase in value any investor can hope to achieve from the level of 3.3 bn valuation being put on the club now..

    “Not all investor are looking for Dividends or voting rights, they just want stock which will rise in value regularry which you would expect even at that price it will as there is a lot of room still for growth” (as the $600mill chevy deal shows)

    Wow…Forbes had valued us at 2.2 bn in march and its suddenly 3.3 bn in July…50% growth in value in 3 months in today’s economic conditions when every asset class is losing value hand over fist and we are in recessionary state…? Wow….The valuers at Forbes must be absolutely stupid to undervalue the club by 50%???

    The IPO should be more oversubscribed than Facebook!! Even that company cant generate 50% growth in value in 3 months AND promise of furher spectacular calue growth in the future!

  34. YorYor says:

    One final observation – I’m personally finding it a joke that Facebook is valued at more than United is, even at 3.3b. A virtual product that could and will lose its appeal in 4-5 years time, vs one that will always appeal to the privileged few (million) of the world population until there aren’t enough population to sustain the wages of the few footballers.
    Some took offence at my notion of support, but everyone supports things differently. I do call United my club, but I don’t really believe I have any right to demand for things to be done in a certain way, because it’s not really mine. And I’m just being realistic about it. Because life is not about IFs and MAYBEs and PERHAPSs and APPARENTLYs. I do what I can in the way I choose to. Those calling SAF names and derogatory terms, really now. Who next? The great Sir Bobby Charlton for not speaking up against the Glazers as well?
    And no one has bothered about the cockiness shown by Vincent Kompany after signing a new deal. 7 years consecutive my arse.

  35. mattbw7 says:

    CedarsDevil says:

    Do not waste your time mate……..I will not give you the time of day…..Keep having digs at me though, good for a laugh

    But Cedars I do believe it was you that started the digs, well ok if that’s how you want to leave it, says more about you and your inability to engage and discuss the issue at hand or face the reality of it.

    At least we cleared that up if nothing else.

  36. Mickjk says:

    This is the beginning of the end for the Glazers. I can feel it in me bones.

  37. The team that wouldn't die says:

    I’m going to give you a new angle on this Saga. Even though it might sound far out it’s not written to make you laugh or anything like that. I want the Glazers out as much as any fan.

    In Astrlogy the movement of Saturn show you where and when crisis and stumbling blocks will occure. Every 28th year there is a grave problem. And every 7th year there is a reflection on that problem. 7 years ago Saturn showed itself at the accendant of Manchester United (24.04.1902). That’s the year when the Glazers came. Now 7 years later, there is a problem because of the great harm created then.
    This might be the time we get rid of them!

    28 + 7 years ago United were in turnmoil. Docherty had been sacked and every last rest of the holy trinity and the glory days were gone. Some 7 years after that Ron Atkinsons management started to crumble. We all know the happy outcome of that crisis…

    Alex Ferguson saved us. Although it took 7 years to win the league…

    I think the Glazers want out. They want to get a very high price for United on the marked, and then sell.
    I think SAF knows. I think he’s only concern is Uniteds future. He needs to stay and stear through these problems. He couldn’t care less for those demons. That’s why he’s backing them. Only way to keep them happy and get rid. Toss them that bone of 25m for each ugly duckling they made ungrace the earth. And then someone with a heart for United can buy the club.

    Shame on those who think SAF will get anything out of this. Rememeber that Mankini guy earns more, and he’s only got 2 trophies, bought for the price of Uniteds interest the last seven years, to show for. If Saf cared for crazy money, he would have asked for it.


    One love Manchester United

  38. brett1985 says:

    Red Issue = Shite

  39. Wakey says:

    @Red Devil

    Seriously either learn to read or just piss off.

    What I wrote and it’s quite clear to anyone not trying to twist my words is that IF they choose to say ‘Sod the Shareholders’ and stopped paying dividends then there would be $500m in the bank. I repeat IF the PLC had chosen to stop paying dividends and had been able to realise revenues and cut costs there would have been £500m.

    However I know and you know that they wouldn’t have stopped paying dividends or reduced them. It’s just anti Glazer bullshit as companies generally only do so with a very good reason and there would be no real reason if the PLC had the same ballpark revenue and costs. 

    At the end of the day we can’t view a parallel universe and see what exactly would have happened under them PLC so we have to stick to forecasts based on the PLC’s past actions if we are going to discuss the Glazer cost, we can’t start using assumptions with no historical evidence to back them just because it suits your desired outcome. Otherwise discussion of the cost of the Glazers has to be off limit because it’s simply not a fair discussion.

    And we wouldn’t have spent the £500m if they choose to forgo dividends because they couldn’t spend £150m.  And no there isn’t a law to restrict wages to 50% but it’s a widely accepted ratio to be safe. Increasing it above that is dangerous as it leaves little room for exceptional events happening. And the PLC wouldn’t have budged imho either, they were having wage issues too with Chelsea stealing players who United had all but got deals signed with using the lure of wages. 

    And I’m not arguing that the value isn’t high. Forbes value will be closer to the actual value BUT the IPO value will include some speculation of growth in its value

  40. brett1985 says:

    Let me tell you something. These people involved in Red Issue presume they speak for Manchester United fans when in reality they do not. Those questions are not even a thinly veiled disgusting attack on Sir Alex Ferguson. It is just such a pity that Manchester United fans are so prone to jumping on one bandwagon or another because Red Issue don’t represent Real Fans at all.

    The level of arrogance in that article is disgusting with every question assuming that the answer would be self evident.

    For example take question 2:

    2. With thousands of fans leaving the club in protest over the Glazer regime, do you consider these time-served reds to be less than real fans?

    No. These fans were cunts. They were the worst fans who deserted the club at what they themselves considered to be the most crucial time. Whenever the first rule of support is to be loyal they fucked off and started a new club. Yet, Publications like Red Issue lauded these asshats.

    6. What would constitute poor owners? For me Roman Abramovic a man who on a whim got rid of arguably the best manager in the game Jose Mourinho. Who invested kamikaze amounts one minute and lost interest the next. For all the faults of the Glazer ownership I find them to be consistent and professional. Yet, I believe it would only take a billionaire throwing money around to please these clowns at Red Issue regardless of collateral damage.

    The thing is that the Red Issue agenda just doesn’t merit a response. Will the lack of response be because the questions are too hot to handle? No. But that is what they will assume. In reality it is because I believe Sir Alex will regard such an agenda as pure horse manure as most Real Fans should.

  41. Red Devil says:


    Learn to accept the truth or piss off

    Look who’ trying to accuse others of twisting facts to suit their own conclusions….

    Buying a world class player would have been enough reason to not pay dividend/pay smaller dividends in some years

    Hostorical evidence is there pal..there are hundreds of examples of actual companies choosing to reduce/Not pay dividends because they have heavy investments/capex in some years — IT is YOU who is choosing to ignore facts because it suits your desired outcome. Interest payments cannot be stopped because we have heavy capex in some years

    “And no there isn’t a law to restrict wages to 50% but it’s a widely accepted ratio to be safe. Increasing it above that is dangerous as it leaves little room for exceptional events happening”
    Yes…And the current set-up with more than 50 mn pounds of interest repayments annually leaves a LOT OF ROOM for EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS DOES IT??

    “And I’m not arguing that the value isn’t high. Forbes value will be closer to the actual value BUT the IPO value will include some speculation of growth in its value” – SOME GROWTH i hear you say…? 50% growth in value in 3 months? (and even more is being assumed if you except anyone to make money on this) —- You must have learnt your theories of finance from a parallel universe pal

    Your OWN arguments are self -defeating now mate…Give it a rest…or follow your own suggestiuon and PISS OFF

  42. bigphil2003 says:

    This letter’s absolute crap and I agree fully with brett1985.

  43. Wakey says:

    @Red Devil

    Buying a world class player ISN’T a reason not to pay dividends BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY IN THE BUDGET TO DO THAT AND STILL PAY THEM

    Seriously is there something wrong with you mentally that makes you unable to see the fact that even with the interest payments that there was £150mill in the bank. That was enough to buy Benzema, Sneidjer, Villa and Hazard and STILL have some left over (and also having bought Carrick, Berba, Anderson, Nani, Vidic, Evra, Valancia, De Gea, Young, Jones, Smalling, Hernandez, Bebe, Lindergard, Kagawa, Powell and anyone I missed)

    The club hasn’t been starved of transfer funds AND there isn’t any indication that an extra 40-50mill a year would have been used on transfers. If the club had been spending the money it had available every season or atleast close to it then I would agree that the interest money would be useful and it would go on transfers BUT we haven’t been spending the money available so it WOULD HAVE gone into profit and then tax and dividends paid out of that profit

    As for the IPO vale we aren’t talking about a 50% rise in 3 months though. Firstly you are talking about two different figures, Forbes which is an actual value and the IPO value which is a more a predictive one. And the two figures are from a 12 month gap, Forbes is based on the last full year of accounts before Forbes report so that’s 2010/11 where as the value here is based on the provisional accounts for 2011/12. This ‘forecasted’ value will take the Chevy Deal, the new AON deal, the New TV deal and the various other new deals agreed in the past 12 months and will no doubt also be using forecasts for the expected value of upcoming deals (such as the Nike Deal) in the coming years.

    It’s a high value and certainly will put many who are looking for a quick turn around off but they don’t seem to be aiming it at these people anyway by put rather long term investors who just want a steady stock

  44. Red Devil says:


    And the current set-up with more than 50 mn pounds of interest repayments annually leaves a LOT OF ROOM for EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS DOES IT?? – - so you accept the above point that the current set up leaves very little room to increase wages to compete with other clubs and leaves no room for exceptional events?

    Buying a world class player ISN’T a reason not to pay dividends BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY IN THE BUDGET TO DO THAT AND STILL PAY THEM – precisely what I’ve been saying – in the past we could afford to buy world class players and still pay dividends if needed. In case there was some exceptionally heavy spending in some year, then we could have chosen not to pay/reduce dividends in some years which is not possible in the current regime.

    “Seriously is there something wrong with you mentally that makes you unable to see the fact that even with the interest payments that there was £150mill in the bank. ” –
    that 150 mn in the bank was not contributed by the Glazers…80 mn of it was just down to the Ronaldo sale being completely unused and the rest from the exceptional prize money accumulated on account of winning the Premier league and Champions league double the previous year and reaching the champions league final again..AND the figure should have been much higher if not for the nearly 120mn odd debt related payments in those two years – so in reality those 150 mn should be higher to about 250 odd million.

    ” That was enough to buy Benzema, Sneidjer, Villa and Hazard” — we didnt end up buying any of those world class players did we? Only in the case of Villa was it not down to money — in the case of others it was down to money as thy didnt have any special affiliation with real, inter or chelsea. The proof of the pudding is in its eating – just the transfer fee isnt enough – wages are part of the transfer and in our current regime we cant exceed ~50% wage limits because we have huge interest burden to cover.

    All the other players you have talked about we have purchased have been bought by the club’s own generated money and not by anything fund infusion by the Glazers — why cant you accept that…they have never put a single penny of theirs into the club’s accounts..You are one thats completely blind in that regard. Or do you think we have started buying players in the transfer market only after the Glazers took over?

    “And the two figures are from a 12 month gap, Forbes is based on the last full year of accounts before Forbes report so that’s 2010/11 where as the value here is based on the provisional accounts for 2011/12. ” —- And our provisional accounts for 2011-12 are worse than last year because of our early exit from champions league…I fail to find any reason for 50% growth in value in 3 months..

    The new Chevvy deal and TV deal aren’t that much of an increase over the current deals — AON shirt deal was for 20m pounds per annum whereas the new Chevvy deal is just 25m pounds p.a from reports – a 5 mn p.a increase over a revenue of 350 odd mn -barely 1.5% increase in revenue…even including the increase in United’s share of TV money, etc all that barely adds to even anything close to the 50%+ increase in valuation of United. Besides the value is not just based on the cash flows or hard assets, but a lot of the valuation of United is down to brand-name, etc and we all know how quickly that can deteriorate if results on the pitch slip for a few years — no way you can justify it.

    Yeah….people who are looking for a steady stock—- An industry where the fortunes are decided by results in a matter of games (you lose a couple of round robin games -out of champions league!) is hardly a place where a “steady” investor is going to be putting his money in dont you think ??

    Why cant you accept that the club’s money is being taken out to service the debt and personal expenses of the owners?

  45. 11kush89 says:

    @ Danizizu says:
    “stop being all dramatic.I think fans should be all about the football and not this admin issues.”

    nobody is being “all dramatic”.
    these are REAL fans concerned about this glorious club.

    the “admin issues” are and have already affected the football.
    WHERE have you been the past few years??


You must be logged in to post a comment.