OWNERS.
Buried amid the news of Jose Mourinho in France, Fernando Torres in Denmark, and Franck Ribery in Italy, we found this random confirmation by the Glazers as to their ownership of Manchester United.
“There has been no change of ownership.”
Wonderful. Glad we cleared that up. The BBC were asking the club after the Glazers’ extravagant payment-in-full of the controversial PIK loans that had been dogging United’s ledger for quite some time, though the answers provided raise more confusion than clarity.
(Especially because they did it by “issuing a voluntary free payment notice informing the holders of the PIK loans that they would be paying up in full.)
Quite simply: where did £220m come from in order to service their loans? Initially, it had been speculated that the club had taken on minority stakeholders in exchange for cash to cover their payments, but the Glazers’ confirmation that they still own 100.00% of the club makes us wonder.
If they didn’t bring in outside help, what did they do?
Several options stand out, though the entire thing is obfuscated somewhat by news that Manchester United’s parent company, Red Football LLC, transferred itself from Nevada to registration in Delaware, where—surprise, surprise—they don’t have to disclose anything to anyone! Doesn’t the inference of white-collar crime get the blood flowing on a brisk Wednesday afternoon?
Maybe they used some of that C-Ron money to pay down their PIKs.
Not a bad suggestion considering the club did well not to get fleeced in the immediate aftermath of the £80m transfer, keeping the bulk of that money and spending very little in the seasons since. However, even if they held, say, 2/3 of that money (and we’re unsure if Real paid up front or devised a scheduled payment to fulfill their end of the deal), that still leaves them well short.
Maybe they’re continuing to fleece their hapless NFL franchise, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
We’ve flogged this particular horse in the past, and done it well, but it does stand to reason that an NFL franchise in a closed league with annually shared income becomes somewhat of an ATM for the men in charge of each club. There’s no laws that I’m aware of to prevent owners from funneling their guaranteed money to other ventures, and certainly no regulations declaring that money must be poured back into the NFL entity, either.
(According to this article, each NFL team was receiving $77m annually as their share of TV money alone, not including local/regional radio, online, foreign, etc.)
The Glazers have kept the Bucs’ overheads as tight as they possibly could, for reasons only they could explain. Firing coaches, not fighting to keep expensive players, and generally low-balling their roster as often as possible. Plenty of money to siphon across for PIKs, if they’re so inclined.
Maybe they’re just lying.
The shift of parent companies from Nevada to Delaware gives the Glazers and United yet another veil that they’ll never be forced to lift, meaning that anything the club’s saying has about as much truth as we’re willing to put into it. After all those vociferous articles claiming that they’d been talking about a sale to the Qatari royal family came and went, no-one’s exactly sure what’s going on. And that’ll continue for as long as the Glazers are protected from having to come clean in whatever they’re doing.
Of course, it’s important in all of this to remember that there’s no evidence of the Glazers/United doing anything wrong in the course of their business practices, but the smoke and mirrors creates an unhealthy choke of suspicion among those trying to closely follow their every move.
It’s the kind of cloaked shenanigans that get entities like MUST and their green-and-golders all rankled up, wondering what’s happening to their beloved club. As a survivor of Hicks & Gillett’s doltish tyranny, I sympathize, though I’m not sure we’ll ever get the full truth if things continue to be done so quietly and with such secrecy.
How dare they not sell! Haven’t they seen all the scarves?
Delaware had traditionally been the incorporation location of choice for ages. Recently Nevada and (I think) Florida came along with even more favorable laws, so they started siphoning off a lot of the incorporating biz from Delaware. So the move to Delaware might be motivated primarily by the desire for less transparency of ownership (which to me says their pants could be on fire).
I’m pretty excited to not be owned by guys who look like shitty Chris Elliot and Geoffrey Rush impersonators.
They raised the money through a secret ginger conspiracy. You can only become an investor if you submit a DNA-matching strand of red hair. They hold super secret annual meetings in the basement of Old Trafford.
“There has been no change in ownership.” Change from what? Where it was after you sold a huge chunk to pay down debt?
One of the main reasons to incorporate in Delaware is the protections afforded to borrowers in workout situations (i.e. bankruptcy). So if you really want to speculate, MAN U IS GOING BANKRUPT!!!
/really they just paid down their most painful piece of debt with cash. Who cares how they did it? Be happy it’s off the balance sheet.
Doesn’t the inference of white-collar crime get the blood flowing on a brisk Wednesday afternoon?
The mere fact of changing incorporation from one state to another is not, in any shape or form, an inference of white-collar crime. As noted above, Delaware is one of the main locations where companies are incorporated for myriad reasons, including but not limited to more sophisticated civil courts dealing with business issues, bankruptcy protections, less disclosures and tax issues. None of which gives an inference of white collar crime unless you think that all of the hundreds of thousands of Delaware registered corporations are committing white collar crime. Odds are some are doing it but being registered in Delaware is not a scarlett letter indicating commission of a white collar crime.
I get that, TFA. I just let my imagination run wild when it comes to the Glazers. What’s wrong with that? Besides potential libel and all that.
I know…I just got riled up about the crime aspect…it’s fair to ask what are they hiding? (likely the partnership agreement or whatever document detailing the ownership arrangement that many states require you to file) but going beyond that seems unfair in my mind.
Any chance that they just let some oil billionaries invest in (straight cash homey), and own a portion of the Red Football LLC? That way the can issue statements saying “There has been no ownership change” when in its really “There has been no ownership change (but we, the Glazers, currently own less of it.” Or maybe they secretly defaulted on their loan an the bank owns a piece of it now, a la Hicks/Gillette did, which no one knew about until they sold.
Love Glazer, Hate United
Youre the one with the brains here. Im wcahitng for your posts.