MALCOLM Glazer's takeover of Manchester United is the price the club have paid for Sir Alex Ferguson's ownership dispute over the racehorse Rock of Gibraltar, according to former director Greg Dyke.
Dyke, who had to leave the United board when he became director general of the BBC, claims Irish racing magnates John Magnier and JP McManus bought a 29% stake in the club 'to teach Alex Ferguson a lesson' - and in doing so made it vulnerable to a takeover.
He also believes the Glazer family will find it very difficult to fund the '540million debt they have taken on and that they will have relinquished control at Old Trafford inside five years.
Dyke told BBC Radio Five Live: 'You go back to the whole affair of Alex Ferguson and Rock of Gibraltar; without that the Irish wouldn't have bought their block of shares.
'My guess is it wasn't a business investment at all, it was them teaching Alex Ferguson a lesson not to take them on, which they did pretty successfully.
'There was always going to be trouble when two shareholders had 29% each because with one phone-call you have effectively bought the club.'
That proved to be the case when the Irish pair sold their stake to Glazer. Dyke, who was on the board when the 1998 takeover attempt by BSkyB was blocked by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, fears that the club's cashflow will not be enough to service the debts taken on by Glazer.
'It could be that he has a trick that we don't know about but you can't conceivably see how he can fund that debt,' Dyke added.
'He's clearly bought this on borrowed money, some borrowed at quite high rates, which require an enormous debt repayment and I don't think the cashflow of Manchester United can sustain that.
'One year or two years out of the Champions League and the cashflow dries up. In five years' time I doubt whether the Glazer family will own Manchester United.'
Dyke believes the American tycoon's ambitions to sell United's TV rights separately are a non-starter, and that the Sky bid now looks attractive compared to the Glazer takeover.
He added: 'We knew when I was on the board if you could sell your own rights you would get a lot more money but I can't see that happening, though they may think they can get away with that.
'As for the Sky bid, if the the alternative had been a takeover by a bunch of Americans who know nothing about football, who would borrow vast sums of money on the back of Manchester United, I'd rather have BSkyB.'
Do you agree? Have your say.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
No, I do not think that Glazer will be in control in 5 years but the concern is what damage he does in the meanwhile trying to hang onto the club as the huge interest, [and principal], repayments have to be funded. From Sky to the Coolmore lot, to Glazer we have repeatedly leapt out of the frying pan and into the fire and now within 5 years there will be a fire sale by when we must have followed the guidance of S.U. and be in a position to obtain a substantial stake at least for future shareholders, in perpetuity, as the Barca. model.
Sadly, the answer has to be yes, if only because the alternative is worse. If Glazer fails he takes United with him. If he fails we might get a United owned by the supporters, more likeley by another opportunist who can afford to give him the best price he can get. And by the way, for all those who like the thought of Glazer bankrupting United, remember the world watches the PL because of United. Without United the PL wont be worth as much for TV rights.
Well Mr Dyke some of us were for the Sky bid at the time. That went wrong with a little help from the lunatics that are trying to run the asylum now
He would say that wouldn't he. most directors of plc's are complacent and lazy, in the sense that they only do what it takes to produce a little bit more profit and better dividend every year. Sack a few people, take over a new business, shut a factory here and there, issue a new kit (in our case). They can then enjoy their fat salaries, perks and bonuses, congratulating themselves on what a good job they are doing. Very few are prepared to take radical action to transform their business because it's too risky. Why risk what you've got when you don't have to. Therefore Dyke genuinely can't see how Glazer can support the level of debt that we will have. However Glazer will have done his homework and can see a way to do things differently. It may not be pretty and may well be risky but if it comes off we will wonder why we ever let people like Greg Dyke near our football clubs.
Look lads, [and ladettes], we now have an owner who has no local connections, has never been to O.T., far less watched even one match there, keeps the fans totally in the dark as to his vision of the future and who has changed our solvent, accountable, [to shareholding fans], club into a debt-ridden family toy. This is a worst case nightmare, [I defy anybody to come up with anything worse!], where ANYTHING and ANYBODY would be better.
It seems that at this point, we have no choice but to give the Glazers a chance. Whether we like it or not, he now controls our team. He turned the American football team in Tampa into a world champion. Perhaps he will let the sport people run the club and help make our beloved even better. Why don't we give it a year and see what happens? Do we even have a choice?
The BskyB bid was blocked by the government. I wish the government would have stepped in to ward off Glazer.
Whatever your current opinion on the glazers, I recommed you read 'Barbarians at the Gate' by Bryan Burrough and John Helyar about the fall of RJR Nabisco. aka the ultimate tale of greed and glory. Glazer was part funded by Wall Street - motto 'never play by the rules, never pay in cash, and never tell the truth.
Watch out all you wait and see merchants. Everthing to do with Manchester United is going to get napalmed in pursuit of profit. The glazers are going to charge in, not stopping for anything and taking no prisoners. All for their own greed and glory.
Happy to answer more questions about the above, otherwise I will leave you all to it. We told you so. Caio
HG,
The government couldn't intervene this time. Labour scrapped the Enterprise Act allowing takeovers to be scrapped on the basis of "interest to others other than shareholders". Another reason I voted against Tony and his cronies
An American's perspective:
As much as you claim we don't understand your footie (which we don't), you don't understand the NFL. Every GOOD owner of an NFL franchise leaves the operations of the team to the coach and his staff. Mr. Galzer is just such an owner. If Man U fails, it will do so because Sir Alex and his boys made it so. Tampa Bay did not win the Super Bowl because Malcolm meddled in the day to day affairs fo the team, it won because he allowed those who know how to run a football team do so. From what I've experienced in my travels to your fair city, many there would prefer the team fail just to have another issue with America. I hope your fans will see this opportunity for what it is. Here is a chance for the Red Devils to gain back the prominance they once enjoyed. But take heart, just be glad your team wasn't acquired by Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys!
Well , Derrick, if he has no local connections, has never been to Manchester or watched a game at the swamp he has something in common with most of your "fans". Like those from Bournemouth for example.
If it doesnt work he can simply refloat united. Thereby getting most if not all of his money back.
I cant believe so-called reds wanting to bankrupt the club, and thinking theyll breeze in and takeover. The ground, the players, the club would have to be sold, possibly to a worse vulture than glazer.
Prestwich Blue, Your comment regarding my current place of abode is as stupid as I would expect from someone who supports such a rubbish team as Stockport City and who needs to visit our website to read about football. Born in Manchester, as a kid buying my post-Munich Evening News team photo as we raised money for new players, I have every right to be a supporter. Whatever is the case with your lot our fans who move away never stop loving their team. Anyway as you live in Prestwich should that not make you a Bury supporter?
You can take the kid out of Manchester...but you can't take Manchester out of the kid!
Nice one Derrick!
Prestwich blue you are such a plum. I suppose you think I am French as well. If it helps to feed your delusions about United fans then you keep it up pal.
Man U fans, I must say that I do enjoy reading the colum inches on this page but believe me I'm not gloating.
It seems to that you have all sunk your club before any visible holes have been seen in the bottom of the boat?
I believe you should be looking outside the box on this one.
Do I think he will be part of your club in five years time "not really" but that depends on a lot of things mainly running profit in two or three years. Now surely all this man will be interested in over the next few years, will be paying off the debt.
Look @ your ongoing profits & subtract bonuses/share giveaways & dividend payments that went with the last board, cos nun of that will be going on now. That without his flair for commerce. I think he well into paying-off that dept from week one.
Dyke's prognoses looks poor but there again he would say that, because he was on the gravy train wasn't he?
What is with this Glazer and he is a champion nonsence. He won 1 Lombardi trophy( superbowl), with a team that could only go up, having spent most of it life at the bottom. Where are they now??? back with they started. That is not continued success. Man Utd have had continued success for over 10 years now. To be considered a champion, in my book, you have to have won a trophy at least twice, otherwise it is a fluke. To the person from New mexico, I to, am a Cowboys fan and while I don't know 2 much about Jerry Jones, he can claim to have won 2 superbowls in the nineties, admitedly, their not there at the momment, but they were the benchmark team.
Glazer is all about money, no passion.In 2 years he could refinance, thus making sure his own investment is safe, making UTD even worse of than the 540m he is lumping us with now. While he is now the owner (not much we can do about it) I don't believe we should give him an easy ride, we should make are feelings known loudly
It is pretty apparent that MU is lined up to finish third (or worse) for the foreseeable future, and likely to be involved in sordid battles with third rate teams to get past the early stages of the CL. That might be acceptable to the patrons of White Hart Lane but it won't meet the expectations of greater MU Fandom. This buyout will either rescue the club from that misery, or, as correspondents point out, it will fail horribly. Either way, it will eventually get the lead out of what is now a pretty dull franchise..
i still beleive manchester united is under use, we aree yet to fufil our true potential, Glazer hired the nest coach available to work with tampa, bucaneers, why won't he hire the best players to win the champions league.
the present board said we don't have tranfer monie when we have a profit of 32mil. and we have 3 players about to go, and a rampaging chelsea, what will happen if we only make 5mill profit. i bet they will sell players. all they care about is the profit they will share at the end of the transcating year.
Forgeting that only monie makes monie.
I thin Glazer is a saviour and i welcome him.
And who told those guys that he doesn't watch every match. well is son joel is a man utd fan
Derrick, "the guidance of SU", you must be having a laugh. Saw their "leader" on Sky last night talking about the sacrifice of giving up his season ticket and saying how "if every United fan boycotts tickets, merchandise & sponsors, we'll be walking in there by Christmas". What an attention-seeking, self-publicising prize idiot. To any season-ticket or LMTB holder thinking of doing the same, I urge you to think long and hard about it - for every one of you willing to give up your seat, there are hundreds willing to take it. And you will never get that seat back. Mind you, a bunch of fresh faces around the place, maybe people more keen to spend money in the museum & megastore, would do no harm - and achieve the opposite of SU's aims.
Derrick - Cheap shots aside there are two serious points here. There are an estimated 50-75m Man U "fans" worldwide, most of whom haven't been anywhere near Manchester. Glazer has bought the club precisely to make some money out of these people. If he can get a fifth of them to spend an extra B#10 per annum that's an extra B#100-150m in the bank every year. Second you were therefore a fan when Louis Edwards owned the club and, although he was a fan, flouted FA Rules for his personal gain, when his business was in trouble, culminating in the ludicrous 208 for 1 rights issue in the late 70's. After his death Martin sold some of the shares on the flotation to secure his own finances. The plc then doubled season ticket prices in 2 or 3 years and it is estimated that it has paid out over B#40m more than the flotation raised in dividends, bonuses, fees, etc. and would rather pay those dividends than buy players. Yet you complain when someone comes along who is buying the club not to prop up his business or feed his ego and but wants to make it worth a lot more than he paid for it and understands the correlation between investment in the staff and success on the field. And Mark, if you were French you would spell your name with a "c" and you are the plum for looking such a gift horse in the mouth.
Alias were'nt you in full suppport of this "Prize Idiot" a few months ago? Like I said before these groups have always made their intentions clear. Maybe you should get your information from sources other tham Manutd.com and Sky.
I'm surprised few if any posts have addressed the main point made by Dyke that, to some extent, the club brought the Glazer take-over on itself.
SAF's arrogance in pursuing Cubic Expression over that bloody horse, which he paid nothing towards, did start a chain of events that has led here.
Not everything done by the Irish duo was negative though and the famous 99 questions they asked the board did a lot to clean up the club's act in relation to dubious business practices that had crept in as SAF started to turn the club into a sort of private cottage industry where, for example, family members were getting privileged access to players and agent's fees.
Getting transparency into transfer and agent's dealings was a worthwhile thing to do. Something that is now lost with the club going private.
There seems no doubt that the club had drifted into complacency and cosy backscratching. SAF exploited David Gill's newness and inexperience and standards and accountability were slipping.
How could it be, for example, that there was no system in place to ensure those players due drugs tests, were available to take them? Simple carelessness is the answer.
There are other examples of poor accountability and decision making, from the sanctioning of the expensive mid season panic buy of Louis Saha ( who was injury prone even then) to Maurice Watkin putting a lot of his shares on the market, which just served to encourage the predators.
Major losses on transfer dealings and poor returns from the Academy seemed just to be accepted in the complacent world of OT. We were the biggest club after all, SAF had been the most successful manager. No need to rock the boat even if the odd corner was cut and glaring error made.
Well, the chickens are now roosting. The work done to try and turn things round and get the club back on a proper business footing is now drowned in a sea of American debt and ignorance.
Ironically, the main beneficiary of all this is likely to be SAF. The Glazer's imagine they must keep him onside and will probably pay him even more to preside over the wreckage.
Normally when an empire dies, it is the emperor who gets it in the neck. There is no justice if SAF actually benefits from the decline and fall he has contributed to more than anyone over the last few years.
Django, great post!
..and we know who caused that dispute through their greed. Fergie out now! Time to go old man.