Rooney v Ferguson

[Shaggy]

Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson says Wayne Rooney's ankle injury could keep him out for longer than the expected three weeks.

The 24-year-old striker is currently on holiday as he recovers from the injury which he picked up in training.

Rooney recently signed a new five-year deal to stay at Old Trafford days after he said he wanted to leave the club.

Asked if three weeks was still the prognosis for his return, Ferguson said: "I think it may be longer."

More to follow.

[Taxi]

I think this whole episode was a staged by Fergie and Wayne. Everyone at Man U has been worried about the lack of investment and debt lately, and with City's spending and Chelseas rescources, things looked like getting worse. Then we get taken over and our debt written off, things could be looking up for us too.

Within a week Fergie announces that Wayne (the biggest name at the club by far) does not want to sign a new contract. Next Wayne goes public with a carefully scripted statement highlighting the lack of ambition and the lack of investment, stating that he seeks a move to a club that can match his personal ambitions. An absolute nightmare scenario for the Glazers and the shareholders.

Next Wayne has a sit down with the club, who offer him a huge pay increase but also commit to giving Fergie a £60m transfer budget. In one swoop they've broken their wage record and given a big wedge to the manager, reaffirming their financial status to the world. Fergie and Wayne both walk away winners.

[Ben_Itez]

I think this whole episode was a staged by Fergie and Wayne. Everyone at Man U has been worried about the lack of investment and debt lately, and with City's spending and Chelseas rescources, things looked like getting worse. Then we get taken over and our debt written off, things could be looking up for us too.

Within a week Fergie announces that Wayne (the biggest name at the club by far) does not want to sign a new contract. Next Wayne goes public with a carefully scripted statement highlighting the lack of ambition and the lack of investment, stating that he seeks a move to a club that can match his personal ambitions. An absolute nightmare scenario for the Glazers and the shareholders.

Next Wayne has a sit down with the club, who offer him a huge pay increase but also commit to giving Fergie a £60m transfer budget. In one swoop they've broken their wage record and given a big wedge to the manager, reaffirming their financial status to the world. Fergie and Wayne both walk away winners.

Wouldnt surprise me one bit.

[dww]

I still don't see where the Glazers are going to get the money from. It seems to me reminiscent of what happened between Rafa and Hicks and Gillet. When the finances got tight the manager tried to get all his key players signed up to long contracts to avoid them leaving, the owners were willing to do it as it was cheaper than purchases and meant that their assets kept their value (at least for accounting purposes).

[Lee]

So he'll be back at tomorrow then to face Spurs, going by Ferguson's previous.

I think this whole episode was a staged by Fergie and Wayne. Everyone at Man U has been worried about the lack of investment and debt lately, and with City's spending and Chelseas rescources, things looked like getting worse. Then we get taken over and our debt written off, things could be looking up for us too.

Within a week Fergie announces that Wayne (the biggest name at the club by far) does not want to sign a new contract. Next Wayne goes public with a carefully scripted statement highlighting the lack of ambition and the lack of investment, stating that he seeks a move to a club that can match his personal ambitions. An absolute nightmare scenario for the Glazers and the shareholders.

Next Wayne has a sit down with the club, who offer him a huge pay increase but also commit to giving Fergie a £60m transfer budget. In one swoop they've broken their wage record and given a big wedge to the manager, reaffirming their financial status to the world. Fergie and Wayne both walk away winners.

Completely agree. Thicker than thieves.

[Craig_H]

I think this whole episode was a staged by Fergie and Wayne. Everyone at Man U has been worried about the lack of investment and debt lately, and with City's spending and Chelseas rescources, things looked like getting worse. Then we get taken over and our debt written off, things could be looking up for us too.

Within a week Fergie announces that Wayne (the biggest name at the club by far) does not want to sign a new contract. Next Wayne goes public with a carefully scripted statement highlighting the lack of ambition and the lack of investment, stating that he seeks a move to a club that can match his personal ambitions. An absolute nightmare scenario for the Glazers and the shareholders.

Next Wayne has a sit down with the club, who offer him a huge pay increase but also commit to giving Fergie a £60m transfer budget. In one swoop they've broken their wage record and given a big wedge to the manager, reaffirming their financial status to the world. Fergie and Wayne both walk away winners.

I wouldnt be surprised if that was the intention, but whatever Ferguson and lil Wayne do, they cant just enable the Glazers to suddenly magic up tonnes of cash.

Whatever Ferguson and Rooney do or say, the club STILL has £700m worth of debts, it STILL needs around £100m p/annum to service them and the Glazers STILL dont have the intention of selling up.

So whilst Ferguson and Rooney may think they've hatched a cracking little plot and may be high-fiving each other during drinking and prozzie sessions, i look forward to seeing just how these so-called promises from the Glazers are actually going to be backed up.

Because under the current financial model and set up, it's pretty much impossible.

I still don't see where the Glazers are going to get the money from. It seems to me reminiscent of what happened between Rafa and Hicks and Gillet. When the finances got tight the manager tried to get all his key players signed up to long contracts to avoid them leaving, the owners were willing to do it as it was cheaper than purchases and meant that their assets kept their value (at least for accounting purposes).

Spot on. What are they going to do? Dip into their own pockets? Hugely unlikely, given they favoured the whole leverage method in the first place. What else, borrow more money and put it on the club? More debt = higher debt servicing fees.

Even if they did somehow take more borrowings to fund a transfer spree in the short term, it'll just speed up the imploding process and ensure that their house of cards comes crashing down sooner than it would've done anyway. Which isnt an option i can see the Glazers fancying, personally.

[johnp]

I wouldnt be surprised if that was the intention, but whatever Ferguson and lil Wayne do, they cant just enable the Glazers to suddenly magic up tonnes of cash.

Whatever Ferguson and Rooney do or say, the club STILL has £700m worth of debts, it STILL needs around £100m p/annum to service them and the Glazers STILL dont have the intention of selling up.

So whilst Ferguson and Rooney may think they've hatched a cracking little plot and may be high-fiving each other during drinking and prozzie sessions, i look forward to seeing just how these so-called promises from the Glazers are actually going to be backed up.

Because under the current financial model and set up, it's pretty much impossible.



Spot on. What are they going to do? Dip into their own pockets? Hugely unlikely, given they favoured the whole leverage method in the first place. What else, borrow more money and put it on the club? More debt = higher debt servicing fees.

Even if they did somehow take more borrowings to fund a transfer spree in the short term, it'll just speed up the imploding process and ensure that their house of cards comes crashing down sooner than it would've done anyway. Which isnt an option i can see the Glazers fancying, personally.

Don't think it's 100m, BBC say 38m.
Still, it's a **** load of cash, and I'm sure they'd rather spend it on players than using it to pay off debt. They are ****ed.
Every time I get a abuse from Scum fans about being in the bottom 3, I ask them how much interest repayments they paid today. Soon shuts them up

[Craig_H]

Don't think it's 100m, BBC say 38m.
Still, it's a **** load of cash, and I'm sure they'd rather spend it on players than using it to pay off debt. They are ****ed.
Every time I get a abuse from Scum fans about being in the bottom 3, I ask them how much interest repayments they paid today. Soon shuts them up

There's no way it's only £38m. It's not just interest i'm talking about, there's also 'financial charges'.

I read that, when you added interest to other financial 'charges' brought about via their PIK debt and suchlike, the total annual cost of their debt reached £104m in the last posted annual accounts.

[Craig_H]

This article, posted on another forum (and from 2008) suggests a debt servicing cost of FAR more than £38m....

Trust spokesman Oliver Houston declared: "The Glazers got very lucky with the increased television revenue and the new shirt sponsorship deal with AIG.

"But people should realise this extra money is being used merely to service the debt. The Glazers have not put any money in at all for new players. A lot has been made of the £50m transfer fees spent in the summer but this all came out of club funds and is being financed on the never-never.

"The simple fact is prices are going up — not just season tickets but car parking, catering, everything."

And the Trust statement claims: "Despite appearances to the contrary, the Glazer family continue to face an extraordinary and growing debt problem. Since last year's debt refinancing, United and the Glazers have been faced with a series of interest rate rises which have increased the annual debt service bill from £62m a year on the total debt of £660m.

"The interest bill is currently an annualised £100m-plus, of which £73m is payable this year and the other £27m in the future — a ticking debt time-bomb.

"The recent and continuing turmoil in financial markets has not only forced the Glazers to postpone indefinitely any further refinancing but has also seen the six-month LIBOR rate (the variable inter-bank lending rate to which the United debt is undoubtedly tied) increase to almost one per cent above the bank base rate.

"Today it stands at 6.69 per cent, driving up the annual cost of servicing United's debt to painful pre-refinancing levels. No wonder, for the third season running, the Glazers forced the club to pass on this eye-watering extra finance cost to the fans by way of a 14 per cent ticket price rise.

"This has forced many fans to give up their season tickets. They are unable to afford the latest hike, which represents a compound increase since the takeover of approximately 50 per cent.

"This has caused such a negative reaction from loyal fans priced out of Old Trafford that, for the first time in a generation, season tickets have not sold out and the much-vaunted waiting list has disappeared.

"And some angry supporters are taking legal action against the club over the new Automatic Cup Scheme (which requires all season-ticket holders to pay for all cup games — whether they want to go or not) and the unfair way it was introduced."

As we exclusively reported last week, rival groups from China and Dubai are ready to pay up to £1bn for the world's biggest club. Yet the Glazers continue to insist they will NOT sell and are in for the long term.

We probed the Americans in a bid to unravel United's financial structure. But they politely refused our request to shed light on the deepening concerns about the club's future in the climate of a global credit crisis.

The Trust report claims the debt is split into five separate loans.

The first loan of £75m was borrowed over seven years at a current interest rate of 8.81 per cent — producing annual interest bill of £6.61m.

The second of £150m, borrowed over eight years at a current interest rate of 9.31 per cent, produces interest of £13.97m. The third, also of £150m, over nine years at 9.69 per cent, is running up an annual interest bill of £14.53m.

Another 10-year £150m loan at 12.19 per cent is producing £18.28m annual interest, while the final £135m "Payment in Kind" loan is costing £23.3m in interest, although it is not payable this year.

On top of that, City experts estimate United will pay at least another £24m in capital repayments, bringing the total to more than £100m.

A City expert told us: "The problem is the Glazers have entered a deal which meant they put very little money in but have taken on a lot of debt. They are clearly looking at all kinds of securitization, like future season ticket sales to raise cash immediately and cut the debt.

"In today's climate, it is clear with these levels of borrowing at such high interest rates, the Glazers need to do something dramatic and quickly. There are really only two options — to somehow get the cost of the borrowing down or sell the club."

And the Trust statement continued: "Taking the figures from the July 2006 refinancing documents, copies of which we have seen, we have calculated United's current interest and debt service bill.

"Due to recent turmoil in the markets and cumulative interest rate rises since July 2006, the total annualised debt cost to Manchester United has hit £100m for the first time since the takeover in 2005."

It was only a year ago the Glazers refinanced and they recently held talks with three banks — JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank and the Royal Bank of Scotland — about a new debt structure.

Those talks failed to produce a deal, leaving United with a £62m annual interest bill.

But the club still manage to make huge profits and there are forecasts of operating profits of £90m for the year ending 2007.

This is due mainly to staggering gate receipts of around £87m, a £14m-a-year sponsorship deal with US insurance giants AIG and the Premier League's TV deal.

[Craig_H]

And the poster who posted the above article, posted this himself:

A club in crisis, surely not. everyone has praised the Glaziers for keeping out of the limelight and letting Sir Alex get on with running the team, unlike those nasty men Gillett and Hicks at Liverpool.

Basically to buy Manchester United the Glaziers used little capital of their own but put the purchase price into the club, resulting in the club being £660 million in debt. The annual interest rates on the debt are calculated at £73 million.

So if he's right, that was £73m p/a in interest back in 2008.

[johnp]

That's/He's from MUST? I guess they'd paint a black picture.
Still, I'd love it if it is 100m! More ammunition for my Utd loving friends

[MrMichael]

Manchester United fans who part with their cash so Wayne Rooney can get paid: 7407
Daily Fail

As Wayne Rooney surveyed the stands to which he was again confined last night with an ankle injury on his return from Dubai, the more charitable fans might have imagined him reflecting on his good fortune and the gratitude he certainly should be feeling towards his public.

Or at least 7,407 of them. Because that is the number required through the turnstiles to pay just a week of his new £10million annual wage, a staggering 10 per cent of the club's average home gate.

Of course, across at Eastlands, Manchester City's Yaya Toure's £221,000-a-week wages need even more paying supporters, more than 10,000 a game. But Rooney's new deal is a significant escalation in the value of English players, part of the inflation that has now taken the Premier League's total annual wage bill close to £1.5billion.

In the season before the competition began, 1991- 92, the equivalent figure was 'just' £75m.

For the players at the highest level at least, it is a boom time. But for fans - and those in the boardrooms of clubs around the country - it could be a significant moment. The moment that turned them away from the game they have grown up with.

'For a long time, any story about money has been regarded as a good news story,' said Kevin Rye, of fans' organisation Supporters Direct. 'A player signs - good news. A new contract - good news. A new TV deal - good news.

'Except what people have realised now is that this money has to come from somewhere and it comes from them. The fans end up paying in some way and in the constant race to the top, the fans are subject to a race to the bottom.

'The effect each time is to create another tipping point for individual fans and this will tip some over the edge and they won't renew their season tickets or go to matches at Old Trafford as a result. It has in the past, and will again.'

At United the process is already under way. Yesterday thousands of fans demonstrated through the streets of Manchester against the American owners, the Glazer family, and on Friday the club that embodies their disgust reaches a significant milestone.

FC United of Manchester play at Rochdale in the FA Cup first round on Friday and they will be backed by a vociferous crowd who have given up on the bigger United at Old Trafford, many despite a lifelong attachment.

Their crowd of 3,229 in the last qualifying round was bigger than those at four of that Saturday's League Two matches. It would take the cash from just 15 of them to pay the weekly wage of their own star striker, Mike Norton, who is on about £120 a week.

'Looking at the Rooney saga, I'm glad I'm out of it, not paying these millionaires and not paying Glazer's interest,' said Mike Turton, a founder member of FC United. 'I followed United for 30 years and I was a season-ticket holder but the Premier League is less interesting for me now. There is a lack of soul and quite a few mercenaries just passing through.

'Some Premier League club supporters want to be winning things at all costs and they don't see the bigger picture. If you're a Manchester City fan you might be craving for a trophy and not care how you get it. But it's not going to be very good for anyone if only City and Chelsea are competing for trophies in future.'

Even Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the players' union, the Professional Footballers' Association, has his misgivings about the spiralling costs and long-term sustainability, urging his members and the game to show a social responsibility. And all against a backdrop of recession and cuts being endured by the very audience who are funding the wages of Rooney and his team-mates, not only through their presence in stadiums but also in buying merchandise and television satellite subscriptions.

'It wasn't the best of times to have such a dispute [as Rooney's] airing at such a difficult time for many of the fans on whom the game relies,' said Taylor. 'Of course, people will pay to watch the top players and it's not for me to condemn a player earning what he can for a short career but the game does need to show more social responsibility.

'I deal with clubs at all levels and about two-thirds have financial problems. I don't want football to go like banking, where everything looked good on the surface but they were paddling furiously to keep their heads above water.'

Taylor added: 'Rather than just pay fortunes, with the balance of payments going abroad, the game has a duty to give the next generation a chance and I'd like to see managers given more time to bring young players through. And I'd like to see the Premier League looking at rules from American sports, such as no club being allowed to have more than 20 per cent leveraged debt.'

It is the high levels of leveraged financing at and United that have done so much latterly, despite Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger's defence of on-field standards, to have supporters questioning their clubs' off-field affairs and where their money is going. And more than those 7,407 at Old Trafford.

FC United board member Martin Morris has responsibility for the development fund. The club are trying to raise £600,000 to help fund a move to a new stadium in Newton Heath, the birthplace of Manchester United. In other words, three weeks' wages for Rooney.

'Recently it isn't just little clubs like Scarborough, Chester or York who have found themselves in serious financial trouble,' said Morris. 'It is bigger clubs such as Portsmouth and even Liverpool. Smaller clubs don't come under the microscope so much but Portsmouth and Liverpool have changed that dramatically.

'If Liverpool barely got out of what was a real threat to their financial future recently and United's debt is three times that of Liverpool, then it would only take a barren patch in terms of trophies and a dip in gates. Then it doesn't look healthy for United at all.

'I hope they don't go to the wall but there is no real future for United or any other football club with this present model of ownership and it is as likely to happen at Manchester United as at any other club.

'Everyone is still chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and I don't think it can be much longer before the bubble bursts.'

[lickedlollipop]

Zigic 50.000 what a dick!

[wiw]

Manchester United fans who part with their cash so Wayne Rooney can get paid: 7407
Daily Fail

Like **** we have the most expensive average ticket cost?!

[Nick77]

2nd most expensive - it seems like Arsenal is the most expensive @ a whopping 47 squid, then us @ 36, then Spurs @ 34...