Oliver Kay
Take a trip to New York and see the city from the air
There will be much gnashing of teeth among Manchester United supporters at the revelation this morning that the club paid £42 million in the past financial year in interest on the debts put upon it by the Glazer family. David Gill, the chief executive, knows it, just as he knows that record profits and turnover will not begin to endear the Glazers to many of the club’s fans, who continue to hold the Americans in something beneath contempt.
Gill, though, feels that it is time the anti-Glazer factions woke up and smelt the coffee. Yes, the £42 million interest charges could be equated to five Nemanja Vidics or 3½ Cristiano Ronaldos, not to mention free season tickets around most of Old Trafford, but in reality it cannot. Gill has more than a vested interest, as he is in the employ of the Americans, but having initially objected to their takeover in 2005, he feels that the club are in safe hands and rude health, with their pre-tax profits of £59.6 million for the past financial year the kind of figures that will lessen some of Arsenal’s smugness while turning their rivals at Chelsea and Liverpool green with envy.
“I don’t want to comment on other clubs,” Gill said yesterday. “But what I will say is that the Glazers have been true to their word. They haven’t sought credit or publicity. They haven’t interfered on any level. They have let the manager get on with it. They have kept a low profile, but they have been very supportive in terms of the manager signing players and in terms of investment.
“There will always be people who won’t accept them, even if we were to win three European Cups on the bounce. But the majority of our 139 million core fans worldwide want to see a team playing exciting, winning football in a safe, clean stadium. I think we have that.”
Did he say 139 million core fans? Yes, almost double the figure outlined in the Glazers’ business plan 18 months ago. What is more, a study today will claim that United have 333 million “followers” – more than 5 per cent of the world’s population.
Some will snort at the figures – and at the notion that such a tiny number of the fan base has visited Old Trafford – but no club in the world, except perhaps Real Madrid, are better at turning followers into fans and fans into customers. Say what you like about the Glazers – and most on the Stretford End have plenty to say – but they, too, are proving adept in this regard, having taken control of the commercial arm in recent months.
Gill cites the “explosion” of United’s fan base in South Korea, which he attributes to the signing Park Ji Sung, a sponsorship deal with a Seoul tyre company, a visit on their preseason tour to Asia last July and enthusiasm for a team with the talents of Wayne Rooney, Ronaldo and others.
The club’s desire to milk this market is another source of angst among their traditional fan base, but as a United official put it, “the game has changed. With globalisation and with new technology, it is an incredible market we’re competing in now. We aim to be market leaders and we feel that we are. It’s about having this extraordinarily successful business that underpins the allure of exciting attacking football. The football feeds the business and the business feeds the football.”
None of this sits easily with some United supporters, who expect to be hit with another increase in season--ticket prices next season. Gill was noncommittal on that issue yesterday, but he did indicate that there would be a “slight tweak” of the club’s controversial “automatic cup scheme”, which compels season ticket-holders to pay for entry to cup matches whether or not they attend. He also expressed sympathy for fans at the decrease in frequency of the traditional Saturday 3pm kick-off, which has applied to only four of their 21 Barclays Premier League matches this season but added that, in terms of the money that television pumps into football, “we can’t have our cake and eat it”.
So where, Gill is asked, will United and football be in ten years? Will the club have begun to pay off their debt? “Good question. There is long-term debt in place, although there are repayment elements with that. There is also growth not just through the sport, with the new TV deals, etc, but through our commercial activity.”
And with a 75-year-old Sir Alex Ferguson still at the helm, no doubt.
Follow our three athletes' progress in their preparations for the London Triathlon, and pick up training tips and more
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers

The Fantasy Season starts here. Sign up to win

Find a course, arrange a game and save money



in The Sunday Times, Times and Times Online
£129,500
Bentley Edinburgh
£79,850
Mercedes-Benz of Northampton
£26,995
Unit 1, Woodfield Business Unit, Kidderminster Road, Ombersley, Worcester.
Great car insurance deals online
90k + Bonus + Options
Confidential
London
£23,716 +
Highways Agency
National
£
£43,405 - £48,228 pa
Notting Hill Housing
London
£38k
Barclaycard
Various Locations
Live in One of London's Most Vibrant Areas
From £249,950
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Studios £33K, 1 Beds £60K, 2 beds £79K
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
sam - the problem is that the interest has not been deducted. just obscured. the figures reported here aren't even complete. ebitda is reported elsewhere at £79.8m. I'll be interested to see how £42m in interest can be deducted from that (along with d&a) to leave £59.6m. but we still won't be getting the full picture looking at united's accounts because not all the debt is there..
in any case, you are missing the point. why is united paying any interest? why is there any debt at all in the club (or against the club)? just so there could be a change of name above the door? the club gets nothing from that. absolutely nothing at all. without the debt, all of the money that is being paid in interest or the net profit that is also being swallowed up by interest in holding companies would be available to be reinvested in the club. historically, dividends were tiny by comparison.
and what happens if united can't cover the full cost of glazer's debt service?
jem, london, uk
Pre tax profits of 59m mean that the interest has already been deducted. It is not the case that the interest will be deducted from the 59m. Otherwise it would have been known as profits before interest and tax.
Sam Houston, Manchester, UK
i was turned to be a fan and flied to the uk and visited old trafford and bought something worth 70 pounds there. still a nice memory for me. anyway, that was before the glazers came to man u.
jacob, windsor, canada
All of the Manchester United "profit" will be required to meet interest payments on loans incurred by the Glazer family"
The reason they moved the debt (and consequent interest payments incurred) back to Red Football is simply to hide what would otherwise have been embarrasing news which would have been anounced this week with the Manchester United results.
By moving the debt back to Red Football they can (sort of) truthfully announce:
"Man Utd pre-tax profits rise to £59.6m"
Otherwise they would have had to announce:
"Man Utd make a loss as profits totally wiped out by interest payments on irresponsible debt "
The first one sounds like good news. The second one sounds like bad news. However they are both the same news. Its just that the first one neglects to mention the fact that ALL of that profit (and then some) will have to be used to pay the debt which has been hidden on Red Football's books for a bit.
They dont make enough profit to cover the interest on the debt.
Anthony, Manchester,
£60m might cover the £42m in interest paid by the club, but it does not cover the considerably higher amount of interest to be serviced on debt used to buy the club. nor is there any indication of debt being repaid (or reference to what happens if certain debts are not repaid in the short-term).
even if the debt can be sustained, it is entirely unnecessary debt. all the money going on interest could have been invested in the club. whether or not the gamble is successful (from a glazer perspective), it is a brake on united.
united fans do not merely want to see a winning team playing in a great stadium. they want to know that the club will be around in ten years (with or without glazer, gill or fergie). and by fans, I mean people who love united, not people on the other side of the world who might express a vague preference and would be prepared to buy a shirt.
the glazers have brought nothing to the club in exchange for the gamble. it is their vanity debt, not united's.
jem, london, uk
£60m might cover the £42m in interest paid by the club, but it does not cover the considerably higher amount of interest to be serviced on debt used to buy the club. nor is there any indication of debt being repaid (or reference to what happens if certain debts are not repaid in the short-term).
even if the debt can be sustained, it is entirely unnecessary debt. all the money going on interest could have been invested in the club. whether or not the gamble is successful (from a glazer perspective), it is a brake on united.
united fans do not merely want to see a winning team playing in a great stadium. they want to know that the club will be around in ten years (with or without glazer, gill or fergie). and by fans, I mean people who love united, not people on the other side of the world who might express a vague preference and would be prepared to buy a shirt.
the glazers have brought nothing to the club in exchange for the gamble. it is their vanity debt, not united's.
jem, london, uk