Manchester United: Fans start to pay back their debt to Glazer
Antony Melvin
From Square Football:
When the Glazer family bought Manchester United in 2005 the fans protested loud and at length about the implications. But many football fans from other clubs just could not see what the problem was – new owner, new money, where’s the beef?
But news of the new double-digit ticket price rises in most areas of the ground is a pointer for the way things will go.
The majority of the 46,000 Manchester United season ticket holders sit in £30 seats. These fans would probably have hoped for an inflationary £1 per match rise, but probably expected another £2 or £3 rise (in line with last season's jump) - and they will have been dismayed at a £5 hike. £5 represents a staggering 17% rise.
There is little point in the United Finance Director, Nick Humby, stating that the rise only takes United into the top half of the table in cost terms. Most of the clubs above are based in London and have entirely different costs, but in any event United will now be charging somewhere equivalent to Chelsea for the vast majority of fans.
United compare their prices favourably to Chelsea and Spurs (the most expensive clubs to watch), suggesting that they cost double. But Chelsea have already printed their ticket price freeze for next season, and although their top price ticket (West Upper) equates to £60.50 per match, this is the only area of the ground (executive boxes notwithstanding) that will cost more than £45. The vast majority of fans will be paying £40 - £45. Which with a nominal London weighting is largely equivalent to the mode price at Old Trafford of £35.
The large price increase in 2004/5 (around 10%) was sold on the basis that it would stop any takeover – by reducing revenue raising opportunities for any buyer. Obviously this was an incorrect assumption. The majority of fans at Old Trafford will pay 25% more for 2006/7 than for 2004/5.
In simple terms the Glazers’ need to raise revenues by £30m - £35m per season within three seasons – or the debt associated with the takeover will start to get out of hand. If all this extra revenue is allocated to debt repayment it will at least allow the club to compete with clubs with similar transfer budgets like Newcastle, Liverpool, Tottenham and Arsenal. Chelsea are obviously a different matter.
This price rise should increase matchday revenues by £8m, with the extra 9,000 capacity available per match next season bringing in a similar amount. Add on £5m per season for the change of shirt sponsors from Vodafone to AIG, and a couple of million from other sponorship, retailing and high value added packages and United have quickly added £23m a season.
Which in business terms is pretty special – but not yet enough.
If selling the ground or its name are ruled out then the only way for the sums to work is to raise ticket prices or to cut transfer expenditure.
The club has made no promises on ticket prices and as a result it would appear that it will expect the fans to pick up the cost of funding the continuing shortfall in debt cover. The average ticket price will probably rise to £40 in 2007/8, £45 in 2008/9 and £50 in 2009/10 to take the average price to the targeted £900 plus per person (the figure leaked during the aggressive takeover). £50 seats will adequately realign Manchester United’s finances and allow the fans to pay off the Glazers’ takeover debt.
Already this season there has been the unusual sight of thousands of tickets being available on several matchdays – tickets for the league match this Friday are again freely available. With the increase in capacity and ticket prices the unusual sight of empty seats at Old Trafford will be a regular feature from next season on.
Perhaps you believe the fallacy that fans are sheep who will keep paying and paying? Well the facts are clear. Manchester United fans are struggling to pay for their season tickets now – as a result the matches that aren’t covered by the season ticket, the cup matches, are already being undersubscribed – only the Villarreal match was close to being a sell-out.
League matches average attendance 2005/6: 68,217 (after 16 matches)
Cup matches average attendance 2005/6: 56,713 (7 matches)
League matches average attendance 2004/5: 67,871 (19 matches)
Cup matches average attendance 2004/5: 64,359 (9 matches)
So there were over 70,000 unsold cup seats in 2005/6 compared to just 30,000 seats (from two more games) unsold the season before. Obviously the increase in ticket prices covered the empty seats but factor in the lost programme, food and merchandise sales and perhaps the price rises are not as lucrative as they first appear.
If the trend continues then there will be 100,000 – 150,000 empty seats for cup matches at Old Trafford next season – unless United are knocked out very early or get a series of plum ties.
As the new owners seek to squeeze fans to pay for their debts there will be a fine balancing act to play. Either the Glazers’ could announce that future price rises might be pegged at a reasonable level – say 5% - or the fans will vote with their feet. And given the abject lack of comment from the Glazers to date it seems pointless waiting for them to say anything positive.
The cup matches attendances were sliding before this rise and the next to go will be season ticket holders who will be priced out in their thousands if the cost continues to rise by £100 per season.
Indeed as more matches fail to sell out perhaps fans will abandon the season ticket in the hope of saving money by going to a handful of high profile games. From there it is a short step to buying a Sky Sports subscription and a comfy chair.
One of best boasts of United fans has always been that they are the best supported club in England – if the Glazers take away even that will anyone still think that the takeover meant business as usual? Does anyone think that the Glazers would rather have a full stadium of people paying £30 a game or one that is half empty, with the disruptive plebs priced out and those that are left paying £100 per seat?
Add up the numbers – which makes more money?
Antony Melvin
10 April 2006
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Pride, honour and integrity?
Rugby boy who bit opponent: Teach forbearance and forgiveness. Don't send wrong signal
I feel compelled to shed some truth on the incident involving an ACS rugby player who was alleged to have bitten his opponent during a scrum. There was no witness in the incident.
The ACS (I) rugby players were made to be seen as bullies and aggressors using rough tactics like kicking and biting to win the match. The truth is, they had already won that match by a huge margin and secured a place in the semi-final.
It doesn't take grey matter to know that no ACS player would do anything foolish to jeopardise his chances of playing in the semi- and final (the two most important matches of his life).
Not unless he was forced into self-defence by an onslaught of head-butting attacks from the opponent (which SJI denies). Such duress can be a mitigating circumstance.
In the same match, some ACS players were also injured. One suffered a 4cm cut on the right upper cheek, another was bitten on the stomach (photos were taken). Are they also not the aggrieved?
Yet, ACS is magnanimous in not pursuing the matter, least of all incriminating their "aggressors". My son's nose was broken in one such match last year and it required an operation. In another match, a finger was fractured while cuts and bruises were par for the course. The list goes on.
But not once did we think of charging anyone. And who is to say that they were just accidents and not deliberate?
The important lesson is to teach our children forbearance, forgiveness and not to be vindictive.
For decades, ACS (I) has been playing against much bigger Secondary 5 boys from many schools and it had never protested. Why are there now so much murmurs about ACS (I) fielding a couple of year-five boys for the first time?
With the much-anticipated final days away, it is very unnerving and demoralising for the ACS team to be subjected to the ordeal of having two of its key players suspended and unwarranted media attention which leaves the public questioning its sportsmanship and integrity.
At this juncture, it is paramount that the players not only be physically fit but also psychologically and emotionally strong.
Let it be known that in ACS, our boys are taught to put honour before glory. An honourable and true sportsman would admit and repent for a mistake whereas a coward and loser denies it.
That, precisely, is what the boy who bit his opponent did. He did not deny anything. He could have, as there were no witnesses.
It is so tempting for a vulnerable teenager to vehemently deny an allegation that has no substantial incriminating evidence and there's a good chance of getting away scot-free.
But it takes courage and humility to admit and apologise. A mistake has been made. Let us extend grace to allow our children to learn the right morals from it.
Or are we sending them the wrong signal: that if you have committed an offence, deny it and you may get away with it. Admit it and the penalty is severe.
Which is easier? This boy went before the panel knowing the consequences, yet he chose integrity above all. The boy is extremely remorseful. He has learnt his lesson at a high cost.
So let's not work at destroying him further by tearing his self-worth. Can our unforgiving society show mercy and compassion to a 15-year-old school boy?
Let those who have never committed a deliberate foul or rough tackle cast the first stone.
Lim Siew Whye (Ms)
-------------------------------------------------
As an officer, the words in bold really do occupy our thoughts constantly. To do the right thing and potentially get abused/punished for it? Or to do the easy thing and get away with it?
Integrity, 可以当饭吃吗？
I feel compelled to shed some truth on the incident involving an ACS rugby player who was alleged to have bitten his opponent during a scrum. There was no witness in the incident.
The ACS (I) rugby players were made to be seen as bullies and aggressors using rough tactics like kicking and biting to win the match. The truth is, they had already won that match by a huge margin and secured a place in the semi-final.
It doesn't take grey matter to know that no ACS player would do anything foolish to jeopardise his chances of playing in the semi- and final (the two most important matches of his life).
Not unless he was forced into self-defence by an onslaught of head-butting attacks from the opponent (which SJI denies). Such duress can be a mitigating circumstance.
In the same match, some ACS players were also injured. One suffered a 4cm cut on the right upper cheek, another was bitten on the stomach (photos were taken). Are they also not the aggrieved?
Yet, ACS is magnanimous in not pursuing the matter, least of all incriminating their "aggressors". My son's nose was broken in one such match last year and it required an operation. In another match, a finger was fractured while cuts and bruises were par for the course. The list goes on.
But not once did we think of charging anyone. And who is to say that they were just accidents and not deliberate?
The important lesson is to teach our children forbearance, forgiveness and not to be vindictive.
For decades, ACS (I) has been playing against much bigger Secondary 5 boys from many schools and it had never protested. Why are there now so much murmurs about ACS (I) fielding a couple of year-five boys for the first time?
With the much-anticipated final days away, it is very unnerving and demoralising for the ACS team to be subjected to the ordeal of having two of its key players suspended and unwarranted media attention which leaves the public questioning its sportsmanship and integrity.
At this juncture, it is paramount that the players not only be physically fit but also psychologically and emotionally strong.
Let it be known that in ACS, our boys are taught to put honour before glory. An honourable and true sportsman would admit and repent for a mistake whereas a coward and loser denies it.
That, precisely, is what the boy who bit his opponent did. He did not deny anything. He could have, as there were no witnesses.
It is so tempting for a vulnerable teenager to vehemently deny an allegation that has no substantial incriminating evidence and there's a good chance of getting away scot-free.
But it takes courage and humility to admit and apologise. A mistake has been made. Let us extend grace to allow our children to learn the right morals from it.
Or are we sending them the wrong signal: that if you have committed an offence, deny it and you may get away with it. Admit it and the penalty is severe.
Which is easier? This boy went before the panel knowing the consequences, yet he chose integrity above all. The boy is extremely remorseful. He has learnt his lesson at a high cost.
So let's not work at destroying him further by tearing his self-worth. Can our unforgiving society show mercy and compassion to a 15-year-old school boy?
Let those who have never committed a deliberate foul or rough tackle cast the first stone.
Lim Siew Whye (Ms)
-------------------------------------------------
As an officer, the words in bold really do occupy our thoughts constantly. To do the right thing and potentially get abused/punished for it? Or to do the easy thing and get away with it?
Integrity, 可以当饭吃吗？
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)