http://action.joinmust.org/ en Copyright 2012 2012-04-15T14:08:45+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-response-to-reports-of-revived-singapore-flotation-of-mufc/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-response-to-reports-of-revived-singapore-flotation-of-mufc/ In response to reports that the Glazers are to revive their failed attempt to float at least part of their Manchester United shareholding on the Singapore Stock Exchange and that this is a precursor to a full sale, a spokesperson for MUST - the Manchester United Supporters Trust said: "Until we have more detail it is impossible to say with certainty what this will mean for Manchester United or its supporters. However if they are coming back with the same sort of inflated valuation and the same sort of proposal including non-voting shares then they should expect the same negative response from the market as last time. If instead they have learned their lesson and decide to offer a substantial proportion of full voting shares at a reasonable valuation and this is a pre-cursor to a full sale then this could be enthusiastically welcomed by United supporters worldwide. Our aim is to provide Manchester United fans with the opportunity for mass supporter participation in ownership of their club so this could well present such an opportunity and we’d urge every Manchester United supporter who cares about the club to register with the Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) through our website. We will provide information to supporters as soon as it is available. It is quite possible that shares will not be available to ordinary supporters and that MUST will have to provide a mechanism for supporters to buy shares. We’d like to see at least a million Manchester United supporters sharing in ownership of their club and it is our role as the official supporters trust to try to make that possible. Supporters can register for free through www.joinmust.org for information." //ENDS 2012-04-15T13:08:45+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-manchester-united-supporters-challenge-joel-glazer-to-cut-uni/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-manchester-united-supporters-challenge-joel-glazer-to-cut-uni/ Manchester United ticket prices for next season are expected to be announced soon. The Manchester United Supporters' Trust (MUST) is challenging Joel Glazer to slash United's ticket prices after seeing huge rises in the early  years following their takeover meanwhile revenue has rocketed and yet net transfer spending is lower than major Premier League rivals and even some mid-table Championship teams including Hull, Blackpool and Burnley. A spokesperson for MUST said: "The Glazers have been responsible for more than £500 million pounds flowing out of Manchester United in fees, charges and other payments relating to their hostile takeover of our club. Meanwhile the club has actually spent less in net transfer fees than not only our main rivals in Europe and the Premier League (City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs) but also had a lower net spend since 2006 than Villa, Sunderland and Stoke. It's worse than that though - as reported in the Guardian in January this year - in the last three years United's net transfer spend has incredibly been less than Hull City, Blackpool and Burnley. The evidence from the independently produced league table of net transfer spending can't be obscured and this will shock many United fans. Only the incredible efforts of  Sir Alex Ferguson have allowed us to remain competitive in the Premier League - at times it feels like he is dragging the team towards a 20th League title by sheer willpower alone. However even Sir Alex's magical touch couldn't bridge that gap in Europe. But despite Sir Alex's incredible feats it comes as a huge slap in the face for fans that in spite of the immense revenues flowing into the club there have been huge ticket price hikes for loyal fans since the Glazers' 2005 takeover. Given this lack of squad investment while huge revenues are coming in and the Glazers have been constantly dipping into the clubs bank account, it is long overdue that the loyal supporters received a cut in their ticket prices. So today we are throwing down a challenge to Joel Glazer to cut United fans Season Ticket prices next season." NOTES FOR EDITORS: As confirmed by figures taken from independent site transferleague.co.uk http://bit.ly/HrSrqc Manchester United's net spend since 2006 is less than not only City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs but unbelievably also Villa, Sunderland and Stoke! This for a club which continually boasts about record turnover while extracting huge quantities of cash to cover the Glazers debt interest and bond purchases. Furthermore as the Guardian reported in Jan 2012 http://bit.ly/HrS9Qi "the Glazers are siphoning money in such staggering quantities that, in the past three years, United's net spend is lower than that of Hull City, Blackpool and Burnley!" David Conn reported http://bit.ly/ztm4mz in February 2012 that "the Glazer family have been responsible for £500m going out of United." ######### ENDS   2012-04-11T07:22:44+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/manchester-united-supporters-end-of-season-charity-dinner-saturday-5th-may/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/manchester-united-supporters-end-of-season-charity-dinner-saturday-5th-may/ Manchester United supporters end of season charity dinner - Saturday 5th May Tickets aren’t yet on sale but put this into your diary now, register for a discount code and get your group of friends together - if you can get a group of 10 for a table you get (your) seat free:  Saturday 5th May - the night before the last home game of the season - Swansea(H) at The Point, Lancs CCC Manchester United supporters end of season charity dinner in honour of James W Gibson 80 years after he saved Manchester United from extinction. What better way to round off the season than a United fans dinner with ex-players including special guests Gordon McQueen and Jimmy Greenhoff and numerous celebrity Reds. The evening will be hosted by Mancunian hero and all round defender of the Red faith Terry Christian If all goes to plan, we'll be celebrating a record 20th title too and this will be the mother of all parties!  Further details to follow - look out for your chance to register for special EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT VOUCHERS in the next email. Terry on the Greenhoff Brothers Terry Christian Showreel   Special Guest: Jimmy Greenhoff Special Guest: Gordon McQueen      Our Host: Terry Christian     Our Spectacular  Venue: - THE POINT at Lancs County Cricket Club:                       Contact Us MUST, Trafford House, Chester Road, Stretford, MANCHESTER M32 0RS Office: 0161 872 3300 (24 hour answerphone) Contact us on Twitter: Twitter MUST official: @MU_ST Twitter MUST CEO: @Drasdo -- MUST is the independent Manchester United Supporters' Trust, a not-for-profit organisation and an Industrial and Provident Society registered with the Financial Services Authority (30024R) under the name I-MUST Limited with offices at MUST, Trafford House, Chester Road, Stretford, MANCHESTER M32 0RS 2012-03-30T16:18:52+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-media-release-refootball-authorities-response-to-football-governance-r/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-media-release-refootball-authorities-response-to-football-governance-r/ MUST & MUST members have been instrumental in initiating and contributing to this whole political process going back to meetings with main parties prior to the last General Election (which secured manifesto commitments) as well as the subsequent members' MP lobbying campaign which has been extremely effectve according to feedback from Westminster.   This was sent to media this morning ahead of Football Authorities (FA, PL, FL and National Game) response to Government recommendations on Football Reform:    There is much more to do though as this is the beginning of the reform process rather than the end and we particularly want to see changes to prevent leveraged buyouts and also encourage supporter ownership and this is not sufficiently addressed in the response from the Football Authorities today.   In anticipation of the noon announcements by the football authorities (FA, Premier League and Football League), MUST - the Manchester United Supporters Trust has issued the following statement. We expect to provide a further response around 1pm. "MUST welcomes the recent period of reflection undertaken recently by the English football authorities, working with the Government and other stakeholders to improve the governance of the game. The agreements we now have for a licensing system demonstrate that progress is being made. MUST members have been monitoring developments closely, primarily hoping to redress the regulatory gaps that currently allow our own club to refuse to communicate with its own official supporters' trust and that allow its owners to continue saddling the club with the burdern of acquistion debts which have drained more then 500 million GBP out of the club in interest and fees since the Glazers took over in 2005. We are under no illusion that today's announcements will see all our concerns dealt with, but we welcome any step in the direction towards supporter engagement and sensible governance in the game. MUST members have been conducting a concerted political campaign since prior to the last General Election, where all three main parties made manifesto commitments on reform of football. In the last two weeks alone 642 of the 650 MPs have been contacted by MUST members in their constituency urging them to promote meaningful reform with an independent FA Board and comprehensive club licensing system. We do not see this as the end of the matter, merely the start of reforms that we will press to see evolve and develop. Along with national bodies Supporters Direct and The FSF, as well as trusts at other clubs, we will now be formulating proposals for Government which would allow it to fulfill its Coalition Agreement commitment to 'Encourage reform of football governance rules to support the cooperative ownership of football clubs by supporters',  which remains the primary objective of MUST."      TheFA.com - Football Authorities response on Governance http://bit.ly/xvFG6T     FA to enforce stricter rules on club ownership with new independent regulator to prevent Portsmouth repeat - Telegraph http://tgr.ph/ywAF40   The Press Association: Independent body to monitor game http://bit.ly/xad7cc   New body to police ownership of English clubs | Reuters http://reut.rs/zEGy6g    Further reference: 1. DCMS Select Committee report on Football Governance http://bit.ly/AioQKr 2. Government response to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Inquiry:http://bit.ly/AFh41s 3. Supporters Direct proposals for club licensing system: http://bit.ly/AAtm0z 4. Cost of Glazers' takeover at Manchester United reaches £500m. Despite seven years of success under the Glazers' rule, United have leaked half a billion to service the debt-laden ownership. David Conn, The Guardian http://bit.ly/ztm4mz 5. Football Supporters Federation express alarm at response to select committee inquiry into sport governance of the sport - Telegraph http://tgr.ph/A88iJr 2012-03-09T17:20:12+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/evening-standard-glazer-greed-halted-man-united-singapore-float/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/evening-standard-glazer-greed-halted-man-united-singapore-float/ Man Utd float could struggle... Don’t hold your breath over Premier League champions Manchester United’s proposed £600 million flotation in Singapore, a well-informed gossip tells City Spy over lunch. Reports blamed the delay of the partial float last year on global volatility caused by the eurozone crisis, but our man — who’s spent a great deal of time in Singapore lately talking to most of the city-state’s wealthiest individuals — says support for the float would be lukewarm at best, and pins the blame on United’s billionaire owners, the Glazer family, for sucking too much cash out of the club.   City Spy: ECB pumps up charidee day - City Spy - Business - Evening Standard http://bit.ly/Ajnqyq 2012-03-06T15:46:33+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-mufc-q2-results-glazers-have-spent-all-of-the-ronaldo-money-b/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-mufc-q2-results-glazers-have-spent-all-of-the-ronaldo-money-b/ In response to the Manchester United Q2 financial results revealed today a Manchester United Supporters' Trust (MUST) spokesperson said: "Manchester United revenues continue to grow strongly although costs are increasing just as quickly so pretty much negating that growth. However the key figures of interest to supporters show the Glazers have now spent every penny of the money received from the sale of Ronaldo, and more. That's now £92.8m spent on buying back their own bond debt that they loaded onto our club. So statements at the time that all of the Ronaldo money would be made available for reinvestment were clearly just spin." "Since the sale of Ronaldo (30th June 2009) net transfers (not including Ronaldo) have totalled just £90m while they have taken out of the club £225m to cover their debt payments and interest. What could the club have done with that extra £225m? Cheaper tickets for loyal fans, investing massively in the squad and stadium, developing and retaining the best youth players, competing on an equal basis with the very best teams in Europe. This is the true cost to Manchester United of the Glazers ownership." Results available here: http://mufplc.com/ 2012-02-21T14:51:42+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/more-encouraging-noises-from-westminster-on-football-governance-keep-up-the/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/more-encouraging-noises-from-westminster-on-football-governance-keep-up-the/   More encouraging noises from Westminster on reform of football. Thanks to all those members who have participated in lobbying activities over the last 2 years or so. We need to maintain the pressure.   Transcript from the Westminster Hall debate on Football Governance    Westminster Hall - 9 February  Football Governance [Relevant documents: Seventh Report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2010-12, HC 792, and the Government Response, Cm 8207.] Motion made, and Question proposed ,That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Greg Hands.) 2.30 pm Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair): For the benefit of people in the Public Gallery and everyone else, I should make it clear that today’s debate is about the Select Committee’s report entitled “Football Governance”, which makes recommendations to the Government, and the Government have responded. Both documents are available for hon. Members. I hope that we have a constructive discussion. I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to introduce the debate. Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Havard, and to have the opportunity to discuss the Select Committee’s report on football governance. This was a substantial inquiry by the Committee. It is worth remembering why the Committee decided that this was an important issue that deserved examination. There were two reasons, the first of which was the clear commitment given by both the parties that now form the coalition Government. It was clear that action needed to be taken, particularly to assist and encourage supporters to have greater involvement in the ownership and running of football clubs. That commitment appears plainly in the coalition agreement, although it was perhaps slightly less clear on precisely how it should be delivered. The Committee thought that it might be in a position to help the Government by taking evidence, examining that question and making recommendations. However, this was not just about supporter involvement, although that is a very important element. It rapidly became apparent to us that there was quite significant concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the general state of our national game. A debate in this Chamber was extremely well attended by hon. Members, many of whom spoke up about the difficulties facing their local football clubs. There was widespread concern that something was wrong with the game. Perhaps that was best summed up by my hon. Friend the Minister, who famously described football as the “worst-governed sport” in England. I have to say that in the course of the Committee’s inquiry, we did not find much evidence to contradict what he said. However, we also found much to admire and praise about English football. There is no question but that it arouses huge passions up and down the country. As I said, this was a substantial inquiry. We received more than 100 submissions of evidence. We held eight oral evidence sessions, to hear from every component part of the game. The Committee went on a number of 9 Feb 2012 : Column 144WH visits. We went to Manchester City football club to see the huge investment that has taken place under its new owners. They have taken the club from the bottom levels to the top levels of the premier league. We went to Arsenal to see the Emirates stadium and to meet the management there. We held oral evidence sessions at Wembley stadium and Burnley football club. We also went to Germany. Looking at Germany’s model of licensing football clubs was a particularly influential part of our inquiry. It made quite an impact on the Committee. I will not go through the whole report in detail, because many hon. Members are present and want to contribute and I hope that most of them have already read the report and are familiar with our findings. Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way before he goes into the report? Mr Whittingdale: I will of course give way to my colleague on the Committee. Paul Farrelly: I apologise that I cannot stay for the whole debate because of constituency engagements. Does the Chairman of the Select Committee agree that the centrepiece of the report is the recommendation that the Football Association reassert its role as the sport’s ultimate governing body—in particular, through a licensing system, which he has just mentioned, and a modern, effective form of governance that would not allow, for example, the FA to be bounced into a naive renegotiation of the England manager’s contract as it was? Mr Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman—he is really a friend on the Committee—encapsulates the report in a couple of sentences very well. I am almost tempted to say that he has done my job for me and finished my speech. Yes, there is no question but that we felt that at the heart of the reforms that were necessary was the game’s governance structure: ultimately, the FA. I will go on to talk about that in more detail. I did not intend to talk at great length about the management of the England football team, although that is obviously a matter of great interest and debate today. I heard the Minister’s remarks during Culture, Media and Sport questions a few hours ago, and I entirely agreed with him. I am sure that the matter will crop up again during the debate. Before I move to the report’s main recommendations, I want to pay tribute to three people. The first two were our expert advisers: Christine Oughton and Rick Parry, who provided enormously helpful experience and wise advice to the Committee. We relied a lot on their input throughout our inquiry. The third person to whom I should pay tribute, particularly in a debate on football governance, is our late colleague on the Committee, Alan Keen. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Alan was the senior member of the Committee. He was a member of it before I became Chairman. Football was his passion. He chaired the all-party group on football. He was very—I am tempted to say keen—eager that we should embark on this inquiry. It was a great sadness to us that, because of his illness, he was not able to play as great a part in the 9 Feb 2012 : Column 145WH inquiry as he would have liked. He is certainly greatly missed. It is only right in a debate on football that we pay tribute to him. Some people asked why the Committee was looking at football at all, because it is a huge success in many respects. The Premier League is probably the most successful in the world. It has an average attendance of 350,000 people each weekend and about 92% occupancy. The second league—the Football League—gets average attendances of 375,000. Some £2 billion of revenue comes into the Premier League. There is no question but that the top English clubs are watched not just throughout this country, but in almost every country in the world. It is hard to go into a bar in any country and not see a screen in the corner showing the premier league. To that extent, it is hugely successful. There were those who said, “In that case, why are you bothering to spend this time looking at it? Why don’t you go off and look at other things?” But we found that there was widespread concern about the underlying state of the game. That was felt right across football and among followers of football. Despite the huge revenues that come in, very few clubs trade profitably. The main reason for that is the extraordinary amount of money paid out on players’ salaries. The consequence is that debt has become an enormous problem throughout the game. Debt kept coming up as one of the principal issues causing concern. More than half of Football League clubs have gone into administration at some stage since 1992, and all operate on very narrow margins. The net debt of the Premier League clubs is £2.6 billion. Some people would say that that in itself may not be a problem. Indeed, there will be clubs that operate with quite significant debt, but as long as they can service that debt and trade, it is not necessarily something that need be addressed immediately. However, there is no question but that the debt is a major issue. We were told by the chairman of the Football League, for instance, that it was the issue that kept him awake at night. There is also concern about ownership, which is not wholly dissociated from the question of debt. That, too, was something that we considered. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) suggested, we decided that if we were to address the problem, the most important thing that needed to be tackled was governance. Therefore, we wanted to establish, right from the start—this may seem self-evident, but it was not necessarily self-evident—that the FA is the ruling body of football. The FA therefore needs to be reformed if we are to get this right. Some years ago, Lord Burns produced an extremely good report, which made a number of recommendations for reform. When we heard from him, some of his recommendations had been accepted. They included the incorporation of the FA chairman and chief executive on to the FA board, but they were still waiting to bring on the two independent non-executive directors. Progress, I believe, has been made since then. Terry Burns told us that, if anything, he felt that he had been too timid and that he would have liked to have gone further in involving non-executive directors. Indeed, we heard from one former chief executive of the FA that he wanted an entirely independent, non-executive 9 Feb 2012 : Column 146WH FA board. We felt that that was not wholly realistic. We were also clear that, as in most corporate structures, the board needed to be relatively streamlined to be effective. After some debate, we decided to recommend that the right size for the FA board was 10, and that it should include the chairman and chief executive of the FA, the two non-executives and two more of the FA executive directors—in particular, the director of football development. Alongside them, we decided that there should be two representatives of the professional game—presumably one from the Premier League and one from the Football League—and two representatives of the national game. Although we understood the reasons why others, such as supporters, players and managers, wanted representations, we felt that that could make the board unwieldy. Therefore, we felt that we had come up with the right composition. At the same time, we also felt that there needed to be reform of the FA council, which is an extraordinary and enormous body. It dates back many years to include representatives from Oxford and Cambridge, the three separate services and the public schools, but very few representatives of players and people who actually watch football. We therefore felt that that was something that needed to be addressed. We were also slightly concerned that the meetings started at 11 o’clock and finished at lunchtime and that some of the members of the FA council seemed to have been there for 50 years or more. We felt that there was a need to address the composition of the council, the tenure of its membership and the form of its meetings. We felt very strongly that the council should be a parliament and not an executive decision-making body. Once those governance reforms are in place, we will be able to move forward to tackle some of the underlying difficulties affecting the game. I have talked about debt, so the next is financial management. We welcomed the introduction of UEFA’s new financial fair play rules, which will affect those clubs that have ambitions to play in European matches. We felt that the principles underlying the financial fair play rules were absolutely right; they commanded a lot of support and should be applied throughout football. One aspect of the financial management of clubs that caused considerable concern to the Committee was the football creditors’ rule. I have absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) may talk about that a little more, because he particularly pursued that issue during our discussions. Although we could see the reasons why that rule was in place, we felt that it was unfair on creditors, as they were often small firms in local communities that had supported the local team. If that team gets into difficulty and goes into administration, they have to go to the back of the queue after all the football creditors before having their debts paid. We felt that that was unfair, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will say more about that. One aspect that I have taken a long-standing interest in and that still creates significant potential difficulties is the ruling of the European Court on broadcasting rights and territorial sales, the full implications of which we are still waiting to see. It could have a very damaging effect and it is of concern not just to certain broadcasters but to a large number of people involved in football. 9 Feb 2012 : Column 147WH As for how we enforce the financial fair play rules and the other necessary changes, we were impressed by what we saw in Germany. Germany has a licensing model and we saw the way in which it was used to ensure that the clubs do not trade beyond their means for long periods. We saw how they were required to follow certain rules specified by the Bundesliga. We decided that if we were to achieve our changes, we needed a national licensing scheme. The best body to administer that is clearly the FA. Therefore, the other main thrust of our recommendations was that we should move to a licensing scheme under the FA, which should address issues such as the financial management of the game, the sale of stadiums, investment in youth development and all the other areas where, understandably, concerns have been raised. It could also address ownership. Foreign ownership in the game is not necessarily a bad thing. After we saw what Sheikh Mansour had done in Manchester City, we could understand why the fans had great banners up saying, “Long live Sheikh Mansour.” However, there are other who are less committed to the development of clubs. We also felt that the fit and proper person test, which is necessary, had not always been as effective as it might have been. Indeed, we debated long and hard about what someone had to do to fail the fit and proper person test in English football. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): My hon. Friend is talking sense on the fit and proper person test which seems to be honoured more in its breach. Going back to overseas ownership, does he feel that there should be a different regime for football clubs compared with the rest of the UK economy? If so, how does he see that operating? Mr Whittingdale: The truth is there will be different regimes governing the ownership of football clubs. For this particular aspect, a slightly different regime should apply. I am not against the principle of foreign ownership. Just as I do not have a kneejerk response to foreign ownership in football, the same is true of the wider economy. To some extent, there are special factors, but I am not opposed to overseas ownership per se. Let me pay one word of tribute. When the Committee visited Burnley FC, we were well entertained by the chairman of the club, Barry Kilby. In many ways, he represents all that is best about local ownership. He was a business man who had been successful in his community and had put back a huge amount into Burnley FC. His passion for the club was undoubted. Therefore, a strong local owner can bring great benefits. Paul Farrelly: Will the Committee Chairman extend the same compliments to Peter Coates, who is chairman of Stoke City? The Chairman may be aware that I have been supporter of the club since I was five years old. Mr Whittingdale: I am very happy to pay the same tribute to Peter Coates. As an aside, let me say that the rest of the Committee used to enjoy having a sweepstake on how long it would take the hon. Gentleman to mention Stoke City during our deliberations. I am glad that he has done so today. The issue that I want to finish on is the one that we set out to address, which is that of supporter ownership and involvement. It is a crucial factor, and the Government 9 Feb 2012 : Column 148WH are right to say that it should be encouraged. It is unrealistic to say that the top Premier League clubs are likely to be owned by their supporters, but there are some clubs lower down that are already supporter owned and more should be done to help supporters’ trusts that want to become owners. For example, there was some concern about the way in which the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 operates. It causes difficulties for supporters, and we thought that the Government might address that. We thought that when supporters’ trusts have minority stakes, there might be some merit in giving them protection, so that if a club is acquired and the 90% threshold is reached, they are not necessarily forced to give up their ownership to the new owner. There are several areas where we would like clubs if not formally to give a role to supporters, to involve them much more in decision making and with information. One club that we visited, and whose supporters are extremely involved through the fanshare scheme, is Arsenal. When the Minister came before us, I raised the fact that Arsenal’s new owner had not then given a public commitment to support the fanshare scheme. My understanding is that he has still not done that, and I think the Minister said that he might encourage him to do so. That is an example of an active supporters’ organisation and how it can play a valuable role if the club ownership recognises it. Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee for the work that it has done in this area. The recommendation for a fan liaison officer is a good idea. Supporters up and down the land are crying out for that. Can the Chairman of the Committee offer any hope that that might be made to happen? Mr Whittingdale: I think that that is a matter more for my hon. Friend the Minister than for me, but I certainly agree that it is something to be encouraged, and that fan liaison officers can play a valuable role. I am sure that my hon. Friend will touch on that. I thank the Minister for the Government’s extremely positive response to the report. He could not have done more to make it clear that they want its recommendations to be implemented. I think he and I take the same view that it is not desirable for the Government to legislate, but that the matter is so important that if that is what must happen, it will happen. I hope that we will not come to that, and he may be able to say a little more about the state of discussions. He made it clear today that the deadline of 29 February is still in place, and I hope that all those involved in football who may listening this afternoon will be spurred on to ensure that the sort of reforms that we think are necessary are achieved by that deadline. Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair): Order. Given the number of hon. Members who wish to speak and the time constraint, Members should estimate to speak for 10 minutes, and plan do so for eight minutes. 2.52 pm Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): That is a tall order, Mr Havard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I was not a member of the Select Committee at the time of the inquiry into 9 Feb 2012 : Column 149WH football governance, but it is reasonable to argue from the tone of the Committee’s report and the Government’s response that the topic has been debated in a good spirit, and I wish to continue that. I am in the unique and fortunate position of being the only Member of Parliament to have two Premier League football clubs in my constituency—Everton and Liverpool. I cut my parliamentary teeth leading a well-attended Westminster Hall debate on this very issue way back in September 2010. Before I begin my speech in earnest, I want to take the opportunity to echo the comments by the Chair of the Select Committee about Alan Keen, and to send my condolences and, I am sure, those of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to the families of the 75 supporters who were killed recently at a football stadium in Egypt. No matter which club we support, we are all part of the wider football family, and that loss is a football tragedy as well as a human one. Football is one of our country’s undoubted successes, and we are the home of the beautiful game. We are also the home of the best and most competitive leagues in the world. Children from around the globe are dreaming about the chance to play football at Wembley, the Emirates stadium, Stamford Bridge, Goodison Park, Anfield, and perhaps even Old Trafford. Wealthy tycoons are dreaming of the Premier League promised land. They are attracted to English football as a way of investing their money and seeing the best players in the world play for their clubs to an extent not seen in other countries. Despite the merits of other leagues such as the Bundesliga, La Liga, Ligue Une and Serie A, it is the Premier League and even the championship that attracts international investors, because they continue to offer the best that football has. Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan are the only two owners with an unlimited pot of money, and who are capable of injecting copious amounts into their respective clubs. Today, some clubs, such as Tottenham, are plcs and listed on the stock market. Others, such as Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Blackburn and Sunderland, are owned by professional sport investors. Others seem to be owned for the prestige—for example, Fulham, which is owned by Mohammed al Fayed. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) may speak about that. However, some takeovers reinforce the point that football clubs are simply economic entities to be bought and sold like any other commodity, which completely neglects the broader social impact that clubs have in their local communities and beyond. The result for many clubs in recent times has been to chart a course that is perilously close to the brink. Portsmouth, which I think we will also hear about, ran up debts totalling £119 million, and it is still far from fiscal safety. Southend United and Cardiff City recently managed to pay their debts just before the taxman’s axe was wielded. Several other clubs have suffered administration, such as Southampton, Darlington, Crystal Palace, Wimbledon, Hornchurch and Scarborough. Leeds United, which was probably the biggest victim of all, was allowed to play in the Football League despite no one knowing who owned the club. 9 Feb 2012 : Column 150WH In 2009, the all-party group on football found that the group most under-represented in the game was those who should have the most say—the fans. One of the biggest problems with football governance is that at most levels of the game those who pay for it are excluded from the decision-making structures in clubs, leagues and even governing bodies. In pursuit of a global phenomenon, which we have achieved with the Premier League, we failed properly to regulate our national obsession. I do not pretend that there is a simple answer, but a major problem that needs to be addressed is the fit-and-proper-person test, to which the Chair of the Select Committee has referred. It is an absolute sham. If it were not, the majority of aforementioned clubs would never have been in the position they were because of owners who abused the system and played fast and loose with football clubs that are the pillars of communities across Britain. Mark Field: All too often, clubs in appalling financial difficulty grasp at the nearest straw like a drowning man. There may be only one individual who can save the club, but they may not pass the fit-and-proper-person test in a meaningful way. However, if the choice is that person or the club going bust, one understands why the former choice is made, albeit one that leads to other difficulties further down the line. How does the hon. Gentleman envisage getting round that problem if the alternative is for a club to go bankrupt and to spiral out of the league, as has happened to several former league clubs in recent years? Steve Rotheram: That is exactly the point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) will talk about his beloved football club, and the fact that that happens too often for the problem not to be tackled. That is exactly what the Select Committee set out to do—to consider what recommendations we could suggest on a non-party political basis to ensure that the football authorities have to take cognisance of such issues, and include football fans in the governance of their football teams. We cannot pretend that one size fits all, because it does not. We need a proactive approach to redress the imbalance in football governance, an imbalance that has seen some owners and directors of football clubs using them like playthings that can be thrown aside when they become bored, while the fans—the lifeblood of any club—are pushed further and further away from the decision-making process. A more inclusive approach would probably not be universally popular among football’s elite. Indeed, I spoke to one senior representative of a football club who said that he did not want the lunatics to run the asylum. I am a bit fed up with seeing fans given the rough end of the stick. They are treated by some club owners as an irritant or a problem, but yet they are expected to be part of the solution when those errant owners disappear, leaving the club in financial crisis. Supporters Direct is leading a new initiative that I think deserves more focus. It builds on the ideas and recommendations made by the Committee and on the Government’s response regarding the implementation of a new licensing framework that is impartial and independent of the reformed FA board. I welcome the changes to the FA at board level. 9 Feb 2012 : Column 151WH It is crucial that impartiality is maintained because that will ensure total transparency which, we will all agree, has been missing from the FA for some time. We must, however, give credit where it is due, and there have been welcome introductions since David Bernstein’s appointment. I hope, however, that the chairman of the FA will not rest on his laurels, and that he will do something about the current ludicrous situation that allows football managers to profit from the sale of players. Regardless of what has happened over the past 24 hours, that immorality remains, and if ever there were a conflict of interest, that is it. There are two dimensions to the licensing framework proposed by Supporters Direct: “Promotion of financial and social responsibility, and balancing of the supporting, commercial and social objectives of clubs.” and “To ensure that clubs and their assets are protected for current and future generations.” Supporters Direct has stated: “The framework for supporter and community engagement should provide rights for supporters on behalf of the community subject to conditions…Rights would be granted to a ‘Fit and Proper Supporters’ Trust’ for engagement with their clubs.” The level of engagement would increase according to the degree of development of the “fit and proper” supporters’ trust. If such a measure were implemented, it would give fans a voice at the top table. I believe that football fans would use the opportunity to nominate a trusted supporter to make informed decisions—it is the big society writ large. I am aware of some football clubs that would hold an election and offer season ticket holders, as well as club members, the opportunity to vote for a candidate on the basis of a quasi-manifesto set of pledges. Supporters Direct has stated: “The co-operative ownership of football clubs via supporters’ trusts thus offers huge benefits not only to the way that the game is run, but also to local communities.” Although I recognise that there will always be a tension between financial and social returns, the football world is starting to realise that a greater balance needs to be struck. We are starting to see a yearning for the greater involvement of supporters in football governance not only in the UK, but across Europe. Another proposal is for the reformed FA board to consider ways to increase the number of ex-footballers in boardrooms. Such a move would appease the grumblings of many fans who believe that directors are not “football people” but are out-of-touch businessmen. That is currently the case at Blackburn Rovers, a club that is rich in history and has fantastic loyal support. Despite becoming a global phenomenon with a worldwide audience, football is not immune to external forces outside the control of its internal market. Lessons must be drawn from disasters such as the global financial crash. All bubbles have the potential to burst. Football needs a regulatory framework and a governance structure that is as transparent as reasonably practicable. I am confident that there is the political will in the Chamber and the DCMS to make progress. I hope that that continues, and that the Minister will take on board the strength of feeling on this issue. 9 Feb 2012 : Column 152WH 3.4 pm Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will try to be brief. I welcome equally the report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Government response. We should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister. He has been robust in his criticism of football’s current governance arrangements, and he has insisted on a response to those criticisms by the end of the month. I know he is confident that he will get a reply, and perhaps when he responds to the debate he will say what sort of content he expects that reply to contain. We all accept that the English game is played to a very high standard, and we know that 8 million fans have already watched premiership games this season. Six premiership teams have taken part in the past 10 finals of the European championships, and we have fantastic football in this country. We cannot, however, say the same things about what takes place inside the boardroom, or the governance of the game, that we say about the quality of the playing. All too often, fans have to worry about issues such as debt and ownership, rather than performance on the pitch. Fans are losing out because of the ridiculously high price of a premiership season ticket, or because many of our top-flight clubs still do not have adequate facilities for disabled fans. Fans and clubs that want to introduce safe standing do not have the opportunity to do so, and many of the clubs that are lower in the league are in difficulty because they are obliged to adhere to ludicrously inappropriate rules such as those on transfer windows. There is much to sort out. The predominant areas of concern expressed by the Committee were, quite rightly, those of money and governance. Paul Farrelly: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the central role that football plays in communities because he is the Member for Bath, where rugby has a similar role. Does he agree that one key task for a governance regime in football is that of fostering a game where the finances are sustainable? People involved in the premiership, such as David Gill of Manchester United and Peter Coates of Stoke City, have broadly welcomed the thrust of the Committee’s report. It would therefore be surprising and disappointing if the FA, which has acted so decisively over the England captain and manager, did not welcome the reassertion of its role, and the means by which to do that. Mr Foster: I hope the hon. Gentleman proves to be right and we will hear about the response on that issue that the Minister will receive. He is right to mention his concern for the sustainability of finance in football. As we heard from the Chair of the Committee, although the level of debt has been declining, in the premiership it still stands at £2.6 billion. Some 68% of its income is currently being spent on players, rather than on other important things. If we compare the premiership with the rest of European football, we discover that the English premiership has more than 50% of the total debt held by all the leading clubs in Europe. Last season, the championship declared its highest ever level of debt at £133 million, and we know that it is spending about £4 for every £3 that it generates. That is not sustainable. It is vital to welcome 9 Feb 2012 : Column 153WH UEFA’s proposals, and they will be implemented even though they will not affect all the clubs in this country. That is why the licensing proposals are so critical. UEFA’s proposals are key. A report by Deloitte published today reflects much of what it said in its 2011 report, and points out that although there have been a lot of false dawns, the UEFA proposals may provide the key to moving forward and to financial sustainability. As it said in its 2011 report, however, “the more things change, the more they stay the same. While football’s revenue performance has been spectacular, sustainably managing its costs remains football’s primary business challenge.” That is a key issue that the Select Committee’s report and the UEFA proposals seek to address, which I welcome. I also very much welcome the proposals from the Select Committee on governance of the game. It is right that the FA be the leading body for football in this country, and it must take charge of many of the deliberations that take place in the 14 different committees. It is ludicrous that so many of them report, not to the board, but to the council. The key people making the decisions are therefore at a distance from the considerations of those various committees. The Select Committee was quite right to suggest that the board must be slimmed down. We should all welcome the moves to bring non-executives on to the board, but clearly more must be done to move forward and slim down. Reform of the FA council itself is equally important. The Chair of the Select Committee has already made it clear how inappropriate the current arrangements are. I was interested in what Malcolm Clarke, the chairman of the Football Supporters’ Federation, said: 2012-02-10T15:56:03+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-news-political-campaign-for-reform-of-football-continues-at-westminste/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-news-political-campaign-for-reform-of-football-continues-at-westminste/   MUST representatives Oli Winton and Duncan Drasdo attended a Supporters Direct reception in Parliament on Wednesday, to see SD's  proposals for football club licensing being formally launched. The Government has committed to the introduction of a licensing system to improve governance in the game and has asked the football authorities to present their ideas for its precise content by the end of this month, so this was a timely event.  Speeches were made by representatives of all the main parties as well as by William Gaillard, Advisor to the President at UEFA. It was an impressive turnout of over 30 MPs as well as SD and FSF representatives and members of many other trusts across all levels of the game.  SD's proposals particularly focus on integrating supporters' trusts into the governance of their clubs, which MPs on all sides of the House backed. William Gaillard talked about the journey UEFA have taken towards licensing, including the introduction of Financial Fair Play, part of the new UEFA licensing criteria. Brian Burgess, Acting Chief Executive of SD, said "We have laid down what we consider to be sensible, considered proposals, that provide a formal route for supporters' trusts to earn the right to be involved in the governance of their clubs in a constructive fashion. Today is evidence that we have wide-scale, cross-party support for a set of proposals that will actively enhance the relationship between supporters' trusts, clubs and their communities. It was extremely encouraging to hear praise from other trusts, academics and politicians for MUST's campaign work. Sometimes it is easy to forget how much our organisation and the efforts of many of our members has achieved - especially if you listen to what some of our own fans say. Lobbying work continues on Football Governance reform before we move our focus to how the Government can fulfil its Coalition Agreement commitment to "encourage supporter ownership" MUST report by: Oli Winton (MUST Committee Member) Associate Director, Luther Pendragon Links: SD reception details: http://bit.ly/wnbwT3 SD proposal for a comprehensive licensing system: http://bit.ly/AAtm0z SD report on reception: http://bit.ly/zAh021 2012-02-03T12:17:18+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/consultation/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/consultation/ JOINT STATEMENT FROM THE INDEPENDENT MANCHESTER UNITED SUPPORTERS ASSOCIATION (IMUSA) & THE MANCHESTER UNITED SUPPORTERS’ TRUST (MUST) Result of Consultation on Policing and Stewarding at Anfield 28/01/12  Statement Contains: 1. Summary of consultation with Merseyside Police, Liverpool Licensing Committee and LFC, Season 2011/12  2. Advice and information for Manchester United supporters travelling to Anfield, 28/01/12 3. Review of successes and failures of the consultation regarding allocation. 4. Review of successes and failures of the consultation regarding policing. 5. Contacts and Acknowledgements 1. Summary of consultation with Merseyside Police, Liverpool Licensing Committee and LFC, Season 2011/12  IMUSA and MUST, in conjunction with the Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF), have met with Merseyside police, Liverpool City Council’s licensing committee and representatives of Liverpool FC on several occasions this season. The aim of this consultation has been: (1) to restore Manchester United’s ticket allocation for matches at Anfield in line with Premier League/F.A. regulations, and (2) to provide guidance and assistance to travelling MUFC fans. Consultation between fan groups and police/clubs/licensing authorities is recommended in many of the relevant regulations and codes of best practice for the police, football authorities and clubs, and liaison with all genuine fan organisations will be increasingly important in the future (particularly with the introduction from 2013 of Supporter Liaison Officers under UEFA Licensing requirements).  We are pleased that IMUSA and MUST have been identified as important stakeholders in this respect, and welcome the efforts of Merseyside police, LCC Licensing Committee and LFC in 2011/12 to engage in consultation. The discussions have been largely constructive, but we have not been completely successful in our aims and much progress can still be made.   2. Advice and information for Manchester United supporters travelling to Anfield, 28/01/12 Based on the meeting held at Merseyside Police Headquarters on 18/01/12, we are expecting the following from the police and stewarding operation for visiting Manchester United supporters on the day of the match. However fans should be aware that police operations can change depending on intelligence they receive on the day. a) There will be no alcohol on sale in the away sections of Anfield. b) We have been assured that increased stewarding and policing of the Anfield Road upper stand will ensure no repeat of the persistent missile-throwing that United fans had to endure the last time they visited Anfield for an FA Cup tie (in 2006). c) There is likely to be a hold-back of United fans for about 15 minutes after the final whistle while the streets surrounding the away end are cleared of home supporters. It is unlikely that fans will have access to toilet facilities during this period. d) It is likely that there will be a police escort from Anfield to Liverpool Lime Street following the match. This should be a voluntary escort for fans and there is no obligation to join it. The police will make a decision on the day about whether to have a (voluntary) police escort to the stadium from the station. However remember that Merseyside police do retain the power to enforce an escort upon specific groups they consider to be ‘risk’ in terms of public order. e) There will be no parking facilities set aside for visiting fans. However, car parks near Goodison Park will be available to away fans as well as home fans. There is also street parking in that area.  3. Review of the successes and failures of the consultation regarding allocation We were disappointed with the decision of Liverpool’s licensing committee to reduce United’s allocation at the league game of 15/10/11 to just under 2,000. This was a decision taken on the grounds of ‘migration’ by United fans from their designated seats and the blocking of radial gangways at previous matches. Despite our representations to the licensing committee, we were unable to have this decision changed, but we were advised that if visiting fans kept gangways clear for the 15/10/11 match, then the full allocation would be restored for the subsequent match (whether league or cup). Feedback from Merseyside police following this match indicated that gangway blocking had not been a significant problem on this occasion.  In this context, we were disappointed with the licensing committee’s decision in January to reduce our FA Cup allocation by 960 tickets to 5,300. This decision was reached without any consultation with supporter groups and was made on the basis of ongoing problems of migration and gangways blocking. Given the reported improvement in the behaviour of United fans on 15/10/11, we feel this decision was unjust. We remain of the opinion that the sale of restricted view seats at the back of Anfield Road lower (the far goal cannot be seen when fans are standing) will continue to lead to fan migration. IMUSA and MUST acknowledge that standing in gangways is a problem for safety officers and the licensing authorities as it restricts access for police and paramedics and poses a risk of crowd surges.  However we would prefer that licensing committees and Safety Advisory Groups work with supporters to identify long-term solutions rather than focussing on short-term aims and collective punishments.  We do, however, welcome the stance of the Council and LFC towards ‘persistent standing’ in seated areas. Despite misleading media reporting, MUFC did not have their allocation reduced due to standing and we agree with the views expressed in the meetings that the issue of standing in seated areas by itself does not pose health and safety risks for supporters. 4. Review of successes and failures of the consultation regarding policing. We have had two very promising meetings with Merseyside Police and LFC regarding MUFC’s away matches in 2011/12. We welcome the invitations to engage in consultation and would also like to thank representatives from MUFC, the FA and Greater Manchester Police for also attending. Both meetings provided us with useful information and advice that we can pass on to supporters, and reassurances with regard to policing and stewarding. The identification of supporter and police liaison individuals during the match is also a potentially useful development. We were, however, disappointed with the content of the Merseyside Police press release (25/01/12) which we do not feel reflects the tone or content of the meetings and instead focused on the risk of negative behaviour from some fans. We believe that press releases of this nature serve no useful purpose for supporters; they do not provide helpful information or advice and can be patronising or even threatening in tone. We also do not believe that they are useful as a deterrent against any supporters who intend on becoming involved in violence or disorder.  5. Contacts and Acknowledgements Despite the relatively modest outcomes from the consultation on this occasion, IMUSA and MUST will continue to engage in liaison with clubs, local authorities and the police to try and ensure that MUFC fans receive a fair and equitable allocation in line with competition regulations, and are treated fairly and proportionately by police and stewards. We welcome approaches from other clubs and police forces where MUFC are playing and also welcome feedback from match-going United fans about specific or general concerns. We would like to thank Amanda Jacks from the Football Supporters Federation (www.fsf.org.uk) and Dale Haslam from Redsaway (www.redsaway.com) for their assistance in this consultation process. IMUSA is the Independent Manchester United Supporters Association and campaigns on issues such as ticketing, safe standing, atmosphere and governance. IMUSA also gives help and advice to individual members and will act on their behalf when in dispute with the club or authorities. Contact - www.imusa.org; e-mail: comms@imusa.org  MUST is the independent Manchester United Supporters’ Trust. It is campaigning for a meaningful supporter ownership stake in MUFC and represents over 175,000 members. Contact: www.joinmust.org; e-mail: matchgoingreds@joinmust.org  2012-01-25T18:07:54+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/comments-from-full-member-consultation-on-must-employees/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/comments-from-full-member-consultation-on-must-employees/   In the interests of continued transparency we are publishing below ALL the comments (both for and against) so far received from Full Members in the online consultation exercise. There is clearly overwhelming support for the Board's proposals - full details of the figures (numbers and %) will be published when the consultation closes.   These are all the comments received so far and are unedited except to remove personal identification information:    Long overdue and in my view essential to progressing the organisation.   Provided any MUST member levy to pay said person/people is within reason.   We pay in money for the eventual purchase from those Yanks, so any losses towards costs must be minimal. Yes to staff, but not many please.   Just stunning you have got so far on pure volunteer work!   Strongly agree. But will inevitably lead to additional costs/investment  if CEO wants to/ is asked to achieve specific targets. Fund-raising part of role - but shouldn't dominate.   I would change my mind if there looked a realistic possibility of there being a chance of owning the whole/part of Man U.  At the moment it looks years away and increasing our costs may not in my view solve this.   absolutely no problem with this proposal, its a credit that there aren't already paid employees.   Obviously provided the finances are acceptable   I have noticed that the organization is growing rapidly and the succeed with further plans, paid employees are a must in these situations however maybe on a temp basis? xxxxxx   About bloody time! Dunc has done sterling work and it's high time he's paid for it   The salary offered to the CEO should be reasonable but not excessive. As regards employing a graduate intern, I do not approve of exploitation of young graduates. The graduate should be paib a proper salary commensurate with their qualification.    xxxxxxx   WHAT LEVEL OF BASIC SALARY IS PROPOSED  AND INCENTIVES SHOULD BE CAPPED   Long overdue by the sound of it!   I agree that in order to adopt a more professional approach going forward it is essential to have paid employees. Achieving the correct balance between salaried staff and voluntary contribution is key to the future success of the organisation.    Appropriate remuneration for Duncam Drasdo is long overdue.    Yours sincerely    Txxxxxxx   If it will help the cause move forward and continue the fight to get the yanks out I our club then yes most definatly! I would  be willing to help the fight in Belfast if possible.   xxxxx   I am pleased to give you 100% support.  Thank you for all your hard work.   Re the proposal for one or more graduate interns (below). Whilst pay might be considered less important than the value of the work experience for the individual/s appointed, I would be FUNDAMENTALLY AGAINST unpaid or expenses-only internships, as has become the norm in politics, PR, charities, and many large companies lately. These rule out many of the young graduates who most need such experience - not having the right connections to find internships (or jobs) easily, but unable to afford to work for nothing. (Incidentally, I am a retired company director, so have no personal interest in the problem - but much past experience of graduate recruitment.) xxxxxxxx   experience etc in campaigning using facebook,twitter etc    use prper recruitment procedures i.e person spec and essential and desirable requirements and equal opportunities i. ensure gender race etc monitored from application form- if i can help with this please ask as i worked in discrimination issues especially in emloyment    best wishes  xxxxx   Thank you for allowing me a voice in this process. It is much appreciated. Whilst I am sure there is justification for paid employees to be taken on I would be glad to receive further information on the employment plans.   It is not clear to me whether the membership will have sight of the job description, or not. In a continued spirit of transparency, which, admirably, you seem to have adopted, I would be interested in receiving more information as the plans to take on employees develop. I hope you get the support needed to proceed.  Many thanks  xxxxxxx   The level of remuneration should reflect the dedication and professionalism Duncan has brought to bear during this protracted campaign.  In principle, I fully endorse and support this course of action 100%.   I approve on the basis that the renumeration is not in any way excessive. I would not like to see MUST become an organisation that constantly needs to raise funds just to pay salaries.   An organisation such as MUST can only take the next step on the ladder to true global growth if it pays key employees. I certainly support the principal of part of my subscription going towards remuneration of employees.   I hope that all positions other than Duncan's will be filled by an open and transparent process.  As for the internship we should be paying the NMW if s/he is a worker.  Otherwise perhaps we should seek a contract for services.  I am happy to explain why I say this but you do NOT HAVE to ring me unless these are unclear.   This is a positive way forward.   By all means Keep Duncan Drasdo his commitment is awesome there is nothing wrong in paying him so he can give all his energies to the cause.   Suitable controls shold be put in now to prevent abuse in the future as staff / volunteers will change over time.   It's about time Duncan got paid. 12 years withought pay is way beyond the call of duty.   2 points:  a) the graduate internship should be properly remunerated - no-one should be expected to work for nothing more than the opportunity (patronising attitude) to acquire work experience   b) I would not be happy with a pay structure which included bonuses - if this is what "incentive based component" means   as long as the wage that is given is showen to the members and is open to anyone with the credentials to do the job   I feel pretty unhappy that we haven't done this years ago.  The sooner the better.  See message below.   This is long overdue!   I dont know the size of your funds and any yearly profit figures are these available to each member. If so can you e-mail xxxxxxx   Having met Duncan for several times and read his media reviews I am wholeheartedly a supporter of this proposal.   Only no more than minimum wage.   WE MUST INSURE THE PEOPLE WE EMPLOY EVEN PAID MUST HAVE THE INTEREST OF THE CAUSE FIRST AND FOREMOST.   Ansolutely against any move away from a voluntary organisation setting out to achieve the agreed objectives to one which will inevitably become a diffrerent one with paid people pursuing personal goals.   As I started reading the proposal, my first instinct was to question whether a cost/benefit analysis has been undertaken to determine whether the appointments would have, firstly, a positive impact on the campaign and, secondly, whether any such positive impact would result in a positive, or at least, zero, net cost to the organisation. As I read on, I realised that these matters had been clearly considered and that the committee has made a reasoned decision in this matter. To be honest, I really don't know why I was concerned, MUST is the most professionally run volunteer organisation I have ever belonged to and the committee deserves all the support the membership can provide for us to attain our ultimate goals. It is probably overdue that we take this next, important, step in the growth of our organisation.    From:  xxxxxxxx   I'm 100 % confident, you'll find the right decision   As the Bible says, 'The labourer is worthy of his hire'. Good idea.   It will come at some time.   I agree that it is high time to compensate a paid stay, and Duncan, for all the work they do supporting MUST.  I wholeheartedly approved of this motion.    xxxxxx, Virginia, United States   I agree but from where is the cost covered?   I think it is a brilliant idea.   As some of the less high profile events i have attended such as game screenings in the must marquee , have gone somewhat wrong or bean disorganised . Totally agree now is the time to show that we are serious and profesional in our events and desire to rid the club of the glazier family . xxxxxxx   This was supposed to be a joint high interest account for money to be put in order if the club was up for sale the supporters would own a part.  If the board get paid, where does that money come from? With power and high pay comes corrupt people who couldnt care about football clubs or their supporters.  Look at Blackburn Rovers for example.   Maintaining the high standard is important.  Of course it makes sense to take on paid employees.   Conditional on any remuneration package being realistic and appropriate   i do not oppose this ,as long as these positions do not adversely effect the financial stability of the organisation   subject to satisfactory funding in place to pay for the position   It's about bloody time Duncan got paid that's for sure.  Having paid employees will only enhance the MUST organisation.   hi i trust you guys to do the best for united .keep the faith     best regards  xxxxxxxx   What ever is best for the club to drive it on and if that means paying Duncan Drasdo well I'm happy with that even if it means a change in the membership fee.   You want to make it big, gotta do it professionally :)   It sets the wrong precedent for ALL of the volunteers.   The only proviso is that there is no mention of the amount to be paid; therefore I do support this proposal but really would need to know the outlay before full support can be given.   This seems a very sensible move and I approve wholeheartedly.   I'm happy for paid employees at least for the key people and cover expenses for the rest.   I would like to know what the remuneration package would be, assuming you go ahead, of the CEO. There should certainly be an incentive based element, but do not set it too low, as this could be seen to be counter productive. I believe a paid CEO and one other paid employee is adequate.    xxxxxxxxxx   I believe the best person for the job should be put in post, not purely based on ones passion for the cause even though that should be one of the main criteria.   I assume that any costs would be funded from the subscriptions & donations rather than any funds that are ear marked for taking back United. What uplift in subscriptions & donations would be needed to fund the CEO & new roles.   I don't know how you have managed to run such a professional organisation without having paid employees. I think it is about time we had them. Also Duncan is worth every penny he has not been getting - now it is time to give him something.   As long as the money for the salaries won't be taken from any member's fund.   Can't believe that Duncan is considering dipping Into the pot , its just like the glazers ! Do the job for free , or give it up there ate plenty of people who have had or are still doing similar roles , if I had known about this I would had actively campaigned against must becoming a jobs for the boys fund   xxxxxxxx   I am a little unsure about the use of interns by organisations of all kinds.   Interns are increasingly being used as a source of unpaid labour and irrespective of their desire to support a cause, it is important that young people are not exploited... especially in the current economic situation. So while I support the payment of the CEO and the appointment of the campaigns manager, I can not support the appointment of an unpaid intern. I would however support the appointment of an intern on a 'living wage' - a model that should be adopted by all.   If a professional footing is required for the dispensation of any of MUSTs objectives it is my belief that it should be contracted out to the the best service provider possible. Confusion between support for our cause and professionalism will lead to irrelevance at best and MUSTs downfall at worst.   A bit like the glazers then not so different hey ?   Huge well done to Duncan and the rest of the Board and all involved at MUST for sucess so far on a voluntary basis.   As long as people with an accounting background agree that MUST can afford the salaries involved   I believe this can be done voluntarily. I have offered to assist previously for free and have had no response. I am a corporate lawyer, and can do for free what you are suggesting paying someone for.   Yes but would someone with a high profile be better, eg ex player with VERY HIGH standing?  Thank You  Please keep up the good work  xxxxxxxxx   I feel this is a good idea, we need to move to the next level now and become even more of a profesional organisation,   regards xxxxxxxx   This pre-supposes that we have te funds to pay such employees.  I would hate for us to go into debt in order to pay someone who would cost us more than they generate.   I approve, but I'm concerned as to where the funds will come for the salaries. Will we have an increase in our annual fee as a result? If so, by how much?   I am just grateful there are individuals who have more time than i to dedicate to the cause we all care about.  No objection to paying if you feel it is justified.   In a world of committees and their changing make-up, views, objectives and priorities inevitably change, when the members change. From bitter experience, it is very important to ensure that these changes do not adversely affect paid staff. It is highly unfair to employ someone, only to dispense with their services shortly after when new board members decide to do things differently. Of course, boards must be free to pursue their own course, but any human cost must be minimised. Consequently, certain protection needs to be built into their terms of employment. Similarly, the organisation will not want to get a reputation for 'hire and fire'.   Should have been done in the past.  Keep the process of appointments/payments completely transparent at all times in keeping with the ethos of the organisation.   I Think we All should do this for free and dont let Money do The talking we are not like The glasers only Money hunters   If i have to pay for some employees i just A's Well pay for The glasers to  Thats my wiev   A good idea.   I would probably approve of the proposal if I knew how much remuneration is proposed.  A proposal which potentially places the organisation in financial jeopardy is not acceptable.   The MUST should have full time staff as we want to seriously challenge the machinery of Glazer. We need stay on course as this is a long marathon and will require the determination and  resource for this mission. However, the board should ensure the financial health of the organization and provide transparency in its dealing.  I am in full support.    xxxxxxxx   anyone who expects you to continue without paid help is crackers!   I think this is essential to attract and retain the right talented people for the job.   A serious organization, needs serious individuals who dedicate their time, the next step is to ensure we have those individuals   It's a no brainer but thanks for asking   These employees must be proven United supporters.   We need to hear more of what MUST is doing on a regular basis   I feel only KEY members should be paid.   A very good idea, Duncan needs to be retained in our organiseation.   dependent on the size of the salary of course   keep up the good work   We do need to be careful not to drain the funds that we are looking to use to get into the club. The people we take on should be self funding (should generate more cash than they are paid in salaries) as is usual in business. I would like to see further details of what the full time employees will be working on and how that contributes to our goals.  xxxxxxx  - Do not call this costs money, but do consider above and answer in general communications.   No problem with this proposal but when are we goinfg to up our campaign to oust the Glazers ? What is happening?We need some concrete  action at OT to deprive limit their fundsat the expemse of the teams.Our inability to really compete in the transfer market has really caught up over the last season or two. Where is our action plan to HURT GLAZERS???   So long as this is affordable.   If it it's affordable and will help the cause, it's a no brainer. Go for it and keep up the good work.    xxxxxx   How are the MUST going to fund this? Could this funding not be used towards buying share capital if and when it becomes available? Although reading the survey questions it looks like a decision has already been reached!   The salary for the positions should reflect the responsibilities of the posts and should not be performance linked . There should be no provision of a bonus package.    The posts(s) of work experience (intern) should carry a salary  to cover general expenses of say up to 10k a year. It would be unfair for anyone to work for nothing even in an exciting area as MUST. If the post is part time (uni student?) then the salary could be reduced slightly to cover travel and a contribution to general living expenses.   with reference to point 2 below I think MUST should pay a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I find the idea of interns working for low or no pay unacceptable   I have no problems with certain people being paid a salary.  It is only fair now that the organisation has grown and the consequential workload has increased.   I feel this is going no where.  In hindsight as soon as we lost the 2500 vocal supporters to FC who were prepared to demonstrate and make life uncomfortable for the management we had lost.  I stopped going to United 3 years ago and have given up completely now after 35 years following them all over the country and Europe.I think the idea of MUST intially was good but a few green and gold scarves is not going to change anything.The only way this could be changed is by using the money donated to buy a supporters pub /club near the stadium to be used  as a focal point and way of passing on information and life needs to be made uncomforatable for the management of the club. MUST it seems to me is petrified of upsetting AF.   The MUST group was set up by volunteers to help the fans for the fans, it would be a great shame to start off paying people to do a job as that is all it would become "A job"   The Board of MUST has my full support in appointing a salaried CEO and I would recommend Mr Duncan Drasdo who has proven to be the ideal candidate for the position over the last 12 years. I Move.   How many paid hours will they [interns] be working. Is it a full time post as I assume in the case of our MUST CEO Duncan Drasdo.   Salaries will be disclosed to members but as a guide we anticipate that the basic salary will be lower than the average UK salary and certainly significantly lower than the average salary payable to a person with comparable responsibilities and qualifications.    As the once chairman of a UK voluntary organistion, do not feel the need to be too holier than though, as it were. Pay people what they are worth, and you will get them to do the job properly   I strongly suport this overdue  proposal, particularly regarding our CEO.    Appreciation (obviously not monetary) should also be shown to his wife who has given her amazing unstinting support.   Given the long term objective of assisting in the buy back of the club,such appointments must be reviewed regularly to ensure that they are self funding, and do not reduce our capital base.   Time to be professional.   I think more opportunities for members to volunteer their time and efforts should be established to help minimize any expansion of these types of positions. There are plenty who would help and want to help if we knew some of the needs and opportunities.   There is a limit to the volunteering capacity. With the vast membership and long term goal to get ownership of the club it makes sense to go down this road. Again if there are talented people willing to work for less than they might expect with a comparable organisation then this is admirable.  xxxxxxx   I do agree with this proposal with the emphasis on a results based bonus over and above the basic salary.  I am now retired but was a main board Managing Director paid on a salary + results based bonus and to me this is the fairest form of remuneration.   I think it only right and proper that Duncan is paid for his work; as you say, it is long overdue.   If you think its the best way forward to fight the cause i will vote with you to reach how goal.  xxxxxxxxx   excellent idea...to quote a certain Cameron [although he doesnt believe in it] ...We the UNITED family are in it together'.   No problems in taking this course of action as long as the salaries are reasonable. Anything in excess of £100K should be  sanctioned by the members, not the board.   however a tight control will be required on administrative costs and suggest the directors set a % target   I trust that the salaries will be "market rate" for the work done and not likely to cause embarrasment if they had to be justified at, for example, an AGM.   They should get well paid if the effort and reults are good.   Not sure it is going to make a difference to get paid employees, but Duncan definitivly deserves some kind of compencation.   I pledged money in preparation of supporting Man Utd in the event of the Glazers collapsing the club.  I did not intend for my money to be used to pay a wage.  Is this the beginning of a paid heirachal chain within MUST!!!!   We ought to be paying Duncan a reasonable amount - certainly a bigger basic salary than the average UK salary IMO. By all means, pay bonuses for  achieving certain targets - eg, size of membership - but surely MUST can afford a decent basic?   I know Duncan personally, but that does not cloud my judgement on this issue. He, or any other Red with the same intelligence and integrity as Duncan, deserves to be paid a living wage commensurate with the huge demands of the role. Give him what he is long overdue, even if that means upping the subscription to MUST. xxxxxx, Red since  '76.   This is an appointment to be welcomed.   No   if we are to continue with our aims then maybe a paid employee(s) will be the way ahead Duncan yes......why are you suggesting a graduate [intern]?  Someone with brains, common sense and their feet on the terraces please.   If this is approved, it will signal the beginning of the end for MUST.  The costs associated with taking on paid employees (the number will grow rapidly from two or three) will cripple us and it is a fact of life that to get the best you have to pay the market rate and offer the chance of success.  This is not what I signed up for. We are a protest group. Once we begin to pay individuals to work on our behalf, we become no better than the present owners ..... and they have deeper pockets.   Wholehearted agreement - if we are to progress then this move is needed. Keep up the good work - if there is any justice in this world then the Americans will be ousted.  xxxxx  [But no need to cal!!]   Anything that helps us to become a more professional organisation, that is therefore taken more seriously by the outside world is to be welcomed   I feel it does not stand for MUST and we should not get into the slippery slopes like the Glasers.   Wrt CEO  I fully support this idea but am curious as to how this will affect membership fees.    Wrt Internship:  I am sceptical as to whether you will be able to recruit a graduate intern with the skills/experience that you want without being willing to pay "the going rate" for such an individual.  It may be that you have to compromise and get a newly qualified graduate with less experience if you would prefer to keep wages to a minimum, this may not actually benefit the campaign at all and may prove more of a hinderance.  The other problem with keeping wages below competitive level is that eventually the incumbent will want or have to move on in order to fund themselves going forward, therefore the process will have to begin all over again.  I would prefer MUST to invest more in wages to get the right person who is committed for a substantial period (5 years?) rather than try to keep costs down and risk having several different interns in that same period.  It may also be that you change the job title!   If practical, they [interns] should be paid at least the minimum wage.   why a graduate?   I'll go with your proposal and am assuming that you've all done your homework on the costs involved.   I agree as long as pay packets are fair, recruitment is fair and the employees earn their money in this difficult economic climate. I also feel that people willing to do the jobs for free should be used in preference and those paid must be strongly passionate about the cause.  xxxxxx - only call if you want to, I've nothing much to add!   Proposed remuneration packages should be made available to members prior to full approval.   The idea is sound, but there is a need for this to be self fianancing.   The question 1 above does not state  an employee but employee's question 2 says 1 graduate, but Q1 does not state A) on this occasion/date? & B) any tick box just could mean you have voted that MUST "could" take on any amount of staff as the member has voted to approve an unspecified amount (eg: employees) As long as this does not set a president, for the board to just add staff or extra staff whenever it wants, which will eat into "fans" donations, at XYZ's £'s - the funds wont last long.  Good Luck, but be more specific with your questions in future. God Bless MUFC.   about time, fantastic effort on voluntary basis, but paid employees will professionalize and take to a new level. Could also (reluctantly) offer consultancy services to other fan based organisations looking to match MUST, Scousers ETC   If we are to continue to be taken seriously, we MUST as a matter of urgency bring to the organisation the professionalism that can only be achieved by full-time professionals.  Long overdue. Full speed ahead. I, for one,  would be happy to pay an increased membership.    Well done.  xxxxxxx. Ireland.   Keep up the good work and thanks for all the unpaid word.   It is time we stopped trading on the goodwill of Duncan et al, in order to make sure we are ready to take advantage of any opportuinty that arises. All the best,  xxxxx   You could probably also do with appointing someone with legal/finance experience as well (probably at a later stage)... obviously the CEO and Digital Marketing posts are essential .. but if so, also need legal/finance back office to maximise the financial clout of their marketing drives. Although qualified in both, I'm not volunteering as I am fairly fully occupied with present and forthcoming grandchildren for the foreseeable future of about 3/4 years ... Happy New Year and keep up the good work.   This ought to get our organisation more professionally recognised.   On a trial basis to ensure progress is made. The profile of the organisation needs raising further and more positive results seen to keep people behind the cause. The last thing required is a further split of United fans.   Any way to enhance the work that MUST is doing has got to be a move forward.Keep up the good work.   It's long overdue. Any organisation with our scale of ambition and challenges must have the best people.     The best people do not, should not and cannot afford to, lend their talent to a cause pro bono for ever.   ABOUT TIME WE PAID FOR THE TREMENDOUS WORK CARRIED OUT ON OUR BEHALF   I agree in principle with the proposal but would like to see the details of what the role entails plus what it's key and measurable objectives are.   I fully approve the proposal and would only ask that salaries are set and reviewed by the Board and/or remuneration sub-committee with decisions formally recorded.   I do not think salary should be disclosed to all membership only to Board and Remuneration Committee.   I must admit to having some reservations about this but as I've not done any voluntary work with MUST, who am I to say anything against paid staff???   My chief concern is that reserves of cash will surely diminish!   PAID C.E.O. IS FINE    SLAVE WAGE INTERN IS NOT ACCEPTABLE PAY A PROPER SALARY   You have given no idication of how this is to be funded. I cannot vote for the proposal without this knowledge   I entirely accept your reasons to take on these professionals.   reluctantly but at this stage cannot expect people to continue to give their time to the extent needed to progress   Strongly endorse Duncan Drasdo. He has been a tower of  strength to MUST. The idea of a graduate intern is good. The ideal person would be media savvy; skilled at IT applications and on-line messaging; and ...... a Man U lover!!!   It looks like the Glazers won't be leaving soon enough so having full time staff to keep the pressure on them is a good use of resources.   what needs to be done needs to be done   Whilst what has been acheived by MUST has been incredible you sooner or later reach a point that to take it on to the next level it may require  an amount of investment to give more drive (as say with a football club for example).  Whatever happens we must get the glazers out ASAP .  The impact that they have made on the infrasturcture of the club is now beginning to emerge as we see that monie's that could have been re-invested in the playing side youth and ground developement have been frittered away by the debt and their dubious ''expenses.'' Anybody who had the 'it will be OK' attitude whilst we continued to collect trophies are now seeing the devastation that 'they' have caused and whilst in the short term we have had a level of success, the manner has not been with the style and swagger you associate with Manchetser United Football Club.  Short term investment and glory do not count and United have never been soley about winning. It represents an institution that has standards that are required and if we are fortunate enough to have success then that is a by-product.    Keep the red flag flying .    xxxxxxxxx.    A happy New Year to all.   I think it was only a matter of time. You cannot expect members to carry on indefinately without some form of renumeration. I think MUSTs board have worked incredible hard so far for the love of the club. Many many thanks.   Whilst I still believe in the ultimate aim of fan ownership, I feel that MUST acts unprofessionally on a regular basis. Its communications regularly show intentional ignorance and sensationalism.   A "passion for the cause" is essential.   No more than Duncan deserves, he is a fabulous man for the cause   a huge thank you to all of you for defending the true interests of our club so valiantly.   Any employees of MUST should be on fixed term contracts with specific and challenging targets which, if not met, will result in termination of the contract without compensation. Staff on normal Contracts of Employment are exceedingly difficult to remove and staffing problems consume an inordinate amount of managerial time   I don't know how you've managed for so long without doing this!  I run a campaigning organisation, so I know how important it is to have high quality, committed and paid staff!  If you want to know which websites we advertise on, where we get great applicants, do get in touch on xxxxxxxxxx.   I do approve of the board's proposal to take on paid employees as I appreciate the effort involved.    I would like for there to be robust safeguards in terms of setting the level of pay to ensure it does not become excessive. I also feel it is important to assess the progress after say 3-6 months to ensure that taking on paid staff is having the required effect in terms of membership, incomes, etc. 2012-01-03T21:45:59+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-media-release-james-w-gibson-the-man-who-saved-manchester-united/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-media-release-james-w-gibson-the-man-who-saved-manchester-united/ MUST Media  Release - Sunday 18th December 2011 Monday the 19th December 2011 represents a hugely important anniversary in Manchester United's history yet this story has received surprisingly little coverage in the media to date. The importance of the story and the strong parallels between 1931 and 2011 justifies, at the very least, an acknowledgement in Monday match reports of Sunday's game between QPR & Manchester United and indeed, given the signficance of this piece of history and the parallels with today, a dedicated article on the 80th anniversary would seem entirely appropriate. We'd be grateful to receive links to any resulting articles covering this story so we can circulate them to our 175,000 members and via social media to Manchester United supporters worldwide. MUST remembers the former chairman and saviour of Manchester United, the great James Gibson. James W Gibson - the man who saved Manchester United - 80 years on Monday 19th December 2011 is 80th Anniversary, to the day, of the date when James W Gibson saved Manchester United. That is no exaggeration. The economy was in meltdown and the club was in huge debt. 80 years on you might be forgiven for thinking little has changed. However in December 1931 the club was literally on the brink of extinction and was only saved days before Christmas when club secretary Walter Crickmer went to the house of a Manchester businessman to ask for help. That man was James W Gibson. After little more than an hour, Crickmer left Gibson's house in Hale. He did not leave empty handed. The generous sum he received was not only enough to pay the backlog of player’s wages and keep the club’s debtors at bay over the festive period but there was even enough left over to buy the players a turkey each for Christmas. This was the beginning of James Gibson's involvement in Manchester United and his lifetime contribution was immense. Not only saving the club from extinction but going on to invest in the club, become Chairman and play an instrumental role in the development of the innovative youth system and the Busby era. It is fair to say he set Manchester United on a course which created perhaps the greatest football club in the world. Reading the history of James W Gibson one cannot help but note the stark contrast between 1931 and the owners of many Premier League clubs today. Gibson was a man who only ever gave to Manchester United Football Club and its fans - clearing the debt and expecting nothing in return. A real local hero who deserves proper recognition for his selfless acts. So on Monday we remember his contribution. The links below provide further historical background. CEREMONY - 11.30am, Monday 19th December, Old Trafford On the morning of Monday 19th December 2011 at 11:30am the Embling family (James Gibson's relatives), along with the Mayor of Trafford, will lay flowers at the James Gibson Plaque on the Railway Bridge on Sir Matt Busby Way. The Embling family wish it to be known that any United supporters  and media who want to attend and celebrate this occasion & the life of James Gibson are very welcome. Alan Embling, MUFC supporters and MUST representatives will be available for media interview at the ceremony or over the telephone.    Background: https://www.joinmust.org/gibson/index.htm 15 point bio/highlights of James Gibson's life: https://www.joinmust.org/gibson/fifteen.htm A more in depth look at James Gibson which sets some context to the time.(written by Andrew Embling the son of Alan): https://www.joinmust.org/gibson/eighty.htm James W. Gibson & his wife, Lillian, inspect the newly named "Manchester United" locomotive. Manchester United engine nameplate fetches £40,000 at auction 2011-12-17T22:39:59+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/new-george-best-book-george-best-will-not-be-playing-today-signing-by-georg/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/new-george-best-book-george-best-will-not-be-playing-today-signing-by-georg/ George Best's sister, Barbara McNarry, will be in Manchester over the anniversary of George's death to do some signings of the new book "George Best Will Not Be Playing Today".  Dates are as follows: Friday 25th-1430 hours Waterstone's Bury Saturday 26th 1000-1200 hours Mega Store Old trafford Sunday 27th 1100-1300 hours WH Smith Arndale Sunday 27th 1400 hours Waterstone's Trafford Centre     Book available to order here: http://www.joinMUST.org/amazon/1903688922    Synopsis: George Best was and remains one of the most charismatic and iconic heroes in the history of international sport. The football scout who discovered him called him a genius. Sir Alex Ferguson said he was fantastic. For Johnny Giles he was ‘The most naturally gifted player I have ever seen. Pelé called him, simply, ‘the greatest’. Following his death in November 2005, many fans, famous and not so famous from around the world, came out in overwhelming numbers to put pen to paper to express the love and respect they had for him. Many of those sentiments are the core of this publication. GEORGE BEST WILL NOT BE PLAYING TODAY poignantly illustrates the heartfelt and worldwide affection with which George is remembered.  The sincere appreciation of prominent figures in the world of sport, television, religion, politics and royalty, including most notably Sir Alex Ferguson, Sir Bobby Charlton, Eamonn Holmes, Sir Michael Parkinson, Graeme McDowell, Rory McIlroy, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and of course the great Pelé, for whom George himself had the utmost respect, is featured. But every bit as moving and important are the tributes and the memories of the ‘ordinary’ fans – people of all ages and from all walks of life who recall the Belfast Boy with such deep and abiding affection and admiration. Many of these messages, poems and drawings were left at makeshift shrines in the days following his death, on websites and in books of condolence. Some are powerful, some are poignant, some are humorous; what they all have in common is that they come from the heart. What makes this book so different from the many others prompted by George’s story is the voice it gives to admirers right across the spectrum. From those who knew George Best as a close friend to those who never met him but felt, nonetheless, inspired by his peerless football skills and glittering career. The result is a powerful and evocative testimony to the memory of a footballer who gloriously captured the imagination of the sporting world.  This book is, in every sense, the BEST of all tributes.  2011-11-22T15:46:24+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-sign-for-sir-alex-the-fans-book-of-thanks/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-sign-for-sir-alex-the-fans-book-of-thanks/ MANCHESTER UNITED SUPPORTERS PROMOTE SIR ALEX FERGUSON 'BOOK OF THANKS' A large digital poster has gone up at a site in central Manchester to build awareness of SAF25, the tribute to Sir Alex Ferguson's 25 year reign at Old Trafford.   (Click on image below for high resolution image versions available to use royalty free)      In just a fortnight since launch more than 14,000 have signed the 'Book of Thanks' online at www.saf25.com The fans' tribute will be turned into a unique 'edition of one' printed book and presented to Sir Alex at the end of the season. A spokesman for the Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST), who created and launched SAF25 said "We wanted to build awareness of the fans' Book of Thanks in the heart of Manchester and this was an ideal way to do it". "We have plans for further initiatives later on in the campaign which is going to run throughout the season giving fans the chance to sign the book online with all names and comments going into a huge printed book of thanks to present to Sir Alex at the end of the season. It would be fantastic for Sir Alex to know just how much he is appreciated by every single one of us and as bonus we'll be holding a free draw to give away a pair of signed boots donated by Ole Gunnar Solskjaer to one lucky supporter who signs the book.". NOTES: Poster site location: http://www.oceanoutdoor.com/products/digital/axis-the-hacienda/ Original release for information: United Supporter's tribute to 25 years of Sir Alex Ferguson.   Manchester United supporters are launching a dedicated website www.saf25.com as the fans' tribute to Sir Alex Ferguson's 25 years in charge at Old Trafford. The site will officially launch on Saturday 5th November ahead of the Sunderland home game - preceding the 25 year anniversary on Sunday 6th November.    Fans are being invited to sign a 'Book of Thanks' which will live in the digital space but will be made into a unique, printed and bound 'edition of one' for presentation to Sir Alex at the end of the season.   Players and celebrities are also being invited to add their names to the tribute. The website officially launches on Saturday 5th November and supporters attending the home game versus Sunderland will see a huge banner on Sir Matt Busby Way (at the MUST stall 8, Sir Matt Busby Way) as well as thousands of special SAF25 cards, stickers and badges which will be given away. [Images of the banner, card, stickers and badges are available here:  http://www.joinmust.org/saf25 ]. The initiative has been developed by MUST but is supported by United fans' groups and individuals across the world.   A spokesman for MUST said "MUST are promoting the SAF25.com book of thanks to give all reds around the world an opportunity to sign the book online and leave a short message of thanks to the Gaffer in the spirit of celebration of his reign of 25 glorious years at Old Trafford." "If only a small proportion of the 330 million United fans around the globe joined in we'd have something truly special to honour the achievements of a man who is, for many fans, United's and the game's greatest manager." "Of all the great moments over the last 25 years perhaps the one that stands out for most supporters would be Ole Gunnar Solskjaer's added time winner in the 1999 European Cup Final which clinched The Treble. Therefore it seems appropriate to offer a pair of Ole's boots, which he has generously signed and donated, as the prize in a free draw open to all those who sign the book online at www.SAF25.com" [Image of actual signed boots available here:  http://www.joinmust.org/saf25] MUST members have also donated funds towards the purchase of a special gift for Sir Alex who is famous for his love of fine red wines. A 25 year old bottle of vintage 1986 Chateau Mouton Rothschild will be privately delivered to Sir Alex at the weekend (Image of actual bottle available here:  http://www.joinmust.org/saf25 )   The website has been designed by web design and SEO agency Spiral Media Ltd and Advanced Company Software Ltd using an iconic mosaic image of Sir Alex Ferguson created by graphic designer @BeardedGenius as its centre piece. [An image of the Fergie mosaic is available here: http://www.joinmust.org/saf25] 2011-11-22T12:45:15+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/revealed-glazers-secretly-charged-united-16.1m-in-management-fees/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/revealed-glazers-secretly-charged-united-16.1m-in-management-fees/ [1] Revealed: Glazers' secretly charged United 16.1m in "management fees" [2] Sir Alex Ferguson - your help needed to celebrate 25 glorious years [1] Revealed: Glazers' secretly charged United 16.1m in "management fees" ... and they've personally bought more than $10m of the bonds too so now our club is also personally paying them interest on their debt that they have dumped on our club. As one Red on Twitter said "And we thought it was only City who were taking the **** out of us this week". We wanted all MUST members to see this story (below) as it highlights much of what is wrong about the Glazer takeover of our football club.   It's clear that these details were intentionally hidden from supporters and were only revealed when the club adopted new accounting rules in preparation for the possible flotation in Singapore. It does beg the question what else is being hidden from supporters?  Where did the money come from to pay off the PIKs?  Were they just refinanced and the facts hidden in Delaware USA?   The accounts also revealed that Kevin Glazer, who is a non-executive member of the club’s board of directors, and his immediate family own $10.6m worth of the club’s bonds. Those bonds pay an interest interest rate of 8.375 per cent – meaning our club is now not only paying interest on their debt but actually now paying interest to Glazer family members on part of their debt that they landed on our club.   It's shameful that the FA and government did not have any regulations in place to stop the Glazer takeover or the foresight to block the takeover going through and protect supporters from this type of exploitation.   We'll be following up with a further message to MPs next week and we hope all UK based United fans will use the opportunity to contact their MP to show how important football ownership and governance is to supporters.   It's now calculated that the total cost of the Glazers’ ownership of the club since their takeover has come to £532m.    That's almost seven Ronaldo's.     http://www.thescore.ie/united-paid-glazer-family-over-16-1m-in-management-fees-265452-Oct2011/   The Full Figures can be viewed on this link. http://www.mufplc.com/pdf/2010-11%20Statutory%20Accounts.pdf   The Score  Friday 28 October 2011 United paid Glazer family over £16.1m in management fees     FIGURES RELEASED BY Manchester United for the financial year ended 30 June 2011 have shown that the club has paid its owners, the Glazer family, over £16.1m in three years in “management fees”.   The Glazer family were paid fees of £6m for the 2011 financial year, £4.325m in 2010, and a little under £3m in 2009.   SLP Partners – a company also controlled by the Glazer family – was also paid £2.9m in consultancy fees in 2010.   United were not obliged to disclose the payments under previous accounting rules, and had accordingly opted not to do so.   However, the change in Premier League financial rules meant they were subsequently forced to publicly own up to these figures.   The new figures mean the total cost of the Glazers’ ownership of the club since their takeover has come to £532m. By comparison, the dividend payments prior to their takeover, between 1991 and 2005, amounted to £62.6million.   The accounts also reveal that Kevin Glazer, who is a non-executive member of the club’s board of directors, and his immediate family own $10.6m worth of the club’s bonds – essentially a form of IOU which allows it to borrow cash from investors.   Those bonds pay an interest interest rate of 8.375 per cent – meaning Kevin’s family earned £379,180 in interest from the club last year.   The family have consistently come under criticism from United supporters after they borrowed hundreds of millions of pounds to finance their purchase of United in 2005 – and then transferred that debt to the club, which had been debt-free before then.   Ticket prices were increased by over 42 per cent following their takeover, which led fans to protest against the owners.   [2] Sir Alex Ferguson - your help needed to celebrate 25 glorious years We'll be unveiling a special fans' tribute campaign for Fergie on Friday 4th November ahead of Sunderland(H) on Sat 5th and the official 25th anniversary on 6th November. Every United supporter will be offered the chance to take part free of charge. Look out for details next week. We'll also be sending Fergie a special gift from MUST members to celebrate 25 glorious years managing Manchester United on November 6th. If you'd like to contribute to that gift (and have your name added to the card) please use the donation link below: http://action.joinmust.org/donate5 2011-10-28T20:43:32+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-email-sir-alex-25-years-momentous-political-win-for-must-members/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-email-sir-alex-25-years-momentous-political-win-for-must-members/   SAF25 Fergie 25 years - for those who aren't excited by the political campaign scroll down to the bottom of this email to view @BeardedGenius's latest offering - a tribute to Sir Alex celebrating 25 years at Old Trafford. MUST is working on a fitting tribute to the Boss - details to follow.   Momentous political win for MUST members The response from Government on football governance is a stunning win for supporters and the result of work by many fans groups but undoubtedly you, MUST members, have been absolutely pivotal leading the lobbying and opening the door for great work by other fans' groups which has made this happen. We've outlined a summary of how we all did that below (WHAT MUST MEMBERS DID) just to remind you but first let's look at some key points from the Government response:   Reform of the FA and an introduction of a new licensing system which would enforce measures including that: Clubs must recognise and have dialogue with supporters groups such as trusts - that means MUST at MUFC. There should also be a dedicated fan liaison officer at clubs. An end to the club's refusal to talk to MUST?   Clubs should hold official and regular AGMs at which supporter groups are invited to take part and at which appropriate financial and other information can be shared and consulted upon. An end to the total secrecy over the Glazers' finances?   Government raises possibility of supporter representation on football boards following a "trigger point" such as change of control. Real amd meaningful representation? We aren't counting our chickens before they've hatched. We know that no changes have yet been made and it will take some time for football to respond to how it plans to implement changes and over what time period. However, it is really important to recognise what has been achieved here so we can continue to press for the reforms we would like to see.   So don't let anyone tell you we can't make a difference. We already have - as the BBC's Matt Slater reporting from the Leaders in Football conference said last week MUST members' emails are being read - Sports Minister Hugh Robertson says MPs are on football's case because their voters have put it on the agenda.   So that was down to your efforts and now we have the incentive to step up the campaign and get more supporters involved.   We make no apologies for this exercise in mutual back slapping. It is crucial that we highlight sucesses like this to motivate more supporters to get involved and push forward for more progress.   We now need to make sure these changes are implemented and furthermore to push for the Government to go further and honour its commitment to: Encourage reform of football governance rules to support the "cooperative ownership of football clubs by supporters".   We will be in touch soon with the next phase of this campaign but let's take a moment to look back on what has been achieved so far.   WHAT MUST MEMBERS DID   - more than 150,000 emails sent to MPs and football governing bodies. Private meetings with all parties. Media briefing and direct lobbying of MPs. 632 out of 650 MPs heard directly from MUST members in their constituency   - MUST's work to get issues into the manifestos of all the political parties prior to the election. Political football: how MUST changed the landscape to make Westminster listen    - which led to the Government Coalition Agreement to: Encourage reform of football governance rules to support the "cooperative ownership of football clubs by supporters".   - a mass email campaign directly led to the Westminster Hall debate on Football Governance in September 2012 which, thanks to emails to all MPs from MUST members, was "the best attended debate in living memory"   - that debate meant the Sports Minister Hugh Robertson heard MP after MP say change was needed and why it needed government to enable that due to football's resistance. During that debate numerous MPs from around the UK mentioned emails from MUST members and credited MUST's lobbying work. Debate summary here   - The select committee inquiry was a direct result of that, and its report followed by the Government's response yesterday, is a victory for supporters and especially for MUST members   Give yourself a pat on the back if you helped with this.   If you didn't then you will have the opportunity to contribute shortly as we continue our campaign and now everyone can see it is working that should encourage more to get involved.   BBC Sport - Government tells English football: change or be changed   SAF25 On November 6th 2011 it will be 25 years since Sir Alex took charge at Old Trafford  Fergie 25 years. MUST is working on a fitting tribute to the Boss - details to follow. Meanwhile here is BeardedGenius' latest offering - click on the image for the full size version. To view more of BeardedGenius' work view his Twtter account:  @BeardedGenius             2011-10-13T11:24:22+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-must-comments-on-dcms-response-to-football-governance-report/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-must-comments-on-dcms-response-to-football-governance-report/ MUST - the Manchester United Supporters Trust today welcomed the response from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to the select committee report on Football Governance. The DCMS response is covered in the NOTES below and the full response can be read here http://www.culture.gov.uk/publications/8493.aspx A spokesperson for MUST said: "We are delighted to see the Government’s report refer to effective consultation with fans and the specific proposal that supporters trusts should be consulted and communicated with regularly as part of a new compulsory licensing regime. Manchester United has had no official contact with MUST since 2005 so, surely, it can only be a matter of time now before this changes so that the views of our growing membership (currently 173.907) are heard by the club. We'd encourage all Manchester United supporters who haven't yet done so to go online to www.joinMUST.org and join their supporters trust to further strengthen its voice so that the views of all fans are properly represented."   "Furthermore, we note the Government’s criticism of highly leveraged takeovers, of which there has been no better, or perhaps worse, example  than the Glazers’ purchase of Manchester United. Change is long overdue in both the governance and ownership of football and we hope the Government will now also demonstrate their determination to see through the commitments they made on supporter ownership in the Coalition Agreement to 'Encourage reform of football governance rules to support the cooperative ownership of football clubs by supporters'." NOTES: DCMS responds to select committee on football governance Sports Minister wants football family to improve governance to benefit the game long-term. DCMS has today published its response to the Culture, Media and Sport’s (CMS) select committee report into football governance. http://www.culture.gov.uk/publications/8493.aspx The CMS inquiry, which began in February, heard from a wide range of witnesses from the world of football and published its findings on 29 July. The Government’s response to the select committee’s report sets out a number of recommendations for football. These include looking at the creation of a modern, accountable and representative Football Association (FA) Board, the implementation of a licensing framework administered by the FA in close cooperation with the professional game and changes to the decision-making structures within the FA. The Government will now look for the football authorities to work together, agree and publish a joint response by the end of February 2012 on how they plan to take these recommendations forward. The Government has also welcomed the select committee’s attention on supporter involvement and would like to see football authorities encourage clubs to have open dialogue with supporters’ groups and trusts about how the club is run and for fans to be placed at the heart of the club. Sports Minister Hugh Robertson said: “This country is hugely passionate about our national game and there are many reasons we should be pleased with how it has progressed over the last two decades. However, I believe that there are improvements that can be made in the governance arrangements, which have failed to keep up with the changing pace of the modern game. I do not want Government to run football, so this is an opportunity for the football family to work together to benefit the game in the long-term.” Further information Football Governance: Response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee http://www.culture.gov.uk/publications/8493.aspx 2011-10-12T12:25:28+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/2011-09-20-manchester-united-ipo-press-update-from-must-the-manchester-unit/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/2011-09-20-manchester-united-ipo-press-update-from-must-the-manchester-unit/ Is anyone buying this briefing that the Glazers retaining a huge majority by only floating the absolute minimum proportion of voting shares (12%) and bundling them with non-voting preference shares is in anyone's interest other than their own? Clearly this is signficantly detrimental to good corporate governance and protecting the interests of minority shareholders as so powerfully outlined in the article below by Professor MAK YUEN TEEN of the National University of Singapore Business School (article *[11] below). *Newly added articles *[11] Will Manchester United score with investors? - MAK YUEN TEEN - The Business Times - 20th Sep 2011 *[10] Manchester United may delay Singapore floatation - Simon Stone, PA - The Independent - 16th Sep 2011 [9] Manchester United listing to be postponed over market turmoil -  Robin Chan - The Straits Times - 17th Sep 2011 [8] Jitters over market for Man U IPO - Robin Chan - The Straits Times - 16th Sep 2011 [7] Manchester United Said to Get Singapore’s Approval for Listing - Joyce Koh - Bloomberg - Sep 16th 2011 [6] Investors cautious on Man Utd's IPO - Stella Lee -Channel News Asia - Sep 2nd 2011 [5] Man Utd's two-tier IPO plan risks investor yellow card Reuters Asia DEALTALK - Saeed Azhar and Rachel Armstrong Sep 8 2011 [4] Manchester United IPO - Financial Times - Lex [3] Reuters Insider - Nigel Hilditch - Aug 24 2011 [2] Man Utd's IPO not "all that attractive", say analysts - Channel News Asia - Amanda Feng - Aug 19 2011 [1] Man Utd taps up Peter Lim for IPO - Financial Times - Kevin Brown in Singapore Aug 19 2011 *[11] Will Manchester United score with investors? - MAK YUEN TEEN - The Business Times - 20th Sep 2011 Its IPO fans would have to consider the issues of dividends and preferential rights By MAK YUEN TEEN AFTER the slew of S-chips over the past few years, it appears that we will soon have our first F-chip listed here ('F' is for football, of course). Here comes the F-chip: Manchester United is now reportedly offering an ordinary-preference shares 'combo' to be sold as a package Earlier media reports had suggested that Manchester United had wanted to list here with a dual-class share structure. It has now reportedly come back with an ordinary-preference shares 'combo' to be sold as a package. It is unclear from the reports so far as to what preferential rights the preference shares will actually have. The Financial Times has reported that the preferential shares do not have dividend guarantees or a redemption feature. Reuters has reported that the preference shares will have preference over ordinary shares for dividends and on liquidation. Bloomberg has reported that the preference shares may pay double the dividends of ordinary shares. Since dividends for shares (whether ordinary or preference) are never guaranteed and have to be declared by directors, the Financial Times report's reference to a lack of 'dividend guarantees' may be alluding to the absence of a cumulative dividend feature for the preference shares. Without a cumulative dividend feature, the preference shareholders will be exposed to significant risk. This is because a company may not pay any dividends for a number of years, and then pay the stated annual dividend for preference shareholders without having to make good dividends in arrears. It is then free to pay dividends for ordinary shareholders, which of course can be much larger than the dividends for preference shareholders. Hopefully, the terms of the Manchester United offering will provide protection for preference shareholders in this regard. However, Manchester United may not be in any position at all to pay dividends for the foreseeable future because Manchester United has not been profitable. Of course, its lack of profitability has much to do with interest payments on its debt and a key reason for the share offering is to repay debts. The reports have highlighted that the preferential shareholders will have priority of claims in the event of insolvency. This right offers little protection to preference shareholders as any assets on insolvency will first go to secured and unsecured creditors. The preferential right on insolvency is like tickets to watch a 'live' match - on television. Those who are considering subscribing for the share offering would be well-advised to consider carefully the likelihood of dividends and the preferential rights of the preference shares. Beyond the issue of the features of the preference shares and the likelihood of dividends, the 'two-in-one' combo is, in my view, essentially the same as dual-class ordinary shares. As the Glazers are likely to hold largely the ordinary shares with voting rights, they would control more voting rights with less investment than public shareholders who have to buy the both types of shares - as would be the case with dual-class ordinary shares. It appears that after being told that dual-class ordinary shares are not acceptable, Manchester United has merely come back in a changed strip. Replacing dual-class ordinary shares with stapled ordinary and preference shares is, in my view, 'creative' financial engineering. Governance concerns It has also been reported that the percentage of ordinary shares in public hands will be as little as 12 per cent, which is the minimum free float required under the Singapore Exchange (SGX) listing rules for companies with market capitalisation of at least $1 billion. All the signs all point to an attempt to comply with the minimum letter of the rules. By allowing such a stapled share offering for Manchester United, it would be difficult for SGX to turn down other similar offerings. Going forward, IPO investors may soon be able to only buy burgers if they also buy fries and drinks. Then there are the issues of corporate governance. An article in The Guardian last year reported that the Glazer family took £20 million (about S$40 million) in loans and fees from the club. One of the key risks for companies with controlling shareholders is that controlling shareholders may be able to use such related-party transactions to take money out of a company, even if the company is unprofitable and unable to pay dividends to shareholders. Therefore, while public shareholders may not receive any dividends, controlling shareholders can still receive a 'return on their investment'. When Manchester United becomes listed, it will of course be subject to checks and balances in SGX's rules on interested party transactions. The effectiveness of these checks and balances depends a lot on the true independence of the independent directors, especially those on the audit committee which is supposed to oversee such transactions. Given the control rights held by the Glazer family, it would be very difficult to have truly independent directors to ensure that these checks and balances are effective - even if these independent directors are Arsenal supporters. A recent Business Times report 'SGX learns Chinese lessons, tweaks rules' (Sept 15) commented on the corporate governance-related rule changes introduced by the SGX, many of which reflect the lessons it has learnt from S-chip debacles. Having learnt its Chinese lessons, it appears that SGX is now starting English lessons - taught by Americans no less - kicking off with the Manchester United listing. The writer is an associate professor at the NUS Business School http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/views/story/0,4574,457018,00.html ######################################################################## *[10] Manchester United may delay Singapore floatation - Simon Stone, PA - The Independent - 16th Sep 2011 Manchester United may put their Singapore flotation plans on hold until volatility in Stock Market conditions starts to ease. United, who have privately dismissed renewed speculation about a potential £1.5billion sale to the Qatari Royal Family, have been given permission to launch a flotation. It had been thought the Glazer family would actively pursue a move that would allow the whole process to be completed by the end of next month, which is still possible. However, with the club keen to ensure a successful flotation, insiders say they are currently "in no rush" to execute their plans. One of the reasons for this could be to allow the Stock Market to settle, thereby maximising returns which the Glazer family are hoping will be around £600million if, as anticipated, they opt to put 25% of the club on the market. Details are yet to be released. However, it is expected the listing will involve a complicated mixture of primary shares, new shares which would dilute the Glazer family's interests, with the money going to the company, and secondary shares, which would involve the sale of existing shares, with the proceeds going directly to the Americans. Also uncertain at this stage is how the Glazers intend to control the company, with some shares expected to be preference shares, which have no voting rights but would be worth more. Opponents of the Glazer family have already called on them to use the money raised to clear United's debt, reduced to £308million in the most recent accounts, released earlier this month. However. it is not known how the American owners managed to pay off £220million of payment-in-kind notes in November last  Reader comments: So the glazers think the club is worth some $4billion, and the asian market can be conned into believing this despite just recently holding over £500million of debt and making a loss every year. Having managed to suddenly hide £220m of debt, it still leaves over £300m of debt. Only then did they managed to show a £110m profit however the parent company lost £109m but that's still a hell of a price to earnings ratio even with the fraudulent accounting. This is the wonderful world of finance full of spivs and schiesters taking anyone they can for a ride, having not spent a single penny of their own money. If the share sale succeeds, they won't have to refinance the bonds (which would be tough today) and of course they end up with 75% of the shares valued at offer price of £1.8billion.  Not bad when you bought the entire business out of debt in the first place. The shares are of course not worth anything like the touted amount, but it remains a no lose proposition for the Glazers. 1. They lower the debt to an easily manageable amount (probably they halve it, too greedy to wipe it out). 2. Whatever price the shares are, they own 75% of them after the sale - cashable value they don't have right now, with a dividend privileges for a great income stream. 3. If the shares fall, they've already been paid for 25% of them.  And they may beable to buy them back for considerably less in the future and then manipulate the accounts to drive the price back up for resale. 4. If the shares rise, their 75% holding rises. AT the end of the day, over £500m of debt, hidden, a loss making business despite high turnover and they think investors will find this attractively valued at £2.4billion.  Are investors really that stupid? http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/manchester-united-may-delay-singapore-floatation-2355732.html ######################################################################## [9] Manchester United listing to be postponed over market turmoil -  Robin Chan - The Straits Times - 17th Sep 2011 Market turmoil forces it to delay plans after it had received listing nod The rocky share market has forced football giant Manchester United to postpone its initial public offering (IPO), a source told The Straits Times. The club received the go ahead to list on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) on Friday - as tipped by The Straits Times - but its intended debut in mid-October has been put off and no new date has been given. Bankers fear the market turmoil caused by the European debt crisis will deter investors. If that was not enough for the financiers to worry about, another potential disruption emerged from left field on Friday in the form of a buyout rumour. http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_713855.html ######################################################################## [8] Jitters over market for Man U IPO - Robin Chan - The Straits Times - 16th Sep 2011 Manchester United is expected to get the green light to list today but volatile markets and weak investor sentiment could confine the club's initial public offering (IPO) to the sidelines for a while. Bankers with knowledge of the listing said there is concern Man United will not attract enough hard-nosed investors who can see past the glamour and actually stump up cash amid testing economic times. "If you look at the markets now, nobody is listing. We will continue to watch that," said one banker involved in the deal. Man United plans to raise up to US$1 billion (S$1.2 billion) from selling about a third of the shares in the company but the complex structure of the deal is still being ironed out. Senior bankers from Credit Suisse, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley - who are managing the listing - and their research teams were in London last week to meet the football club's representatives, The Straits Times understands. They have also discussed marketing strategy to pull in international investors. Once the Singapore Exchange (SGX) issues the eligibility to list, Man United will have up to three months to go to market but an IPO is expected as soon as mid-October if the club believes investors are receptive. While the club's intention to list is clear, just what form the IPO will take is still up in the air. "Nothing is set in stone. We have a structure in place that allows us to be flexible," the banker said. What is known is that the listing involves issuing a complicated mixture of different types of shares as the Glazer family, which owns the club, wants to protect its control but has to make the listing attractive enough to investors. A banker with knowledge of the transaction said two aspects are still being finalised. One is determining how much of the equity offering will be in primary or secondary shares. Primary shares means issuing new common stock, thereby diluting the Glazers' interests. The cash raised from the listing then goes to the company, rather than the Glazers' own coffers. In a secondary share offering, existing shares owned by the Glazers are sold instead, so they pocket the cash directly. The second area of uncertainty centres on how control of the company can be maintained. The Glazers will likely sell their shares as a package, possibly with one preference share and one ordinary share. Preference shares have no voting rights but can be sold at double the value of ordinary shares. Holders of these shares would also be paid before common shareholders in the event of an insolvency. In this way, an investor would have only a fraction of the voting rights compared to his total equity share. This would appear to be the compromise for the Glazers the SGX has allowed. SGX chief executive Magnus Bocker ruled out a company listing with different voting rights, and said the one share, one vote system in Singapore would be adhered to. The Companies Act forbids a dual-share listing. A Financial Times report this week said that in one scenario, as much as 88 per cent of the voting rights could be maintained in the Glazers' hands although up to 36 per cent of the equity could be sold. The Man United IPO could be one of the speedier launches staged here, reflecting Mr Bocker's bid to shorten the listing process to win more international listings. Mr Bocker said earlier this year that the stock exchange has been in a "testing phase" since April last year to reduce the listing process from 12 to eight weeks. This has allowed issuers to submit their draft listing prospectuses to the Monetary Authority of Singapore for pre-lodgment review at the same time that they submit their listing applications to the SGX. http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/news.php?id=21789&sec=2 ######################################################################## [7] Manchester United Said to Get Singapore’s Approval for Listing - Joyce Koh - Bloomberg - Sep 16th 2011 Sept. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Singapore’s stock exchange approved Manchester United’s application to raise about $1 billion in an initial public offering in the city-state, two people with knowledge of the matter said. As much as two-thirds of Manchester United’s offering will likely be in preferred shares, which may carry at least double the dividend of ordinary stock while lacking voting rights, said the people. They declined to be identified as the IPO process is private. United’s dual-share structure offers a way for the Glazer family to retain control of the football club after the IPO, the people said. Singapore’s bourse lured United in part by offering a speedier approval process for the IPO, people with knowledge of the matter said last month. United applied for the Singapore listing on Aug. 18, they said. “Football clubs around the world are mostly quite closely held and not very transparent,” Pearlyn Wong, an investment analyst in Singapore at Bank Julius Baer & Co., which manages about $190 billion globally. “They don’t like to give up voting rights so they can make faster decisions over things like players and management.” United, which was planning to list in the first half of October, is reviewing the IPO timeline amid volatile markets, the people said. Stock offerings have dwindled worldwide as Europe’s escalating sovereign debt crisis and a faltering U.S. economy dented demand for new equity. Manchester United spokesman Philip Townsend and Singapore Exchange spokeswoman Carolyn Lim declined to comment. Bundled Offering The preference shares will be bundled with ordinary shares for the offering, though each security will be quoted separately on the stock exchange, the people said. “Usually preference shares come as a follow-up offering, rather than at the IPO stage,” Julius Baer’s Wong said. “Whether people will receive the share structure well depends on how much dividends they can get and whether the company has the cashflows to support it.” The 19-time English soccer champion’s decision to sell shares in Asia was also prompted by its growing fan base in the region, people familiar with the matter said last month. United first toured Asia four decades ago and plans to do so again next year. When the club last made the trip, the players were mobbed by supporters wearing replica shirts bearing names of stars like Wayne Rooney and Ryan Giggs. United’s pretax profit in the year ended June 30 was 29.7 million pounds, compared with a loss of 15 million pounds last year. It’s the second time in six years the club has been profitable. ’Sucked In’ The lack of sustained earnings may repel investors, said Lee King Fuei, a Singapore-based fund manager at Schroders Plc, which oversaw $323 billion as of June 30. “Institutional investors are unlikely to be interested, while retail investors will be the ones sucked in by the branding and marketing,” he said. “The lack of voting rights is just a kick in the teeth.” The company hired JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley as bookrunners for the IPO together with Credit Suisse Group AG, three people with knowledge of the matter said last month. United also picked BOC International Ltd., CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, CIMB Group Holdings Bhd. and DBS Group Holdings Ltd. as co-lead arrangers for the offering, the people said. --With assistance from Fox Hu in Hong Kong and Zijing Wu and Tariq Panja in London. Editors: Mohammed Hadi, Philip Lagerkranser To contact the reporter on this story: Joyce Koh in Singapore at jkoh38@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Lagerkranser at lagerkranser@bloomberg.net http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-16/manchester-united-said-to-get-singapore-s-approval-for-listing.html ######################################################################## [6] Investors cautious on Man Utd's IPO - Stella Lee -Channel News Asia - 02 Sep 2011 SINGAPORE: Manchester United may be one of the best football clubs around but investors will likely sit on the sidelines. With an initial public offering (IPO) in Singapore expected soon, analysts are now cautioning that listed football clubs generally do not provide good returns. Others point out that United's financial performance over recent years has been less than stellar. But for many fans, just owning a piece of United will be enough. The English club has fanatical support from fans in this region and its expected listing here will probably tap on mass appeal rather than fundamentals. Currently, there are no sports teams listed in Singapore but in the leisure and entertainment industry, casinos are similar in terms of enterprise value. Yet, United makes a fraction of what casinos here make. Gabriel Yap, Executive Chairman, GCP Global, said: "In the last five years, (United) they made only 10 million pounds in terms of net profit level."  United's financial performance is also inconsistent and shareholders are unlikely to see dividends post-IPO. Mr Yap added: "When you make two years of profit out of the last five years, it is very hard to find sustainable return-on-equity. The player's moods, ability to play, and whether they will get injured again are intangible assets which have to be recognised in the accounts. This amount is actually huge and it ranges between 60 million pounds to 80 million pounds, so as you can see that erodes the profits substantially." If it is starting to sound like investing in a football team is not a good idea, it is probably because it isn't. Terence Wong, co-head of Research, DMG and Partners, said: "If you look at the European football club index, it has been flat over the last 10 years."  http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/1150766/1/.html ######################################################################## [5] Man Utd's two-tier IPO plan risks investor yellow card Reuters Asia DEALTALK - Saeed Azhar and Rachel Armstrong Sep 8 2011 DEALTALK-Man Utd's two-tier IPO plan risks investor yellow card Sep 8 2011 Thu Sep 8, 2011 1:16am EDT * Listing structure plan seen favouring current owners * SGX under fire for corporate governance compromise * Listing to be approved this week or next - sources * Man Utd courting Temasek - sources * Tells investors it sees 30 pct EBITDA margin - sources (Adds detail, edits) By Saeed Azhar and Rachel Armstrong SINGAPORE Sept 8 (Reuters) - Singapore Exchange's coup in luring Manchester United to the city is threatening to turn sour as the bourse comes under fire for plans to let the club list using a structure that will minimise the influence of new shareholders. The SGX is set to approve the initial public offering of up to $1 billion from the English Premier League champions this week or next, two sources with direct knowledge of the listing said. The Red Devils have spent the past few weeks courting Asia's major institutional and sovereign investors including Singapore state investor Temasek , said the sources, who were not authorised to talk to the media about the plans. But the club's plan to use a two-tier system of shares to ensure the Glazer family, which owns soccer's biggest brand, will retain control has some investors and experts calling foul. "I believe this is a backward step for the SGX to take from the perspective of good corporate governance and minority shareholders' rights," said Mak Yuen Teen, a professor at the National University of Singapore who helped draw up the code of corporate governance for listed companies in Singapore. "It reflects an inclination towards issuers and controlling shareholders as opposed to institutional and other minority shareholders," he said. An SGX spokeswoman said the exchange was unable to say anything about the discussions with the club. "We do not comment on speculation nor about our dealings with individual companies," she said. Sources with knowledge of the club's early discussions with potential investors say it has steered clear of talking about the structure, flagging instead expectations for underlying profit margins to top 30 percent and its strong Asian fan-base. Most investors are wary of shareholder structures that make it harder for them to monitor and change a company's management. "Economic interest and ownership interest are not aligned in these structures, and you can find someone with 4 percent of shares controlling the company, for example," said David Smith, head of Asia corporate governance research at Institutional Shareholder Services. SPECIAL TREATMENT? Manchester United wants to raise cash to help reduce a debt pile near $500 million. Its choice of Singapore was aimed at expanding the club's huge Asian fan base as well as tapping the region's stronger growth and investment climate. Many fans remain unconvinced about the proposal. "They (the Glazers) will still control the purse strings and the political machinations," said Manchester United season ticket holder Paul Davidson, a teacher. The club was tipped to list in Hong Kong but lawyers say Singapore, which has struggled to compete with its rival for big ticket listings, may well have been more willing to accommodate Manchester United's demands. "I wouldn't be surprised if the SGX is showing them some flexibility, they do tend to be more willing than most of the other exchanges," said one lawyer, who asked not to be identified as his firm may become involved in the deal. Any evidence the exchange has given special treatment to one particular company could be damaging to the SGX in the long-term. "The general principle is quite clear. No regulator or stock exchange should bend their rules for specific cases such as prestige listings or large listings. That is a very bad precedent to set," said Peter Taylor, Asian equities investment manager for Aberdeen Investment Management without directly commenting on Manchester United's reported plans. RISK OF INVESTOR TURN-OFF? Full details of the IPO are yet to be disclosed but sources have said some of the shares issued will be a two-tier share structure. Lawyers say it is unlikely the club will go down the route of having the two-tier A-share/B-share structure seen in countries like the United States, where some ordinary equity shares carry no voting or fewer voting rights. For a start, that is banned by the Singapore Companies Act which states there should be one vote, and one vote only per equity share. But lawyers say it is likely the club will instead make a significant part of its offering in preference shares -- equities that carry no voting rights but get priority over ordinary shares for dividend payments and in the event of liquidation. SGX CEO Magnus Bocker indicated such a structure might be feasible in a television interview on Thursday. While the principle of one vote per ordinary equity share is likely to stay in place for the time being, companies can vary their capital structure with preferred equity instead, Bocker said. "Preference shares are underestimated," he told CNBC. Manchester United may also have to face the prospect that the share structure could dent the value of their $1 billion offering, which has raised eyebrows for being overly optimistic from the outset. The Glazers are deeply unpopular with many of Manchester United's estimated 333 million global fans after buying the club in 2005. "Clearly the degree of control by one majority shareholder has to be a major concern for any conventional investor thinking of purchasing shares primarily seeking a return on investment," Duncan Drasdo, chief executive of the Manchester United Supporters Trust, told Reuters. "In fact perhaps they should seek medical advice before they seek financial advice given the reaction we've seen from the financial press so far." (Additional reporting by Ossian Shine in SINGAPORE and Elzio Barreto in HONG KONG; Editing by Lincoln Feast and Michael Flaherty) Reuters Asia: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/08/dealtalk-manu-idUSL3E7K80II20110908?feedType=RSS&feedName=cyclicalConsumerGoodsSector Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/football/epl/epl-news/Manchester-Uniteds-two-tier-IPO-plan-risks-investor-yellow-card/articleshow/9907326.cms Yahoo Sport: Singapore IPO plans infuriate Man Utd fans http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/08092011/2/singapore-ipo-plans-infuriate-man-utd-fans.html ######################################################################## [4] Manchester United IPO - Financial Times - Lex Manchester United Financial Times (London, England) - Sunday, September 4, 2011 You do not have to be a fan of football to invest in the forthcoming initial public offering of Manchester United . But you will need to be a fan of the Glazer family, which bought England's most successful club in 2005 for a highly leveraged £790m. As potential investors await details of the club's IPO, they should cast a cold eye over its 2010/11 accounts, released last week. The numbers offer plenty of reasons for the Glazers to want to sell shares in Manchester United , and none at all for rational investors to buy them. The most striking revelation is that Manchester United is not terribly profitable. The Glazers' net profit for the year to June 30 was only £9.8m - a poor return on group revenue of £331m. Interest payments of £43m - the issue that enrages fans - consumed two-thirds of the club's operating profit, while accounting measures such as an unrealised £16m foreign exchange gain flattered the bottom line. True, the pre-tax profit of £30m was an improvement on the loss of £15m the previous year. Still, the meagre takeaway for the owners suggests that a reported valuation of $3bn for the club is wildly optimistic. Potential investors may also be asked to accept non-voting shares as part of the Singapore stock exchange listing - evidence of the Glazers' reluctance to cede any degree of control. An inflated valuation and a two-tier ownership structure would be a turn-off in any other business. But football is unlike any other business (as investors who lost in the listings craze of the 1990s will recall at their leisure). Given the club's success on the pitch, continued investment in top players, and shrinking acquisition debt, it is time to stop moaning about the Glazers as custodians of English football's most glittering prize. Those thinking of investing in the IPO, however, should realise that they would not be buying a piece of football history. They would be buying a piece of the Glazers. E-mail the Lex team in confidence at lex@ft.com ######################################################################## [3] Reuters Insider - Nigel Hilditch - Aug 24 2011 Scepticism over the high price the Glazers are pushing for from Reuters Insider video here: http://ping.fm/WLWIx   ######################################################################## [2] Man Utd's IPO not "all that attractive", say analysts - Channel News Asia - Amanda Feng - Aug 19 2011   The Glazers IPO plans for Manchester United are take a panning in the financial press over excessively high valuation. Man Utd's IPO not "all that attractive", say analysts By Amanda Feng  Channel News Asia: 19 August 2011 2122 hrs SINGAPORE: Despite the buzz surrounding English Premier League champions Manchester United's reported application to list on the Singapore Exchange (SGX), analysts said that the prospect of an IPO does not look "all that attractive". Investors might be enticed by the 'wow' factor of the world's probably best known football club listing in Singapore, but analysts question whether investing in the club will bring good returns. Vice President and Head of Research at SIAS Research, Roger Tan, said: "Supporting a football club is different from investing in one. At the end of the day, investors buy Manchester United listings or invest in the club itself for some financial returns. "They will have to look into the objective of United's listing - their financial statements, balance sheets and profit and loss statements, and we're not going to see a very good number." He added: "If the club is debt-laden and the objective is to pay off those debts, to me, it's not very attractive." United, England's most successful club, has plans to apply for a $1 billion initial public offering (IPO) and the proceeds will go towards paring the club's debts as well as grow its business in Asia. United fans in Singapore, however, are excited at the prospects of "owning a piece of the club". Some supporters point to the success of United's 500-milion-pound bond issue last year, which was twice oversubscribed. "The money generated from the IPO could be used to reduce the club's debts or give the manager more funds for purchase of new players, which will make the club stronger on the field or financially to challenge for more trophies," said Jame Lim, a committee member of the unofficial Manchester United Singapore Supporters Club (MUSG) which has nearly 7,000 members. "Hopefully with the listing, it will mean United will visit Singapore or Asia more often, something all its fans will be looking forward to," added Lim. When contacted by Channel NewsAsia, both the SGX and Credit Suisse - said to be the global coordinator for the deal - declined comment. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/1147983/1/.html ########################################################################   [1] Man Utd taps up Peter Lim for IPO - Financial Times - Kevin Brown in Singapore Aug 19 2011   The club has a 300m-strong global fan base, with 190m in Asia   Peter Lim, the Singaporean billionaire who tried to buy Liverpool Football Club last year, has been approached to act as a cornerstone investor in a $1bn initial public offering by Manchester United , but has doubts about the valuation, according to people with knowledge of the transaction.   Temasek, the Singapore state investment agency, has also been approached to invest in the IPO, expected to take place in Singapore in the fourth quarter of the year, but has made no decision. Manchester United is expected to offer 25-30 per cent of its shares, valuing the English Premier League champions at more than $3bn.   Mr Lim, who held talks in Singapore last month with David Gill, Manchester United’s chief executive, is understood to have left open a decision on whether to invest. However, he has told associates that “it all depends on the valuation”, according to a person with knowledge of his thinking.   Others involved with Mr Lim have said the price looks “rich”, compared with independent valuations. Forbes said earlier this year that Manchester United was worth $1.86bn, while the Red Knights – a group of supporters who tried to buy the club last year – say it is worth not much more than £1bn ($1.6bn).   Mr Lim is thought to have talked to the Red Knights last year about latching on to their take­over attempt, but this came to nothing and the Red Knights’ approach was rejected.   Mr Lim’s hesitation this time around suggests that Manchester United may not find it easy to realise the high valuation placed on the club by the Glazer family, its US-based owners, who bought it in 2005 in a £790m leveraged buy-out. Manchester United made an operating loss of £79m last year, and has gross debt of £515m.   However, the club boasts a fanbase of more than 190m people in Asia, out of nearly 300m globally, and have been touring Asia for decades, building up a strong position in football merchandising in the region.   Mr Lim is known in Singapore as the “Remisier King”, reflecting his accumulation of an initial fortune as an intermediary between stockbrokers and clients. He has a reputation as a savvy investor, and has commercial links with Manchester United through an interest in a chain of themed restaurants and bars in Asia that are based on the club. He is well known in Singapore, but rarely speaks to the media.   On Friday UK-based sports car maker McLaren Automotive said Mr Lim had joined its board with immediate effect after making a “significant investment” in the company, which also runs the McLaren Formula One team.   Manchester United is understood to have submitted its listing application to the Singapore Exchange in preliminary form, although further papers have yet to be delivered. The club said on Friday it did not comment on ownership issues, adding that the meeting between Mr Gill and Mr Lim was exclusively about licensing issues.   The SGX declined to comment, as did Temasek. Mr Lim could not be reached. The full list of banks involved in the IPO emerged on Friday, with Credit Suisse Group as a global co-ordinator, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley as bookrunners. China’s BOC International, Hong Kong’s CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, Malaysia’s CIMB and Singapore’s DBS will be co-lead arrangers.   Additional reporting by Roger Blitz in London  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2e047d2-ca6d-11e0-a0dc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1VVXuCiwx 2011-09-19T22:53:26+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-must-response-to-manchester-united-financial-results/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-must-response-to-manchester-united-financial-results/ MUST (the Manchester United Supporters' Trust - www.joinmust.org) response to Manchester United financial results   "The commercial team at United are clearly smart operators and we welcome continued growth in the business but to be fair we've seen growth consistently year after year long before the Glazers took over. There is only one man who is responsible for that consistent success - the same one responsible for success on the pitch - Sir Alex Ferguson. Without the incredible performance on the pitch and the fantastic loyal support of thousands of matchgoing fans, as well as millions more around the world, there would be no platform on which to build the growth of the business." "So while the financial results are strong, they also show that the Glazers have taken another £51m out of the club in the last 12 months as well as using an even bigger chunk (£64m) of the club's money to pay down part of their bond debt. This is money that the club has generated and money that should stay in the club rather than go to Florida or to pay down the Glazers' debt and interest. We believe that the best long term model for Manchester United is supporter ownership where all of the shareholders want to see a strong underlying business but with the profits reinvested into the football club." "That's why we're calling on the Glazers to use any share sale in Singapore to clear all of the club's debt - debt that they put on the club and they must take responsibility for. The only thing we want United to lose this season is the debt."   For independent analysis of the Financial Results see Andersred Blog item here: http://bit.ly/oDRUKq    2011-09-01T16:06:56+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-fans-message-to-glazers-clear-the-debt-with-the-ipo/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-fans-message-to-glazers-clear-the-debt-with-the-ipo/ Photo Jeremy Knowles MUST media release:   GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING – BUT ALSO THE LAST CHANCE “Despite all previous denials this is clearly the first phase of the Glazers’ exit from Old Trafford and this point in time is probably the most crucial in United's recent history. What the Glazers do now with the proceeds of the IPO will set a course for the long term future of the club. The IPO is not only the perfect opportunity for the Glazers to clear the debts (their debts) on the club but it is also the last opportunity. Post-IPO all residual debt will become the responsibility of Manchester United forever more and our football club will have to bear the cost of those debts.”   “Clearly they should do the right thing and ensure all of the proceeds of the flotation go into the football club to clear all of the debts. The Glazers shouldn’t take another penny until they’ve put right the outstanding damage.”   CLEAR ONLY PART OF THE DEBT? IT IS TAX EFFICIENT – NONSENSE! “We expect they will try to spin the notion that holding debt on a business can make sense for tax efficiency reasons. Of course it can – provided it is your debt and not someone else’s. The IPO should be used to clear ALL of the Glazers’ debt placed on Manchester United and then if the club management feels it is beneficial to take out modest loans, with the capital invested for the benefit of the club and the business, then that is sensible but it can’t make any sense to take on someone else’s debt for them. So clearly the Glazers must pay their own debts first and given the ambitious valuation being promoted they must be prepared to release more shares to do so if necessary.”   GLOBAL FANBASE MUST COME TOGETHER AND SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE “More so than ever, every Manchester United supporter around the world - along with all the management, players and staff - needs to come together and be united in their desire to see the Glazers do what's in the absolute best interests of  Manchester United. Clear the debt. If every United supporter around the world joined together to speak with one voice the Glazers would be left in no doubt – they must take responsibility for their debt now. A debt free United is the only solution.”   OPPORTUNITY FOR SUPPORTER OWNERSHIP “The flotation will of course be a potential opportunity for every supporter to own a share in Manchester United and we will be providing information, assistance and advice to all those fans who’ve registered (free) through our website www.joinmust.org so that every supporter worldwide has a chance to own a stake in their club armed with information to make an informed decision. We missed our chance in the past because not enough fans bought shares so the time is now for every United supporter in the world to stand up for the best interests of their club and seize this opportunity while we can. However a note of caution is also essential especially given the Glazers track record so we need to see the detail contained in the IPO prospectus before we can provide an informed view to all supporters who've registered with MUST.”   Hi-resolution images available from http://www.joinmust.org/score/score.zip 2011-08-28T12:18:59+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/green-gold-for-a-debt-free-united/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/green-gold-for-a-debt-free-united/           2011-08-21T21:44:45+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/the-glazers-ipo-plans-for-mufc-take-a-panning-in-the-financial-press-ov/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/the-glazers-ipo-plans-for-mufc-take-a-panning-in-the-financial-press-ov/ The Glazers IPO plans for Manchester United are taking a panning in the financial press over excessively high valuation. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/1147983/1/.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2e047d2-ca6d-11e0-a0dc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1VVXuCiwx Man Utd's IPO not "all that attractive", say analysts By Amanda Feng  Channel News Asia: 19 August 2011 2122 hrs SINGAPORE: Despite the buzz surrounding English Premier League champions Manchester United's reported application to list on the Singapore Exchange (SGX), analysts said that the prospect of an IPO does not look "all that attractive". Investors might be enticed by the 'wow' factor of the world's probably best known football club listing in Singapore, but analysts question whether investing in the club will bring good returns. Vice President and Head of Research at SIAS Research, Roger Tan, said: "Supporting a football club is different from investing in one. At the end of the day, investors buy Manchester United listings or invest in the club itself for some financial returns. "They will have to look into the objective of United's listing - their financial statements, balance sheets and profit and loss statements, and we're not going to see a very good number." He added: "If the club is debt-laden and the objective is to pay off those debts, to me, it's not very attractive." United, England's most successful club, has plans to apply for a $1 billion initial public offering (IPO) and the proceeds will go towards paring the club's debts as well as grow its business in Asia. United fans in Singapore, however, are excited at the prospects of "owning a piece of the club". Some supporters point to the success of United's 500-milion-pound bond issue last year, which was twice oversubscribed. "The money generated from the IPO could be used to reduce the club's debts or give the manager more funds for purchase of new players, which will make the club stronger on the field or financially to challenge for more trophies," said Jame Lim, a committee member of the unofficial Manchester United Singapore Supporters Club (MUSG) which has nearly 7,000 members. "Hopefully with the listing, it will mean United will visit Singapore or Asia more often, something all its fans will be looking forward to," added Lim. When contacted by Channel NewsAsia, both the SGX and Credit Suisse - said to be the global coordinator for the deal - declined comment. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/1147983/1/.html   FT Kevin Brown in Singapore August 19, 2011 7:01 pm   Man Utd taps up Peter Lim for IPO   The club has a 300m-strong global fan base, with 190m in Asia   Peter Lim, the Singaporean billionaire who tried to buy Liverpool Football Club last year, has been approached to act as a cornerstone investor in a $1bn initial public offering by Manchester United , but has doubts about the valuation, according to people with knowledge of the transaction.   Temasek, the Singapore state investment agency, has also been approached to invest in the IPO, expected to take place in Singapore in the fourth quarter of the year, but has made no decision. Manchester United is expected to offer 25-30 per cent of its shares, valuing the English Premier League champions at more than $3bn.   Mr Lim, who held talks in Singapore last month with David Gill, Manchester United’s chief executive, is understood to have left open a decision on whether to invest. However, he has told associates that “it all depends on the valuation”, according to a person with knowledge of his thinking.   Others involved with Mr Lim have said the price looks “rich”, compared with independent valuations. Forbes said earlier this year that Manchester United was worth $1.86bn, while the Red Knights – a group of supporters who tried to buy the club last year – say it is worth not much more than £1bn ($1.6bn).   Mr Lim is thought to have talked to the Red Knights last year about latching on to their take­over attempt, but this came to nothing and the Red Knights’ approach was rejected.   Mr Lim’s hesitation this time around suggests that Manchester United may not find it easy to realise the high valuation placed on the club by the Glazer family, its US-based owners, who bought it in 2005 in a £790m leveraged buy-out. Manchester United made an operating loss of £79m last year, and has gross debt of £515m.   However, the club boasts a fanbase of more than 190m people in Asia, out of nearly 300m globally, and have been touring Asia for decades, building up a strong position in football merchandising in the region.   Mr Lim is known in Singapore as the “Remisier King”, reflecting his accumulation of an initial fortune as an intermediary between stockbrokers and clients. He has a reputation as a savvy investor, and has commercial links with Manchester United through an interest in a chain of themed restaurants and bars in Asia that are based on the club. He is well known in Singapore, but rarely speaks to the media.   On Friday UK-based sports car maker McLaren Automotive said Mr Lim had joined its board with immediate effect after making a “significant investment” in the company, which also runs the McLaren Formula One team.   Manchester United is understood to have submitted its listing application to the Singapore Exchange in preliminary form, although further papers have yet to be delivered. The club said on Friday it did not comment on ownership issues, adding that the meeting between Mr Gill and Mr Lim was exclusively about licensing issues.   The SGX declined to comment, as did Temasek. Mr Lim could not be reached. The full list of banks involved in the IPO emerged on Friday, with Credit Suisse Group as a global co-ordinator, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley as bookrunners. China’s BOC International, Hong Kong’s CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, Malaysia’s CIMB and Singapore’s DBS will be co-lead arrangers.   Additional reporting by Roger Blitz in London  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2e047d2-ca6d-11e0-a0dc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1VVXuCiwx 2011-08-20T06:29:39+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-must-reaction-to-speculation-of-1bn-flotation-of-shares-in-ma/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-must-reaction-to-speculation-of-1bn-flotation-of-shares-in-ma/ MEDIA RELEASE: MUST reaction to speculation of $1bn flotation of shares in Manchester United on the Singapore Stock Exchange MUST, representing 172,000 members of the Manchester United Supporters Trust: "While on the surface, fans should welcome any reduction in the unsustainable debt burden on the club, if this Eastern promise from the Glazers seems too good to be true, it's because it probably is. The share sale will be in the Glazers' interests - to pay down their debt - not the club's. What we wish to see is a full sale to progressive owners who are interested in investing in the club's future so we can compete with Europe's finest, currently Barcelona. Ultimately, our ambition is for shared fan ownership of a better United. The danger is that a partial flotation will provide a poisoned pill to any such progressive potential owners.  And by reducing the Glazers' personal debt we will continue to be saddled with these absentee landlords. To any United fans considering buying shares at the Glazers' initial offer price- buyer beware." 2011-08-19T07:11:07+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-email-glazers-to-sell-mufc-shares-in-singapore-ipo-latest/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-email-glazers-to-sell-mufc-shares-in-singapore-ipo-latest/ The Glazers' PR people have been hard at work spinning the line that this Singapore flotation is primarily to pay down the club's debt. That simply isn't credible given the Glazers' track record in business and we note they don't give any specific figures.   What we do know is this could present a huge opportunity as well as a huge risk to our club so we need to act in large numbers and unified as United supporters globally.   Our view is summarised in three bullet points below:   The Glazers should use ALL proceeds of a flotation to repair the financial damage they've done to our club first before they take any money for themselves. That means they pay in full both the bond debt and all costs (interest, fees etc) they've imposed on our club through their takeover.   We expect them to punt for a massively inflated valuation on IPO. If that is the case we're advised that the share price could bomb when it opens for trading on the market so it makes sense for supporters to hold back until the price settles before we buy shares.   We don't expect them to make it easy for ordinary supporters to buy shares so we will be providing a mechanism to do this once we know the state of play and taking into account the point above.    As a general overview we can't improve on City Analyst (and MUST advisor) Andy Green's (Andersred) take on this so we've reproduced his blog below although please read the original here. Just a note on the valuation following discussion with Andy today. If they are to pay down some debt as part of the IPO then that will reduce the effective valuation below the previously calculated figure below.   The key issues surrounding a United flotation in Singapore   Readers will no doubt have seen the story, initially reported by Reuters’ International Financing Review news service yesterday, that the Glazers are planning to float a minority stake in Manchester United on the Singapore stock exchange (the "SGX") later this year. This story follows rumours in recent months of a listing in Hong Kong.     What could it mean for the club?   The first thing to say is that we have few details to go on. IFR mentions a “$1bn” listing, around £600m. How much of the club that would represent depends on the valuation on flotation the Glazers could achieve. Suggestions in the media that £600m could be raised with the Glazers only selling around 30-35% would indicate a very high valuation in excess of 21x EBITDA[1]. By comparison, Stan Kroenke’s acquisition of Arsenal earlier this year was at a valuation of around 14.6x EBITDA and Fenway paid 11.4x EBITDA for Liverpool in 2010. The suggested United numbers may of course be bankers’ puff, but they are certainly aggressive.   The second obvious statement to make is that actions the Glazers take are generally for the good of the Glazers and nobody else. It is notable that neither the club nor the family have made any attempt to consider supporter involvement in any flotation. Information is, as usual, very scarce.   In my view there are three main issues for supporters stemming from this news:   1. What will the Glazers would do with the proceeds of an IPO?   One obvious answer is to pay down some of the club’s £400m (net) debt, the bonds issued in 2010. That would, without question, be good for the club, reducing the interest bill (currently around £45m per annum) and freeing up more cash to invest in the club.   The other answer, and in my view far more plausible, is that the cash will go to Florida to bolster the Glazers’ personal finances. As has been well documented, the Glazers obtained £249.1m (c. $400m) from an unknown source in November 2010 to repay the infamous PIKs. I have it on good authority that this money was borrowed. The family’s highly leveraged US strip malls business, First Allied, continues to struggle. In 2013, NFL teams will have to meet a wage “floor” which will (on current figures) reduce the profitability of the notoriously low spending Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  All in all, the family could do with a significant injection of cash.   It seems logical that the flotation plan is really just the “Plan B” adopted by the family after they decided (in the face of the green and gold protests) not to use United’s cash to deal with the PIKs (for evidence of this fear of supporters see this Bloomberg article from October 2010). With the club's cash pile not available, a minority IPO is the logical next choice to get the Glazers out of their financial hole.   If I am right and the Glazers are intending just to take some personal profits, there will be little short-term impact on United’s finances, although the club's dividend policy may change. The club would not be obliged to pay dividends after flotation, but there is a risk that further cash would have to leave the club under the new structure. On the flip-side, if an IPO relieves the financial pressure on the family, the risk of them taking dividends out (which they are already able to do) is reduced. Once again we need more information.     2. Should supporters try/want to buy shares?   Looking back, many fans realise that we missed our chance between 1991 and 2005 to build a meaningful supporters’ stake in Manchester United when it was listed on the London Stock Exchange. Leaving ownership to City institutions led to the Sky bid, the manipulation of the club by Magnier and McManus and eventually the Glazer takeover.   A flotation of United, even in Singapore, gives an opportunity to own shares in our football club again and that cannot be dismissed out of hand. The problem is of course that any supporter stake would be as a minority in a Glazer controlled business. With the suggested valuation so high the sums needed for a meaningful stake look very difficult to achieve.   Despite these issues, I think as details emerge, we should as supporters look very carefully at this new opportunity. A minority sale is a major change in approach by the Glazers and looks likely to be the beginning of the process of them selling the club (although this may take some years). If that is the case, supporters need to be thinking now about how they can be part of a new ownership structure.   The sheer size of Manchester United may appear to preclude any major stake for fans, but in some ways the scale of our support provides the opportunity. MUST have 172,000 registered “e-members”, the club claims 330m “fans”. Looking at those two numbers, could 1 million supporters be brought together in the next twelve months and commit to invest £100 each? That would be a significant toe hold. A great first step on the way to greater supporter involvement in years to come.   3. What should we do now?   In the short-term, we all need more information on what the Glazers are planning. How much will they sell, to whom, when, what will the board structure be, what will the dividend policy be, how long will the family’s remaining stake be “locked up” etc, etc, etc. Without this information we can only talk in generalities.   As these facts come out, I passionately believe we need to achieve some new unity amongst our support. MUST will, as the mass membership official supporters trust, take the lead, but we need to try and build a consensus with all groups including IMUSA, the three fanzines, principal forums, FCUM (who remain part of the family), and possibly members of the “Red Knights” consortium and groups like Stretford End Flags and others who some feel haven’t been sufficiently “anti” in recent years.       It may be that none of the numbers stack up when we see them. It may be that unity is not possible, but we screwed up our last opportunity to get meaningful supporter ownership in our club and we would be wrong not to look at this opportunity closely. Together. United.   LUHG 1. 21x EBITDA calculated as follows: Estimated 2010/11 EBITDA £110m. £600m for 30% of equity implies equity valuation of £2bn. Current net debt (outstanding bonds less cash at bank) c. £400m. Enterprise value therefore £2bn + £400m = £2.4bn or 21.8x EBITDA. 2011-08-19T06:47:58+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-response-to-reports-of-singapore-flotation-of-mufc/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-response-to-reports-of-singapore-flotation-of-mufc/ In response to reports (e.g. http://bit.ly/pdgJ3M ) that the Glazers are to float at least part of their Manchester United shareholding on the Singapore Stock Exchange and that this is a precursor to a full sale a MUST spokesperson said: "Until we have more detail it is impossible to say with certainty what this will mean for Manchester United or its supporters. However our aim is to provide the opportunity for mass supporter participation in ownership of their club so this could well present such an opportunity and we’d urge every Manchester United supporter who cares about the club to register with the Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) through our website. We will provide information to supporters as soon as it is available. It is quite possible that shares will not be available to ordinary supporters and that MUST will have to provide a mechanism for supporters to buy shares. We’d like to see at least a million Manchester United supporters sharing in ownership of their club and it is our role as the official supporters trust to try to make that possible. Supporters can register for free through www.joinmust.org for information." 2011-08-16T16:11:23+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/3-days-to-go-must-fantasy-football-app-glazer-hk-float-gg-savings-bonds/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/3-days-to-go-must-fantasy-football-app-glazer-hk-float-gg-savings-bonds/ Just 3 days until Premier League KO - we'll be updating you with news regarding the Glazers' Hong Kong Flotation plans and soon to be launched MUST Green & Gold Savings Bonds in the next few weeks.   However something a bit lighter first - it raises funds for MUST and need cost you nothing - just a bit of fun but you'll need to be quick. Download your free fantasy football app now (use below links) and every registered user who then joins the "MUST Mini League" generates a 50p donation to MUST. There's live stats, fixture info, Head-to-Head Challenges (play against mates) PLUS over £10,000 of prizes on offer too.   Please also pass this email on to any United fans you know to help to grow the MUST Mini-League (PIN 2970) to be the biggest on there.   Fantasy iTeam is a fantastic fantasy football app too - nothing else touches it - 5 star rated and developed by a MUST member and already getting massive numbers of downloads and great feedback. It is free and generates funds for MUST once you've installed the app you just need to sign-up to the MUST Mini League   [1] Download and install it here:  APPLE: http://bit.ly/pzeSWI ANDROID: http://t.co/gfeLzbG   [2] Register and create your team.   [3] After you press 'Activate' on the iTeam Details screen you will be able to Create or Join a Mini League   [4] Select 'Join'. In the search box enter the PIN: 2970 and hit your phone enter/return button on keyboard (Not the  'View Public Mini Leagues' button )   [5] In the search results you will see the "MUST Mini League" - join it   [6] You will be accepted into the Mini League within a few minutes, once this has happened you will be able to see the Mini League in the 'Competitions' section.   [7] You don't have to sign up to BetFred - they are just sponsoring the app (but if you do choose to sign up to BetFred we'd obviously prefer you use MUST's own affiliate link directly http://bit.ly/MUSTfree50 )   Thanks for supporting MUST - good luck in the league and please do encourage friends to join the MUST mini-league too.     Links to bookmark:  [1] MUST iTunes/App store  link (use whenever visiting iTunes/App Store to generate commission for MUST):  http://bit.ly/mustitunes   [2] MUST BetFred - free £50 bet:  http://bit.ly/MUSTfree50   [3] Fantasy Football - Fantasy iTeam - you need to join the MUST mini- league PIN 2970: APPLE: http://bit.ly/pzeSWI ANDROID: http://t.co/gfeLzbG     2011-08-10T18:50:21+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-must-statement-on-mufc-allocation-at-liverpool-fc/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-must-statement-on-mufc-allocation-at-liverpool-fc/ At a meeting of the Liverpool Council Licensing Committee today there was a discussion on the proposed cut to the away capacity for visiting MUFC fans at the away fixture at Liverpool on 15th Oct 2011. It was claimed that standing in aisles by MUFC away supporters at the Anfield fixture last season is a safety issue and they proposed to significantly cut the away allocation in response. MUST representatives (Dr Geoff Pearson along with the editor of the redsaway.com website Dale Haslam) attended the meeting and expressed the views of match going Manchester United supporters, highlighting that one of the major causes of this is severely restricted view rows at the back of the lower tier. Unfortunately the Council motion was successful and the allocation will now be cut. Yet the situation highlights serious concerns about the treatment of supporters, not least by football clubs themselves. It is key to note that neither LFC or MUFC sought to engage with Manchester United supporters over this issue. It was our own initiative that led us to engage directly with Liverpool Council. Manchester United did not send any representatives to the meeting on behalf of the club or fans, and Manchester United even declined to meet with Manchester United supporters ahead of the Council meeting. Clubs should engage with their own fans over these issues so that we can complement each other in defending the club and its fans. Points raised at the meeting included the following: 1. At no point prior to the meeting have Manchester United supporters been consulted about these plans, by Liverpool FC or Manchester United FC. 2. Prior to today, no-one has allowed United supporters to explain why aisle blocking occurs and how best to solve the problem. We want to be a constructive partner but, despite being the people most affected, are given no voice. 3. There are seats in the away end with severely restricted views sold at full price, it is inevitable some people will move to get a better view- it would make sense to not sell these seats rather than shutting all of block 124 to away fans. 4. Liverpool plan to sell the seats withdrawn from the away fans to home fans, meaning there is the same proportion of seats to spectators and there is no actual change to the safety arrangements.  We acknowledge that problems of standing in gangways can occur in the away ends at United matches. However, incidents need to be dealt with individually, rather than collective punishment of a thousand innocent fans. MUST represents 173k United supporters, including 21k season tickets holders. Despite our differences with the owners over the millions they are siphoning out of the club we believe it is important that our members are represented on such issues and we have offered to work with Manchester United to get the best deal for fans. It is dissapointing that neither club has consulted us and indeed Manchester United continue to refuse to talk to MUST, the largest independent MUFC fans group and the largest supporters trust in the country.  We would urge that football clubs do not make decisions such as this without consulting those affected, not least because we can provide information and constructive advice to try to solve problems. Finally, we do welcome the Council allowing the delegation of United supporters to attend the meeting today and put forward our views. We also welcome their acknowledgement that persistent standing itself is not a problem but rather the specific issue is blocking of aisles and we will be highlighting this to our own members. Notes: MUST attendance at the meeting was as a result of inquiries by independent MUFC blogger Dale Haslam who runs the Reds Away website http://www.redsaway.com MUST was represented by committee member and MUFC season ticket holder Dr Geoff Pearson who is an expert in football law and crowd behaviour. http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~pearsong/GeoffPearson.htm 2011-08-08T15:57:05+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-sir-alex-ferguson-peerage-must-response/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/media-release-sir-alex-ferguson-peerage-must-response/ Sir Alex Ferguson Peerage - MUST response Commenting on the Motion tabled in Parliament calling for Sir Alex Ferguson to be given a Peerage, a MUST spokesman said:   “MUST fully backs the Motion laid down in Parliament by Tony Lloyd and Graham Stringer, and believes Sir Alex would be thoroughly deserving of such a major honour in recognition of his immense achievements - not least his most recent - displacing Liverpool from their perch with our 19th League title. If Sir Alex does become Lord of Old Trafford the feedback we've already had through our website tells us United fans will be delighted for him ... as long as it doesn't interfere with his day job.” ENDS   Notes to editors:   Link to EDM: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1926 MUST website: http://www.joinmust.org   1.       Both Tony Lloyd and Graham Stringer are well know Manchester United supporters. Tony Lloyd is also a patron of MUST.Labour MPs Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) and Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) tabled the Early Day Motion this week and it was published on 15th June 2011.  2.       The text of the Motion reads as follows:   1926 SIR ALEX FERGUSON 15:6:11 That this House recognises the economic, social, cultural and sporting importance of football to the United Kingdom; is therefore surprised at the paucity of representatives from the world of football in the Upper House; further notes that Sir Alex Ferguson, as the manager of Aberdeen and Manchester United, is the most successful manager in the history of British football; and calls for him to be recommended for appointment to the House of Lords. 2011-06-16T13:03:14+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/lord-fergie/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/lord-fergie/   MUST patron Tony Lloyd MP along with fellow Red Graham Stringer have put down an Early Day Motion calling for Fergie to become a Lord. As long as it doesn't interfere with the day job ....   SIR ALEX FERGUSON Session: 2010-11 Date tabled: 15.06.2011 Primary sponsor: Stringer, Graham Sponsors:  Lloyd, Tony That this House recognises the economic, social, cultural and sporting importance of football to the United Kingdom; is therefore surprised at the paucity of representatives from the world of football in the Upper House; further notes that Sir Alex Ferguson, as the manager of Aberdeen and Manchester United, is the most successful manager inthe history of British football; and calls for him to be recommended for appointment to the House of Lords.   http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1926    2011-06-16T08:27:15+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-would-cautiously-welcome-full-flotation-of-manchester-united/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/must-would-cautiously-welcome-full-flotation-of-manchester-united/ In response to reports in the Sunday Times today that the Glazers may be considering floating Manchester United on the (Hong Kong) stock exchange a MUST spokesperson said: "If this report proves to be well founded the prospect of a flotation of Manchester United is one that many supporters would cautiously welcome because it could be an opportunity for supporters to once again share in ownership of their club. However three immediate concerns spring to mind. Firstly that this would have to be a full IPO signalling a clean exit for the Glazers. Secondly the valuation would have to be realistic - something closer to 1bn GBP rather than the 1.5bn+ GBP that the Glazers seem to feel is possible. Thirdly shares should be freely available to all MUFC supporters and certainly floated on the UK market to maximise accessibility." "Of course many supporters would hate to see the Glazers walk away with a huge profit but in the end it isn't about them. It is about what is best for Manchester United - the Football Club and its supporters. Until their drain on our finances is removed we will never be able to compete on a level playing field with the best in the world." "MUST's avowed aim - our inspirational dream - is Manchester United FC owned by the fans and run for the fans." "Our task is to create the opportunity for all United fans to share in the ownership of their club, inspiring the participation of at least one million supporters." "Since May 2005 we have renewed our efforts to encourage every United supporter to join the us and build a mass membership to share in the future ownership of Manchester United. If the Glazers choose to sell we must be ready to take advantage this time round. It has always been a regret that too few took the opportunity when Manchester United was a PLC. Undoubtedly, there is a desire from Manchester United supporters for change, with the supporters put back at the heart of the club. We can't afford to miss a second chance so we'd encourage every United supporter to join the trust." "If we wish to persuade the Glazers to go for a full flotation, and on the UK stock exchange, then a million Manchester United supporters standing together, represented through MUST, could present a compelling argument. Supporters can join MUST online and without charge - 172,000 have already done so through our website www.joinmust.org" Notes: Man Utd owners eye Asian flotation PA http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/man-utd-owners-eye-asian-flotation-2296660.html     2011-06-12T13:35:39+00:00 http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/supporters-direct-funding-public-statement/ http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog/entry/supporters-direct-funding-public-statement/ BEGINS SUPPORTERS DIRECT PUBLIC STATEMENT -- FUNDING The board of directors of Supporters Direct (SD) meeting in emergency session yesterday, Saturday 11th June, expressed confidence in its past and continuing role in promoting the supporter trust movement - a model of football ownership that allows fans to re-engage with their local clubs, and begin the process of putting the community back at the heart of the football and other sports clubs. The emergency session was called to discuss a possible crisis in the funding of the organisation (founded in 2000). On Wednesday 8th June 2011 SD was informed by the Football Stadia Improvement Fund, administrators of the Premier League Fans' Fund, that it would not be making an offer to fund SD. The reason given was the FSIF's concern over a number of tweets posted by SD chief executive on his personal account on twitter.com during the evening of Saturday 21 May 2011. SD has deplored the comments and disassociated itself from them completely. The SD board took the following decisions at its emergency meeting: 1) To accept the resignation from office of chief executive Dave Boyle; 2) To appoint Brian Burgess as acting chief executive from Saturday 11 June 2011; 3) To establish an executive committee of the board consisting of three directors and the acting chief executive to steer the organisation during the current funding crisis; 4) To begin work on protecting the organisation's activities in rugby league, Scotland and in the rest of Europe for which it receives funds from other partners including the Scottish Government, UEFA and the Rugby Football League; 5) To seek early discussions with the Premier League Fans' Fund with a view to resubmitting its application which was acknowledged by the FSIF to have merit that would have attracted funding, whilst also pursuing other possibilities and sources of funding. Commenting on the situation SD chair Dame Pauline Green said: "The development of Supporters Direct over the past ten years has seen the trust movement grow and make a substantial contribution to a significant number of football clubs and their local communities. We have also made an impact in other sports such as rugby league. "As an example the promotion to the Premier League of Swansea City, in which the supporters' trust is the third largest equity investor in the club with 19.99% of the shares, makes it the first club at the top level to have a substantial trust shareholding. In Scotland, Dundee FC is now under supporter ownership. "The trust movement must now take stock and reflect on how it can most effectively contribute to the development of a healthy, more sustainable football industry at all levels. "The Annual General Meeting and conference in Chester on 15th and 16th July will be an opportunity for us to debate this with our members and the wider football public." ENDS Note to editors: Supporters Direct Ltd is an Industrial & Provident Society supervised by the Financial Services Authority for community benefit working to promote supporter ownership and involvement in the governance of professional team sports. Trusts are established at every level of professional and semi-professional team sport throughout Great Britain in football, rugby league and rugby union. It has offices in London and Glasgow and receives financial support from the Premier League, the Scottish Government, football's European governing body UEFA the Rugby Football League and the co-operative movement. Enquiries should be directed to Steven Powell on 07757 211907 ENDS 2011-06-12T11:18:32+00:00