Tashor, that is brilliant! An interesting juxtaposition- the BBC reports that the American Football authorities have started an investigation into whether Glazer used the Tampa franchise as collateral to finance the borrowings to buy Man U. In contrast, here is a ringing indictment of the English FA and its inability to regulate English soccer. Business Week is not exactly impressed by what the Glazers are doing. The Daily Telegraph analysis of the Glazer take over: "For a club who declared net half-yearly profits of £12 million, a debt of £265 million would be difficult to service. As a comparison, Real Madrid, the one football brand that can compete globally with Manchester United, had debts of £190 million when they were crowned champions of Europe in 2000. Madrid's crisis was solved only by the sale of their training ground, an option not open to Glazer. (The Real training ground was on a prime location in central Madrid for which Madrid City Council paid what is commonly regarded as a massively inflated price) "...Aside from the £265 million debt United are taking on, Glazer is also financing the deal by issuing securities worth £275 million which the club are not liable for but which the Glazer family are. "It may not be the club's money but that additional £275 million is borrowed money and Glazer will have to service that and the easiest way of doing it is to squeeze Manchester United some more," Towle (Supporters United) said, while noting that there was no mention of the £20 million summer investment package that Glazer has promised Ferguson. "The total borrowings of the Glazer family to finance the deal are £540 million - nearly 70 per cent of the £790 million valuation of the bid. The options open to Malcolm Glazer to increase revenue to service these debts are limited. "The most lucrative would be to withdraw from the Premier League's collective bargaining on television rights and sign his own contracts to screen Manchester United games. "The Premier League's chief executive, Richard Scudamore, said that given three-quarters of the Premier League would have to vote for it, it was "almost impossible" that the deal, presently worth £1.1 billion, would be scrapped when it expires in two years' time. "In Florida, where Glazer came to sporting prominence, there were concerns that he may have to sell his American football club, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, to finance the deal. He would leave them as he found them. They were bottom of the NFL then and they are in the basement now." Finally, The Independent argues that the sensible option for Ferguson is to walk now.

American, I am not completely sure about the overseas rights but... The Premiership division of cash between the clubs did not decrease by as much as the drop in Sky income when the CEU misguidedly got involved (but didn't pursue a far more monopolistic deal in France) because international TV rights revenues rose from GBP 100m to GBP 180m and were distributed as part of the Premiership pool. In other words, if its a Prem game, the Prem sells it whether you are in Boston Lincs or Boston MA. Rantic and Celgers of course screwed an opt out from the Sunday Pubbers to get as much TV revenue as they could squeeze to earn the right to come bottom of whatever Euro mini-Group they could claw their way into. I accept that Glazer must believe he can make money out of the Mancs and he has obviously convincved NM Rothschild that he can write a business plan to support somebody lending him £550m for his transatlantic buccaneering and changing ball shapes. However, NM Rothschilds (a small player with a big name) only really needed convincing the £790m was going to be there when needed and as soon as they had sussed Cubic would be predictably self-interested they were on to earning a VERY SPECTACULAR fee from a "difficult" deal. The brand of corporate dope the Glazers are on is none of the Rothschild business so long as there were enough (American?) Fund Managers sniffing the stuff to bankroll the Glazers. JP Morgan walked out of this transaction, remember, and that says everything an intelligent person needs to know about this deal: IT STINKS. Irrespective of TV rights, Euro Leagues or whatever, the Glazers have leveraged their own GBP250m to buy GBP800m of assets. You can therefore be sure: 1) The Glazers will asset strip and do whatever they need to do to MUFC to make sure their own GBP250m comes home safe to the family with a healthy return on top (that will be the real game- get their own cash out and the external lenders can cry the way they did at Leeds if things don't work out). 2) If the Glazers do not succeed in breaking the 14% of MUFC currently in the hands of the Independent Shareholders sufficiently to own 90% of MUFC which would mean they can force the sale of the remaining 10% to themselves, the legal battles over minority interest as the Glazers attempt to do what they need to do could become immense. Post Script- A different part of JP Morgan from the corporate deal makers has loaned Glazer GBP 250m. Also Shareholders United hold 8% of Man U and not 14% as was claimed at one time. This will explain why Man U's share price now stands at 1.5p ABOVE the 300p Glazer offer price. There could be a battle for that key 2% of Man U in which case they are free to offer over 300p but Glazer cannot without raising his offer to every shareholder- the difficulty for Shareholders United is finding GBP 4m for that 2% knowing that all it will do is buy the right to spend a lot on lawyers and be used to frustrate the business objectives of the majority shareholder and therefore be effectively valueless from the moment it is "invested".

Aaargh American. I'm not and have not said Glazer won't make money out of the Mancs. I am saying there is not enough in the ManU "franchise" to generate the money he needs from Man U without also doing massive damage to the rest of football- particularly to a club like Blackburn Rovers. To come up with the size of cash surplusses he needs, he has to swing TV money away from the other Prem clubs and into the pockets of the Mancs. I cannot see any realistic alternative. He would also be very much in favour of European super league to generate the cash he needs from the Mancs. That is why the guy is an absolute menace. However, that isn't to say there is no risk the Mancs will be a financial bloody nose for Glazer. He is gambling many millions on the Mancs not getting turned over in the third qualifying round of the Champs League next season for a start- a call to Ibrox will tell him what that feels like. Then Managers like Moyes, Benitez, Allardyce, Jol, McLaren (and dare we hope?) Hughes might continue to make significant relative improvements compared with the Mancs whilst Chelsea and Arsenal disappear over the horizon. Is it that difficult to envisage the Mancs spending ?20m on transfers this summer and continuing to slide? I doubt ?20m is enough to buy sufficient Champs League- quality players to plug all the gaps in the current Manc squad. Plus, under rule changes proposed by UEFA today, the Mancs would have too much debt in 2007 to be granted a license to enter European competition. None of these scenarios in themselves is individually very probable but add them all up and Glazer is gambling with a lot of other people's money. Meantime Mr loyalty Steve Bruce signals his willingness to work for Glazer.

Read the post- interest of GBP 20 to 30m a year and then repayment of the GBP 550m borrowed. Very much doubt if any of that loan money is there for longer than five years. So you never pay off your mortgage Stu?

What has happenned with Man U was going to happen eventually. Glazer has to support GBP550m of borrowings (in the quaint world of corporate finance, only some of it is called "debt"). That means they have to find GBP20m to GBP30m a year in interest and fees just to support it- never mind pay it off. As an American raider, Glazer has foreign currency exposure somewhere in the mix as well, no matter how well it might be hedged and matched- Man U might sneeze if the dollar has a bad day. All that before starting to repay GBP550m and no doubt the lending institutions want their money back in a reasonable time frame. So whilst the Walker Trust unfailingly drops GBP3m a year to Rovers in subsidy every year, United's new owner probably needs to WITHDRAW GBP100m A YEAR. That is going to come from two sources- Smash the collective TV rights agreement and Turn G14 into a European Super League They are going to have to move quickly as well with that amount of borrowing round their necks- as Chelski have found out, increasing merchandising revenue from football is relatively slow. There are three hopes for football as we know it: 1) Glazer is an unlovely (American) outsider. In the clannish corrupt world of pro-soccer nobody loves him and everybody wants him to fail. It also helps that outside of the tribes of Manc, nobody likes ManU either. So what if ManU do a Leeds? Nobody has any interest in Glazer succeeding except Glazer himself. In the dog-eat-dog world, any mistake by Avi Glazer (and there are bound to be some) will be siezed upon. 2) Abramovich can single handedly wreck ManU and save soccer as we know it- albeit at the cost of Chelski world domination. I strongly suspect that Abramovich would find it politically very much to his advantage to be seen as the saviour of the football league system which Glazer needs to destroy. Kenyon is on a personal mission to eclipse Man U and this 18 year old Nigerian from Oslo is an interesting example of what Chelsea can do. No doubt, Chelsea waved some ridiculous numbers in front of Rio (and A.Cole) at least in an attempt to increase wage costs of their opponents. 3) The other 19 Prem clubs can simply outvote the Mancs and face them down. The FA Cup survived without Man U in it sfor a season- so could the Premiership. For Man U to have a (TV) product to sell, they have to have a meaningful game against opponents in a competition which has instant brand recognition- in this sense, the Premier League, FA Cup, Champions League are THE brands given credibility by the competing clubs; the Man U Asian Cup in August is not a brand and would cost a fortune to build up to be anything other than a spin-off from the main football competition brands. Man U as a brand only has value to the extent that it is in a credible competition. If Man U get bolshy as they will, the other clubs have to be willing to boycott games against Man U and act collectively against Glazer IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS. So Rovers should be willing to refuse to run out at Old Trafford at 2.45 on a match day unless a very large cheque from the MUTV receipts is handed over. In extremis why not? I do not believe there is any likelihood of an effective boycott of Man U by their own fans. All this angst is pointless and futile- they couldn't even organise a demo at the West Brom game (cancelled due to apathy). A few head cases will not renew their STs and the Glazers will be very happy not to see them at Old Trafford.

There are two guilty parties responsible for the sale of Man U to Glazer: The Edwards family- in pursuit of their own wealth they managed to flog off all their controlling shareholding piecemeal for ?93m with no regard for the future of the club or business they previously owned. They have set a "good" example for Glazer to follow. Ferguson- in pursuit of greed/personal pleasure, he caused the Magnier/MacManus reaction whereby the two Irish racing men built up their personal stake in ManU to force Ferguson to compromise over Rock of Gibraltar without having to go too public about the affair- which they did not want. Once Cubic showed how vulnerable ManU were to take over, any chancer could have done what Glazer did. Ferguson compounded the problem by his muted opposition to the takeover effectively disarming any attempt to generate a blocking 25%+1 shareholding by "Shareholders' United"- with RFW muttering about being opposed, it was difficult for them to act whereas if RFW had spoken out clearly or said nothing, the takeover probably would have been stopped. As Cubic have made ?80m out of their sale to Glazer, no doubt there was a clause in the Rock of Gibraltar agreement which obliged Ferguson not to damage Cubic's interests. The Indeperndent neatly sums up the situation for the Mancs as follows (in its business commentary): "The reason this is thought to be good news for other top tier clubs is that Mr Glazer plans to make the club partially pay for itself by loading it up with debt. This is what private equity players do with their purchases and most of the time it doesn't much matter. If the financial alchemy doesn't work and the company goes bust, there will soon be another company to take its place, its market and its employees. "Ah, but a football club is no ordinary business. It's a tribe, it's a lifestyle, a culture, a way of life ... you get the picture. Sport is different. Loaded with debt, the club might not be able to afford the eye-popping sums that have to be paid to the world's top players. It might even have to start selling players just to stay solvent and thereby begin the process that took Leeds United from hero to zero in just two short seasons. "According to insiders, Mr Glazer's business plan is a particularly aggressive one. It has to be to service and pay-off the ?550m of debt and quasi-debt Mr Glazer is taking on to buy the club. The mystery is that the world's best known football club was unable to attract an owner with deeper pockets, for Mr Glazer is no Roman Abramovich. "He may know a little bit about sports clubs, but there is no open cheque book here to underwrite the club's continuing success in the game. They are both chancers, but whereas one can afford to splash out hundreds of millions in "money no object" bids for the world's greatest football talents, Mr Glazer will be rushing around the place turning out the lights just to save the odd copper." The good times at Arsenal and Chelsea are set to roll.... (and Liverpool quite possibly)

The lad has been reported as a missing person to the Norwegian police. With multiple "agents" each in line for a big fee depending on which club signs him, this could turn nasty if there are shady characters involved. Probably a storm in a teacup but who knows, Mikel could become as famous as Bosman if this leads to reform of the agents system.

I don't know why the rest of you are being so negative to rainmaker. I am fascinated to find out what happens next in this Manc v Chelski scrap. The transfer thread is full of stories about players who will never play for Rovers- at least this one is relying on a Norwegian uncle's mate who cleans the loos at Lyn. (aka Henning Berg)

Zidane is THE BUSINESS. I've seen TV coverage of him playing for Bordeuax and it would be fantastic getting him at Ewood with the Dugarry deal which everyone reckons is done and dusted now. Incidentally, Bobby Baggio's agent is supposed to be pushing Jack to buy his man. That Kirsty Gallagher is well developed for a 10 year old isn't she?

Blast it- the only weekend we can bring all the directors over from our European subsidiaries has to be the last day of the season. So I've been to 25 games up and down the country (travelling from Chichester) and cannot see us win the Prem.

Shearer all ends up! He hit it so hard that the camera lost the trajectory of the ball so there is no chance of it winning the MoTD goal of the season. Both Le Tis goals were a bit special but that dribble and shot for his second was one of the greats. There's been another fantastic goal been scored against us this season but cannot remember whether John Barnes overhead bicycle kick has happened against us yet. Whatever it was, it came third in the MoTD goal of the season behind Le Tis and Cantona's chip over Kelly at Sheff U.

Anyone else thinking King Kenny is looking very frazzled? Last thing we want is him cracking up again.

The Sun have exposed a Brum boob this morning. The Birmingham City Marketing Department advertised Saturday's fixture as the return of Savage. They are explaining it away as the gentleman's agreement being a private affair between John Williams and Karren Brady they did not know about. Seems like they do the sensible thing and ignore their Chairman.

This is well and truly messing up hopes of a top half finish.

Brum tearing into us now. Need to hold firm. Toogs replaced Nissa so presumably Mokoena drops into the back 4 but with Thomo on for MGP, still 4-5-1.

Lucky break and he tucked it away. Come on Rovers get back in front.

Some high octaine scoring this afternoon- Fulham got a second and Sauxie has volleyed Southampton 3-2 in front. Coventry are saying farewell to Highfield Road in style: 4-0 up in 40 against Derby. Schumacher scored Bradford's second.

Couple of interesting scores lower down. Rochdale 4 up in the first 25- when did that last happen at Spotland? Ugarte already has a hattrick for Wrexham at Stockport. Leading 4-1 away not doing them much good because other scores and their 10 points deduction are conspiring to send them down at the moment.

Jon Stead 1 ******0

No this has to do. Southampton equaliser and City in the lead.

Norwich and Boro both score early. Very quiet at st andrew's. Elsewhere, Celtic are 1 down at home to Hibs- understandable, who'd want to win the SPL anyway? and Ipswich have got an early goal against Crewe to set nerves going in Wigan.

I remember him scoring a very nice goal for us at Sheffield Wednesday. ....and didn't he get a brace in the 5-2 against Newcastle?

Mark Lawrenson predicts defeat for the Rovers so God is in his Heaven and all's well with the world! He also makes a snyde remark about Savage despite the official announcement about honouring the gentleman's agreement is several hours old now. Just looked at the table- defeat in this one and we could drop two places very easilly, three if Pompey win at Man City. Very important not to lose it if we are to build a decent transfer kitty. With Sav out, I feel a bit more optimistic about our chances, especially when I think back to watching Brum's no show effort in their 3-0 humiliation by Citeh.

The BBC preview speculates about Savage recovering in time to play. Sky Sports quotes Mark Hughes in saying the Rovers will honour a gentleman's agreement not to play Savage.

An out of court settlement is not a foregone conclusion but I would be surprised if one is not reached. The cost to the insurance industry of the trial upholding the original verdict is too great for them to risk it is my guess.