United spend £500,000 fighting off Glazer

Manchester United have already spent £500,000 (€720,000) fighting off Malcolm Glazer - and the figure will increase dramatically when the American finally tables a bid for the Old Trafford outfit.

In confirming half-year profits have tumbled over 50% to £12.4m (€17.9m), Red Devils’ directors restated their belief that Glazer’s proposals were bad news for the long-term interests of the world’s richest soccer club.

It has widely been predicted that the anticipated fall in profits would be good news for Glazer, who has already inspected United’s accounts and is believed to be in the final stages of putting together a formal £800m (€1.15m) takeover offer.

United chief executive David Gill has countered that argument, insisting the prospects for the club from 2006 and beyond are rosy, but he reaffirmed a statement from chairman Roy Gardner that Glazer’s advances have proved ‘disruptive’ to the club and insisted the American’s plans were too aggressive.

“We are in a third Offer Period within 12 months,” Gill told BBC Breakfast News. “That has to be disruptive to the business.

“We have been fairly clear about this, 300p per share looks to be a fair and reasonable price but we do not think the plan is in the best interests of the company. We feel the business plan was aggressive and the level of debt too high.”

There are some suggestions from the Glazer camp that if Gill fails to recommend a 300p per share offer, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner will take legal action on the basis the chief executive’s sole responsibility is to his shareholders.

United believe they have sound legal advice which counters this, giving the club power to act on behalf of both present and future supporters.

“We have a very good team of advisors helping us through this process,” said finance director Nick Humby.

“So far we have spent £500,000 (€720,000) in fees on the Glazer bid but that figure is bound to rise if a bid does come in.”

Glazer is insistent higher profits can be generated, even though the present downturn, which United claim is due to a fall in cash from the Premier League TV deal and reduced income from the Champions League, will continue into next year.

One area ripe for greater revenue is TV rights. Although Humby claims United remain committed to the collective distribution of live matches agreed when the Premier League was founded in 1992, the European Commission are implacably opposed to the concept.

The current deal with BSkyB runs out in 2007, raising the possibility of clubs being able to negotiate individual contracts, a move that would vastly increase United’s earnings.

Humby also expects to announce some major new sponsorship agreements over the next few months which would allow the Red Devils to exploit their vast popularity in the Far East.

And, despite a stadium expansion programme that will see Old Trafford’s capacity hit 76,000 at the start of the 2006-07 campaign, there also remains the likelihood of ticket price rises, a move that would be opposed by an overwhelming majority of fans though is makes total economic sense.

“We are meeting supporters on April 1 to discuss the ticketing situation for next season,” revealed Humby.

“At £21-£29, our prices are in the bottom third in the Premier League but there is a balance to be struck between making the stadium accessible and affordable to fans, with the need to deliver returns to shareholders.”

For the first time since floatation, United’s wages to turnover ratio will exceed 50% once the full-year figures are announced in September and with champions-elect Chelsea continuing to spend vast sums on new players, there are fears United’s position as the financially dominant force in the English game is coming to an end.

Understandably, Gill has a different view.

“I am not getting carried away by Chelsea,” he told Sky Sports News.

“I am sure they are a very attractive proposition but we can compete on their level, we proved that by signing Wayne Rooney.

“Manchester United has history and heritage. People should not think we are unattractive. The very opposite is true.”