United could sell Old Trafford

[RedinSweden]

Fucking hell, this is some bad shit.

 

Glazers raise the spectre of Old Trafford sale to cut debt - Premier League, Football - The Independent

 

Glazers raise the spectre of Old Trafford sale to cut debtClub admit £300m lease-back scheme for iconic stadium would be considered to balance finances

 

By Ian Herbert

 

Thursday, 14 January 2010

 

The Glazer family have raised the prospect of selling Old Trafford in the prospectus circulated to potential investors from whom they are seeking £500m to refinance Manchester United.

 

 

The club's owners state in the document that the legal contract governing the £500m bond, details of which, they have issued this week "will not prohibit us from selling certain key properties" and these include "our training ground facilities and our stadium". This introduces the possibility of United selling and leasing back the most iconic asset they have – which Joel Glazer pledged after the purchase of the club in May 2005 would never happen and which would leave United supporters in a state of open revolt.

 

Some analysts suggested yesterday the Glazers could secure an immediate £300m from the ground's sale – a figure which would almost halve their astronomical £700m debt, though another burden on the club would be felt immediately. A prospective freeholder would probably want a five per cent rental yield, meaning United would be encumbered with a £15m-a-year bill to go with the huge interest repayments which the Glazers' leveraged buyout has heaped on the club.

 

The Glazers state in the prospectus that anyone acquiring either the 75,797-capacity stadium or United's Carrington training ground "will be required to enter into a long-term lease with us to enable us to continue to have substantially the same access to such property as we currently do." But there is a clear warning as to the effects of a sale: "If we sell or transfer either or both of these properties [Old Trafford or Carrington] we will no longer control them."

 

There is also an admission that Old Trafford may suffer if United no longer own it. "The failure by the [freeholder] in respect of either or both of these properties to maintain the properties or to make additional capital expenditures to improve the facilities at such properties could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations."

 

The revelation that such an outcome is possible will distress fans for whom this week's prospectus has laid bare the financial realities of the club.

 

The prospectus articulates the Glazers' desire "to continue to preserve and expand our control of revenue-generating assets" and in 2007 United bought ITV's 33.3 per cent share in the television station MUTV to that end, bringing 66.7 per cent of the channel under Glazer control. But the Manchester United Supporters' Trust warned as far back as 2006 that the sale of Old Trafford or the sale of other businesses looked like the only way of bringing down the crippling levels of debt incurred by the club and its new owners.

 

The 322-page prospectus, the basis for a bond offer which will consolidate and extend by four years the capital repayment date on bank loans taken out to buy the club, but not reduce the rate of interest, provides an extraordinary level of detail about the financial workings of an intensely private business.

 

Though the club have brushed aside suggestions that they unfairly poached Paul Pogba, the defensive midfielder and captain of the France Under-16 side (whose previous club, Le Havre, have pledged to pursue a transfer ban as Lens have over Chelsea's purchase of Gaël Kakuta), the Glazers admit that there is a risk of a ban. Fifa has given a licence governing Pogba's transfer for now but "in the event of a decision against us, possible sanctions include a fine and a transfer ban," investors are warned.

 

The owners are legally bound to raise worst-case scenarios. The issue of Uefa banning clubs with high debt levels is, though also raised by the Glazers, not seen as an imminent threat.

 

But a more pressing one, also raised in the document, is that of a £5.3m hit from HM Revenue & Customs as a result of the current investigation into whether players should pay tax on the image rights they are paid. United's major players will be stung by such an outcome but so too the club, which will be liable for around £5.3m – the equivalent of their National Insurance contributions from 2000 to 2010.

[Unrighteous]

Interesting. I don't really care if they go bust, to be fair, but its still interesting.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Seen that before and it got 3 seconds of air time.

 

Says it all.

 

It's a major concern for football when the two biggest institutions of English football are in serious shit due to American owners piling debt onto the clubs and making money without actually putting any money in by selling, and it's not getting the air time it should be.

 

People are not arsed.

[StevieH]

It is high time that the Premier League, FA and UEFA got off their backsides and did something about the ownership situation at all clubs.

[JangoSolo]

It is high time that the Premier League, FA and UEFA got off their backsides and did something about the ownership situation at all clubs.

 

I think i'd rather they gotnoff their arses and addressed the ridiculous wages to profit situation, no club in the world can afford the outrageous salaries these players get, even average players are getting 60k a week, 95% of the clubs can't afford this on gate receipts alone, only precious few can make decent money outside of matchdays.

 

There is a general malaise in football, and most of our squad reflects this, pampered millionaires who just aren't hungry enough

[StevieH]

I think i'd rather they gotnoff their arses and addressed the ridiculous wages to profit situation, no club in the world can afford the outrageous salaries these players get, even average players are getting 60k a week, 95% of the clubs can't afford this on gate receipts alone, only precious few can make decent money outside of matchdays.

 

There is a general malaise in football, and most of our squad reflects this, pampered millionaires who just aren't hungry enough

 

The wages are excessive at all clubs, but the profit that clubs like Liverpool and Manchester United generate are eaten up by the debts accrued through the repayments following the leveraged buy-outs. It is a sad state of affairs.

 

The Portsmouth situation is a classic example of lavish over spending. I wonder if Peter Storrie gets paid on time?

[kelster]

It is high time that the Premier League, FA and UEFA got off their backsides and did something about the ownership situation at all clubs.

 

UEFA can't do anything about who actually owns the clubs as they are all fairly traded entities. Just cause someone is American doesn't mean they can't own a football club.

 

What UEFA could do is something like threatening to ban clubs who carry debt from European competition. But then again, the President of UEFA might be marked out as a jealous French cunt always out to get the English instead of someone who knows which way the wind is blowing and is trying at least to be proactive.

[Torvald Utne]

UEFA can't do anything about who actually owns the clubs as they are all fairly traded entities. Just cause someone is American doesn't mean they can't own a football club.

 

What UEFA could do is something like threatening to ban clubs who carry debt from European competition. But then again, the President of UEFA might be marked out as a jealous French cunt always out to get the English instead of someone who knows which way the wind is blowing and is trying at least to be proactive.

 

They could prevent people using these methods from acquiring clubs in the first place, being American doesn't come into it.

 

The interesting part of that for me was the revelation that clubs and players don't pay tax on image rights....why the fuck not?

[Anny Road]

We should take out a loan and buy it. How funny would that be.

[a stoner]

I don't really care but it's interesting how yanks like to run their businesses and these are in the same financial situation the rest of the US is in.

Wish they would all fuck off back over there and leave football alone.

[a stoner]

We should take out a loan and buy it. How funny would that be.

 

Oh yes that would be good. And when they request new facilities just say no.

[Torvald Utne]

Not able to as it's against UEFA rules to own more than 1 club.

 

We wouldn't be owning the club, just old trafford.

[RedinSweden]

UEFA can't do anything about who actually owns the clubs as they are all fairly traded entities. Just cause someone is American doesn't mean they can't own a football club.

 

What UEFA could do is something like threatening to ban clubs who carry debt from European competition. But then again, the President of UEFA might be marked out as a jealous French cunt always out to get the English instead of someone who knows which way the wind is blowing and is trying at least to be proactive.

 

Given our current plight, I think such a ban is perfect.

 

They would only do some creative accountancy to come around it.

 

I can understand that as it is United, we shouldn't care, but they are in the same boat as us. I actually would care if United went bust. I don't like any club going under because of the twattishness of owners. The two biggest clubs in England having their futures put in jeopardy by fucking chancers is far from funny. the funny thing is hearing people talk of "new investment" in our club. "New" would require us to have had some in the first place. i thought investment was putting money in.

 

This is all seriously shitty.

[El Rojo]

I think i'd rather they gotnoff their arses and addressed the ridiculous wages to profit situation, no club in the world can afford the outrageous salaries these players get, even average players are getting 60k a week, 95% of the clubs can't afford this on gate receipts alone, only precious few can make decent money outside of matchdays.

 

There is a general malaise in football, and most of our squad reflects this, pampered millionaires who just aren't hungry enough

 

Great post, repped.

 

In fairness to Platini, a salary cap has been one of the things he's tried to push.

[RedinSweden]

I don't generally like her articles, but i think this is spot on

 

Why the Premier League needs to call in the KGB | Marina Hyde | Sport | The Guardian

 

Why the Premier League needs to call in the KGBThe NBA, NFL and NHL are leading the way in protecting their brands against unsavoury owners - why can't the Premier League follow suit?

 

"For potential owner," reads a sports headline this week, "a background check worthy of the KGB." Not altogether shockingly, this isn't a reference to the Premier League's "fit and proper person" test, nor indeed the Football League's even ropier equivalent thereof. The article appears in the New York Times, and concerns the NBA's deliberations over whether or not to pop its Russian oligarch cherry.

 

The suitor in question is Mikhail Prokhorov, who last month agreed to purchase the New Jersey Nets. Mr Prokhorov is described by one Russian finance specialist as "not the worst offender in a system that was set up to benefit a few insiders" – which to the Premier League, of course, would be as good as having won the Nobel peace prize.

 

In the US, however, they do things differently, and so it is that Prokhorov must now submit himself to a process which merely begins with authorising his banks to verify his net worth. He has to win the approval of at least 23 of the 30 other NBA owners, who will scrutinise reports of investigations by from both the league and a security firm – investigations which will mine military, commercial, diplomatic and intelligence sources, and cost in the region of $50,000 (£30,000).

 

"They will try to ascertain his net worth, debts, character, associates, personal history and integrity," explains the New York Times. "The process is designed to rule out inappropriate buyers who lack financial clout or present public relations risks to the league."

 

But what an extraordinary idea. And hark at the NBA commissioner, David Stern, who, as the paper notes, has long been at the forefront of the league's efforts to export its brand. "We have a very extensive, stringent, some would say invasive, but I wouldn't, process for vetting the character and financial capacity of all owners."

 

Bizarre. Why can't they just ape the Premier League chairman Richard Scudamore's gossamer-touched stewardship of his "product", which – as the recent fiasco at Portsmouth goes to show – does not even involve bothering to find out whether owners actually have any money?

 

Who knows, but it's certainly been a lively few days for potential US sports owners. Last week, the odious right-wing pundit Rush Limbaugh was effectively blackballed as a potential owner of the St Louis Rams. There simply isn't the space to chronicle Limbaugh's history of racist statements which made so many NFL players oppose the development. But it is notable that threequarters of league owners have to approve new additions to their ranks, and, though Limbaugh's name was never put to their direct vote, it was made clear that they viewed his membership of a consortium as a deal‑breaker. These guys aren't bleeding-heart liberals, but they are able to identify a liability to their brand.

 

Are the men who run English football capable of the same? "We are a good example of a self-regulatory progressive organisation," crowed Scudamore last year, days before the former Manchester City owner Thaksin Shinawatra was finally convicted of corruption – an eventuality at which a Google search might have hinted when the former Thai PM came a-knocking, nevermind the welter of allegations of human rights abuse.

 

Meanwhile, only this week, the Lord Mawhinney-led Football League announced that it will await the result of Flavio Briatore's appeal against his lifetime ban from motor racing, for one of the worst instances of cheating in the history of sport, before it decides whether to disqualify him as QPR owner under its own test. Elsewhere, Leeds United has yet to enlighten the league as to who owns them, with nary a word of public condemnation from top brass. Yet both Mawhinney and Scudamore will announce that Emmanuel Adebayor is a "bad advert" for the English game in a heartbeat.

 

So while the NBA, NHL and NFL have all banned potential owners, and doubtless will again, no one has ever been disqualified from Premier League involvement. Back when the prospective City manager Sven-Goran Eriksson sought reassurance as to Thaksin's record, you'll recall he merely rang the Premier League chairman. "It was enough for me to make a phone call to Sir Dave Richards," Eriksson explained. "He [replied]: 'Absolutely clean'."

 

Yet again, one has to say that doesn't really feel like "enough" any more. The image of a deregulated, prospectors' paradise which our football administrators appeared at pains to cultivate in recent years no longer suits the financial mood. If Scudamore and Mawhinney really are worried about bad adverts, perhaps they should start spending the equivalent of $50,000 on background checks worthy if not of the KGB, then at least of Spies Like Us.

[RedKnight]

I'd agree that American sports ownership is better, except for the fact that our rotten owners have owned an NHL and MLB franchise, not to mention the Glazers owning the Bucs in the NFL. US sports salaries are just as obscene as ours, despite salary caps.

[RedinSweden]

I'd agree that American sports ownership is better, except for the fact that our rotten owners have owned an NHL and MLB franchise, not to mention the Glazers owning the Bucs in the NFL. US sports salaries are just as obscene as ours, despite salary caps.

 

well, yes, there is that.

 

fucking RK

[ali]

'I hope we don't go the way of Portsmouth . . . '

Once a great football club, Manchester United is becoming just another business, writes Dion Fanning

 

Sunday January 17 2010

 

'My accountant says I did this at a very bad time. My stocks are down

 

I'm cash poor or something. I got no cash flow or I'm not liquid, something's not flowing.

 

They got a language all their own, those guys.'

 

Isaac Davis, Manhattan

 

Football's comfortable old maxim that no man is bigger than a club has never been strictly accurate. A club will not be great unless it finds a man who believes he is as big as it and can look it in the eye.

 

The great football clubs were built by men who saw themselves as indivisible from the monoliths they created brick by brick. They believed their values were the club's values, their instincts would have to be the club's sensibility and their judgements would be the only way the club was measured.

 

Busby, Shankly and Revie had no choice but to view themselves as the clubs they built; anything else would have been confusing and a waste of time. They had no option but to trust their instincts. No manager has any option but to trust his instincts even if it might get him fired. Not trusting them will get him fired even quicker.

 

If these men were not bigger than the club, it was hard to tell the difference. But football clubs like to believe they will endure so they cling to the line that their fortunes do not depend on one man. Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester United have all survived since the departures of the great men who built them, but in very different ways. Manchester United needed another man to believe he was as big as the club.

 

Alex Ferguson would be wrong to doubt himself now. By force of will, he has built Manchester United. For more than 20 years he has done what was best for Manchester United by doing what he thought was best for Alex Ferguson. He had to be unreasonable, dictatorial, uncompromising and arrogant or he would not have got anything done. There were times, he said, when he would like to have been the nice guy. He dropped Jim Leighton and Leighton's wife gave him the finger, but would the nice guy have slept any better?

 

For 20 years he has been Manchester United. His thoughts have been their thoughts, his decisions have been their decisions and if the Glazers had their way, it might not change for the next 20 years.

 

Privately, Alex Ferguson had expressed some doubts about Malcolm Glazer before they took over Manchester United. David Gill, his chief executive, had even more. Those on the outside were most vocal. "He is going to be much keener to boost profits, particularly as he's going to have to borrow so much to buy the club. I can only see that it's the fans who are going to lose out here in a big way," Michael Crick, Ferguson's biographer and a United fan, said at the time.

 

For the Glazer years, the fans have had one thing to sustain them, one man has allowed them to overlook the way the club has been run and to believe they weren't losing out: Alex Ferguson.

 

In the year after Malcolm Glazer and his family took over, it was hard to see Ferguson remaining in the job, not because the Glazers wanted him out, but because the supporters did. The Glazers allowed Ferguson to stay and to rebuild. Since they arrived there have been three league titles and a European Cup. The players purchased before they arrived have been the glittering stars but they allowed the squad to be reshaped as well. They also relied on Alex Ferguson's genius.

 

* * * * *

 

The world understands the language of the business world more than it did before. It has had no choice. Last week, Manchester United, the most famous club in the world, began to absorb what had happened to it when it was bought by men in the leverage business, the business that brought the world to its knees.

 

The Glazers' takeover of Manchester United was done in accordance with the principles of the time. United had no debt when it was a plc. The Glazers would change that. This is what they do.

 

Firstly, prices went up and they continue to go up. United were the only Premier League club to raise ticket prices this season. Sales of their corporate boxes are down about 16 per cent. It is no longer difficult to get a ticket for any Manchester United match. The waiting list for season tickets is shrinking.

 

The Glazers didn't cause the recession that has led to a drop in demand, although a million men like them did. United had been pared down before the world collapsed and they have had to keep doing so. All around the world, companies like United that had massive debts were stripping back. "The only way you can make it work is to leverage the shit out of the balance sheet," said one stockbroker.

 

Alex Ferguson was hailed for signing Michael Owen last summer when it seemed like a strange way to reinvest £80m from Ronaldo. There was no problem, he insisted. There was no value in the market. Unlike Rafael Benitez, who has always let it be known how little money he has been given, Ferguson wasn't going to rock the boat.

 

Football is a world in which the truth is neither appreciated nor acknowledged. When Partizan Belgrade suggested last year that the reason Manchester United would not be signing their teenager Adem Ljajic was because of a "financial crisis" at Old Trafford, the comments were laughed out of town. Ljajic was not signed because he wasn't good enough, sources at Old Trafford said and there may have been some truth in that. But the greater truth was that he was no longer worth the gamble. It was another revealing insight into the pinch at United.

 

There is nothing unusual in that during a recession, except United's insistence that it is business as normal. Those on the inside say it has been anything but normal.

 

Last year, the Manchester Evening News revealed that the former players who work in the corporate hospitality suites were no longer allowed watch matches in the stand at Old Trafford. United said that it was a safety issue as the former players had been blocking the gangways, but for those on the inside it was just added to the catalogue of austerity that has become normal since the Glazers arrived.

 

Players have been let go, teams have been disbanded and the sense that United exists to achieve glory has been replaced by a need to exist to service the debt. This is what happens when football thinks it's a business. This is what happens when football turns into bad business.

 

The most favourable figures suggest a net spend on transfers of £6m a year since the Glazers arrived, a level of expenditure which would only have been possible thanks to the spendthrift days of the plc when United signed Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo. One of those assets has already been sold, another is not worth selling so it is Rooney who is United's most important player but, perhaps, the only asset that can ensure the club continues in profit. Ferguson says it is "utter rubbish" to suggest that Rooney would be sold to service the debt. He is not the man to ask.

 

Last week, United began to promote their bond issue and were obliged to outline scenarios that could affect their profits in the future. This led to a week of bad headlines and doomsday scenarios. There was also a need to face up to reality. The performances on the field have forced people to do that, to understand that there is a link between the boardroom and the pitch, that football's line that off-the-field matters don't affect the team don't make sense any more. Not when every player is an asset to be stripped.

 

The fact that the Glazers have taken £10m in "management and administration fees" since July 2006 doesn't help either. In December 2008, Malcolm Glazer's children each borrowed £1.66m from the club which came to another £10m.

 

These sums have provoked outrage but they are not United's problem now, making the money to meet their interest payments is the trouble. The sale of players -- and Rooney is the only player who would come close to the Ronaldo sale which allowed United to make a profit last year -- seems to be the simplest way.

 

Otherwise they may have to consider the sale of Old Trafford or, more likely, Carrington. For investors considering the merits of the bond prospectus United are presenting, that is one of the problems. "With other companies doing something similar, you would have a clearer idea of the assets they propose to sell to ensure profits, but you don't have that with United, probably for obvious reasons," said one stockbroker.

 

Investors may like to hear all ideas on how the club can maximise profits but the supporters of United cannot be told there is a plan to sell Rooney, Carrington or perhaps Old Trafford. United have already received almost half of their new sponsorship deal even though it doesn't begin until next season. Rooney may not be sold but Nemanja Vidic and a few others almost certainly will. The Glazers will have to find a balance too. More than anything, they need the team to be successful.

 

For that reason, Ferguson cannot leave. United cannot afford more uncertainty in an unsure world and a doubtful market. There are many professional investors who believe United's bond issue will succeed but there is also some scepticism. "I would like the yield to be higher for the type of company it is," a stockbroker said last week.

 

United, with an unclear idea of where they will make the next big profit and uncertainty over where the club will go, are not as good a prospect as a normal business. Some suspect that if the bond is to be taken up, the yield will have to be higher than its current return of just under nine per cent.

 

Others are more optimistic, suggesting United could easily get to the half a billion they are looking for. Those who know the club and know football are more dismissive. Fred Done is usually paying out on Manchester United winning the league right about now. He is one of the richest men in north-west England and head of Betfred, the bookmakers.

 

On Friday, he gave his verdict on the bond issue. "I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. I would like to know how much equity the Glazers have put into the club. I do not think it's very much. I am seeing empty corporate boxes, I am seeing empty seats and there are tickets on open sale which you did not see a year ago. I am seeing cracks in the team. It is just debt-ridden and as a supporter, it saddens me. I hope we do not go the way of Portsmouth."

 

He is not the only man thinking drastically. Yesterday Manchester United fans met to consider their response. For the Manchester United Supporters' Trust, this has been their most hectic time since the Glazers arrived. Some now want radical action, a refusal to purchase season-tickets that would force the club into administration and allow the supporters to buy it.

 

Across England, fan ownership is the radical solution -- being suggested at Newcastle, Liverpool and Manchester United -- to the feeling that the game and their clubs have been stolen. Fan ownership is not seen as viable by professional investors who feel that fans may be enthusiastic but they are reluctant ultimately to contribute financially above paying for season tickets. A share in the club which promises nothing more but the security of the club may only appeal to a few.

 

But the few are growing and the dismissive talk will not bother those who point to the judgement of the same people as they allowed debt to smother the world in recent times. "It's nothing short of sacrilege for the Glazers to consider selling Carrington but particularly Old Trafford," said Sean Bones of the Supporters' Trust. "It's up to Manchester United fans to defend any attempt to break up the club like this."

 

One man remains the glue. Alex Ferguson has spent most of this season insisting that he could blow the Ronaldo money in a moment if he wanted to. The truth came out last week. On Friday at his press conference, Ferguson refused to talk about the finances, the most pressing issue at the club. The militant shop steward is now a company man. But he is bigger than the company Manchester United have become.

 

Sunday Independent

 

'I hope we don't go the way of Portsmouth . . . ' - Premier League, Soccer - Independent.ie

[Unrighteous]

I'd agree that American sports ownership is better, except for the fact that our rotten owners have owned an NHL and MLB franchise, not to mention the Glazers owning the Bucs in the NFL. US sports salaries are just as obscene as ours, despite salary caps.

 

Both owned NHL franchises.

 

They used leveraged buyouts, but that is natural business in the US. The thing that should have made DM consider them poor potential owners is that GG didn't pay down the principle debt on the Montreal Canadiens, unlike other leveraged buyout owners.

 

Tom Hicks did the same.

 

GG was horrible as an owner for the Liverpool/United/Madrid/Milan of Ice Hockey. They kept low wages(well under the salary cap, when applicable) for most of his time as an owner.

[a stoner]

The only things that would help football at the moment is salary caps, transfer fee caps and fatcat payouts on contracts.

It has been branded about htat Torres is worth £100m, no offence but no he isn't. Noone is. At that price he would be expecting a salary in the region of £150K a week plus a signing on fee of probably 10% of his value. Working out on a 5 year deal that means he will cost a club £149M. How is one man, however good, going to bring that into a club on his own?

It's all got out of hand and the clubs are suffering as a result, not only in their finances but on the pitch with too many greedy players only looking for their next contract to give them the incentive to play their best.

I think if a member of staff, be it a player, manager or coach, isn't fullfilling his contract and the club decides to sack them, they shouldn't get a penny in compensation as they would be in breach of their contract. Players should have more performance related bonuses to encourage them to play better to get paid better. I also think it's time a foreign player limit was introduced to improve the quality and quantity of homegrown talent in the top leagues.

It's time football had a major shakeup when so many clubs are struggling to make ends meet and it's up to the FA, FIFA and UEFA to sort it. The governing bodies have to take control, fast, before ALL clubs are staring administration in the face and the entire system implodes on itself.

[Unrighteous]

NHL and NFL have the best salary caps in Sports, and their leagues are competitive... A model like that put down on all of UEFA would be a massive boon to the sport.

 

edit: Just wanted to add that Manchester United going bankrupt might be the best thing to happen to football. Ever... it would force all governing football bodies to consider a salary cap/transfer cap seriously.

[Red Nick]

Now you would think our owners would see that there business plan and model wont work anymore

 

We currently have 232m of debt new stadium takes it up to 550m and we have nowhere near the income that Utd has and unlikely to have CL income as well.

 

Just wish they would come to there senses and sell out why there is a potential buyer who will give them a profit

[Unrighteous]

Now you would think our owners would see that there business plan and model wont work anymore

 

We currently have 232m of debt new stadium takes it up to 550m and we have nowhere near the income that Utd has and unlikely to have CL income as well.

 

Just wish they would come to there senses and sell out why there is a potential buyer who will give them a profit

 

That's actually not true. The owners' have a plan to use the stadium rights to pay for most of the new grounds. The problem is that no company will pay that much for the naming rights.

[norwichlfc]

Rooney will go first to balance the books. Then erm, erm , erm They will have to sell the grounds.

[lostinspace1970]

there but for the grace of god etc......