Why not the option of retaining collectibe tv bargaining as it is?
If a quarter of clubs want to block any change they can.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Why not the option of retaining collectibe tv bargaining as it is?
If a quarter of clubs want to block any change they can.
Well...this nonsense about the loss is just absurd. Just to point out how absurd it is, in order to reverse this accounting ''loss'' back to break even next year all that would need to happen would be for the pound to strengthen against the dollar (it's 1.58 today) from 1.51 at the end of the last financial year to 1.62 at the end of the current financial year. Not that the c. £20m unreaslied gain on the dollar bonds would be any more relevant than the c. £20m loss on them last year. It's all completely irrelevant because the bonds don't mature until 2017.
That's break even without even deducting the utterly irrelevant £35m non-cash goodwill amortisation charge.
I just don't know what planet some of you live on. I'll call it Planet Ignorant.
That's break even without even deducting the utterly irrelevant £35m non-cash goodwill amortisation charge.
I just don't know what planet some of you live on. I'll call it Planet Ignorant.
I can't remember when exactly it happened but at some point I just accepted that football was now a business and was only going to get increasingly commercialised. The only thing that might stop it is increased regulation.
We cannot deny that commercialisation has meant 'sanitisation' of the match going experience, but that doesnt mean I dont still enjoy going to Old Trafford. I am not worried about the financial situation and expect money to be spent on transfers whenever Fergie feels the time is right, so I prefer to forget the politics and just focus on the football at Old Trafford.
Last post in the thread then, eh Rood?
You can't get rid of me that easily
it is only on matchday that I prefer to forget all the political bullshit and just enjoy the footy!Yeah, I've noticed you lot shitting yourselves in the last few minutes of games.
Of course the Rooney contract may have made the financial situation more precarious. Not just the amount they are paying Rooney (which is quite staggering considering the club's parsimonious position re: expenditure) but also following through on their promises to Rooney, regarding ambition and the squad. The Glazers are now seemingly committed to paying substantial salaries to at least a couple of newcomers - either in January or more likely in the northern summer. Of course they will most likely offload Giggs, Scholes, Neville and VDS which might mean say 300k a week off the wage bill but they will need replacements just to bring us back to where we are now - let alone improvements.
Just read this in an article about City on the Guardian website. The bit i'm interested in is at the bottom. Is this already common knowledge? Or alternatively bollocks?
I assume there must have been a technical reason why they weren't paid down - possibly you need to give notice 6 months in advance of early repayment.
So whats your theory on the PIKs peter?
No, it was a PR exercise. It's official.
I couldn't have said it better myself Spoony! You've been taught well.
A Roundup
A couple of things that have been put into other threads by various posters which I thought I'd bring into this thread...
First up, we have an email posted by Rood in the MUST oppotunism suring the Rooney situation thread which was presumably sent out to MUST Members:-
The bolded part is my emphasis.
Next up is a post by Julian Denny in the Javier Hernandez thread:-
Again, the bold emphasis is mine.
Notice the assumption from MUST that without pressure, the Glazers would not have stumped up the money to keep Rooney and provide further funds for squad investment and the subsequent belief by some fans that this represents a new "commitment" by the Glazers that didn't exist before.
Thirdly was a great article unearthed by Pexbo from somewhere in the dusty archives of the tinernet:-
A couple of things that have been put into other threads by various posters which I thought I'd bring into this thread...
First up, we have an email posted by Rood in the MUST oppotunism suring the Rooney situation thread which was presumably sent out to MUST Members:-
The bolded part is my emphasis.
Next up is a post by Julian Denny in the Javier Hernandez thread:-
Again, the bold emphasis is mine.
Notice the assumption from MUST that without pressure, the Glazers would not have stumped up the money to keep Rooney and provide further funds for squad investment and the subsequent belief by some fans that this represents a new "commitment" by the Glazers that didn't exist before.
Thirdly was a great article unearthed by Pexbo from somewhere in the dusty archives of the tinernet:-
Fingers crossed it's vastly greater income that will save them having to up ticket prices for a long time. Heaven forbid they consider reducing them.
Yes it may and then again it may not.
This is all just speculation really - we have no idea how much Rooney is getting paid and even less idea about what the Glazers have or havent committed to. As you note, some big wages earners will be coming off the payroll pretty soon so that should leave enough for Rooneys pay rise and a couple of top wage packages for new signings.
I guess the vital indicator in next financials will be the wage/turnover ratio - they aim to keep it around 50% so lets see if Rooneys wages have broken that.
As good a reason as any! I know we had discussed the possibility of only being to redeem on certain dates in the past as well.
Might as well post the news about the latest sponsor to join our ranks.
'Epson' becomes the 12th new commercial partner/sponsor to either be announced or agreed since March.
That's phenomenal really. We now have 25/26 commercial partners in total and we're going to comfortably outperform JP Morgan's upside scenario commercial revenue numbers over the next five years.
'Epson' becomes the 12th new commercial partner/sponsor to either be announced or agreed since March.
That's phenomenal really. We now have 25/26 commercial partners in total and we're going to comfortably outperform JP Morgan's upside scenario commercial revenue numbers over the next five years.
I got an Epson printer and it was completely shite. HP beats 'em easy.
You are pulling everybody's plonker with these great celebrations of off-the-field 'victories' while not a peep about Stoke.
Don't worry Peter, your turn will come. Arsenal home and away has almost become our Christmas and Birthday of late.
What you talking about? We make more money than you.
Yes but I have a bigger willy than you so I win.
You probably don't - it's just another example of your assertion from ignorance technique. It's another non-football post by the way.
No, it has been confirmed by your wife.
OK. Back to football...
So, all this money you've got... when's Wenger going to spend it on some... you know... good players and stuff and maybe win something?
If your current run goes on for much longer, you might find a banner put up at OT in your honour... tick tock and all that.
Time for you to go back to the newbies with that drivel
You started it. What the feck has Stoke got to do with anything in here?
Seriously, United are coming under all kinds of flack for not buying all the best players in the world. When was the last time Arsenal spent big? What is Arsenal's record signing? When do Arsenal get linked with the top names? Why does no one give a shit that they're not? Given that you make more money than us, and all?
I've seen/heard more than one report suggesting that he is getting 200k per week. This may include bonuses etc but all the same it is substantially more than the next guy. What are the future ramifications of that alone, I wonder? Anyway, if true it seems extraordinary that they had to go to this extent to keep Rooney - ie it substantially smashed any wage cap that may have been in place in terms of the budget. It showed a commitment by the Glazers to at least keep the best players at the club whatever (almost) the cost.
I just wonder if there were a couple of other factors including the possibility that a move to City (possibly the only club who could have afforded the asking price and wage) could not be countenanced under any circumstances. The coup it would have provided for our closest and fiercest rival might have brought inestimable damage to United - apart from the loss of Rooney himself of course.
Then I wonder if Fergie himself held a gun at their heads stating that he might be off if Rooney went. That's pure speculation of course but who knows?
As far as Glazer commitment to further expenditure on the squad is concerned - ie to meet Rooney's other "concern", apparently they phoned him on the Thursday to give reassurance that money would be provided for new players and that there was no lack of ambition regarding that aspect.
Quite a turnaround, I think !
Think we bought enough of ponies during the past two years. They will be put through the paces, and sold for a profit. Good business.
When have Arsenal ever bought big beyond a few like Reyes and Arshavin? £15m-£20m is the most they spend and that's every five years or so. Due a new one in the next few years. Hang on, how much was Vermaelen?
Arsenal used to spend big - Bergkamp was a Premier League record at the time. Lately they havent had much money so it didnt matter whether they wanted to spend or not, however that situation is changing.
feck Arsenal
Ive seen reports of anything from £150k to £250k - we will only see if it has an impact on the wage/turnover ratio in the next financials. Personally I think we will still keep within the 50% level - many people said that our revenues were peaking (I believe you may have said this yourself?) but they were proven wrong as we showed further revenue growth last year and I predict that we will again next year.
Your suggestion of Fergie threatening to walk out is speculation overdrive! Rooney did confirm that he had spoken to the one of the Glazers - who knows what was said? Probably nothing that Fergie hasnt said to us already to be honest, that money is there and he will spend it when the time is right. I dont see any big turnaround, just media bullshit.
Yes it is speculation but clearly negotiations between Rooney/Stretford and Gill had effectively broken down. I suspect this was because Gill was not prepared to meet Rooney's asking wage which was extortionate in terms of United's current wage structure but market related when compared to City or Chelsea say. The fact that Gill was not prepared to meet Rooney's wage demand, may have led to the charge (by Rooney) that the club was unambitious when it comes to strenghtening the squad with proven world class talent etc etc. "Speculation overdrive" it may be but at that juncture, Fergie may well have had his input. What made Gill (the Glazers) change their minds over Rooney's contract and indeed to assure him that they (Fergie) would be strengthening the squad to remain competitive at the top level and that funds would be available. They may still have the 50% parameter which means that some others will be offloaded within the financial year. We know that could well be VDS, Neville and maybe Giggs and Scholes as well.
I do not believe that Fergie failed to strengthen the squad only because there was no value or no players available who could immediately inprove the squad/team. Mention of Sneijder and Van der Vaart is sufficient there. Indeed, for me, our midfield remains a glaring weakness and of course resolution of the Rooney issue has not in any way resolved that. It seems fairly logical that prior to the Rooney saga, United were not prepared to pay over the odds for players (transfer fee and wages) - now they are. To what extent did Fergie have a hand in that ? After all he's not going to end his career on an appropriate high if the club loses its best players and cannot attract proven talent. Whether or not he threatened to leave is something we can only speculate on but clearly a change of heart/policy suddenly came about.
Tell me, if you don't believe SAF, then why do you think we didn't buy anyone major in the summer? It's not because we couldn't afford it, the accounts clearly show a huge surplus of cash available, so why then?
Do you really think the Glazers have done a massive uturn on their long-term business plan just to keep one player happy? Do you think that they somehow expected to deprive the club of funds and still everyone would be ok with it, maybe nobody would notice? Grrr, they'd have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those pesky football players and that meddling dog!
No, the simplest explanation is the most likely one; that SAF is not lying to us; that there is no conspiracy and that we haven't seen any major purchases for twelve months purely and simply because SAF has faith in his players and is holding fire until the elders retire. That's it. So why all the bullshit?
Im not really interested in Rooney speculation - that is best kept for the Rooney thread ...
They dont necessarily need to offload others to keep within the 50%, it all depends on revenue growth. I think Scholes and Giggs still have another year left in them, although Neville does look ready to move into a coaching role.
However, I do think that we need to cull a few fringe players in general as our squad is too big.
They dont necessarily need to offload others to keep within the 50%, it all depends on revenue growth. I think Scholes and Giggs still have another year left in them, although Neville does look ready to move into a coaching role.
However, I do think that we need to cull a few fringe players in general as our squad is too big.
That's your view and you're entitled to it. But where you may be missing the point is that it has nothing to do with "surplus cash available" it has everything to do with overheads of which the wage bill is the biggest component.
Fergie doesn't lie but he also doesn't reveal all that is going on to the media either. He's a master at disinformation when it suits him - let's put it that way. His main communications on these matters are with the media, whom generally he hates and not the fans per se. He's certainly not going to come out and say "I am restrained by the club's wage policy and that's why we weren't able to get in players who could immediately improve the team in the summer and not just investments for the future" - or words to that effect.
- Status