That is incredibly accurate.....
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
That is incredibly accurate.....
Why does MUST always mention cheaper tickets when they talk about what the extra money spent on the debt could go towards? I never realised match tickets were subsidised when we were a PLC.
I think they're refering to the fact that they weren't as expensive (relatively) before the Glazers.
We'll see how truly dire it is when Fergie retires. Without him, we'd be royally fecked.
I've said it a million times - The Glazers are no fecking good for our club.
I've said it a million times - The Glazers are no fecking good for our club.
Quite obviously there would be free season tickets for all if it wasnt for the Glazers
Quite obviously there would be free season tickets for all if it wasnt for the Glazers
Not only free season tickets, but our fan owned club (not business) would bring in more revenue, than the consistantly higher year on year revenue the Glazers have generated, and we'd spend £100 million every year on world class players. Without fail.
And Fergie would never leave, they'd convince him somehow to stay on until he was 200, and even then they'd offer him a lucrative contract extension.
Just read the David Conn article in the Guardian. Absolutely insane that we have had £500m just gone down the drain, just a fifth of that money could have helped out a lot more. As initimated by other posters we will be quite fecked when Fergie leaves and we end up with a less God like manager.
GCHQ response will be 1) we don't pay tax on this. feck the taxman and the Uk economy. 2) the debt creates incentive to work harder. So all if you go out and load your credit cards up.
Rinse and repeat.
United would have been succesful without the glazers but the glazers wouldn't have been as succesful without united.
Rinse and repeat.
United would have been succesful without the glazers but the glazers wouldn't have been as succesful without united.
That describes Man United in the 21st century pretty accurately. It's quite embarrassing really
Nothing in the world was as expensive before the Glazers though. Prices of things rise. If you can no longer afford them, don't buy them, or sacrifice other things. These MUST guys complaining about the price of tickets probably don't think twice about throwing a load of (now more expensive than before the Glazers) pints down their necks in and around the ground before the game. If the £5/£10 the ticket has gone up in recent years makes your day more expensive, or too expensive then drink less, or take a packed lunch instead of buying a burger. Prioritise what you want to do and what you don't want to do, don't blame someone else. Would a match ticket be much, if any, cheaper today under the old PLC?
Is the big difference with the Glazers not that the money is going out on debt repayment and into one persons pocket rather than lots of shareholders pockets? The PLC had shareholders taking money out of the club, now we have the Glazers, what's the difference, other than that the shareholders were unknown and had their pockets lined anonymously? We were still lining someone elses pockets, just as you do when you buy any other product.
Well… if you consider that in 2005, when the Glazers started their tenure, we had the 8th cheapest seat in the Premier League house and the 12th most expensive seat. Both around the middle but crucially in the top half for cheapest and bottom for most expensive.
Now though, we have the joint 14th cheapest seat in the League, and the 4th most expensive seat.
Bit of a dramatic turnaround if you ask me, but ya’ll can make your own minds up.
BBC SPORT | Football | Premiership | Paying the price
BBC Sport - Price of Football - Premier League clubs
I'm not the one to get into this financial debate but where did this come from?
Quite clearly they are robbing from the rich to give to the poor.
The PLC is Dead, Long live the Glazers!
That is natural. Compare the 5 years pre Glazer where we won 2 league titles and no CL's and no CL finals, to the 5 years after Glazer take over where we've won 3 league titles (back to back) and have won the CL once, and finished runner up twice, it's down to a.) natural inflation, and b.) the fact that due to our success on the pitch, we have elevated our club status dramatically. Our pricing reflects our stature.
I don't agree with that, we were the biggest club in England and one of the biggest clubs in the world before the Glazers set up shop.
Also, you're being fairly slective of years...As you could easily argue we were more succesful in Pre-Glazer years then Post-Glazer years. As we're talking about a 7 year difference (05-12), surely we should be talking 7 years the other way?? Which would mean 4 League Titles, 2 F.A Cups, 1 Champions League and 1 treble. Our stature as the "biggest club in England" has barely changed over the last 15-20 years, let alone 7.
Also, how much could natural inflation equate to a 55% average ticket increase? That's an actual question and not a rhetorical one... as I don't really know.
Aye, that's a good point, well made.
A lot of the apologists for the increasing ticket prices wilfully ignore the North-South divide. Yes, the price of a pint has gone up in recent years but it's still a damn sight cheaper in Manchester than it is in London. The cost of living in general is a lot lower in the North West than it is in the South East and always will be.
Taking this into account, the ticket price hikes look even more dramatic. You can argue about supply and demand but there's something a bit rotten at the club when the seats are priced with no thought to the core demographic of fans that got the club to where it is now.
I apologise, I've looked back over the years and you're right, I thought for some reason I'd taken the 5 directly before and the 5 directly after. If you want to expand it even further to 7 either side, 98 to 12 you're still left with 7 years pre Glazer (May 1998 to May 2005) 1 CL, 2 FA Cup, 4 PL titles... post Glazer 1 CL (plus 2 runner up) 4 PL titles, 3 league cups, 4 community shields, and a club world cup. If you want to include everything in the interests of fairness and so I can't be accused of trying to leave things out and make it more favourable.
You can't say 'and a treble' at the end, as the treble was composed of the trophies you already mentioned. It wasn't an extra treble.
The fact that we reached 3 European finals in such a short space of time has increased our stature as a club, as has the fact that we won the title 3 years on the trot which no club has done before. As has the work the Glazers put into our global appeal. It's ridiculous to suggest our club has been stagnant and hasn't grown in stature in the last 7 years.
Our club is far bigger than it was, and so are our prices. Logically (if geographical differences such as being based on London didn't factor into prices) we should be the most expensive as you always pay the highest price for the best. Which we happily are not. Our success and natural inflation has played a part in the price rises. It cannot be soley put down to evil American owners.
As an addition, you've left out a Charity Shield and Intercontinental cup, and the fact that we also won the league 3 years on the trot in those previous 7 years too... but I suppose that's by-the-by. Regardless I think you'll find it difficult to argue that the post Glazer years have been more succesful then the pre-Glazer years, as F.A Cups carry a lot more weight then League cups. I'd call them fairly even spells of time myself, but I'm sure opinion would vary depending on who you talked too.
Also, I listed the Treble, because it was the most succesful year in our clubs history and increased the stature of our club greater then any other event since 1968.
Anyway, our club was the biggest club in the UK and one of the biggest in the world when the Glazers took over. This fact hasn't changed, yes we might be bigger now in terms of popularity/whatever, but how can you argue that growth simply hasn't been exponential? The Glazers have maximised our incomings from Sponsorships/Partnerships and the like, but has that increased our global popularity at a substantially larger rate then it was already increasing by?
For the bit I've bolded, first, to say our club is "far bigger" then it was just 7 years ago is, in my opinion and I'm sure a lot others, short-sighted. And as I said, Manchester United was also one of, if not the biggest and most succesful at the time when under the PLC, so shouldn't that logic (which I don't particuarly agree with, but I suppose that's a different discussion) extend to that period too? And shouldn't we have been the most expensive under that reigme as well?? Thankfully we weren't and in fact were nowhere near... so I would therefore be tempted to conclude that Ticket prices wouldn't be as high as they are now if we were still a PLC... which was the point I was originally responding too.
For the treble bit, I meant the way you wrote it 'and a treble' came across like an extra achievement, it was part of the achievements you'd already listed.
I agree with you that the logic should mean we should have been the most expensive back then, but we weren't. That's a slight on how we were run before, not how we are run now. While you can conclude that ticket prices wouldn't be as high as they are now if were still a PLC (which is reasonable) I am tempted to conclude that revenue wouldn't be as high as it is right now if we were still a PLC (which I think is reasonable)
I also think I value the extra millions the club brings in on a yearly basis, more than the extra pounds it costs me to watch the club play but that's something that varies and depends on your own opinion.
You can't say we haven't grown because back then we were the biggest, and now we are still the biggest. We are bigger than we were back then. We are a bigger club, we have tasted even more great success, we charge more. It's really common sense, rather than some travesty or evil rip off. I will agree with you that prices are probably higher than they could be, but I won't agree that they are a complete product of having evil money leeching owners. There are other factors which justify a rise in ticket prices. I guess what it all comes down to is a fans ideal world, vs a businesses ideal world, vs a happy medium that both sides would probably still grumble wasn't quite what they would have preferred anyway.
Ah the good old warchest, or better known as Glazer's swag bag
Yes we may still be able to compete for things and we can manage the debt. And the glazers have increased our turnover, we are innovating in the market (training kit sponsorship etc), we get tax write offs blah blah.
However the fact that we have literally thrown away £500 million of the club's money and will continue to do so really boils my piss. If we want to give our money away i'd rather it went into developing grass roots football around the world or charitable causes than lining banker's pockets.
I'd rather go back to having a smaller turnover and no debt. I know we are stuck with it and managing to cope with it but I still hate it.
However the fact that we have literally thrown away £500 million of the club's money and will continue to do so really boils my piss. If we want to give our money away i'd rather it went into developing grass roots football around the world or charitable causes than lining banker's pockets.
I'd rather go back to having a smaller turnover and no debt. I know we are stuck with it and managing to cope with it but I still hate it.
I personally don't believe so, the Glazers did put up prices quite a lot in their first couple of seasons but that has mostly been offset by little to no rise in the last few. Probably we would have seen a more gradual rise under the PLC but I think we would have been at around the same price level by now.
However, it could be argued that the PLC wouldnt have implemented the ACS and that policy is something that season ticket holders have a legitimate grievance over.
I dont buy this North/South argument at all. Even if you compare our prices to nearby clubs likes of Liverpool, Everton, City etc - you will see that we are not expensive. For example, the cheapest ticket at Anfield is quite a bit more than ours and all those clubs also have a tiered pricing policy which wacks up the prices for certain games to even higher levels, whereas we always charge the same.
Also if you look at the figures there has actually been a clear policy of our more expensive tickets rising much faster in price while the cheapest seats have had the smallest rises which is very relevant to your point about the core demographic.
Personally, I would start a tiered pricing policy at Old Trafford - people are willing to pay vast sums to see us play City, Liverpool etc and it is only touts who see all that benefit at the moment. Plus I would charge even more at the high end (often corporates who dont care too much about the price) while trying to have larger sections of the cheapest seats for those where every penny counts.
I didn't realise that inflation was higher in Manchester than other parts of the country.
There was a £55m cash outflow on transfers (Berbatov, Valencia, Tosic etc) in the same financial year that the Ronaldo money was received in.
Here's a break down of the cash outlows and inflows on transfers taken from the club's independently audited accounts over the course of the Glazers ownership:
05/06
Out - £37.55m
In - £5.17m
06/07
Out - £29.34m
In - £18.75m
07/08
Out - £45.75m
In - £19.3m
08/09
Out - £55.22m
In - £99.18m
09/10
Out - £44.27m
In - £13.85m
10/11
Out - £25.37m
In - £13.96m
11/12
Net spend in the six months to 31 December 2011 - £47.92m
Estimated Out - £58m
Estimated In - £10m
So in six and a half years at the club the total gross cash expenditure on player transfers under the Glazers ownership has been £295.5m or an average gross expenditure of £45.46m per annum. The total net spend is £115.3m or an average net spend of £17.74m per annum. It's an undenial fact that selling a player for a world record £80m transfer fee has greatly distorted the net spend figure and has produced an unrealistic representation of the level of investment in the first team squad.
There is a proven year on year track record of significant expenditure on players. Over £45m on average every year. The one figure that immediately jumps out at you as going completely against the trend is of course the £99.18m received in 08/09, £80m of which was from the sale of Ronaldo.
I've said this before on many occasions but people complaining about the current quality of our midfield might want to consider that we spent £40m on Hargreaves and Anderson, clearly with the expectation that they would currently be mainstays for us in central midfield. It's not the Glazers fault that Fergie bought Hargreaves despite him having chronic tendonitis in his knees and signed a teenage trequerista from Portugal recovering from a broken leg with the intention of converting him into a Premier League central midfielder. Two massive expensive failures and with that in mind it has come as little surprise to me that Fergie has been looking for a cheaper, cost effective answer to the issues in central midfield over the last few years.
Oh sure, royally fecked with the fifth highest wage bill in world football and 40 odd million to spend on players every year. Mid table mediocrity is just around the corner.
Must have missed the part where I said it was...
EDIT: Nope... definitely not there...
So how does inflation account for us now having more expensive tickets relative to other clubs?
EDIT: Nope... it doesn't.
Here are Liverpool's prices: Ticket Prices - Liverpool FC
Category A games: Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Manchester United, Manchester City, Tottenham Hotspur, Aston Villa
Category B games: Blackburn Rovers, Bolton Wanderers, Newcastle United, QPR, Sunderland, Norwich City, Fulham
Category C games: Swansea City, WBA, Stoke City, Wigan Athletic, Wolverhampton Wanderers
Main Stand, Centenary Stand, Paddock Enclosure & Anfield Road -
£48.00 for Category A
£44.00 for Category B
£42.00 for Category C
Kop Grandstand -
£45.00 for Category A
£42.00 for Category B
£39.00 for Category C
Liverpool are much more expensive than us. We have 4,500 tickets available at £28 for every game and a further 32,000 tickets available at prices ranging between £34 and £38 for every game. We're also miles better than Liverpool when it comes to concessionary tickets. Junior members can get into any game at Old Trafford for £10 whilst there are no junior tickets available at Anfield other than in an expensive combined child-adult ticket package in the Anfield Road stand. Our over 65s and 16-17 year olds never pay more than £20 for a ticket whereas at Liverpool they pay between £30 and £36 depending on the category of game.
What, like Liverpool for example?
Liverpool don't have a 75,000 seat stadium either. To remain even remotely competitive they have to amp up their pricing.
I don't really get the whole "well we're cheaper then Team A" argument either. Football is unlike most other industry in that you can't just switch to a competitor if you're unhappy with your current product. Customer loyalty is premium, and ultimately, your club should be trying to do what is right by you, their loyal fan and customer, and not concerning themselves with what other people are doing.
Also, a comparison with Liverpool is quite a friendly thing to do... as they have the most expensive "cheapest" ticket in the country at £39! Still, our most expensive seat at £55 is still more expensive then their most expensive seat at £48 ... so there you go.
I'll requote myself again... ultimately, I still don't think you can justify this:
Also, a comparison with Liverpool is quite a friendly thing to do... as they have the most expensive "cheapest" ticket in the country at £39! Still, our most expensive seat at £55 is still more expensive then their most expensive seat at £48 ... so there you go.
I'll requote myself again... ultimately, I still don't think you can justify this:
I know what you are saying but that is not entirely true, as we well know there were some disgruntled fans who chose to switch from MUFC to FCUM - I also know people who remain United fans but choose to goto local lower league clubs for the live football experience.
Plus the real competitor product in the UK is Sky and the option of watching the match in the pub or your armchair (it is not the same of course, but many fans do make that switch) - this wasnt really an option in the past as relatively few matches were televised, nowadays every United game is live on TV somewhere in the world.
Anyway if you are really talking about affordability of tickets then surely it is the cheapest end of the price scale rather than the most expensive that makes all the difference? As I said earlier:
I agree and this shows us that all clubs operate in accordance with the same basic supply and demand economic theory.
Well why bother posting that ''research'' in the first place then? You're the one trying to make out that United are offering a terrible deal relative to other clubs. Liverpool is pretty much the most effective comparsion that can be made between ourselves and another club in the Premier League. I've just shown you that United offer considerably better value for money than Liverpool do (thanks to our much larger capacity).
If you're expecting our prices to be at a similar level to Wigan and Blackburn then I think you need to take a step into the real world mate.
Please stop saying this as it makes you look ridiculous when quite clearly you do have a good knowledge of accounting principles.
The ONLY figure that matters in terms of investment into the team is the NET figure. Stop spinning the numbers.
£17.74m is the REALISTIC REPRESENTATION of the level of investment that has been put in the team.
Hopefully this low level of investment means SAF has a bit of a surplus to work with this summer.
I agree. I have no problem with the ticket prices. I think that they are more or less exactly what they would be under a PLC ownership.
That said, I am wholeheartedly against the leveraged buyout that we suffered from the Glazers. The only winners in it are in Florida, the biggest loser is the UK taxman.
I believe we will be re-floated in full within 3-5 years anyways. Just got to rough it out.
Rough what out? We're a great team winning trophies constantly. There's nothing to rough out. Wait it out is more apt.
I'm not sure whether this is a thing you do regularly, skip over posts, but if you go back and try to actually read it, you'll see it as a contributing factor amongst other things and not a sole reason. Thx.
- Status