ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[Annihilate Now!]

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 think those "most expensive" numbers are just standard seats in the North and South Stand... but I'd have to check that.

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.

Why are Liverpool our most effective comparison?? On what grounds?? And why shouldn't we be offering similar levels to Wigan and Blackburn?? 7 years ago our prices were comparable with Bolton, Blackburn, Villa and the such... and now are prices have increased at a greater rate then any of those clubs... so what's changed in the last 7 years??

My research was to point out that, the Glaziers hike in ticket prices hasn't been comparable or in-line with most Premiership teams, and on that basis, I would venture that ticket prices wouldn't have been as high today if we had remained a PLC, I still don't see why that is not the case.

 

[Sir A1ex]

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.

Hang on, let me understand... you said something else that may not have been as ridiculous, so I'm not allowed to question the part that clearly is? Right.

So back to the original point - How can it be a contributing factor? There's absolutely no way that you can say inflation plays any part in a change in the relative price of tickets between clubs. It's just nonsense.

 

[Sir A1ex]

What, like Liverpool for example?

Like all other Premier League clubs.

If you bother read the post you'll see that Zarlak said that inflation was a contributing factor in us rising up the Premier League "league table" of ticket prices.
Whereas anybody with half a brain cell can see that can't be true.

Your cherry-picking of clubs that suit your argument is a totally different point that I've not been involved in discussing in this thread.

 

[Zarlak]

How can it even be a contributing factor? There's absolutely no way that you can say inflation plays any part in a change in the relative price of tickets between clubs. It's just nonsense.

There is absolutely no way that tickets to see football games has inflated in the last 10 years? Really? That's what you're trying to tell me?

Try harder.

Prices for football tickets have inflated naturally, as more money has come into the game. Mixed with success, our prices have risen even more. It's common sense. It's not the sole factor as I already explained.

EDIT: I apologise if you misunderstood what I typed to mean inflation in the sense of CPI and RPI, I trusted that to quote your good self, anybody with half a brain cell would know this wasn't what I was referring to as the figures clearly don't match.

 

[Sir A1ex]

There is absolutely no way that tickets to see football games has inflated in the last 10 years? Really? That's what you're trying to tell me?

Try harder.

Prices for football tickets have inflated naturally, as more money has come into the game. Mixed with success, our prices have risen even more. It's common sense. It's not the sole factor as I already explained.

EDIT: I apologise if you misunderstood what I typed to mean inflation in the sense of CPI and RPI, I trusted that to quote your good self, anybody with half a brain cell would know this wasn't what I was referring to as the figures clearly don't match.

What on earth are you on about? Have you not bothered read the earlier posts (including your own) or are you just really slow? Of course I'm not denying there's been inflation, where have I said that?

I'll recap for you - it's very simple:

You claim that inflation is a contributing factor in our ticket prices now being more expensive than they were relative to other clubs.

I'm pointing out the trivially obvious point that this makes no sense - inflation will hit all clubs equally. The relative rise in prices must be entirely down to other factors, not inflation.

(If you still don't understand the word "relative" you cold always Google it)

 

[Sir A1ex]

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.

Th problem is, you are trying to make call on what a "reasonable" / "fair" etc price is for our tickets, which is very subjective.

Whereas AN and others are making a much simpler and easily demonstrable point: Prior to the Glazers, we had pretty cheap tickets relative to other clubs, but this is no longer the case, at least to anywhere near the same degree.

One of the many ways that the Glazers have maximised our revenue is to push ticket prices to the most the market can take. So going back to the point which I believe started all this, it's perfectly valid to talk about how the missing £500m could have been "spent" on cheaper tickets.

 

[Zarlak]

What on earth are you on about? Have you not bothered read the earlier posts (including your own) or are you just really slow? Of course I'm not denying there's been inflation, where have I said that?

I'll recap for you - it's very simple:

You claim that inflation is a contributing factor in our ticket prices now being more expensive than they were relative to other clubs.

I'm pointing out the trivially obvious point that this makes no sense - inflation will hit all clubs equally. The relative rise in prices must be entirely down to other factors, not inflation.

If you can find where in my posts, I said that inflation is a contributing factor in our ticket prices being relative to other clubs then you win, but I suspect you won't find that, mainly because I never said it.

So let me recap for you - it's very simple:

I claimed that inflation of prices in football have led to an inflation of our own prices - this is true. You've accepted this by saying it hit all clubs, (including our own) therefore it is a factor. - check.

On top of this, other factors such as our own success, which is not relative to other clubs because they haven't enjoyed the success we have, have also contributed to an increase in our ticket prices. - check.

Of course if you had just read the original post properly rather than smacking a gazebo on the end of my post that I didn't put there originally, none of this confusion would have come about.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Oh, come on Zarlak...

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

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.

This is exactly what I quoted in my very first post on the matter. Talk about wasting time...

 

[Zarlak]

Oh, come on Zarlak...





This is exactly what I quoted in my very first post on the matter. Talk about wasting time...

Well done for once again not reading something, are you going for a world record?

Show me where I said 'relative to other clubs' which is what you claim I said.

Oh wait, you can't. Because I didn't say it at any point. The only one wasting time here is you, trying to pretend I said something I didn't because you didn't read my post properly. I said that our price rise is natural, because of a.) and b.). Nowhere did I mention other clubs, or that our price rise was relative to theirs, or that inflation in Manchester was more than anywhere else, or that inflation has affected us more so than other clubs. You're just making shit up. I said that our price rise was a result of a.) inflation of prices, which it is partly, you've conceded this yourself, and b.) our success on the pitch and a result of our stature icnreasing which has bolstered it even more.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Nowhere did I mention other clubs, or that our price rise was relative to theirs, or that inflation in Manchester was more than anywhere else, or that inflation has affected us more so than other clubs.

You were replying to A.N's post, it's there for everybody to see.

Don't accuse people of making shit up when it's there in black and white on the previous page, it makes you look daft.

At best you didn't read the post you were replying to, which is pretty dumb in itself.

 

[Zarlak]

You were replying to A.N's post, it's there for everybody to see.

Don't accuse people of making shit up when it's there in black and white on the previous page, it makes you look daft.

At best you didn't read the post you were replying to, which is pretty dumb in itself.

I was replying to ANs post about our price rise. The fact that I didn't mention something, means I wasn't talking about it.

You said, plain and simple, that I said something I didn't.

You claim that inflation is a contributing factor in our ticket prices now being more expensive than they were relative to other clubs.

No I didn't, and you're quite right, it's black and white and clear for all to see. At no point, in any of my posts, did I include what you have said I claimed. For me to claim it, I have to have said it, because I haven't said it, I haven't claimed it. I'm not sure how much further you can twist this in order to come out of it without just admitting that I never claimed what you said I did.

So yeah, if you make shit up and say that I said things I didn't, then I will say to you that you're making shit up, problem with that? Don't make shit up then. Address what I actually typed, rather than a part of what somebody else typed, that I didn't mention.

The longer you drag this petty squabble out, the funnier it becomes. You know clearly what I meant, because I've now explained it to you multiple times, you know clearly that I didn't even say what you claim I said, this exchange is pointless.

 

[Sir A1ex]

This is a waste of time, you're either incredibly thick, or pretending to be to try and avoid the point.

a part of what somebody else typed, that I didn't mention.

A.N's post is entirely, 100% about relative prices. What part of the following is about across-the board increases in ticket prices, rather than the relative price of ours against other clubs?:

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.​

Maybe you should steer clear of the "reply" button if you're going to deny that your post is about the one you're replying to?

The longer you drag this petty squabble out, the funnier it becomes.

That's true. I'm prepared to accept the fact people may think I'm being a little petty and wasting my time - it's you they'll be really laughing at for desperately trying to defend a load of rubbish and not being prepared to admit you just got it wrong

 

[Zarlak]

Very ironic, when you replying to me, has been post after post pretending I've said stuff I've never said.

I get it, you didn't read my post. You don't need to keep confirming that to me or anybody else in this thread with each subsequent reply. The person I was replying to understood perfectly well my post, it seems only you are having difficulty.

Let's put this to bed once and for all. The line I was replying to in his post was 'Bit of a dramatic turnaround if you ask me'

Bit of a dramatic turnaround, that once we were cheap and now we are more expensive, the 4th most expensive, as opposed to one of the most cheap.

I replied, saying that this is natural that our prices have risen so, considering a.) the increase in inflation which has hit all clubs as you said yourself therefore higher prices, plus the success we have achieved that other clubs have not, which has pushed our premium up as logically, it should and has.

He didn't have this incredible difficulty you seem to be having comprehending my post, nor did he reply with shite remarks like 'I didn't realise inflation was higher in Manchester than anywhere else' or retort to pretending I said things that I didn't, he read my post and replied properly to it. Nor did he focus on the inflation part, as it wasn't as major a part of my post as you're pretending it is.

So yeah, since you're the only one having difficulty with this, maybe you should take your own advice.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Let's put this to bed once and for all. The line I was replying to in his post was 'Bit of a dramatic turnaround if you ask me'

Bit of a dramatic turnaround, that once we were cheap and now we are more expensive, the 4th most expensive, as opposed to one of the most cheap.

Oh my God, tell me you didn't just post that?

OK, I can see I'm not going to get anywhere here, you're just too thick. I shall take my leave of this quarrel and leave it here for everybody to laugh at.

I'll just leave you with this though -

rel·a·tive
   [rel-uh-tiv]
noun
...
2.
something having, or standing in, some relation to something else​

 

[Zarlak]

Oh my God, tell me you didn't just post that?

OK, I can see I'm not going to get anywhere here, you're just too thick. I shall take my leave of this quarrel and leave it here for everybody to laugh at.

I'll just leave you with this though -

rel·a·tive
   [rel-uh-tiv]
noun
...
2.
something having, or standing in, some relation to something else​

I'm perfectly aware of what the word you think I was talking about, but in actual fact I never once mentioned, means.

Now you comprehend the post that everybody else had no trouble understanding, about why I think our rise in prices (do you need me to remind you that I'm talking about just our price rise, and nothing to do with other clubs?) is justified, we can go back to talking about what everybody was talking about before you stumbled in confused. Unless you want to just keep this merry go round going about relative to other clubs which I've already told you over and over I'm not talking about. Why you can't just accept that and move on rather than revisiting it I've got no idea.

Oh wait, you're taking your leave. Score.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Oh wait, you're taking your leave. Score.

https://tramchase.com/feckflickr/data/zomg-youve-won-internet.gif

 

[Rood]

I think those "most expensive" numbers are just standard seats in the North and South Stand... but I'd have to check that.



Why are Liverpool our most effective comparison?? On what grounds?? And why shouldn't we be offering similar levels to Wigan and Blackburn?? 7 years ago our prices were comparable with Bolton, Blackburn, Villa and the such... and now are prices have increased at a greater rate then any of those clubs... so what's changed in the last 7 years??

My research was to point out that, the Glaziers hike in ticket prices hasn't been comparable or in-line with most Premiership teams, and on that basis, I would venture that ticket prices wouldn't have been as high today if we had remained a PLC, I still don't see why that is not the case.

Our prices were cheap, we were lucky. In fact I have pointed out in the past that our cheap ticket prices was actually one of the major factors that attracted the Glazers to buy the club, the PLC realised this late on and tried to raise prices to protect against them but it was too late.

The figures show that the average annual price rise for the past 5 years has been around the same as it was for the previous 5 years under the PLC. The main difference is the ACS.
So we have not changed much in ticket price policy, I suppose other clubs have not been able to get away with the same increases over the years due to lack of demand.

 

[robertsoncrusoe]

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.

And when the Glazers go, so will GCHQ......... funny that!

 

[711]

I'm still getting emails asking me to buy a season ticket, for the remaining quarter of a season.

How stupid I feel now for not understanding the great Season Ticket Waiting List Debate.

The waiting was them waiting for me, not the other way round.

 

[RedCanuck]

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.

I don't disagree with the core of your points Rood, just want to throw a couple of points in the mix.
The PLC consistently underpriced the tickets at OT, that was one of the problems. If you remember when the Glazers started their takeover the PLC (which opposed them) hiked ticket prices in order to take some value out of that revenue stream and get that value into the share price, making it harder for the Glazers to finance the share purchase. The low ticket prices under the PLC were one of the main reasons United was such a good target for a leveraged takeover.

Ticket prices pretty much hit the ceiling under the Glazers since (if I remember correctly) we were seeing some less than capacity attendances so they held ticket prices the past few years.

Best case for ticket prices would have been the Sky takeover going through.

 

[Rood]

Yes I already made the point that our overly cheap ticket prices were one of the main reasons that attracted the Glazers.

Fans who talk about how cheap prices were under the PLC dont seem to accept that it was a big mistake to underprice our tickets in those days, it made us very vulnerable to takeover.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Yes I already made the point that our overly cheap ticket prices were one of the main reasons that attracted the Glazers.

Fans who talk about how cheap prices were under the PLC dont seem to accept that it was a big mistake to underprice our tickets in those days, it made us very vulnerable to takeover.

The point is true that low ticket prices made us attractive, but I don't know if you can call it a mistake. Was it also a mistake to win lots of trophies? I can't see the Glazers having been nearly as keen on buying if we'd just been relegated...

It's like saying having lots of nice possessions is a mistake, as you might get robbed.

 

[Rood]

The point is true that low ticket prices made us attractive, but I don't know if you can call it a mistake. Was it also a mistake to win lots of trophies? I can't see the Glazers having been nearly as keen on buying if we'd just been relegated...

It's like saying having lots of nice possessions is a mistake, as you might get robbed.

No its not like that at all.

In hindsight I believe it was a mistake, I certainly wasnt complaining at the time though. The PLC also realised it and jacked up prices in their last season, Im sure if they had their time again they would have done it sooner.

and you couldnt be more wrong about the trophies and relegation - business vultures like the Glazers would love to buy a club like ours when times are bad and you can get it on the cheap. e.g. See Liverpool.

 

[finneh]

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.

Are you including figures for players bought before the Glazers took over, but that had to be paid for (in part) afterwards? If so I'd say that's a bit of a false figure, given that who knows if the Glazers would have sanctioned deals made before they took over.

I make it around £10m a year net spend on players since their takeover, meaning we should have around £100m to spend if Fergie feels it necessary.

 

[GCHQ]

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.

And that surplus is there precisely because we sold one player for a world record £80m transfer fee.

There hasn't been a low level of investment. Average gross spend since the Glazers bought the club has been £45m per season. There has been a £48m net cash outflow on transfers in the current financial year. Our wage bill continues to show double digit growth year on year. The fifth highest in Europe only behind two sugar daddy funded clubs and two clubs with their own individual TV deals.

I think your problem is that you compare our transfer activity with an extremely select group of clubs that we can't reasonably be expected to compete against in the market. If you're ever able to accept that as a fact of life then I think your mood will improve considerably.

 

[forevrared]

It got lost in the LOL's of Robben's winner, but I wonder how much Fraizer Campbell made for United today by making his England debut. His fee was apparently 3.5m rising to 6m, and surely a large chunk of that would have been playing for England.

I figure the finances thread would be as good a thread as any to speculate.

 

[GCHQ]

Are you including figures for players bought before the Glazers took over, but that had to be paid for (in part) afterwards? If so I'd say that's a bit of a false figure, given that who knows if the Glazers would have sanctioned deals made before they took over.

I make it around £10m a year net spend on players since their takeover, meaning we should have around £100m to spend if Fergie feels it necessary.

I'm including c. £15m relating to the Rooney and Ronaldo transfers that was paid out in the 2005/06 financial year. I don't see why that shouldn't be included in the figure for the post-takeover expenditure. It obviously should. Gill said at the time Rooney was bought that the transfer would affect the club's ability to sign players in the following financial year. Thanks to the Glazers of course we were still able to sign Evra and Vidic in January 2006. I doubt whether the PLC would have sanctioned those signings.

The average net cash spend on transfers since the takeover has been £17.7m per year. That's from the independently audited accounts and not, with the absolute greatest of respect, from your back of the fag packet calculations.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

And that surplus is there precisely because we sold one player for a world record £80m transfer fee.

There hasn't been a low level of investment. Average gross spend since the Glazers bought the club has been £45m per season. There has been a £48m net cash outflow on transfers in the current financial year. Our wage bill continues to show double digit growth year on year. The fifth highest in Europe only behind two sugar daddy funded clubs and two clubs with their own individual TV deals.

I think your problem is that you compare our transfer activity with an extremely select group of clubs that we can't reasonably be expected to compete against in the market. If you're ever able to accept that as a fact of life then I think your mood will improve considerably.

Gross spend means nothing. You must consider what has been recouped to finance it compared to what the promised net spend was. The bottom line is that the Glazers promised a net £25m plus marquee players as required.

Slightly tongue-in-cheek but if we buy Ronaldo back this summer, we're back on track I reckon.

 

[Pexbo]

Gross spend means nothing. You must consider what has been recouped to finance it compared to what the promised net spend was. The bottom line is that the Glazers promised a net £25m plus marquee players as required.

Slightly tongue-in-cheek but if we buy Ronaldo back this summer, we're back on track I reckon.

I think the point GCHQ is making is that nobody could have envisaged recieving £80m for Ronaldo. That's a completely extraordinary scenario and completely skews the figures.

I'm sure that if Ronaldo had gone for a "normal" transfer fee, say £30m, then they'd be pretty close to that £25m a season net spend they promised.

If your argument is that because we received that money for Ronaldo, then we should have spent it to keep closer to the promised £25m a season then that is, quite frankly, the height of muppetry and spending for the sake of spending.

 

[gooDevil]

I think some people expected us to try to replace Ronaldo with a high profile signing in his position, which didn't happen.

Of course it's not that easy as paying 80m back out and getting another Ronaldo, but I can certainly see how some would conclude, from a fan's perspective, it's a raw deal.

 

[Pexbo]

Another thing I have never seen considered in the finances is what Ronaldo would have earned had he stayed here. Something like another £20m?

 

[Rood]

If your argument is that because we received that money for Ronaldo, then we should have spent it to keep closer to the promised £25m a season then that is, quite frankly, the height of muppetry and spending for the sake of spending.

Exactly - the £25m a year thing was a general guideline mentioned 7 years ago, it is hardly a contractual argeement that has to be adhered to regardless.

 

[Redjazz]

Manchester United Said to Revisit Plans for 2012 Singapore Initial Offer - Bloomberg

 

[Rood]

Manchester United Said to Revisit Plans for 2012 Singapore Initial Offer - Bloomberg

I expect to see it happen at some point, just depends on market conditions.

 

[Will Absolute]

I expect to see it happen at some point, just depends on market conditions.

Why do you think the Glazers are interested? Are they feeling the fan pressure to eliminate the debt?

 

[Sir A1ex]

I'm sure that if Ronaldo had gone for a "normal" transfer fee, say £30m, then they'd be pretty close to that £25m a season net spend they promised.

I was reading this and it suddenly clicked - the Glazers have totally kept to their word.

IIRC they talked of £25m per year, plus a "marquee player" every few years. They didn't specify whether we'd be buying or selling that marquee player.

 

[Will Absolute]

I was reading this and it suddenly clicked - the Glazers have totally kept to their word.

IIRC they talked of £25m per year, plus a "marquee player" every few years. They didn't specify whether we'd be buying or selling that marquee player.

That's Uncle Mal for you - shake hands and count your fingers.

I'm betting our next 'marquee player' will be Rooney.

( I'm not really anti-Glazer, but decent jokes are hard to find )

 

[Rood]

Why do you think the Glazers are interested? Are they feeling the fan pressure to eliminate the debt?

That might be one consideration, but it is unlikely to be the main reason.
The Glazers have indicated that they plan to pay off some of the debt, but it is difficult to comment until we see details of how many shares they want to sell and what exactly they plan to do with the proceeds.

 

[Will Absolute]

That might be one consideration, but it is unlikely to be the main reason.
The Glazers have indicated that they plan to pay off some of the debt, but it is difficult to comment until we see details of how many shares they want to sell and what exactly they plan to do with the proceeds.

I'm inclined to agree - they've been pretty thick-skinned so far.

But if they're not selling their own shares what else can they do with the money except pay off the debt? And a 20% sale would clear it completely.

 

[Rood]

Well they would be selling their own shares seeing as they own them all, so in theory they can do whatever they want with the proceeds. However, I seem to remember that there are some details in the bond prospectus about what can be done with cash from a float, I cant remember the details off the top of my head.