And that's without getting into the scale of the intangible benefit that the Glazers gave the club by removing the previous largest shareholders who were in open conflict with the most important person at Manchester United. Sir Alex Ferguson.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
yes Malcolm, they may have had some conflict with the manager but they didn't plunge us half a billion in debt
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html
not Malky's figures so maybe they have massaged everyone else's figures too:
I don't get why people are always keen to make it a point to try and separate or at least point out the 80 million Ronaldo payment as exceptional? That money didn't fall out of the sky, it was gotten in exchange for an (at least IMO) 80 million worth player. IMO its not exceptional and shouldn't be made a point of at every opportunity.
It is transfer business just like all the other deals, just because it was good transfer business doesn't make it somehow insignificant. I wonder if Newcastle fans talk the same about the Andy Carroll money.
GCHQ
I seem to remember the Glazer's stating on their arrival that 25m per season PLUS all money from player sales would be available for transfers, that is 175m PLUS all money from players sales so far, which is at least 300m nett.
Thoughts?
I guess because it's not a sustainable model for making a profit, we can't expect to sell a Ronaldo for 80m pounds every 5-10 years to balance the books. So if we carry on as we have been but without making such a huge sale, we're likely to run at a loss. At least that seems like a possibility.
It was always reported as £25m net per season and was simply a ''guide'' to the banks on how much they were planning to make available. Once you make some allowance for the extraordinary transfer fee received from the sale of Ronaldo (say, half the fee) then you can appreciate that the Glazers have very much stuck to the original plan.
Malky's figures? I'm talking about independently audited financial statements not some two bob website.
Actually I seem to remember those words coming out of Joel Glazers mouth when he was interviewed on MUTV shortly after the take over.
It was either a foolish prediction or a flat out lie. I lean towards the latter.
I remember it being reported rather than being an actual quote by anyone. I seriously doubt anyone would come out on TV with how much money we'll have to spend each summer.
I always skip GHCQ's posts now. His pro-Glazer propaganda spins are too annoying but it isn't the worst job he has managed to land himself.
You can't deny he's funny though. The post about Gary Neville slapping the club comes to mind.
To be frank, your posts about our new signings are a bit tiring as well.
You completely missed the point that whilst under Plc days we could afford signings at near UK record fees we are far from likely to do that now. The inference being that even if gross and net spending is up, it's not increasing at the same rate as other clubs in the league who are our main title contender.
It's all well and good that commercial revenues have increasd, I admit that this would have been unlikely under the plc, I also admit that the Glazers have really kept themselves away from the coaching side of it. However, even the staunchest Glazer fan needs to recognise that despite our huge stadium, number of fans and huge merchandise sales, we've fallen from a club with the most 'purchasing power' in the league to somewhere lower. It's doesn't take a genius to for any fan to put together huge debt and huge interest repayments to that.
At the end of the day, we're not talking absolute's GCHQ. This is a relative comparison to other title (domestic and European) contenders. We are further away from transfer fees and wages against these clubs in the last 20 years.
Depends what's more important to you I guess, spunking massive amounts on players like City/Chelsea do, or winning titles. Which we do. I don't care about purchasing power to keep the muppets happy, I care about success on the pitch, which we've had fecking shitloads of, and almost did again this year.
Massive amounts of money and winning titles is related.
We've had massive amount of moneys since the 80's. We've always broken the transfer fee record in the UK. Until recently.
Did you watch the original broadcast of the interview?
edit: From the transcript it seems that you may be right.
Morgan Stanley are second overall in the global IPO market. I doubt the Facebook fiasco has anything major to do with this decision.
It would be high profile though. To have two major profile IPO failings so close together would make any company worry.
I think being investigated and in the media over the Facebook IPO might make Morgan Stanley think twice about jumping in.
If companies can pay United to get a global audience, then what kind of audience would screwing up a Manchester United IPO do right after Facebook?
But yeah, they aren't number 2 because they don't like making money, so it still looks bad for United that Morgan Stanley are pulling out.
If companies can pay United to get a global audience, then what kind of audience would screwing up a Manchester United IPO do right after Facebook?
But yeah, they aren't number 2 because they don't like making money, so it still looks bad for United that Morgan Stanley are pulling out.
As a matter of interest what would you have done differently in terms of signings since Ronald's left?
At least he's using real facts and figures to justify his comments. It's better than a lot of the 'we can't compete anymore' doom mongering that goes on.
You can sell a player for 80 million, but I am arguing it isn't as easy as spending all the money you got back again on players. By talking about net spend it makes it sound like we simply need to be spending all the money.
In reality we had a team that continued to compete for all honors including going to Champions League finals after Ronaldo left.
If you buy a 30 million pound player, then you better be sure he is better than what you already have because otherwise you may just be wasting money and disrupting your team cohesion.
We had Vidic and Rio and Evra in defense. Rooney and Berbatov and Nani and Carrick and Scholes and Giggs. The better policy when you are loaded with quality players in their prime is to spend big on young talents which can come into the team behind these great players. That's what the club has done, and it has been working pretty magnificently.
As I see it the only cases for negligence are getting a proper attacking midfielder and perhaps a proper right back. The club went after players like Sneijder and Benzema, but decided the value wasn't there. Why are we so unwilling to take them at their word when they say there is no value? Unless you can get a Sneijder, you can't get a player that adds anything to our team. Therefore, you are better not spending your money.
City paid over the odds for players like Nasri, Silva, etc. etc. Now we are getting the likes of Kagawa for much more reasonable prices. I call that good dealings in the market, not an unwillingness to spend money.
It was never about fees but about salary. Im sure United would have offered the same kind of fees to Nasri, Silva and Hazard as Chelsea/City did. However we couldn't give the players the kind of salary these clubs do.
The big question is, is it time to update our wage structure (and can we afford to do that)? Paying over the odds for players is stupid. However Keane's insistence on shaking our wage structure to its roots, allowed us to get players (including keeping the former) who were crucial in winning the honors we've won till now. Its a difficult question with no straight forward answers to it.
The most interesting point on this page hasn't been written. It's that GCHQ hasn't responded to Morgan Stanley's position.
You know it's not a good thing when even he can't put a positive spin on it.
You know it's not a good thing when even he can't put a positive spin on it.
Partly because signing, say, 80m worth of talent would have cost a lot more in wages than what we paid Ronaldo. It's a huge part of the equation.
That's not fair. First he's got to find out the official club position, then sift through all the stats to find one or two that support that position, whatever it is.
He does have to work for his money you know.
Plus another 30m every three-four years for that 'marquee' player
Looks like we fell to eighth?
# 2006 - 2011 Purchased Gross Sold........................... Nett Per Season
1 Manch C £531,670,000 £112,800,000 £418,870,000 £83,774,000
2 Chelsea £282,300,000 £126,400,000 £155,900,000 £31,180,000
3 Liverpool £309,640,000 £226,330,000 £83,310,000 £16,662,000
4 Sunderland £153,400,000 £84,225,000 £69,175,000 £13,835,000
5 Aston Villa £168,800,000 £100,400,000 £68,400,000 £13,680,000
6 Tottenham £243,300,000 £176,600,000 £66,700,000 £13,340,000
7 Stoke City £72,725,000 £13,020,000 £59,705,000 £11,941,000
8 Manch U £217,200,000 £165,600,000 £51,600,000 £10,320,000
It's not a big deal if the IPO never goes through. It just means the Glazers are trying to sell shares in an economic downturn and asking for too much money.
The club's economic strength is unassailable. It's quite possible that after a very poor football season we'll still make close to £100M in profits this year. Debt interest payments are £35M per year and falling.
With the new TV deal kicking in, and the relentless increase in commercial revenues, I wouldn't be surprised to see £140M/£150M yearly profit figures, with debt payments of less than £25M, in a couple of years.
Like I said, they never said it. It's one of those things that are reported once, then someone repeats it, and another, and it becomes 'fact'. Like Young's 120k a week salary.
Some IPOs just fail. It happens all the time.
Morgan Stanley wouldn't pull out of an IPO this size because they are worried about what might happen - they are very good at IPOs. It has to be something more.
The fact that the lead for the IPO has gone to a non-bulge bracket investment bank really just says it all - Morgan Stanley didn't like what they saw. Neither did Credit Suisse nor JPMorgan. A $500m IPO is a pretty large IPO - banks should be falling all over themselves - but they aren't.
The figures in the accounts would surely include payments (installments etc) for players not signed in the Glazer era though (which would be quite substantial I'd imagine)? Which would obviously make them irrelevant in determining what spend the Glazer's have sanctioned.
So it's just the 25m a year plus the Ronaldo money then.....
food for thought re wages...
barca's wagebill is the highest in the world but they also have lots of homegrown players. many times it is felt that homegrown players might play for a 'discount' for their hometown club.
that said, if messi, xavi, iniesta, busquets, pique, puyol, pedro, valdes, fabregas (i will include him in homegrown/la maisa) all came through our youth set up, would have kept them all and paid them the wages they deserve in reflection of their standing in football or would we have sold many of them due to wages?
We had issues with keano and rooney and those were 'one offs' for us. Imagine if we had the amount of homegrown talent peaking in the same team like barca have had (yes it is more talent than our 92 boys)....would we pay them market wages or shift a few due to wages even though the boys would've been with us since their childhood?
barca's wagebill is the highest in the world but they also have lots of homegrown players. many times it is felt that homegrown players might play for a 'discount' for their hometown club.
that said, if messi, xavi, iniesta, busquets, pique, puyol, pedro, valdes, fabregas (i will include him in homegrown/la maisa) all came through our youth set up, would have kept them all and paid them the wages they deserve in reflection of their standing in football or would we have sold many of them due to wages?
We had issues with keano and rooney and those were 'one offs' for us. Imagine if we had the amount of homegrown talent peaking in the same team like barca have had (yes it is more talent than our 92 boys)....would we pay them market wages or shift a few due to wages even though the boys would've been with us since their childhood?
That really doesn't make any sense - any £ that has to be spent on a previously signed player is a £ that isn't available to be spent on anything else. It's not like there's been a little pot of money set aside to pay those costs. The payments have to come out of the budget for player purchases.
As far as what was left to be paid at the time of the takeover, approximately half of the total cost of acquiring Rooney and Ronaldo (a little over £21m) was left to be paid, together with £1m of Van Nistelroy and £1m in bits and pieces. On top of this there was a potential £6m of contingent payments on junior players previously purchased.
Little bit more than that - average spending was about £46m a year over the six years 2006-2011. (That's gross, not net - although I've never seen a "net" player.)
That's harsh and a little petty. I'm guessing you are looking at the barmy deal with FFF as a guide or benchmark. This was only agreed as recently as early 2011.
The deal with Nike was a game changer and has been more than worth it over the 10 years since. It resulted in Nike money being pumped into football at grass-roots level and set the standard for all future merchandising deals. United effectively put Nike in control of their global operations regarding licensing, merchadising and retail. This is managed by Manchester United Merchandising Ltd. (MUML).
Let's be honest £23.3million a season since 2002 is not to be scoffed at. It's still among the top earning deals among the European elite. Also factor in that through MUML, any net profits made after licensing and sponsorship payments are shared equally between the club and Nike, and you can see the benefits.
This deal has given the club huge revenue over 10+ years, while cementing the relationship with Nike. United's global reach and appeal make it the trophy asset on their portfolio and any future deal will be staggering due in part to the initial agreement in 2002. I'm not sure you are giving them their due credit?
By my calculation they've put in £520m - £270m at the time of the takeover and £250m when they paid down the PIKs. And very little seems to have gone back - £10m in loans (on which we make 5% interest) and £20m or so in various consulting arrangements with other group companies (of which some may have made it's way to the family). The rest has gone to debtholders and to banks in issue related costs. Hurts us but it doesn't benefit the Glazers.
That's well said. I suppose you could hypothesize that we might have got the same benefits without committing for quite so long (perhaps 10 years), but we'll never know. And we're certainly in a wonderful position looking forward.
If we wanted to be critical it's easier to pick on the shirt sponsorship deal with Vodaphone and the lack of much other commercial revenue, although I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect more given the minimal investment the club made in the commercial area (literally a two person department).
Our mistake was made over 20 years ago when the club supported the manager into becoming the best of all time, invested the club's revenue in developing the stadium, the brand, the academy and the scouting network to build something remarkable.
What we should've done was lurch from one short-sighted, knee-jerk decision to another; possibly get relegated or at least end-up on the verge of bankruptcy - that way we could've been gifted a new stadium by the council and then picked-up by a sugar daddy to throw around money with no limits, accountability or responsibilities, and then have the subsequent on-pitch success of that money greeted by people outside the club as an actual achievement.
Instead we are greatest club in the country, and can reflect on our past glories with pride - all while not being RAWK
What we should've done was lurch from one short-sighted, knee-jerk decision to another; possibly get relegated or at least end-up on the verge of bankruptcy - that way we could've been gifted a new stadium by the council and then picked-up by a sugar daddy to throw around money with no limits, accountability or responsibilities, and then have the subsequent on-pitch success of that money greeted by people outside the club as an actual achievement.
Instead we are greatest club in the country, and can reflect on our past glories with pride - all while not being RAWK
It's of little relevance what I would do - what is relevant is that we have been handicapped in terms of available funds.
I have heard all the arguments of how we shouldn't "spunk money all over the place" which is really missing the point. We are pouring a shit load of money down the gurgler, that would otherwise be available funds for players of the very highest quality, so that the Glazers can own the most valuable sporting institution in the world.
- Status