They could sell The Buccs for circa $750 million, going by recent sales. Why haven't they? It's not even clear that they make a profit on them.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
They could sell The Buccs for circa $750 million, going by recent sales. Why haven't they? It's not even clear that they make a profit on them.
Yup, I've made that point about Hargreaves and Anderson before. £40m on those two (plus the very unfortunate situation with Fletcher) and people wonder why our midfield isn't particularly strong at the moment.
What was he doing fecking around with Djemba x 2, Kleberson, Miller, Bellion and Alan Smith in 2003 then We didn't even spend a penny in 2000/01.
Is it really bullshit to suggest that there is a certain amount of financial instability in the club? You don't piss away an eye-watering £500million in 6 years through good financial planning. Add £423million in debt and a risky IPO in the toughest financial conditions seen since the Great Depression, and stable is not the word that springs to mind.
The simple fact of the matter is over the course of 6 years Manchester United has spent more money on interest charges and re-financing it's owners debt than it has on it's playing staff. And it's not peanuts either..it is a lot lot more. So in my eyes until this exploitation ceases...the club is far from stable.
Look at it this way....does anyone have the slightest idea what to expect in the next year, from the Glazers in particular? I know I don't.
You're asking a question I've already answered, if they hold on then it's because they think they will make more money that way.
Now you've had my reason (again), what's yours?
It's wasting a lot of money, but it's not making the club unstable. If so, nothing would be spent and wages wouldn't increase. Nor would we be spending on frivolous shit like this: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1463473_manchester-united-seek-permission-for-25m-neon-sign-at-carrington-training-ground. "Part of a 25 million project." We're absolutely fine, which is the ultimate priority.
I used to be in the camp that said we had no money last year but I admit being wrong. We certainly do have the money as proven by £70m spent since last year on five new players, really you couldn't ask for more and there's a good chance we'll spend £20m+ more this year too.
But they're not going to, as I've already said. The Green Bay Packers are the only PLC in the NFL and as such are the only ones that release their accounts; they're huge but they only made a 10 million dollar profit a couple years ago. Tampa Bay are nowhere near as big, and they'd earn more in a century and beyond by selling it than they would ever hope to make by holding onto the franchise.
Then answer the question, why don't they sell?
You say he didn't spend a penny in 2000-2001 but Van Nistelrooy was due to sign until his knee popped. He more than made up for it the next two seasons....£19million on Van Nistelrooy (eventually), £28million on Veron, £7million on Forlan, £30million on Ferdinand.
Players like Djemba and Bellion cost peanuts, they were punts pure and simple. Ferguson loves a bargain who turns into a top player...didn't work out with those two, Miller was a free. Kleberson was a World Cup winner so hardly low profile. He bought Ronaldo that summer for a world-record fee (for a teenager) ahead of the 2003-2004 season. Alan Smith wasn't a punt he genuinely offered a different option up front...and he had a good season.
The same summer he spunked £27million on Rooney. In 3 years he spent the best part of £30million on a player 3 times.
Big money was always available for the right players what is your point exactly?
I don't know: because they like owning sports businesses, because they want to see the team win (again) eventually, because it makes their dicks hard when they see it sitting in their portfolio? Whatever it is it's clearly not just about the money, which you keep trying to tell me it is.
My point is that our transfer history 2005-2012 doesn't seem much different to before that. He loves a punt on a player, he likes to buy them young, he sometimes spends big on a can't miss "wonderkid," he has cash to spend big (Berbatov) And he sometimes misses out (Gascoigne to Shearer to Batistuta to Ronaldinho to Robben to Essien to ... whoever, the list goes on). Yet every time we miss out on a player, it always seems to come back to economic constraints, when there's plenty of times under the PLC we've stuck to our guns over not paying over the odds and/or the player is not interested enough anyway. I can't see how we've demonstratably been that hamstrung. Fergie has had plenty of opportunity to sign a midfielder by now, which is the one signing everyone craves for. Just my opinion of course.
Because it's a good business investment. They own one of the most prestigious teams in the world, brand loyalty which will probably mean we will sell out OT even if we were in the championship...
Its a brilliant company to own.
Thanks, I just wanted to establish what your view was.
They love sport and love United.
Mobile homes, fish canning and shopping malls too I believe. True renaissance men.
So when you can't respond to reasoned logic you instead put words in my mouth which I wasn't even close to insinuating. I know it's hard to have an open mind, but hopefully you'll get there someday. And just to think, I thought we were having an intelligent conversation.
Read you own post 9903 again. I merely said thanks for that, it explained your view nicely.
Thanks, they're in it as a business investment, that was my point.
I think the list is unfair, Hargreaves I don't think can be said to be Fergie's fault, Berbatov for 20m would have been a good buy, got our money back on Tosic, Obertan and Diouf and Tevez was well worth the £8-10m for the two year loan.
I'll give you Bebe, and who knows with Anderson.
You're going back too far. I'm not talking about Fergie's complete record in the transfer market since he became a manager.
The diminution of talent in the side is largely due to the failure of our transfers in the last 5 years:
Successes:
Valencia (18M)
Nani (17M)
Hernandez (6M)
Total: 41M
Yet to be determined:
Young (18M)
Smalling (10M)
Jones (18M)
De Gea (20M)
Total: 66M
Failures:
Anderson (20M)
Tevez Loan (10M)
Hargreaves (20M)
Berbatov (30M)
Tosic (8M)
Bebe (8M)
Obertan (3M)
Diouf (4M)
Total: 107M
Anderson could be a success yet.
Tevez shouldn't be in there, he was a loan as you say, the money is the wages we'd pay anyone.
Hargreaves is gone due to injury, that will inevitably happen to a percentage of players, in the past and in the future.
Tosic, Obertan and Diouf were all failures, but not as bad as they look because we got fees back for them.
That leaves Bebe. No comment.
I have nowhere seen Young's fee reported as £18m. I've seen 14-16m and also you've put the prices of Jones and De Gea around the top of their reported fees. You've actually done the same thing with Bebe and Tosic as well.
We paid £10M for the Tevez loan. The wages were extra.
We didn't get value on the pitch from those players. The reasons for their failure, or the recoupment of some cash in subsequent sales, or the possibility of a future miracle and Anderson fulfilling his promise, is irrelevant.
We spent 107M and got little return. If we had spent half that money on better players, we'd be in better shape.
Knock 5/6M off. I don't think it makes much difference.
We had Tevez for two years. If we'd paid a large transfer fee and amortised that to £10m it would be more than fair value. Like I said, he shouldn't be in your list.
If by 'reasons for failure' you think one (repeat one) player being lost to major injury isn't a reason then you're in for a lifetime of disappointment as a football fan I'm afraid.
Why you think the 'recoupment' of some cash by subsequent sale is not relevant to your argument I don't know, it clearly is.
That leaves Anderson. Well if Fergie had your magnificent hindsight I've no doubt he wouldn't have paid as much for him, but he has contributed 80odd games for us, he's still only 24, he would still fetch a decent fee (see amortisation again) and the miracle could still happen, as I'm sure we all hope.
If we had bought Tevez and sold him after two years there would have been no capital loss of £10M. The failure of the loan (our failure to sign Tevez) cost us £10M.
The point I'm making is clear. We spent £107M. If we had spent that money (or a significant portion of it) on players who succeeded, rather than players who failed (for whatever reasons, and regardless of what money we eventually recovered from sales) then our team would be stronger.
Ok, forget Tevez, you don't understand amortisation.
For the rest, your point seems to be that if every club's every transfer were successful then they'd be better off. Can't argue with that.
I understand amortization. If a club sells a player for what it paid for him, it gets the amortized charges back. If the club pays £40M for a player, and amortizes over 4 years at £10M a year, and subsequently sells after two years for £40M, that counts as a £20M profit for that year, which cancels the two £10M losses of the previous two years.
My point, as any fool can plainly see (take that), is that United, for the last 5 years, had a very high ratio of failure to success.
Like I say, you don't understand amortisation. It applies to depreciating assets, where depreciating is the key word. That could be gradual, due to increasing age, but also takes into account risk, which is another thing you don't understand (see Hargreaves).
To take your example, amortisation does not assume you 'pay £40m for a player' and then sell him two years later for the same £40m. It assumes a loss, that is the whole point of it. Obviously your asset could go whoopi-do and make you a fortune, but that would not be amortisation.
As for a high ratio of transfer failure to success, look around, try Liverpool, Arsenal, Real - successes yes, massive failures also, I think you'll find.
If you buy a player at 23 and sell him at 25 his value is not likely to depreciate, and the risk is negligible. So the amortization is purely a matter of bookkeeping. If we had handled the Tevez matter better, and bought him for the agreed price long before the expiry of the loan, as we originally said we would, and sold him after two years, we'd have had his services for those two years at the cost of his wages. So the bungled loan cost us £10M.
I think Arsenal/Real's success/failure rate would be higher than ours over the last 5 years. Liverpool's would probably be lower!
I'm going to bed.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549107/000104746912007215/0001047469-12-007215-index.htm
.....contains a slew of new submissions from the club including outstanding loan agreements (Bond Indenture, RCF agreement, and Alderley loan agreement) and an amended F-1 (prelim prospectus). Changes are mostly cosmetic though certain sections are fleshed out a bit more.
As expected, the repurchased bonds will be retired following the offering.
Folks may well be buying 'Man Utd' stock in the not too distant future as that is the "proposed symbol for trading on the New York Stock Exchange".
.....contains a slew of new submissions from the club including outstanding loan agreements (Bond Indenture, RCF agreement, and Alderley loan agreement) and an amended F-1 (prelim prospectus). Changes are mostly cosmetic though certain sections are fleshed out a bit more.
As expected, the repurchased bonds will be retired following the offering.
Folks may well be buying 'Man Utd' stock in the not too distant future as that is the "proposed symbol for trading on the New York Stock Exchange".
Exactly.
It is vastly different when you take into account how profitable we are now in comparison to then. If a company becomes 3 times as profitable but doesn't invest any more money (actually invests less) in real terms it is investing much, much less. The fact is we are the second most profitable Football club on the planet after Real Madrid, but we are spending like a mid-table team. Either Fergie has suddenly become averse to signing players for big fee's like he did time and time again previously, or financial restrictions are being placed on him.
You are picking a finite period where most of our signings haven't become the players that they will/may become. Take your successes, add in the "yet to be determined" and deduct the transfer fees received for the failures and you have great value for money.
For instance:
Nani, Hernandez, Valencia, Young, Smalling, Jones and De Gea in the market are probably worth around £160m. Deduct the c. £11-12m received for Diouf, Tosic and Obertan and worst case scenario you have £160m of talent for around £185m (taking into account 15-17m of your cost inaccuracies) . Add into that the fact that Anderson could still prove to be a quality player and Berbatov might bring in £5-10m if sold and even in this terrible period we have got a similar amount in terms of value vs what we paid.
If you go back slightly further to when the Glazers took over, which was the comparison I made, you have Evra, Vidic, Carrick, Park and Van Der Sar. All of which were superb value for money.
The ultimate priority is success on the pitch. That will ensure that we're fine because the Glazer plan counts on success on the pitch.
How can you class Chicharito as a success and Tevez as a failure? Both had one great season, one disappointing season. Tevez helped us to the Champions League as part of a great front three with Ronaldo and Rooney.
Berbatov failed yet was top scorer in the Premier League in 10/11 when we won it. Fergie's failure to play him doesn't make him a failure.
Tosic got homesick - but why did we pull out of the Ljajic deal - the vendors claimed we didn't have the money.
Bebe - a distinct whiff of rattus rattus eminates from that deal.
Obertan - cheap gamble on a fringe player, got our money back.
Anderson and Hargreaves have both been unlucky with injuries.
Berbatov failed yet was top scorer in the Premier League in 10/11 when we won it. Fergie's failure to play him doesn't make him a failure.
Tosic got homesick - but why did we pull out of the Ljajic deal - the vendors claimed we didn't have the money.
Bebe - a distinct whiff of rattus rattus eminates from that deal.
Obertan - cheap gamble on a fringe player, got our money back.
Anderson and Hargreaves have both been unlucky with injuries.
I thought it was clear I wasn't talking about money. I'm talking about the quality of the team as it is now (not what it might be in some sunny future, when all our young ducklings turn into swans). And how much better it could have been, if so many of our recent buys had not failed to live up to expectations. If we had bought better.
I don't know how anyone can deny that our recent forays into the transfer market haven't been entirely felicitous. The list of flops speaks for itself. I'm sure even Fergie would admit it, after a good bottle of red wine.
Could you list my 15 - 17m of cost inaccuracies, by the way.
What about the wage bill Finneh? It is silly to say the club is investing less in players than it used to, transfer fees only give you part of the picture.
As I keep saying again and again, net spend is a largely meaningless indicator nowadays - wages are the much better indicator of how much a club is investing in its playing squad and we are up there with the biggest spenders in world football. Perhaps we could push the wage ratio a bit further (maybe 55%) but still we have a much deeper squad than many of our competitors and that comes at a price.
Ideally you would add wages and transfer fees together to give the complete picture, and if anyone wants to go back a few years and do that then feel free!
What about the wage bill Finneh? It is silly to say the club is investing less in players than it used to, transfer fees only give you part of the picture.
As I keep saying again and again, net spend is a largely meaningless indicator nowadays - wages are the much better indicator of how much a club is investing in its playing squad and we are up there with the biggest spenders in world football. Perhaps we could push the wage ratio a bit further (maybe 55%) but still we have a much deeper squad than many of our competitors and that comes at a price.
Ideally you would add wages and transfer fees together to give the complete picture, and if anyone wants to go back a few years and do that then feel free!
Our spend on wages is unchanged in comparison to previous years (in comparison to turnover), so I felt no need to include it as a positive or a negative. If you keep spending identical on wages, but drastically reduce it (pro-rata) on transfer fees it only means one thing: much less investment.
My point was that Fergie's transfer dealings have been fine, not great admittedly, but adequate. He has wasted no more or no less than previous years, the only difference is that he has spent less than previously, so has had less "hits" and less "misses". As I said in terms of what we have paid out vs what we have in value/assets it's roughly the same.
Inaccuracies:
Young £18m -> £16m
Jones £18m -> £17m
DDG £20m -> £18m
Anderson £20m -> £15m (or £17-18m from other sources)
Tevez £10m -> £9m
Valencia £18m -> £16m
Diouf £4m -> £2m
Tosic £8m -> £5m
Bebe £8m -> £7.4m
Hargreaves £20m -> £17m
so roughly £18.5m - £21.5m difference.
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/manchester-united-transfers.html
I don't know where you dug up that website, but most its figures differ from the values mentioned in the press at the time. Tosic was quoted at £8M; Diouf never listed at anything less than £4M; I've never heard of Anderson being quoted at £15M!; the price of the Tevez loan was always stated as £10M;etc. Are you sure your brother-in-law doesn't run it?
The figures are at the low end of what United might have been obliged to pay. My figures are at the high end, which is more reasonable, since United were extremely successful, and likely to end up paying the maximum amount. In any case the exact amount of money paid out is not important. When I made my original post I only included the transfer fees as an afterthought.
I listed 15 players all bought in the last 5 years. Of those only 3 were clear successes up to this time. You don't argue the point, but are you really claiming that such a low percentage of successes is par for Fergie's career? If any date in Fergies's managerial career were chosen, and his purchases in the market for the previous 5 years scrutinised, would only 20% of them have been successful. 8 of the 15 were indisputable failures. Have more than half of Fergie's purchases proven to be flops in his history as a manager?
You say that my time frame is arbitrary; that if I had gone back another year Carrick, Vidic, and Evra were bought. Very true, but it misses the point.
I'm not questioning Fergie's acumen in the transfer market. I'm making the simplest possible observation.That the reason there's a shortage of top talent in the team at the moment is our failure to buy that talent in the last 5 years. It's not that we didn't spend the money. We did - on Berbatov, Tevez, Hargreaves, Anderson. If they had turned out to be the players we all expected when we bought them, we wouldn't have any shortage of great players now. But they didn't.
- Status