Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't we had our most successful 5/6 seasons in Europe this past few seasons added to that multiple other domestic titles and a cup. I'm not sure if that fits this 'just good enough' notion. Just good enough to be competitive to get to the later stages in Europe is pretty fecking good.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Ah, apologies. Thought on Sportscenter they said the Bucs were basically QB-less and were no longer sticking behind Freeman. Also didn't realise they'd gotten back in line with the top level of the salary cap, for a while they were near the bottom of spenders in the league. Too bad about the record so far then!
I personally feel that since selling Ronaldo we haven't really had a chance of winning the CL, even with the best back 5 in World Football a few years ago (VDS, Evra, Rio and Vidic) at their peak. In the 4 seasons since then we've reached: quarters, final, not qualified, round of 16 (with a relatively easy run to the final 10-11); not exactly setting the world alight. I would say last 8 is our current "level", which is our average over the last 4 seasons. A slight difference to our average of top 2 '07-'09 (semi, final, final).
Whether to blame that on under-investment or "transition" is a matter for debate. One thing I do know however is that in the couple of seasons after selling Ronaldo there were players available who would have kept us at a similar level. I'm not saying we could/should have bought every single one of the likes of Toure, Silva, Robben, Ozil (to Madrid), Aguero, Mata etc. But I know our current team with a Toure for instance would be a massive improvement and I can only imagine that finances were the reason for not going for Toure.
Even as recently as the last couple of Summer windows we've been shopping at a tier below because of "value"; buying younger, cheaper players or medium priced squad additions, rather than the Ozil's, Hazard's, Martinez', Neymar's, Gotze's, Bale's, Isco's of this world. The fact that not only Chelsea and City, but also Liverpool and Arsenal all have transfer records that dwarf ours is indicative of a more cautious approach (not a worse approach necessarily, just a ore cautious one).
We tried in the summer to buy a star midfielder and I think we will get one next year.
Not the modern-day version perhaps, but of old, Real was the team to aspire to; even Matt Busby said words to this effect.
Offering £30m for Fabregas isn't trying very hard. This summer was the right time. Why the hell would we wait till next summer?
Fabregas might have a miraculous change of heart and realise that a move to Old Trafford will fulfill his life's ambition. Woodward has hire a CIA mind-control expert to work this change. Well, it's as good a reason as others I've read on here.
You're an optimist sir
Seriously though with Moyes in charge I have more faith that there will be recruitment in the central-midfield than when Sir Alex was in charge, though I can't see it being much of a "star" - which probably wouldn't be essential anyway.
Ye it is a complete load of bollocks as far as I am concerned and even quite insulting to Fergie to suggest that he would have been happy to settle for being anything other than the best.
As you note, we experienced the most successful period in the entire history of the football club so if people arent happy with that they are just spoilt and have unrealistic expectations.
Was that the only one we bod for. I know he's not a midfielder but it's now mooted we bid heavily for Bale too.
I don't think people's expectations are unreasonable. They want us to play good football, and buy the best players we can afford commensurate with our status at the top of the world game. We shouldn't have to settle for second class anything.
Who is asking you to settle for second class? As I just said, it has been the most successful period in the history of this football club
It's pretty insulting to Fergie to say he settled.
Agreed. If there is one thing we can be certain of with Fergie, it's that he never 'settled' for anything. Self made winner of the highest caliber.
Of course he settled when it came to transfers. It's deluded to say otherwise. The guy had no hesitation in spending unseen amounts of money on players before the takeover, and all of a sudden he started talking of value. I'd say it is a credit to Ferguson that he guided us through one of the most financially uncertain times in our history, while simultaneously giving us one of the most successful periods.
I don't know how much of that was paper talk. I really can't envision United bidding the equivalent of a small country's national debt on one player.
He always strove for the very best for our club. To say otherwise was deluded. If he didn't feel there was a player worth breaking the structure then it was for the good of the club as he saw it in the long term, not because he was settling for just good enough.
We make a lot of big money failed bids almost every year. Doesn't mean anything.
Didn't that nut case Perez say we bid for him? Again how trustworthy that is I don't know.
Strange that he just stopped finding players worth breaking the structure for post takeover, didn't have trouble finding those in the years preceding it.
What's 'big money" in this context? I'd be surprised if we went anywhere near the sum Real forked out for him.
Was it Perez? If it was, I'd take it with a tin or two of Saxo.
The offer was supposedly bigger than Real's, according to Perez at least.
So it was Perez. Don't think I'd attach too much weight to it then.
Yeah, take it with more than a pinch of salt, but wouldn't surprise me if did put that idiotic bid, would just be another dump on a pile of dump that was the summer transfer window.
I'd say Fellaini is second class in a position we desperately needed top quality.
In the last few years we've pursued a host of top players and, apart from RvP, didn't land any, usually explaining the failure with the 'value' formula. We then would up overpaying for the likes of Ashley Young, and 'punting' on **** like Bebe, which was just bad football and bad economics.
I'd like to see us aiming for the top, which is why the appointment of Moyes, who looks like Fergie without the flair, is so disappointing. We needed a manager to take us forward, with a bit of confidence and swagger, not one who's already trying to lower expectations.
This has got nothing to do with the discussion that was going on, I have my own doubts about the future but the discussion was about our recent past - let me ask you one question: do you think Sir Alex Ferguson was a person who was happy to 'settle for second class'?
Plenty has been spent post takeover - I guess you missed the summer of 2007, the signing of Berbatov etc. Plus as is usually the case, there is too much focus on transfer fees when it is all about wages.
He settled for "second class" a lot of times in terms of transfers. Would he have been happy to do so? No. Every manager works under constraints, and that means sometimes you have to settle for second class because you can't afford your primary targets. It just happens that the constraints that he was working under meant us missing out on most of our primary targets for 3-4 summers straight.
Yes, aren't doing too good there either. Our wages are spread over the squad, rather than on top players, distributing the risk that rides with each player. A very simple strategy. And I'm not thick. The transfer fees that we have spent in the past have always come from the 50% of the turnover that is not spent on wages, but lo and behold, most of that is spent on buying bonds back or another refinancing while we decide to be the moral guardians of football and not spend a few million extra which would have got us many a players that we liked, which we should be able to afford by the way.
They've kept the 50% spent on the wages bit constant, while they munch off from the other 50%, and with the revenues increasing at the rate they are increasing, the amount they are taking out of the club continues to increase.
It's what we do with the other 50% that helps us get better as a team. In an ideal world, we would have sold Ashley Young this summer for some 5-10 million and spent 30 million or so on someone like Rodriguez. We'd have kept the wages at the same level, but improved by spending a few million extra. But of course we didn't, because that 20 odd million extra would have to go from the other 50% of the revenue for which the Glazers already have grand plans about. So no, wages are not always an ideal indication of the quality of the squad, or should I say not an ideal indication of the investment that the Glazers are putting in the club.
P.S. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have bought Ashley Young at all.
It's what we do with the other 50% that helps us get better as a team. In an ideal world, we would have sold Ashley Young this summer for some 5-10 million and spent 30 million or so on someone like Rodriguez. We'd have kept the wages at the same level, but improved by spending a few million extra. But of course we didn't, because that 20 odd million extra would have to go from the other 50% of the revenue for which the Glazers already have grand plans about. So no, wages are not always an ideal indication of the quality of the squad, or should I say not an ideal indication of the investment that the Glazers are putting in the club.
P.S. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have bought Ashley Young at all.
What money have the Glazers munched off United other than the stock listing?
In an ideal world, Liverpool would have signed him anc re-create the Downing-Young winger combo. Just imagine the fun we would have had here.
I dont agree in the slightest that Fergie settled for buying 2nd class players. It is well documented that his transfer targets were researched and tracked in detail, and if he didnt get the ones he wanted then he prefered to promote from the youth team rather than go for 2nd choice options.
But yes there are some constraints and I dont claim that we compete with the biggest spenders in world football, but then we never have. However I dont think it was always financial constraints that meant us missing out on targets, it is because they were not worth the money being asked. If some other club wants to overpay then more fool them.
Yes that is the strategy and it has worked very well so whats the problem? and it is by no means a cheap strategy, it costs a lot to have a squad as big as ours - no other club can match the depth of our squad.
I actually happen to think that we now have too big a squad and would be better off cutting numbers with a bit more focus on quality - but that doesnt mean we need to spend much more, just distribute it in a different way.
If you look at it from a purely financial point of view no players are woth the cost, if we have problem in our team we should fix it despite the cost and having alot of money coming in should enable this. We have missed out on alot of targets at the top end in fact nearly everyone we have gone for we've missed out on, we should with the money coming in be able to compete with anyone but instead restraints are put in place to stop this. We are in a position were because of success nearly any player will want to join us something you fail to consider when talking about we've never gone for the best players, we have only been able to attract them from a club point of view 99 onwards (non domestically that is). Then we went for Veron and got him, went for Nistelrooy and got in competeing with and beating Madrid to his signiture we were pushing in that direction but since the Glazers have been here that has stopped. The wages are the reason imo we won't pay them and its alright saying were sepnding close to 50% but that includes all the excess staff costs (marketing etc) the glazers have brought.
I don't agree in the slightest that Fergie didn't settle for buying 2nd class players. What the hell do you think Michael Owen was when we lost out on Benzema? You obviously want to see what you want to see, so continue to see it that way.
And yes, it is a cheap strategy. They are unwilling to take risks for the betterment of the first team. The Glazer business plan has been to keep the wages around the 50% mark, keep the squad in a decent shape but to not go over the top while paying for players. It is clear to everyone who has eyes, don't know why some people act like their ownership hasn't tightened the purse strings.
You do realize that the debts which most other clubs have had to do with either investment in squads or facilities, ours is for the pleasure of having the Glazers as our owners. Every penny that goes out to pay the loan back is the money which I consider the Glazers to be munching off. By paying off the loans through the profits made by the club, they will be owning a GBP 3bn behemoth for an investment of 500m from their side. The money is not going directly to their bank accounts, but they have munched it off alright.
Wouldn't consider that proper use of the word. Would only use it when it's been taken for personal gain and the money they've taken for that purpose isn't that big. But you're using it to fit your agenda so go ahead.
Man puts debt on a club. The club pays off the debt through the profit it generates. The man gets full ownership of a debt free club after only paying a fraction of its actual value and using the rest from the club's profits. How can that not be classified as personal gain I don't know.
- Status