ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[Revan]

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.

What does it matter if they get the money from the club and take it into their accounts or if they get he money from the club to pay the debt they took to buy the club. It's the same thing.

They have taken an awful lot of money from here (and I never was that much against them) that despite our success (mostly thanks to Sir Alex) they have done us more harm than good. in 4 years they will have a club who is worth of 3B, a club they bought with a debt. And they paid that debt with money they took from the club. It wouldn't be different at all if they bought the club with cash and then every year they took as much money as they are getting now in order to pay that debt. Same thing, we are losing around 50m a year for having the pleasure of having Glazers as United's owners. Hell we can almost sign 2 Fellaini's per year with those money.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

Have to agree with Bestie07.

 

[Bestie07]

I had heard somewhere earlier that the Premier League was investigating the possibilities of some legal mechanism to prevent leveraged buy-outs of clubs. Would be extremely fecked up if after years of having the purse strings tightened, and when the debt finally doesn't remain an issue and we can flutter our wings a bit in the transfer market the leeches sell us off to someone who puts us in debt again. Wouldn't want this to happen to us, or to any other club for that matter.

 

[Rood]

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.

I dont really want to get into discussing specific players but as far as I am concerned Benzema was way overvalued, plus I was exstatic to sign Owen (in fact my tagline actually relates to the Owen signing) - shame that injuries killed him.
Again I think it is an insult to Fergie and the players that have bought us unprecedented success to suggest that they were in any way 'second class'. You dont win the Premier League or Champions League with second class players, no one ever has and no one ever will.

and how exactly is it a cheap strategy to have one of the deepest squads in world football with one of the biggest wage bills to go with it?
FYI the 50% wage ratio was a policy in place well before the Glazers, they just continued it. All sensibly run clubs (United, Arsenal, Munich etc) operate around that level.

Now I totally agree that money spent on debt is a waste and could be put to better use, however that is a completely seperate issue to discussing whether the amount we invest in the squad is enough. I personally think it is and believe that our record of success proves my point.

I think it comes down to the fact that you seem to be completely clueless about the footballing philosophy of our club, we are not a circus like Real or City who spunk untold millions on players of varying quality. Fergie has always talked about spotting potential and promoting young players to mould into top players - of course that has to be supplemented with investment in the transfer market and we have spent plenty over the years, Im suprised that some people still dont understand this.

 

[Bestie07]

feck me, you like beating the old drum again and again. Fergie has often settled for second class players, what he didn't settle for was second class results, or second class attitude. I picked the Owen example at random, there are many others. It's not a cheap strategy if the squad isn't top light and bottom heavy, which ours is. And don't tell me about being clueless about the footballing philosophy of the club. Real are the team who sold off Ozil to buy the latest toy, and we're spoilt for wanting better first team players than Young and Valencia. How can you even compare the two situations is beyond me? And we haven't spent plenty in the transfer market at all.

 

[Rood]

feck me, you like beating the old drum again and again.

Well I have to because the facts obviously arent getting through to you.

The best team in Europe at the moment are Bayern Munich, they dont invest anymore in their squad than we do - in fact our wage bill has usually been higher than theirs for many years. Did you know that?

and we have better players than Young and Valencia - neither are playing today, in fact Young along with likes of Evans, Rio Anderson and Fellaini dont even make our bench- you will not find any club in Europe with the squad depth we currently have.

 

[Bestie07]

What I don't understand is this - We did miss out on a lot of players over the past few seasons. But then we missed out on them because of plenty of reasons, with money being one of the major ones. But the fact that we did go in for them, must have meant that we rated them to be better than the youngsters coming through the club, or maybe we wanted them to provide competition or what not, but the fact remains we went in for them and lost out. Now why do some people insist on taking a moral high ground on stuff like this. Guys like this one here, think that the money that goes out could only "probably " be put to better use, and then try to throw the old chestnut about our values. If we were so intent on promoting our youngsters, we wouldn't have gone for the said players in the first place. I'd rather the 6m extra go to another club or an agent or the player, than the 300 million plus interest that we will repay and the hundreds of millions that we have already repaid. And this person would want me to believe that there were no restrictions. The same person who saw it fit to spend 30 million on a talented but an error prone defender 10 years ago suddenly thought that a talent like Hazard was not worth going the extra mile for.

 

[Bestie07]

Well I have to because the facts obviously arent getting through to you.

The best team in Europe at the moment are Bayern Munich, they dont invest anymore in their squad than we do - in fact our wage bill has usually been higher than theirs for many years. Did you know that?

and we have better players than Young and Valencia - neither are playing today, in fact Young along with likes of Evans, Rio Anderson and Fellaini dont even make our bench- you will not find any club in Europe with the squad depth we currently have.

And we were better than them for years, did you know that? Their players matured, their team matured and they are now strengthening from a position of strength, something which we didn't.

 

[Rood]

And we were better than them for years, did you know that? Their players matured, their team matured and they are now strengthening from a position of strength, something which we didn't.

Well you didnt answer my question - Im trying to educate you, you should thank me.

 

[Bestie07]

Well you didnt answer my question - Im trying to educate you, you should thank me.

You think you're smart, try to infer from my post. I'm always up for getting to learn new things, just not from people who obviously have an agenda.

 

[Rood]

My agenda is only to argue against accusations of Fergie settling for second best or against the players he bought being in any way second class - load of bollocks as far as I am concerned and an insult to the great man.

 

[Antisocial]

Plenty of references to how the sky is falling at United, but seems according to the Mail that a new shares issue could be on the cards:

Spoiler

Glazers launch £250m share issue to rescue Manchester United

By ALEX MILLER
Manchester United's owners are rushing to raise up to £250million through the issue of shares and could make the move as soon as February.
Ed Woodward, United's executive vice-chairman, had insisted there were no imminent plans for a share issue, but the Glazer family have already cleared the way in the US to issue up to 23million shares.

Money matters: Joel Glazer (3rd L) and Avram Glazer (4th L) prepare to ring the Opening Bell at the New York Stock Exchange in 2012

It is expected the Glazers will keep some of that cash themselves, which is likely to infuriate fans but they will also look to pay off a substantial amount of the debt on the club, which stands at £389.2m.
Club officials privately admit that paying £70m a year in interest is crippling them in the transfer market, while rivals Manchester City, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Paris Saint-Germain continue to spend heavily.
United are ninth in the Premier League after a shaky start to the season under new boss David Moyes and while they are unlikely to finish the season so low, there are concerns they could miss out on next season's Champions League.

Shaky start: United manager David Moyes

Failure to qualify would be a devastating blow which would cost the club in the region of £50m.
A source close to the club said: 'If the conditions are right the Glazers will look to announce the issue of the shares as soon as February after a powerful showing in the January window.'
Football finance expert David Bick, of Square 1 Consulting, added: 'The Glazers haven't made this filing to hang around. While Sir Alex Ferguson worked wonders over the last few seasons, the club urgently need to raise this money to reinforce the club, which many observers believe are in early stages of decline.
'They can't compete with the likes of Manchester City and Real Madrid in the transfer market without spending massive amounts of money and they can't do that until they dramatically bring down the debt. While on the commercial side they are doing brilliantly, the money is being swallowed up by the massive charges.'

 

[Jippy]

I don't believe we are paying £70m a year interest on £389.2m debt unless we went to Wonga.

 

[CantonaVeron]

My agenda is only to argue against accusations of Fergie settling for second best or against the players he bought being in any way second class - load of bollocks as far as I am concerned and an insult to the great man.

But he did in the name of value! Utd as a football club should not be bothered about so called value when we need to strengthen the team, if a player is identified he should be signed. Now no one would suggest we go out and buy 10 world class players but over the last few years we have needed to sign players to improve out midfield and we have gone for players including Ozil (the first time round), Hazard and many more examples and missed out. Now Ferguson has confirmed those two, so if he identified them he obviously rightly thought they could improve the team but we missed out through not being able to compete financially. It was the same this year, Herrera was indentified but the excuse for not signing him was value, I mean if it improves the midfield who cares about the cost, I will tell you who the Glazers! On the example of Bayern a few years ago they went and signed world class players in Robben and Ribery because they knew they had to improve when we sold Ronaldo this is what we should have done but imo we were stopped by the position the Glazers have put us in.

I'd still like to know the non footballing staff costs involved in our wage bill as we know we have a large and growing commerical/marketing arm they imo should not be included in this 50% wage bill

 

[Mr Anderson]

I don't believe we are paying £70m a year interest on £389.2m debt unless we went to Wonga.

In this years profit reveal, wasn't it at mid 30mill on interest? Another scare article, "to rescue us".

 

[ravelston]

But he did in the name of value! Utd as a football club should not be bothered about so called value when we need to strengthen the team, if a player is identified he should be signed. Now no one would suggest we go out and buy 10 world class players but over the last few years we have needed to sign players to improve out midfield and we have gone for players including Ozil (the first time round), Hazard and many more examples and missed out. Now Ferguson has confirmed those two, so if he identified them he obviously rightly thought they could improve the team but we missed out through not being able to compete financially. It was the same this year, Herrera was indentified but the excuse for not signing him was value, I mean if it improves the midfield who cares about the cost, I will tell you who the Glazers! On the example of Bayern a few years ago they went and signed world class players in Robben and Ribery because they knew they had to improve when we sold Ronaldo this is what we should have done but imo we were stopped by the position the Glazers have put us in.

I'd still like to know the non footballing staff costs involved in our wage bill as we know we have a large and growing commerical/marketing arm they imo should not be included in this 50% wage bill

There has never been a suggestion that we missed out on Ozil because we couldn't compete financially - like Benzema and Tiago (among many others) he just decided that he would prefer to go somewhere else. (Come to think of it, effectively so did Fabregas.) If we want to go further back, the reality is that Ronaldinho preferred the idea of living and playing in Barcelona rather than doing the same in Manchester, and Bale and Ramsey chose London over Manchester. Is there a theme developing here? The problem we have is that, in the real world, you can't just offer the money and expect the players to come rushing in - players with the choice of going to Real or Barca or Bayerne are probably going to go there, and young players see a better chance of rapid development with teams like Arsenal and Spurs (not surprising given our awful record from the mid 90's to the last couple of years).

The problem with Herrera is different in that the player isn't on the Real/Barca/Bayerne radar so he'd be quite happy to join us, but we think he's worth £20-25m while his club are looking for £30-35m. I can't see any reason for paying over the odds for middle level players who are going to be squad players and I'm sure the club feel the same. (I kind of feel the same way about Fellaini - but that's water under the bridge).

For 2010-11 the non "football club" component of the Employee Benefits was in the £23-24m range - that's a little over 15%. I don't have more recent figures. It's worth remembering that the "large and growing commercial/marketing arm" is the only reason we're even having this discussion about why we're failing to sign players. Without the commercial revenues we would have a much smaller squad. Remember that before the takeover - despite the Nike and Vodafone deals - our commercial revenues had remained flat at around £45m for 6 years. For 2013 they were around £152m. We may not like the Glazers but it's unarguable that without the kick in the butt that they gave commercial we would have a significantly less expensive squad. (Looking back, without the switch from Vodafone to AIG as shirt sponsor and recognising the PLC's strict 50% cap, we wouldn't have been able to sign both Vidic and Evra in January 2006 - talk about rewriting history.)

 

[Rood]

But he did in the name of value! Utd as a football club should not be bothered about so called value when we need to strengthen the team, if a player is identified he should be signed. Now no one would suggest we go out and buy 10 world class players but over the last few years we have needed to sign players to improve out midfield and we have gone for players including Ozil (the first time round), Hazard and many more examples and missed out. Now Ferguson has confirmed those two, so if he identified them he obviously rightly thought they could improve the team but we missed out through not being able to compete financially. It was the same this year, Herrera was indentified but the excuse for not signing him was value, I mean if it improves the midfield who cares about the cost, I will tell you who the Glazers! On the example of Bayern a few years ago they went and signed world class players in Robben and Ribery because they knew they had to improve when we sold Ronaldo this is what we should have done but imo we were stopped by the position the Glazers have put us in.

I'd still like to know the non footballing staff costs involved in our wage bill as we know we have a large and growing commerical/marketing arm they imo should not be included in this 50% wage bill

Well I dont agree that we should not be bothered about value, players are identified to strengthen the squad but we are not desperate so why pay more than you think someone is worth?
Obviously, we are run as a business so will not throw money around like a sugardaddy might, but we still have a large transfer budget and a lot of cash has been spent assembling our current squad. You may well disagree with who it has been spent on or think that the midfield should have been a priority, but that is a different issue.

Also it is not always for financial reasons that we miss out on a player, Ozil was not expensive (due to contract) and therefore many clubs were after him and he chose Madrid - as far as I am concerned that is his loss, not ours!
we as a club have always tried to get players that want to play for Manchester United and not just the ones who want the biggest pay packet - it may well mean that we miss out on certain targets, but I believe that there will always be enough who choose us for footballing reasons (RvP, Kagawa etc) and that is what makes us more of a team than an expensive collection of big egos.

 

[Bestie07]

Well I dont agree that we should not be bothered about value, players are identified to strengthen the squad but we are not desperate so why pay more than you think someone is worth?
Obviously, we are run as a business so will not throw money around like a sugardaddy might, but we still have a large transfer budget and a lot of cash has been spent assembling our current squad. You may well disagree with who it has been spent on or think that the midfield should have been a priority, but that is a different issue.

Also it is not always for financial reasons that we miss out on a player, Ozil was not expensive (due to contract) and therefore many clubs were after him and he chose Madrid - as far as I am concerned that is his loss, not ours!
we as a club have always tried to get players that want to play for Manchester United and not just the ones who want the biggest pay packet - it may well mean that we miss out on certain targets, but I believe that there will always be enough who choose us for footballing reasons (RvP, Kagawa etc) and that is what makes us more of a team than an expensive collection of big egos.

Agree on Ozil, his loss joining Madrid not ours. But the point which you oh so gloriously continue to ignore is that for the first and only time in our history, just prior to the takeover, we had reached a point where we could compete with every football team in the world for players. We were breaking our transfer record every year, buying a defender for £30m! I refuse to believe that the same person who saw it fit to spend the equivalent of our entire profits on transfers before the takeover felt that it was wise to continue to ignore the weaknesses in the squad. Yes, we have been successful, but had our finances been the way they were a decade ago, we'd have tried to make a step up quality wise, which we haven't, and which we should have been capable of if not for the debt.

 

[KingMinger22]

I don't see how anyone could argue that we are less ambitious in the transfer market now than we were in the PlC years. The signings of Veron, Rio, Rooney etc are clear evidence of this. As a percentage of profits these were each 80-100% - equivalent to over £100m plus buys now.

Can't believe we sold Ronaldo for £80m yet still are the sixth highest club transfer record in the PL.

 

[Bestie07]

I don't see how anyone could argue that we are less ambitious in the transfer market now than we were in the PlC years. The signings of Veron, Rio, Rooney etc are clear evidence of this. As a percentage of profits these were each 80-100% - equivalent to over £100m plus buys now.

Can't believe we sold Ronaldo for £80m yet still are the sixth highest club transfer record in the PL.

Edit : my bad. Please ignore

 

[Rood]

Agree on Ozil, his loss joining Madrid not ours. But the point which you oh so gloriously continue to ignore is that for the first and only time in our history, just prior to the takeover, we had reached a point where we could compete with every football team in the world for players. We were breaking our transfer record every year, buying a defender for £30m! I refuse to believe that the same person who saw it fit to spend the equivalent of our entire profits on transfers before the takeover felt that it was wise to continue to ignore the weaknesses in the squad. Yes, we have been successful, but had our finances been the way they were a decade ago, we'd have tried to make a step up quality wise, which we haven't, and which we should have been capable of if not for the debt.

That is just not true - we have never competed with the biggest spenders, Veron was a massive transfer for us yet at the same time Real were paying 50% more for Zidane! Neither is it true that we were breaking records every year - do you know how much we spent in the couple of years before buying Veron? Virtually nothing! under £10m over 2 full seasons - I remember fans complaining about lack of investment at the time.
Some years we spent (2001/2/4), others years virtually no spending at all (1999/2000/2003) - you need to look at the big picture rather than focus on the odd big name signing.

Also not true that all our profits were spent on transfers before the takeover - this club has been run as business for decades (Edwards, then PLC, now Glazers), we have never been a notforprofit concern like some other clubs.

You seem to ignore that huge amounts have been invested into the squad recently - Fellaini, RvP, De Gea, Kagawa, Jones etc - do you think these players came for free?!

 

[CantonaVeron]

Well I dont agree that we should not be bothered about value, players are identified to strengthen the squad but we are not desperate so why pay more than you think someone is worth?
Obviously, we are run as a business so will not throw money around like a sugardaddy might, but we still have a large transfer budget and a lot of cash has been spent assembling our current squad. You may well disagree with who it has been spent on or think that the midfield should have been a priority, but that is a different issue.

Also it is not always for financial reasons that we miss out on a player, Ozil was not expensive (due to contract) and therefore many clubs were after him and he chose Madrid - as far as I am concerned that is his loss, not ours!
we as a club have always tried to get players that want to play for Manchester United and not just the ones who want the biggest pay packet - it may well mean that we miss out on certain targets, but I believe that there will always be enough who choose us for footballing reasons (RvP, Kagawa etc) and that is what makes us more of a team than an expensive collection of big egos.

But we are desperate in midfield and have been for quite a while. Players that are identified should be brought in, not argue over a couple of million here and there. I think its already been said was Rio worth £30 million at the time? no but it turned out to be a great investment because we over payed to bring him in and he's given us years of service. Thats something as a football club you have to do to push on. It can't always be about value, sometimes for the very best players you have to over pay. I think at the time Ozil was in Germany we were very slow to move and if we had moved quicker we could have got him by paying the wages he was asking. We have to give players a fair chance to join us we matched what Madrid were offering RVN but I doubt very much we'd do that now.

 

[finneh]

I think it's pretty obvious that there has been a shift in the transfer policy. We have never competed with Madrid for the absolute most expensive signings, but since the start of the financial downturn of Italian clubs (c. 2000) we've always competed with everyone else in terms of what we've been willing to pay.

If you discard Madrid I can't think of a single team that outspent us during that period.

Transfers > £15m from 2000-2005

Bayern Munich: None
Barcelona: Overmars (£25m), Saviola (£20m), Ronaldinho (£22m), Eto'o (£17m)
Inter: Toldo (£16m), Crespo (£23m)
Milan: Inzaghi (£17m), Costa (£26m), Nesta (£22m)
Juventus: Buffon (£15m), Nedved (£29m), Emerson (£22m)
Man Utd: Ferdinand (£27.5m), Rooney (£27m), Veron (£28m), RVN (£19m)

Obviously all those fees won't be 100% accurate because of exchange rates etc but you get the idea. Discounting Madrid, Manchester United were willing to pay as much if not more than anyone else.

Nowadays a fee like £50m for Neymar, £40m for Aguero, £38m for Hazard or £42.5m for Ozil is something we don't seem to be willing to compete with.

 

[Rood]

But we are desperate in midfield and have been for quite a while. Players that are identified should be brought in, not argue over a couple of million here and there. I think its already been said was Rio worth £30 million at the time? no but it turned out to be a great investment because we over payed to bring him in and he's given us years of service. Thats something as a football club you have to do to push on. It can't always be about value, sometimes for the very best players you have to over pay. I think at the time Ozil was in Germany we were very slow to move and if we had moved quicker we could have got him by paying the wages he was asking. We have to give players a fair chance to join us we matched what Madrid were offering RVN but I doubt very much we'd do that now.

I agree that we have needed a midfielder, but in that time we have spent large amounts on other areas of the squad so it is not down to lack of cash, it is because Fergie didnt find the one he wanted or didnt agree that it was a priority. Even then you shouldnt forget the large amounts we paid for Anderson and Hargreaves so cash was spent but it didnt work out.

The second half of your post is all just speculation on your part - this is not the transfer forum, stick to facts please.

But basically, I dont agree at all with your view that we should overpay for players.

 

[Bestie07]

I think it's pretty obvious that there has been a shift in the transfer policy. We have never competed with Madrid for the absolute most expensive signings, but since the start of the financial downturn of Italian clubs (c. 2000) we've always competed with everyone else in terms of what we've been willing to pay.

If you discard Madrid I can't think of a single team that outspent us during that period.

Transfers > £15m from 2000-2005

Bayern Munich: None
Barcelona: Overmars (£25m), Saviola (£20m), Ronaldinho (£22m), Eto'o (£17m)
Inter: Toldo (£16m), Crespo (£23m)
Milan: Inzaghi (£17m), Costa (£26m), Nesta (£22m)
Juventus: Buffon (£15m), Nedved (£29m), Emerson (£22m)
Man Utd: Ferdinand (£27.5m), Rooney (£27m), Veron (£28m), RVN (£19m)

Obviously all those fees won't be 100% accurate because of exchange rates etc but you get the idea. Discounting Madrid, Manchester United were willing to pay as much if not more than anyone else.

Nowadays a fee like £50m for Neymar, £40m for Aguero, £38m for Hazard or £42.5m for Ozil is something we don't seem to be willing to compete with.

And these fees are actually a much much smaller percentage of our profits than the amounts we paid all those years ago! The glazer plan has been this from the beginning, keep the squad in a good shape so that the money keeps coming in, keep the wage bill around the 50% mark, throw a small percentage of the other 50 on transfers but don't go the extra mile for a potentially special player, get super rich.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

The midfield issue under Fergie is what it is - a bit strange, idiosyncratic on the old man's part. I don't think it's useable in this particular context at all. Fergie's "failure" (that's a bloody relative term in his particular case) to sign a top class CM is down to several factors. He was looking for someone special - and he believed he could manage alright enough with what he had (he was largely right). It's not about the money, really.

But, speaking of CMs, the Glazers and Bayern Munich - as many have done recently in this thread - a case in point is the Martinez transfer. What Bayern did there was simple: They identified a target and they paid a large amount of money to get him. Pure and simple. Now, many would say this is precisely the sort of thing we don't do these days - post Glazer. We did it just before they took over - when we bought Rooney. We did it before that too, when we bought Rio. And before that as well - when we bought Keano. These were all big transfers, big as they get in the context - young players, up and coming, top of the line - that we went for because we were sure they were going to turn out great, nevermind the money. If we can agree on that - we can surely admit that there has been a change? No? To me, there has. And I find it legitimate to ask - as I have done before - whether the Glazers would've sanctioned any of these signings.

I'm not saying the old plc, had it rolled on, would've made us snap up Martinez (again - I think he is a relevant example), or made us more competitive in the market given all the sugar daddies and whathaveya - but the Glazer apologists have a tendency to make it out as though we've always been frugal and cautious, and that nothing has really changed in this regard. And I don't think that's entirely true - in fact, it obviously isn't. If they hadn't given Fergie the means to pay his squad - as squad regarded, and Fergie was a squad man, as we all know - a more than decent salary, the whole thing would've stranded sooner than you can say "nae doobt abou' it", but that doesn't mean Fergie wouldn't have benefited from having a greater spending power when pursing individual targets; players in the Keane, Rio, Rooney bracket.

 

[Rood]

I think it's pretty obvious that there has been a shift in the transfer policy. We have never competed with Madrid for the absolute most expensive signings, but since the start of the financial downturn of Italian clubs (c. 2000) we've always competed with everyone else in terms of what we've been willing to pay.

If you discard Madrid I can't think of a single team that outspent us during that period.

Transfers > £15m from 2000-2005

Bayern Munich: None
Barcelona: Overmars (£25m), Saviola (£20m), Ronaldinho (£22m), Eto'o (£17m)
Inter: Toldo (£16m), Crespo (£23m)
Milan: Inzaghi (£17m), Costa (£26m), Nesta (£22m)
Juventus: Buffon (£15m), Nedved (£29m), Emerson (£22m)
Man Utd: Ferdinand (£27.5m), Rooney (£27m), Veron (£28m), RVN (£19m)

Obviously all those fees won't be 100% accurate because of exchange rates etc but you get the idea. Discounting Madrid, Manchester United were willing to pay as much if not more than anyone else.

Nowadays a fee like £50m for Neymar, £40m for Aguero, £38m for Hazard or £42.5m for Ozil is something we don't seem to be willing to compete with.

Well I think if Fabregas had wanted to come then you would have seen us pay £40m+ and break our record.

BTW You havent included a club like Lazio who were one of the biggest spenders at that time, there are probably others who dont come to mind - the list of biggest spending clubs has changed a lot over the years. But anyway those stats are very selective and dont show a lot on their own, even worse than net spend stats!

Anyway I actually agree that there has been a shift in transfer policy over time, I mean it is obvious that Fergie decided to target more young players (something that many clubs are now copying) plus he seemed to make a decision to go for squad depth. The quality vs quantity discussion - it does seem like Fergie prefered to buy 3 players for £15m rather than splash out on one big signing. It is not a cheap option and costs the same in the end - it means we have a deep and strong squad but maybe our First XI is not as great on paper, it is not necessarily something I agree with but it gave us success so why complain.

It seems most people's complaints are not really about how much is spent, it is more that they just want a 'marquee' signing - I can kind of understand that. Fabregas would have fit that bill but unfortunately decided to stay, I reckon that efforts will be made to sign someone like that but now we will have to wait until next summer.

 

[finneh]

Well I think if Fabregas had wanted to come then you would have seen us pay £40m+ and break our record.

BTW You havent included a club like Lazio who were one of the biggest spenders at that time, there are probably others who dont come to mind - the list of biggest spending clubs has changed a lot over the years. But anyway those stats are very selective and dont show a lot on their own, even worse than net spend stats!

Anyway I actually agree that there has been a shift in transfer policy over time, I mean it is obvious that Fergie decided to target more young players (something that many clubs are now copying) plus he seemed to make a decision to go for squad depth. The quality vs quantity discussion - it does seem like Fergie prefered to buy 3 players for £15m rather than splash out on one big signing. It is not a cheap option and costs the same in the end - it means we have a deep and strong squad but maybe our First XI is not as great on paper, it is not necessarily something I agree with but it gave us success so why complain.

It seems most people's complaints are not really about how much is spent, it is more that they just want a 'marquee' signing - I can kind of understand that. Fabregas would have fit that bill but unfortunately decided to stay, I reckon that efforts will be made to sign someone like that but now we will have to wait until next summer.

Lazio's spend was actually late 90's mainly. I think Mendieta was their sole large purchase 2000 onward (around £33m). Can't really think of any other big purchasers around that time. I think people genuinely forget that apart from Real Madrid, United were bigger players in the transfer market than anyone.

The fact is pro-rata we are spending similarly on wages, but around a fifth in terms of transfer fee's. It isn't that we are buying 3 £15m players instead of a £45m one. It is that we are buying a £15m player instead of a £45m one. We always signed squad players, we just additionally signed World Class ones.

 

[Rood]

Lazio's spend was actually late 90's mainly. I think Mendieta was their sole large purchase 2000 onward (around £33m). Can't really think of any other big purchasers around that time. I think people genuinely forget that apart from Real Madrid, United were bigger players in the transfer market than anyone.

The fact is pro-rata we are spending similarly on wages, but around a fifth in terms of transfer fee's. It isn't that we are buying 3 £15m players instead of a £45m one. It is that we are buying a £15m player instead of a £45m one. We always signed squad players, we just additionally signed World Class ones.

And we still sign top players when we need to - did you miss the arrival of RvP?
Anyway I would argue that Veron was the only World Class player we ever signed in the past (plenty went on to become World Class after we bought them), but then you start getting into discussions of what exactly World Class means and thats a whole other thread.
The idea that we were bigger players than everyone except Real is complete bollocks - your selective list of transfers does not show the big picture of what was going on at the time.

and Crespo is down as a world record transfer to Lazio (although it was a cash+players deal so I can see why you might miss it), in fact it was the last one not to be set by Real. Apart from Shearer, English club have not even been close for a while now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_football_transfer_record

Plus you seem unwilling to accept that we have a massive squad compared to most of our rivals - just look at the players who arent even making it onto the bench at the moment, no one can compare.

 

[Rood]

now I am not a big fan of net spend stats (as I dont think it shows that much unless you factor in wages) but many seem fascinated by them so here is a PM I got earlier from a newbie ...

Sorry for the PM but the idiocy of the Glazer thread by some people makes you question how much they're really following what's going on.

Like how "net spend" is used as an argument as to how horrible they are. Net spend last three years under the PLC was £20.5m per season on average. Last three years under the Glazers it's about £40m - as good as double.

Four of our top five "net spends" per summer have come under the Glazers. We've spent £146m in these last three years with the most significant departure in terms of transfer value in that time being John O'Shea at £4.5m.

All this is without even getting into the fact people believe the those who between 2001-2005 managed to increase commercial revenue in four years by an average of 1.5% a year would suddenly have been able to treble it in eight years!

 

[KingMinger22]

I think it's just ridiculous tht you constantly discount the figure of net spend as a measure of how modestly we have actually invested in improving the squad under the Glazers ownership.

Not only is our net spend extremely low, it is horrendously lower than it was in terms of percentage of profits compared to the years leading up to the leveraged buy out.

Wages have been steady in terms of turnover, yes. We pay far less than a handful of others but we also haven't attempted to cut costs here post PLC. That said, our below market wage offers have cost us many signings as has been widely documented.

Rood - when you use the term "marquee" player, it seems like you are referring to any signing that would be judged as top quality. What exactly is wrong then in wanting "marquee" signings at a club of United's stature. I also don't understand your criticism of Real Madrid's policy if signing the best, most exciting players in the world. They act like clowns at times but the fringe players they sign have more talent than we seemingly are able to compete for in the last few years.

RVP is the one and only exception to this policy and look how that is working out. Who would have guessed "marquee" signings can inspire and deliver trophies and entertainment.

 

[Rood]

I think it's just ridiculous tht you constantly discount the figure of net spend as a measure of how modestly we have actually invested in improving the squad under the Glazers ownership.

Not only is our net spend extremely low, it is horrendously lower than it was in terms of percentage of profits compared to the years leading up to the leveraged buy out.

Wages have been steady in terms of turnover, yes. We pay far less than a handful of others but we also haven't attempted to cut costs here post PLC. That said, our below market wage offers have cost us many signings as has been widely documented.

Rood - when you use the term "marquee" player, it seems like you are referring to any signing that would be judged as top quality. What exactly is wrong then in wanting "marquee" signings at a club of United's stature. I also don't understand your criticism of Real Madrid's policy if signing the best, most exciting players in the world. They act like clowns at times but the fringe players they sign have more talent than we seemingly are able to compete for in the last few years.

RVP is the one and only exception to this policy and look how that is working out. Who would have guessed "marquee" signings can inspire and deliver trophies and entertainment.

Well as the post above shows, our net spend recently has actually been quite high but still I already explained to you why I dont think it is a good indicator in this post: https://www.redcafe.net/threads/all...d-club-finances.280859/page-301#post-14256823 Feel free to respond to that or shut the feck up about it.

And I dont have any problem in wanting 'marquee' players, Ive said several times in this thread that I think we need to cut the size of the squad and focus on a bit more quality over quantity.
However, they must come at the right price and be the players who want to play for United, I dont want any of these mercenaries who just look for the biggest pay packet - they can feck off to Monaco or Anzi or whichever other joke club is throwing cash around until the owner gets bored.

I slag off Real's transfer policy because they are the prime example of why spunking cash in the transfer market is not the route to success - every year they spend insane amounts on players but what have they acheived recently? Certainly far less than us - they havent even managed 1 appearance in a CL final in over 10 years - meanwhile we have been in 3. So Real Madrid may well be top of your transfer muppet league but it means very little unless it leads to success and trophies in the leagues that really matter.

 

[ravelston]

Agree on Ozil, his loss joining Madrid not ours. But the point which you oh so gloriously continue to ignore is that for the first and only time in our history, just prior to the takeover, we had reached a point where we could compete with every football team in the world for players. We were breaking our transfer record every year, buying a defender for £30m! I refuse to believe that the same person who saw it fit to spend the equivalent of our entire profits on transfers before the takeover felt that it was wise to continue to ignore the weaknesses in the squad. Yes, we have been successful, but had our finances been the way they were a decade ago, we'd have tried to make a step up quality wise, which we haven't, and which we should have been capable of if not for the debt.

Given that over 50% of the aggregate fees for Rooney and Ronaldo remained unpaid at the time of the takeover, and making allowance for the significant step down in media revenues that impacted us in 2005 and 2006, I would respectfully suggest that your primary thesis is bullshit. And that's without recognising that, under the PLC's 50% salary cap, revenues in 2005 and 2006 would not have been sufficient to pay the players we actually bought in those years - I guess that would make it double bullshit.

 

[ravelston]

now I am not a big fan of net spend stats (as I dont think it shows that much unless you factor in wages) but many seem fascinated by them so here is a PM I got earlier from a newbie ...

Plugsy said: ↑

Sorry for the PM but the idiocy of the Glazer thread by some people makes you question how much they're really following what's going on.​

​

Like how "net spend" is used as an argument as to how horrible they are. Net spend last three years under the PLC was £20.5m per season on average. Last three years under the Glazers it's about £40m - as good as double.​

​

Four of our top five "net spends" per summer have come under the Glazers. We've spent £146m in these last three years with the most significant departure in terms of transfer value in that time being John O'Shea at £4.5m.​

All this is without even getting into the fact people believe the those who between 2001-2005 managed to increase commercial revenue in four years by an average of 1.5% a year would suddenly have been able to treble it in eight years!​

​

​

That's being kind to the PLC commercial operation. In 1999 our commercial revenues were a little over £46m; in 2004 (6 years later) they were a little over £45m - that's two years after the Nike and Vodafone deals. The chairman's letter in the 2004 Annual Report made clear that our commercial efforts were considered to be on target. Clueless. He also reiterated our commitment to the 50% salary cap and our intention to ensure that we treat our fans as customers and run the football club as a business. [Edit: You didn't think those were "Glazerisms" did you?]

 

[Redjazz]

​

That's being kind to the PLC commercial operation. In 1999 our commercial revenues were a little over £46m; in 2004 (6 years later) they were a little over £45m - that's two years after the Nike and Vodafone deals. The chairman's letter in the 2004 Annual Report made clear that our commercial efforts were considered to be on target. Clueless. He also reiterated our commitment to the 50% salary cap and our intention to ensure that we treat our fans as customers and run the football club as a business. [Edit: You didn't think those were "Glazerisms" did you?]

What was the margin on the merchandising operation pre Nike?

 

[ravelston]

I'm not sure why the buying spree of 2000-2004 is being held up as an example of what we should be doing. The result was our least successful team of the Premiership era. By the CL final in 2008 only 3 of the 22 players purchased in that period were still in or around the team. To put it another way, the Glazers allowed SAF to dump almost all of that expensively assembled talent and rebuild the team - a necessary precursor to our 3 CL finals in 4 years. Do you really believe that the PLC would have sanctioned that - I'm inclined to believe that SAF would have been shown the door at that point, an action that a good number on the Caf at that time would have approved of.

 

[ravelston]

What was the margin on the merchandising operation pre Nike?

Good question - I don't have a good answer. I can cherry pick and say that "Other Operating Expenses" was £36m in 2000 and the same in 2003, but that would ignore the £41m in 2001 and the £34m in 2004. Having observed that, the extent to which the expenses of the merchandising operation contributed to Other Operating Expenses is purely a guess - we have no way of knowing what those savings might have been or if there were other expenses associated with the Nike contract. We do know that the head count explicitly allocated to Merchandising was reduced to zero over the 2001-03 period, but again we have no idea of the number or cost of the employees managing the contract subsequently. A final point is that I'm assuming that the revenues quoted are net of the cost of goods sold - there's no explicit recognition of such costs in the financial statements.

 

[Redjazz]

Good question - I don't have a good answer. I can cherry pick and say that "Other Operating Expenses" was £36m in 2000 and the same in 2003, but that would ignore the £41m in 2001 and the £34m in 2004. Having observed that, the extent to which the expenses of the merchandising operation contributed to Other Operating Expenses is purely a guess - we have no way of knowing what those savings might have been or if there were other expenses associated with the Nike contract. We do know that the head count explicitly allocated to Merchandising was reduced to zero over the 2001-03 period, but again we have no idea of the number or cost of the employees managing the contract subsequently. A final point is that I'm assuming that the revenues quoted are net of the cost of goods sold - there's no explicit recognition of such costs in the financial statements.

A good question deserves a good answer Master ravelston, not an elaboration on what you don't know.
Some merchandising staff were transferred, some were let go and about 50 went to MUML, A Nike subsidiary. (Nike carry those costs and only impact us by way of profit share.)
Cost of goods sold were included in cost of sales; this item was removed from the accounts post 2002.

With the handover, we exchanged a relatively low margin merchandising stream for a high margin Nike income stream. The fact that the margin is much lower is implicit in the Nike transaction: the club replaced the Umbro sponsorship deal worth around 9m(?) yearly plus a merchandising operation typically generating 20+m pa in revenue (and probably some royalty income as well) for a contract paying 21m with staged increments. Assuming an uplift on the kit sponsorship part of the deal, what does that say for the old merchandising margin? And therefore what does it say about your incessant and oft unsolicited claim that the old plc experienced no (even negative) commercial growth in the period from '99 to 2005?
You need to compare like with like (just as you would if comparing our commercial income with Bayern's) to get at the underlying growth. You also need to allow for a reallocation of some catering income.

Anyhows, enlighten us with an educated guess as to the merchandising margin so we can rework the plc's growth rate- I'm sure it will be modest compared to the 16% pa achieved since, but certainly not zero.

 

[finneh]

And we still sign top players when we need to - did you miss the arrival of RvP?
Anyway I would argue that Veron was the only World Class player we ever signed in the past (plenty went on to become World Class after we bought them), but then you start getting into discussions of what exactly World Class means and thats a whole other thread.
The idea that we were bigger players than everyone except Real is complete bollocks - your selective list of transfers does not show the big picture of what was going on at the time.

and Crespo is down as a world record transfer to Lazio (although it was a cash+players deal so I can see why you might miss it), in fact it was the last one not to be set by Real. Apart from Shearer, English club have not even been close for a while now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_football_transfer_record

Plus you seem unwilling to accept that we have a massive squad compared to most of our rivals - just look at the players who arent even making it onto the bench at the moment, no one can compare.

I stated previously that RVP was an exception due to his contract situation. In any other scenario he'd have cost at least £40-45m and we would have been out of the running. Fortunately for us we were in the very rare situation of having a player who only wanted to join us and whose contract was expiring. Crespo may have been c.£10m more expensive, dependent on valuations of player's exchanged etc. However the fact remains that if you discount Real Madrid, out of the top 5 record transfer fee's, United held 3 of them.

As a comparison to nowadays it'd be like us having purchased 3 out of Ibrahimovich, Neymar, Falcao, Hulk or Ozil in the last 5 years. Obviously going from this to not even the top 4 in England is a big difference. This isn't necessarily a bad thing and Fergie may have had the money and just been stuck in but it does show a marked shift towards value and to argue otherwise is quite bizarre.

In terms of the overall squad I wouldn't say it is bigger than our main rivals? Would you? Every top team in World Football now has a full squad of good players (25+) and we are no different. The fact that Chelsea have loaned out Courtois, Lukaku, Moses, Romeu and Marin, all of which would get into our squad of 25 is testament to that.

 

[Rood]

It is not so rare to have players who only want to come to us - I always say that I only want those type of players, if others go elsewhere because they offer more money then that is their loss as far as I am concerned.
The whole situation with players going for under market value due to contract is a relatively new thing and is another reason why I dont think net spend is a true reflection of squad quality. I do think we are specifically targeting that type of player (RvP, Young, Kagawa, Owen come to mind) but then I am sure that many clubs are also trying to do that because it makes financial sense.

Fergie was always in search of value, I dont see that it was a recent thing - the majority of his buys were about 'potential' and then every now and again that was supplemented with a big budget acquisition.
and what do you mean by 'not even the top 4 in England'? Clearly we are are one of the biggest spenders domestically, only the sugardaddies at Chelsea and City invest more in the squad.

Yes I do think we have a deeper squad than others. Take our last match for example; we have Anderson, Young, Zaha, Evans, Fabio, Buttner (and others) not even making it on the bench despite being fit. That is £50m+ worth of players right there - we also have a few injured and several very exciting players out on loan (some also cost several million each). It all adds up and makes a big financial impact, particularly on the wage side of things - as I keep saying, I would actually prefer more focus on quality over quantity.