ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
How will the US Govt Shutdown affect us? If unresolved by 17th of this month treasury report indicates widespread credit freeze, default on Treasury bonds and a potential stock market crash.

Are Glazers liquid enough to withstand this? Can they get creditors support?
How will a potential stock market crash affect us?
 
Absolute Fruit Cake said:
How will the US Govt Shutdown affect us? If unresolved by 17th of this month treasury report indicates widespread credit freeze, default on Treasury bonds and a potential stock market crash.

Are Glazers liquid enough to withstand this? Can they get creditors support?
How will a potential stock market crash affect us?
Click to expand...

None of this has much effect on us as a football club, I suppose it might impact the share price but even that is nothing for us to worry about really
 
Aren't we registered in Caymans Island anyway?
 
I tend to discount Net Spend because it seemed to be a figure that gained popularity only after Ronaldo was sold which lowered ours quite a bit. Also, since the transfers are funded from club revenues and not from outside investment from the Glazers it is incorrect to use it as a measure of their investment in the club. It does not represent an investment in the club in any way shape or form.

If a club spends 30mil to buy a player that is 30mil they have spent regardless of whether or not they have taken in cash from selling other players. They are still sending 30mil to someone else, that they could have kept in the clubs accounts or used for something else.
 
Rood said:
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.
Click to expand...

I meant it is very rare to have a World Class player come available who only wants to join Man Utd. For the likes of Owen, Young and Kagawa, United were the best club they could realistically join and the best income they could earn. Obviously if you have a choice of Liverpool and Man Utd (such as Young), you'll pick United; that's not a show of loyalty as much as common sense.

In terms of the top 4 I meant willingness to pay above a certain level. Four clubs have been willing to pay £35m+ for what they see as potentially World Class player's; United are not one of them.

I don't see how Anderson, Young, Zaha, Evans, Fabio and Buttner are any different to:

Chelsea: Courtois, Lukaku, Marin, Moses, Romeu, Kakuta, Ba, De Bruyne, Bertrand who were all either sent on loan or have missed several match day squads (as have Luiz/Mata)

Likewise City: Sinclair, Barry, Guidetti, Clichy, Dimichelis, Boyata, Rodwell

I really don't see how our squad is so deep in your mind. We have between 20 and 25 players who can do a job in the first team, just like most top clubs. The only difference is that at Chelsea; Young, Buttner, Anderson, Zaha and Fabio would probably have been shipped off on loan. Likewise I can't imagine any of those players making the bench at Munich, Real or Barcelona.
 
finneh said:
In terms of the top 4 I meant willingness to pay above a certain level. Four clubs have been willing to pay £35m+ for what they see as potentially World Class player's; United are not one of them.
Click to expand...

So again it seems that your main issue is just that you want a marquee signing - this isnt really about investment in the squad at all because clearly we are way ahead of Arsenal and Liverpool regardless of the fact that their record purchase is higher than ours.

and you have not compared like with like on the squads - Im talking about players in current squad, not loan signings as they are usually off the wage bill.
 
Rood said:
So again it seems that your main issue is just that you want a marquee signing - this isnt really about investment in the squad at all because clearly we are way ahead of Arsenal and Liverpool regardless of the fact that their record purchase is higher than ours.

and you have not compared like with like on the squads - Im talking about players in current squad, not loan signings as they are usually off the wage bill.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about settling for second tier player's rather than spending the extra £15-20m required to secure the best talent. This is the shift in our policy. A shift to taking more chances on youth and mid table player's in the hope that they shine and we get a bargain. Of course the Rooney, Veron, Rio, RVN's of this world are somewhat "marquee" in terms of cost, because it is very rare to get a proven top class player on the cheap.

My point was that I don't think Young, Buttner, Zaha, Fabio or Anderson would get on Chelsea or City's bench (perhaps Evans would).

In their last games Chelsea had Eto'o, Willian, Cahill, Schwarzer, Hazard, Essien, Azpilicueta - who would those player's replace on Chelsea's bench?

City had Richards, Navas, Pantilimon, Nasri, Dzeko, Clichy, Nastasic - again who would those 6 player's displace?

Player's that can't get onto the bench at Man Utd, also wouldn't get on the bench at City, Chelsea, Madrid, Bayern or Barcelona.
 
Im suprised that you dont accept that we have a bigger and deeper squad than our rivals - I assumed that this was just a generally accepted point as people talk all the time about how we have the deepest squad but probably lack a bit of quality in the First XI (see the Quality vs Quantity thread).

A discussion about whether a certain player would make another team's bench is not the point, it is about looking beyond the bench to see how deep the squad is.
City actually have quite a thin squad at the moment - their bench is pretty strong but look beyond that and there is very little there (Rodwell, Boyata, Lopes and then I dont even know who else). Chelsea are stronger with the likes of Bertrand, Van Ginkel, De Bryne etc. Arsenal have no squad depth at all with the kind of youngsters we send out on loan filling bench places for them.
None of them can compare to what we have in depth - even if you dont rate the likes of Anderson, Young or Zaha - you cant deny that they all cost a good chunk of money and we could have had a top class signing in their place.
 
Rood said:
Im suprised that you dont accept that we have a bigger and deeper squad than our rivals - I assumed that this was just a generally accepted point as people talk all the time about how we have the deepest squad but probably lack a bit of quality in the First XI (see the Quality vs Quantity thread).

A discussion about whether a certain player would make another team's bench is not the point, it is about looking beyond the bench to see how deep the squad is.
City actually have quite a thin squad at the moment - their bench is pretty strong but look beyond that and there is very little there (Rodwell, Boyata, Lopes and then I dont even know who else). Chelsea are stronger with the likes of Bertrand, Van Ginkel, De Bryne etc. Arsenal have no squad depth at all with the kind of youngsters we send out on loan filling bench places for them.
None of them can compare to what we have in depth - even if you dont rate the likes of Anderson, Young or Zaha - you cant deny that they all cost a good chunk of money and we could have had a top class signing in their place.
Click to expand...


I agree re: Arsenal, they have quite a thin squad, as do the teams they have competed with for fourth over the last few years. The top level teams though I feel are roughly on a par with us.

I think our definition of "squad" is probably slightly different. Mine is the best 14-15 player's outside of your "first XI" that are available at the start of the season. When we are talking about investment discounting player's like Marin, Lukaku etc seems disingenuous.

City: Dzeko, Garcia, Navas, Jovetic, Clichy, Dimichelis, Rodwell, Richards, Guidetti, Pantilimon, Milner, Lescott, Barry, Sinclair
Chelsea: Ba, Willian, Essien, Cahill, Lampard, Torres, Azpilicueta, Bertrand, Schurrle, De Bruyne, Romeu, Lukaku, Moses, Marin, Courtois
United: Welbeck, Hernandez, Jones, Smalling, Fabio, Young, Januzaj, Giggs, Zaha, Buttner, Fellaini, Lindegaard, Ferdinand, Kagawa, Anderson

I would say squad strength Chelsea are slightly ahead of United who are ahead of Man City by a bigger margin who are much stronger than Arsenal. I think because City and Chelsea have a much more consistent first XI, whereas United change much more often it gives a slightly skewed view; basically "Young plays 30 times a season vs Marin/Barry who've been shipped off on loan, the former must be better". Obviously if you discount loanee's then it isn't really a fair comparison in my opinion. Chelsea/City choose to rotate their team less and therefore choose to let quality player's go out on loan and if Fabio/Young/Zaha/Welbeck were on their roster they'd be out on loan.

I guess it's a relatively pointless difference of opinion though.
 
finneh said:
I'm talking about settling for second tier player's rather than spending the extra £15-20m required to secure the best talent. This is the shift in our policy. A shift to taking more chances on youth and mid table player's in the hope that they shine and we get a bargain. Of course the Rooney, Veron, Rio, RVN's of this world are somewhat "marquee" in terms of cost, because it is very rare to get a proven top class player on the cheap.

My point was that I don't think Young, Buttner, Zaha, Fabio or Anderson would get on Chelsea or City's bench (perhaps Evans would).

In their last games Chelsea had Eto'o, Willian, Cahill, Schwarzer, Hazard, Essien, Azpilicueta - who would those player's replace on Chelsea's bench?

City had Richards, Navas, Pantilimon, Nasri, Dzeko, Clichy, Nastasic - again who would those 6 player's displace?

Player's that can't get onto the bench at Man Utd, also wouldn't get on the bench at City, Chelsea, Madrid, Bayern or Barcelona.
Click to expand...


Evans would start for either of those teams.

Fabio would make the bench at either of them

Zaha is the most exciting young English footballer around at the moment, but due to both of those clubs having no youth policy he wouldn't be utilized at Chelsea or City, but that's more of a poor reflection on them than on us.
 
finneh said:
I agree re: Arsenal, they have quite a thin squad, as do the teams they have competed with for fourth over the last few years. The top level teams though I feel are roughly on a par with us.

I think our definition of "squad" is probably slightly different. Mine is the best 14-15 player's outside of your "first XI" that are available at the start of the season. When we are talking about investment discounting player's like Marin, Lukaku etc seems disingenuous.

City: Dzeko, Garcia, Navas, Jovetic, Clichy, Dimichelis, Rodwell, Richards, Guidetti, Pantilimon, Milner, Lescott, Barry, Sinclair
Chelsea: Ba, Willian, Essien, Cahill, Lampard, Torres, Azpilicueta, Bertrand, Schurrle, De Bruyne, Romeu, Lukaku, Moses, Marin, Courtois
United: Welbeck, Hernandez, Jones, Smalling, Fabio, Young, Januzaj, Giggs, Zaha, Buttner, Fellaini, Lindegaard, Ferdinand, Kagawa, Anderson

I would say squad strength Chelsea are slightly ahead of United who are ahead of Man City by a bigger margin who are much stronger than Arsenal. I think because City and Chelsea have a much more consistent first XI, whereas United change much more often it gives a slightly skewed view; basically "Young plays 30 times a season vs Marin/Barry who've been shipped off on loan, the former must be better". Obviously if you discount loanee's then it isn't really a fair comparison in my opinion. Chelsea/City choose to rotate their team less and therefore choose to let quality player's go out on loan and if Fabio/Young/Zaha/Welbeck were on their roster they'd be out on loan.

I guess it's a relatively pointless difference of opinion though.
Click to expand...

Ye it is a different definition of the 'squad' - you are looking at the first 25 or so but Im looking further because we have so much depth. It could be argued that we dont really need that much depth and the squad is too bloated.
I personally discount the loan players (from a financial perspective they are usually off the wage bill and also often there is a fee involved for bigger names like Lukaku), but if you want to include them then you have to include ours as well and they arent on your lists.

I dont agree that the likes of Welbeck or even Young would be out on loan at City/Chelsea but ye we do start getting quite far off the point.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
Evans would start for either of those teams.

Fabio would make the bench at either of them

Zaha is the most exciting young English footballer around at the moment, but due to both of those clubs having no youth policy he wouldn't be utilized at Chelsea or City, but that's more of a poor reflection on them than on us.
Click to expand...

I think Evans should be starting for us alongside Vidic so I'd agree with you. Not sure about Fabio; has he proven himself more than Clichy, Bertrand or Azpulicueta (although I do rate him highly, he seems to be behind even Buttner in our pecking order)?

Zaha isn't being utilised at United. I think the only reason he isn't out on loan is to get to know the player's/training regimes at a top club. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he goes out on loan in January (particularly if we get knocked out of the Carling Cup).

Rood said:
Ye it is a different definition of the 'squad' - you are looking at the first 25 or so but Im looking further because we have so much depth. It could be argued that we dont really need that much depth and the squad is too bloated.
I personally discount the loan players (from a financial perspective they are usually off the wage bill and also often there is a fee involved for bigger names like Lukaku), but if you want to include them then you have to include ours as well and they arent on your lists.

I dont agree that the likes of Welbeck or even Young would be out on loan at City/Chelsea but ye we do start getting quite far off the point.
Click to expand...

Under almost every circumstance the first 25 are the only player's that will ever play, so I don't really see the value of including player's who won't. The reason I didn't include our loan player's is because they would be outside the 25 and therefore wouldn't play (whereas Lukaku or Moses for instance are obviously one of Chelsea's best 25 player's and would get games).

I really don't personally see a difference between Welbeck and Lukaku/Moses/Romeu or Young and Marin/Barry. In fact I'd argue United's strike force is stronger and so Welbeck will get less games at United than Lukaku for instance would at Chelsea. As an aside I think Welbeck would develop much quicker playing 90 minutes a week up front at Everton than warming our bench and playing out of position, presumably Mourinho's thought process.
 
finneh said:
Under almost every circumstance the first 25 are the only player's that will ever play, so I don't really see the value of including player's who won't. The reason I didn't include our loan player's is because they would be outside the 25 and therefore wouldn't play (whereas Lukaku or Moses for instance are obviously one of Chelsea's best 25 player's and would get games).

I really don't personally see a difference between Welbeck and Lukaku/Moses/Romeu or Young and Marin/Barry. In fact I'd argue United's strike force is stronger and so Welbeck will get less games at United than Lukaku for instance would at Chelsea. As an aside I think Welbeck would develop much quicker playing 90 minutes a week up front at Everton than warming our bench and playing out of position, presumably Mourinho's thought process.
Click to expand...

Dont agree on Welbeck at all - he is a vital part of our first team squad. Whereas Lukaku and Moses are clearly not in Jose's plans (although he may well regret that decision) and most importantly for this discussion, they are not on the Chelsea wage bill plus it is reported that Everton and Liverpool will have paid an extra loan fee to take them for a year. As far as I know, we dont charge a fee for our loanees as we are happy just to see them get gametime.

It is not actually true that it is only the first 25 who play - only 7 games into the season and already 25 different players have appeared for us, there will undoubtedly be others as the season goes on. And my whole point is that we have a bigger and deeper squad (which has a signicifant impact on the wage bill) so obviously you have to look past just comparing the first 25 (we have around 40 players with official squad numbers) - for example we have a 4/5 lads who are England U21s who you havent even mentioned and one or two could easily be in the first team squad in the near future.
 
Rood said:
Dont agree on Welbeck at all - he is a vital part of our first team squad. Whereas Lukaku and Moses are clearly not in Jose's plans (although he may well regret that decision) and most importantly for this discussion, they are not on the Chelsea wage bill plus it is reported that Everton and Liverpool will have paid an extra loan fee to take them for a year. As far as I know, we dont charge a fee for our loanees as we are happy just to see them get gametime.

It is not actually true that it is only the first 25 who play - only 7 games into the season and already 25 different players have appeared for us, there will undoubtedly be others as the season goes on. And my whole point is that we have a bigger and deeper squad (which has a signicifant impact on the wage bill) so obviously you have to look past just comparing the first 25 (we have around 40 players with official squad numbers) - for example we have a 4/5 lads who are England U21s who you havent even mentioned and one or two could easily be in the first team squad in the near future.
Click to expand...

I think your original point was that the club invests in having a bigger squad, rather than concentrating on marquee signings.

I disputed this (for the reasons previously stated) - our wage bill is lower than City and Chelsea's, which suggests that we aren't overly investing in this area instead of transfer fee's (as you seem to suggest). Likewise out transfer spend is tiny in comparison.

Overall this means we are competitive in terms of wages (50% of turnover as pre-Glazer days), but not competitive in terms of transfer fee's.

United a decade ago spent around 50% of turnover on wages and around 15% on transfers (e.g. as an example 2002/3 £175m turnover £85m wages £27m net transfer fee or 2001 £120m turnover £50m wages £29m transfer spend)

Over the past 8 years our turnover has been £2.22b (£173m + £210m + £256m + £278m + £286m + £331m + £320m + £363m), with wages at £1.06b (£96m + £92m + £121m + £123m + £132m + £153m + £162m + £180m) = 48% ratio (perfectly in line with previous)

At 15% dedicated to transfers (£330m) over the last 8 years the transfer budget available would be £330m (£42m per season) vs our current £135m (under £17m per season).

This is the key difference in our investment strategy - a change from around 15% turnover invested in transfers to around 6%.

It is obvious from the Glazer's point of view. You deduct this £200m from our current balance sheet (£71m cash in the bank pre-Fellaini) and we'd be nearly £150m in the red - bizarrely (or not) a similar figure to the bonds they have bought back using club funds.
 
finneh said:
I think your original point was that the club invests in having a bigger squad, rather than concentrating on marquee signings.

I disputed this (for the reasons previously stated) - our wage bill is lower than City and Chelsea's, which suggests that we aren't overly investing in this area instead of transfer fee's (as you seem to suggest). Likewise out transfer spend is tiny in comparison.
Click to expand...

Yes that is my major point - at last count our wage bill is almost the same as Chelsea's whereas Im sure most people would expect that the sugardaddies spent far more than us. We should get some more up to date figures soon so will be interesting to see the YOY change

Man City £202m
Chelsea £173m
Man Utd £162m
Arsenal £143m
Liverpool £119m
Spurs £90m

You have picked out random years to prove a point, there are seasons when we spent virtually nothing (2000 and 2003) so it is not a complete picture. I would actually be interested to see a proper analysis of turnover vs net spent for recent times vs pre turnover.
But anyway, I wouldnt dispute that we spend less of income on transfer fees as a %, but we are spending more in real terms (I think around £40m per season over last 3 years?) so the question is how much is enough?
 
Everyone is frustrated after the summer obviously.

We needed two or three top class additions but got no where and looked like clueless idiots. You're talking £40m plus for a top player in midfield in 2013. That should have bed our opening bid for Fabregas at the minimum.

The fans hoped four or five of the poor performers would be moved on to help fund this and free up the wage bill.

Maybe Moyes wanted to give them a fresh start but more likely no one wanted the like of Ando, Young, Valencia in light of their wages being to high for the sort of sized club that would be interested in them.

I suspect that we will have a relatively poor season and Moyes will hopefully sort things in the summer. I wouldn't be surprised if the Glazer's sanction a one-off £80m or so net spend this summer to get things back on track. We will have to push the boat out more to land targets because our recent record in the last five years in chasing our very top targets has been awful. Absolutely awful.
 
Forbes most valuable brands in sports is out:
  1. Real
  2. Yankees
  3. United
  4. Barcelona
  5. Dallas Cowboys
  6. Red Sox
  7. Dodgers
  8. Patriots
  9. Bayern
  10. Arsenal
I have it on flipboard, can't be arsed to work out how to link it.
 
antohan said:
Forbes most valuable brands in sports is out:
  1. Real
  2. Yankees
  3. United
  4. Barcelona
  5. Dallas Cowboys
  6. Red Sox
  7. Dodgers
  8. Patriots
  9. Bayern
  10. Arsenal
I have it on flipboard, can't be arsed to work out how to link it.
Click to expand...

Always a bit weird how they work these things about, but interesting to see Bayern in there - they have increased their profile massively in recent years. A bit suprising to see Arsenal ahead of others as well.

On a side note, I realise that anything from Forbes is going to be US-centric but without looking them up, I have absolutely no idea what city or sport the Patriots are from - surely they dont belong in this list.
 
Rood said:
Always a bit weird how they work these things about, but interesting to see Bayern in there - they have increased their profile massively in recent years. A bit suprising to see Arsenal ahead of others as well.

On a side note, I realise that anything from Forbes is going to be US-centric but without looking them up, I have absolutely no idea what city or sport the Patriots are from - surely they dont belong in this list.
Click to expand...


New England Patriots, NFL team, right?
i dunno really, but that's my first thought.
 
The Patriots are perennial contenders and have made the most playoffs a lot over the last decade with their Brady/Belichick QB-Coach combo. Brady's one of the biggest names in the sport and is one of the greatest QBs ever in the sport. Of course they belong there.
 
I_live_cement said:
It's one of the biggest brands in the NFL.

The Dodgers is a weird one though, isn't Baseball dying in the US?
Click to expand...
Seems not, there are three baseball teams on that list.

Also, much of their money is probably made up from merchandising, with people buying caps, shirts, hoodies with their logo on it, purely for the branding. Much like the Yankees.
 
Patriots are basically the Manchester United of American Football, they've been pretty dominant for a long time.
 
300m pounds over 13 years is the current deal I believe which equates to 23m pounds annually. In contrast, if this new figure is right, we'll get 60m pounds annually.
 
Rood said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wonder how long this kind of arrogance (Im not criticising you Rood or calling you arrogant, per se, it is an attitude about our football team and it has traditionally been totally justified in that context - what is the T shirt? "Not Arrogant, Just Better") will remain relevant or appropriate for us.

It is an attitude that has evolved among many of us, me included, as a result of our dominance. Now SAF has gone and we are competing with clubs that are genuinely considerably richer than us and have as much chance of winning trophies over the next 10 years as we do. Can we afford to say "if you dont want to come to us, your loss" any more? At some point, I predict, this attitude is going to look pretty ridiculous, when players we would have liked to sign are winning leagues with Chelsea, City and whoever else, while we watch on, helplessly shouting: "But we have HISTORY! Our history is BETTER THAT YOURS." Not sure the modern footballer cares as much about that to be honest. They want money and trophies.

I know people will say look at RVP, he wanted to come to us for less money. That proves the time I predict above is not upon us yet, and/or there are still players who have other criteria that are as important as money and trophies. Either that or RVP thought we were his best bet for trophies. I wonder whether he would make the same decision today, in the absence of SAF.
 
Skywarden said:
300m pounds over 13 years is the current deal I believe which equates to 23m pounds annually. In contrast, if this new figure is right, we'll get 60m pounds annually.
Click to expand...

303m over 13 yrs is the minimum guaranteed amount under the contract. The club also receives a share of the buisness' cumulative profits.

Annuals (Form 20-F) said:
During the 2012/13 season, we received £25.3 million, which reflects the minimum guaranteed amount. We also recognized an additional £12.8 million, which represents a proportion of the 50% cumulative profits due under the Nike agreement during the 2012/13 season as compared to the £8.4 million profit share we recognized during the 2011/12 season. Our retail, merchandising, apparel & product licensing revenue was £38.6 million, £33.8 million and £31.3 million for each of the years ended 30 June 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Click to expand...

38.6m Vs 60m may not be a valid comparison- The new deal might not mirror the current deal in terms of scope, etc.
 
Adebesi said:
I wonder how long this kind of arrogance (Im not criticising you Rood or calling you arrogant, per se, it is an attitude about our football team and it has traditionally been totally justified in that context - what is the T shirt? "Not Arrogant, Just Better") will remain relevant or appropriate for us.

It is an attitude that has evolved among many of us, me included, as a result of our dominance. Now SAF has gone and we are competing with clubs that are genuinely considerably richer than us and have as much chance of winning trophies over the next 10 years as we do. Can we afford to say "if you dont want to come to us, your loss" any more? At some point, I predict, this attitude is going to look pretty ridiculous, when players we would have liked to sign are winning leagues with Chelsea, City and whoever else, while we watch on, helplessly shouting: "But we have HISTORY! Our history is BETTER THAT YOURS." Not sure the modern footballer cares as much about that to be honest. They want money and trophies.

I know people will say look at RVP, he wanted to come to us for less money. That proves the time I predict above is not upon us yet, and/or there are still players who have other criteria that are as important as money and trophies. Either that or RVP thought we were his best bet for trophies. I wonder whether he would make the same decision today, in the absence of SAF.
Click to expand...

Well it is still relevant at the moment, but Moyes doesnt have the same pulling power as Fergie so I guess in that respect it is already diminished. Going forward it all depends how successful we are, as long as we qualify for the CL then I believe we still have an edge over others for 'footballing reasons' but you are right that it wont automatically last forever.
 
Redjazz said:
303m over 13 yrs is the minimum guaranteed amount under the contract. The club also receives a share of the buisness' cumulative profits.



38.6m Vs 60m may not be a valid comparison- The new deal might not mirror the current deal in terms of scope, etc.
Click to expand...


You are certainly right.
 
I would say that 'location' is a bigger factor than history for players deciding where to ply their trade.

Money and trophies are by far the most important though, of course.
 
Not sure if it's been mentioned but on 30 October we registered an 'Effectiveness order' which I think is what has to be registered and go through before the sale of shares are allowed. The last time we did this was immediately prior to the shares being offered.
 
First quarter results announced next Thursday.

With the (false) speculation a couple of weeks back on a new Nike deal you wonder if it was delayed to coincide with these results to make a double-whammy announcement e.g record quarter earnings plus new record sponsorship deal.
 
Plugsy said:
First quarter results announced next Thursday.

With the (false) speculation a couple of weeks back on a new Nike deal you wonder if it was delayed to coincide with these results to make a double-whammy announcement e.g record quarter earnings plus new record sponsorship deal.
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
I'm not sure how reliable this is, but it seems plausible:

PL-overseas-TV-income-13-16.jpg


If this is accurate it basically means that from next season the winners of the Premier League will receive c. £98m in TV revenue, with 20th place receiving c. £63m.

To put this into context across the board the money paid to clubs via TV revenue will have increased 63% across the board 12/13 season vs 14/15 season (lower clubs receiving c. £25m more, top few clubs receiving c. £35m more).

It also closes the gap between the top English clubs and Real Madrid/Barcelona who will "only" earn around £15-18m (exchange rate depending) more per season, despite their individually negotiated deals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.