That would be the absolute minimum. However, not actually winning anything significant over a relatively protracted period would have a detrimental effect on merchandising and even attendances as a degree of disillusionment setting in. To a very large extent it's all about actually winning. Revenues would suffer and the Glazer plan would be in serious jeopardy. Of course, Fergie is the key in the short term at least and he loves this sort of thing and relishes the challenge. The Glazers are very fortunate to have him as their team manager.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
That would be the absolute minimum. However, not actually winning anything significant over a relatively protracted period would have a detrimental effect on merchandising and even attendances as a degree of disillusionment setting in. To a very large extent it's all about actually winning. Revenues would suffer and the Glazer plan would be in serious jeopardy. Of course, Fergie is the key in the short term at least and he loves this sort of thing and relishes the challenge. The Glazers are very fortunate to have him as their team manager.
I'm not so sure about the winning thing. Just look at Arsenal. They are doing pretty god in the growing depratment despite haveing won feck all in the past five seasons.
Fact is the Glazers WILL NOT invest a single penny into the team anymore. There simply is no net spent anymore.
Fergie, of course, is the key. He is the most powerful manager ever in English football I rearly hope is official pro Glazer stance is just smoke and mirrors. I really want to believe that behind the scenes he is urging them to sell to a potent new owners. Make no mistakes: The power in world football i shifting and it's shifting fast. With the Glazers in charge we will not be competitive anyomore in two or three seasons.
We haven't had a net-spend of zero year after year though, far from it. Last summer we had a negative net spend after the sale of Ronaldo, but the year previous we broke the club's record net-spend when we signed Berbatov. Only once since the Glazer takeover have we had a negative net-spend, every other year our net-spend has been high. So how are you concluding that we now are going to have a net-spend of approximately zero year upon year when our past record under the Glazers would indicate differently?
Also, despite that, didn't you read a word of Rood's post above?
Yes you may be right although I have no idea what Arsenal's current financial position is. Most probably they continue to rely on Wenger's ability to pick out talented European youth plus a couple of locals who don't demand that much from the club's budget - relatively speaking at least. How much longer without a trophy before disenchantment sets in is another thing though.
I think with United, perhaps winning is more important given our history - particularly in the Fergie era - what is it, 35 trophies in 24 years ! Nonetheless, regular qualification for the ECL knockout stages might be enough over the next crucial four or five years. I still feel a continuation of the trophy haul is important, though
I don't think Fergie says anything to the Glazers about ownership. After all he's an employee, albeit a damned important one. He's not a sharholder nor a director so effectively it's none of his business. I think he genuinely feels comfortable with them. They've given him cash when he wanted it and maybe things are more tight right now, budget wise, but as discussed, Fergie doesn't mind that. It's a challenge to him.
Is that the net spend over the last few years Rood? i.e simply, income from players bought - income from players sold?
Actually that looks more like Gross spend, if that's the case, we spent a lot more in 2008 didn't we? Hargreaves, Anderson, Nani and the Tevez loan payment?
I think they're more to do gross-spend when taking into account addons, bonuses and installments, DF. Nani and that were actually signed in the summer of 2007, but their fees would probably not have been paid up-front in full so we don't see the full value of their transfer on that particular year's gross-spend figures.
HIGH? REALLY?
2005/2006 We hat a net spend of 19 Million pounds. Hardly earth shattering for a top team in transition.
2006/2007 we had a net spent of something around 5 Million pounds.
2009/10 We've had a NEGATIVE net spent of 62 Million pounds
2010/2011 Thus far we've had a net spent of 1 Million pounds
Manchester United - Player changes, player transfers - transfermarkt.at
PTME
you are either blind or stupid (or possibly both) - I just wrote a long post detailing why net spend is not a worthwhile indicator of how much is invested into our squad and yet you are still banging on about that - did you read my post?
you are either blind or stupid (or possibly both) - I just wrote a long post detailing why net spend is not a worthwhile indicator of how much is invested into our squad and yet you are still banging on about that - did you read my post?
It doesn't matter whether if is relevant or not. I just pointed out that Glazer apologist Cidermann is telling lies.
As you note this is basically a gross figure. From the bond prospectus:
"Transfer fees paid for players’ registrations are amortised over the period of employment contract executed with a player. Changes in amortisation of players’ registrations from year to year and period to period reflect additional transfer fees paid for the acquisition of players, the impact of contract extensions and the disposal of players registrations."
If you read my post above you will see that I believe we should completely ignore headline transfer numbers when assessing how much is spent on the squad on a yearly basis. Transfers nowadays are almost always done in installments with many add ons dependant on appearances, success, international caps etc.
Lets take Nani as an example. People generally understand that we bought him for £17m in summer 2007:
Nani shows United's £17m is well spent - Telegraph
However, it is likely that we only actually paid about half of that in 2007 with the rest paid over the next few years and the exact amount depending on how many games he played and what we won in that time.
Yeah, the key comparative number is 'football spend' = wages + transfer amortisations. On that basis your annual spend is much higher than it was five years ago.
Equally, income from players sold is not received all at once either. 13.75m for Foster and Tosic will no doubt be paid in instalments and maybe subject to other conditions.
Ronaldo was different, I presume. Cash upfront and no more, no matter how many trophies he helps RM win.
Ronaldo was different, I presume. Cash upfront and no more, no matter how many trophies he helps RM win.
Ridiculous.Indeed - we have of course discussed all this in the past but I thought it was a point worth reinforcing as we are currently in 'transfer muppet' season !
I notice you're conveniently skipping over two years: 07/08 in which, according to the website you linked, we had a net-spend of €62.3m, and 08/09, in which, again according to the site you linked, we spent net €37.8m.
So since 2005, according to your website, we've spent net...
05/06... €23.9m
06/07... €6.85m
07/08... €62.3m
08/09... €37.8m
09/10... -€76.2m
10/11... €1.5m so far
And you have the cheek to call me a fecking liar!
You're right to be suspicious of that site. Some of the figures are wildly out (i.e. the amount paid for Anderson, Nani) - they seem to have just used the headline "this is how much it COULD cost" figure.
We paid about £7-8m up front for Nani I believe.
Rood said:
Net spend is certainly not the only indicator of how much we've invested in the squad. You need to add that to the wage bill (which has remained right at the top of the PL - incidentally, so has Arsenal's despite their equally low net spend).
However looking at player amortisation is a very misleading way of trying to judge investment in the squad.
Amortisation only accounts for transfer fees (it's essentially a way of the club accounting for the value of its playing assets in transfer fee terms over the period of their contracts), and doesn't take into account the value of free transfers/players coming through the ranks and it takes little account of the real amount of income made by the club (what would have been Ronaldo's amortisation value when he was sold?).
And if you compare United's amortisation figures with other clubs post-Glazer they don't look that pretty. The figures above show that United's amortisation went up from £24m to £36m between 2007 and 2009. In that time it looks like* Liverpool's was around £32m and Spurs's went from £19m to £37.3m. Both clubs with vastly inferior income to our own.
I don't see what a discussion about amortisation brings to the table other than to muddy the waters and confuse people about our frankly piss-poor (in comparison with pre-2005) net spend. Wage bills, now that's a far better way if you want to defend the Glazers because United are still right up there.
* If I can be arsed I'll have a look at the D&T reports to check these figures.
I've just got home and had a proper look; it's all in Euros not Pounds, would explain the inflated fees.
Yes. And the figure for 2007 was around 105euro, which at the old exchange rate would equate to the £75m headline figure for that summer, which stated we paid £35m for Nani and Anderson, when the real figure was nearer £15m.
I still can't see why Net Spend is so bloody important to be honest. Surely it would only be important if the team had been dropping like a stone for the last few seasons and then you can say, "Here's one reason for it. Look at our Net Spend. We haven't been investing enough to maintain a competitive squad."
As this hasn't been the case, what is the point people are trying to prove?
As this hasn't been the case, what is the point people are trying to prove?
It's only important to spoilt muppet-babies and those trying to get the spoilt muppet-babies to hate Glazer. That's it.
Just pointing out the reality of life under £700m of debt. Ticket prices have to be increased, income has to be kept down.
We knew this of course from the leaked business plan back in 2005, but some on here have been slow to believe the reality. Hence we're STILL debating it.
Is that your reality of THE reality though?
THE reality is that we've been as competitive as ever despite the £700m debt.
THE reality is that Fergie says he has never been refused when he has wanted to buy a player.
THE reality is that we go into this season stronger than last season and perhaps even more so considering the weakening of some of our rivals who don't have £700m of debt to contend with.
I think you are neglecting to take into account that even with our debt, our turnover is so much higher than everyone else that it doesn't actually make that great a difference to our ability to compete with them.
Bollocks. The actual cash outflow may well have been £15m in the 2007/08 year but there was another c.£15m on top of that which had to be paid in the next two years. There was a further c.£7m on those two transfer which related to appearance/performance payments, most if not all will have been met by now.
The club's net cash spend on transfers between May 2005 to March 2010 was £57.5m. That figure is calculated by looking at the independently audited accounts in every year since the takeover. Not some shitty transfer league website. The club's independently audited accounts. The average annual net spend has therefore been £11.5m. Without the Ronaldo sale that increases to £27.5m. Take off half of the Ronaldo transfer fee and it would stand at £19.5m.
There has been no issue at all with a lack of transfer spending on players since the Glazers arrived. The gross spend on players has been £210m. The fact we've also sold a lot of players for good fees who on the whole we didn't want to keep is not something to be angry about.
This is true. And when you consider the corporation tax and dividends that would have been paid out under the PLC structure, as well as the increases in revenue which you can undoubtedly attribute to the Glazers, then the club is pretty much in exactly the same position as it would have been under the PLC in terms of cash available for wages and transfer spending.
It's the reality.
Yes. Thanks to Fergie and having two of the best players in the world.
That is certainly what has been said. You obviously believe it's a coincidence that since 2005 he's suddenly stopped being interested in the players and started talking about "value in the market".
Well football's all about opinions but I can't say I agree with this. I think we're increasingly relying on senior and frequently-injured players.
One of the reasons our turnover is so high is because we've increased ticket prices, introduced the ACS etc. Real issues for ST holders and regular matchgoers.
GCHQ said:
So not actually bollocks at all.
Oh no not your figures again. Jeez you won't give up will you. Yeah lets argue the cash position is the same but feck the balance sheet position. Yep great position to be in -
A = £100m cash
B = £100m cash and £700m debt
Under GCHQ maths A = B
I think it's more important for those fans who stump up their hard-earned week-in-week-out to support United.
Would they prefer their ST money to go to invest in the club they love or would they prefer it to be spent on interest payments so that the Glazers rather than their creditors own Manchester United?
Did you read the post I bumped the thread with? I would have preffered if you replied to that and addressed all the issues because it covers much of what you say here already.
The issues you mention about the amortisation of players' reg figures (not taking into account free transfers or players coming through the ranks) apply to your 'net spend' calculations as well but you always seem happy to roll those out!
I said very clearly that the amortisation figures are far from perfect and need to be looked at in conjunction with wages - seems you are in agreement on that at least.
However the point is that the amortisation figures are actually a very good indicators of exactly how much the club is spending on transfers - far better than the worthless net spend figures which are based on headline transfer prices which rarely reflect reality.
And the more general point that I am making is that there has been very significant investment on the squad under the Glazers, far more than people like yourself like to portray with misleading 'net spend' numbers.
I said in terms of cash available for wages and transfer spending. Do you really think the old PLC board would have taken on debt to finance spending on wages and transfer fees? Would they feck.
So The Glazers took on debt to spend on transfers which net was £57.5m over the 5 years.
We did not need to take on debt to finance our purchases prior to the Glazers.
So you have heard it here lads the Glazers took on debt to pay transfers and wages.
So not actually bollocks at all.
Yes, bollocks ralphie.
This is what you said:
''Which stated we paid £35m for Nani and Anderson, when the real figure was nearer £15m.''
We did pay £35m for Nani and Anderson (c.£37m in the end). Are you saying that you intended to include the further c.£20m that was paid out afer June 30 2008 for those two transfers in your figures for later years? I don't think you were.
I really never have a clue what Commandus is ever on about - never seems to understand the big picture and just goes on about meaningless side issues the whole time.
Really ruins any kind of proper debate.
Really ruins any kind of proper debate.
The Glazers didn't take on debt to spend £57.5m net over five years! There you go trying to twist things round again. You're just talking bollocks. Or is this you trying to be funny again?
He did. It's sad that people conveniently ignore it just to suit their agenda.
Indeed.
Ahh. They'll be happy to know that every £1 from gate receipts plus a bit more goes towards paying the players wages then.
There, you're happy now, right? Soundbites make us happy or sad depending on their wording; that's what MUST teach is, isn't it? Read the one above and shut up questioning us then. You're not a real fan if you question us - you're stupid and plastic.
Eh?
Clearly a huge amount of the club's income goes to pay interest payments on the debt.
The matchgoing fans are paying for that. That's what the Glazers told the banks would happen back in 2005.
Did they? Did they really? Were those their exact words, "The matchgoers will cover the interest payments"?
I think it was more a case of ALL revenues being increased in order to cover the interest payments, not just ticket prices.
Well duh!
Profits had to be increased for their creditors to be happy lending them that amount of money (let's not forget that most banks wouldn't touch them or their plan with a barge-pole, hence they ended up paying such an extraordinary amount of interest). In order to do that they made promises about increasing income (including the 50% ticket price rise in 5 years) and obviously curtailing expenditure.
If you, roodboy and eaststand want to continue to pretend that ticket price increases and a lack of transfer spending post-2005 are purely coincidental to this, be my guest.
- Status