And how many minutes of match time did they get before this European game?
Especially Anderson, who is coming back after a very long lay-off.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
And how many minutes of match time did they get before this European game?
Especially Anderson, who is coming back after a very long lay-off.
Nice boldwork.
So by your estimation if we don't win anything (oh except one thing) then the squad's inadequate, SAF is senile and the club is in decline?
Sometimes you've got to just stick with what you've got, mate, and hope for the best; show the players some faith and commitment and you might get some in return. Carrick and Anderson are valuable players to the club in their own right, you can't just feck them off and replace them just because one is off form and the other injured. Who would you bring in in their place? Between just those two they cost the club upwards of £34m; how much would you recommend we spend in trying to find the mythical player who never suffers from poor form and doesn't get injured? You've just got to be patient is all and stop thinking like a bloody muppet-baby!
Fair enough but on last seasons form they both have alot to prove.We need a big improvement from both of them or we could be in trouble
Oh dear - I suggest you go back and read this thread if you think that is the case because you are seriously mistaken.
So it seems - I was going to respond to him but I wont waste my time as he is not adding anything of interest to the financial debate at all.
BTW If you are not discussing anything finance or ownership related then feck off out of this thread - there are plenty of other threads for for all the depressive 'glass half empty' types (like this anver muppet)
I don't know what you expect, anver. Should we just buy up the six best central midfielders in the world and rotate them? Ship another in every time one suffers an injury? What? I don't get it. Scholes is out for ten days just as Anderson and Carrick are both coming back into the fold; what's the fecking problem?!
We do have a deep squad, but that's what happens when we get multiple injuries at same time in same position. carrick & Ando are not chronic injury prone players and neither are Giggs & Scholes. But yet, it happens that all are injured and this is in addition to Valencia's freak injury.
Shit happens. No point in moaning about it.
That's the same every year, you always need your players to perform if you're going to win something. Any new signing would have just as much to prove, just as much responsibility to the club and the fans to perform; you can't blame the owners for players not performing as expected, and nor can you simply expect the owners to replace every player who isn't on form regardless of their worth to the squad.
Back to your juvenile remarks? My initial outburst after the leeds match, was because we lost to a third tier side. Not to Chelsea or Arsenal. The team selections were dire. So just like Benitez gets slagged off for team selections, here SAF was the culprit.
Nobody asked to feck Carrick and Anderson off. What I meant was we do not have adequate replacements in case of injuries. We have to expose these two players, who have just come out of injuries. Desperate measures. If we had bought a decent midfielder during the summer, this dilemma could have been avoided. But, then I forgot. No value for money.
For all those who want to discuss the relative strenghts or weaknesses of the squad then there is a perfect thread for you to do it in right here:
https://www.redcafe.net/f6/assess-squad-309869/
So feck off over there with your transfer muppetry
https://www.redcafe.net/f6/assess-squad-309869/
So feck off over there with your transfer muppetry
You have already been exposed by Andersred where the finances are concerned. Are you looking for somebody else to cast your phony pearls?
You're right, we should have signed Xavi and Iniesta to sit on the bench and wait until Scholes picked up a knock, we could have sold them back in January anyway because Carrick and Ando would be match-fit by then.
You stupid.
Where have I been 'exposed'? Please show me This thread isnt for you I am afraid - I suggest you leave and let the big boys discuss the real issues.
The club's finances are affecting our transfers.
This thread isnt for you I am afraid - I suggest you leave and let the big boys discuss the real issues.
The Glazer Fan Boys have been exposed.
The Big Boy. Rood.
Just been reading this mornings' posts in the thread. Bloody hell. What's going on?
I think the question of whether the financial situation is impacting on our ability to enter the transfer market is a pertinent one but it is very difficult to prove either way.
As I've said before, you only really know if what you have is good enough after the event (the record books don't lie). Other than that, we have Fergie's judgement that what he has is good enough and his word that he has never been refused by the Glazers when it has come to transfer funds.
The fact that we play Valencia this evening is interesting because, apparently, we go into the game as underdogs, not because of our injury/loss of form of our star player situation but because we're no longer a "European Power".
Valencia sold arguably their best two players over the summer and one of them to a domestic rival - where does that leave THEM and, by extension of some people's logic, us in the pecking order?
I think the question of whether the financial situation is impacting on our ability to enter the transfer market is a pertinent one but it is very difficult to prove either way.
As I've said before, you only really know if what you have is good enough after the event (the record books don't lie). Other than that, we have Fergie's judgement that what he has is good enough and his word that he has never been refused by the Glazers when it has come to transfer funds.
The fact that we play Valencia this evening is interesting because, apparently, we go into the game as underdogs, not because of our injury/loss of form of our star player situation but because we're no longer a "European Power".
Valencia sold arguably their best two players over the summer and one of them to a domestic rival - where does that leave THEM and, by extension of some people's logic, us in the pecking order?
The Glazer Fan Boys have been exposed.
The Big Boy. Rood.
I think it is the anti-Glazer section which have been the more exposed down the years.
It has almost always been "what will happen in the future" scaremongering. A lot of that future is now in the past and we're still waiting for the shit to hit the fan.
What we're seeing here is yet more of the same - the squad is in decline and we're doing nothing about it and so this will lead to a period of onfield underperformance.
As usual though, it is a blinkered argument with very little factual basis.
I don't know whether the money in the club's bank account is available for Fergie to use for transfers or not.
However, one thing I do know is that the squad is full. We used all our 25 spaces, so for an experience player to be brought in as you demand, we would have needed to get rid of someone first. Which of our midfielders did you want to get rid of to make room? Force Scholes or Giggs to retire maybe? Give up on Carrick, Anderson, Hargreaves and Gibson? Surely not Fletcher? Which one did you want to ditch?
Alot of that is of course correct, but I do feel and dont shout at me if SAF felt that he had alot of money to spend he would not have taken any chances and strenghted this dept. As it is I hope his gamble pays and both players have massive seasons
In fairness you could say both sides of the debate have blinkered arguement with little factual basis hence the whole debate continues on and on. The Glazers keep their cards close to their chest and none of us actually know for a fact what they are at, good or bad
What must surely be obvious to you is that the business needs to continue growing at the historic (since 2005) +/- 10% per annum with costs kept in check at around the same % growth, or preferably less. It's not about the capital in the bank, although, who knows, a lot of that may have gone into repaying PIK debt, it's about keeping wages (the biggest expenditure item) well in control. Hence, in my opinion, a change in transfer policy and no big signings which would be costly not just in terms of the transfer fee but, more importantly, in terms of wages. Hence the discussion on the squad strength and why, in my opinion anyway, it is somewhat lacking in key areas.
JD I am happy to discuss these issues with you as I know you have looked at the numbers and are therefore speaking from a position of knowledge (unlike certain others!).
However, I can remember we had a detailed discussion about how much money might have been available to Fergie for transfers and you yourself estimated that you thought there was significant funds available (I cant remember exact numbers without going back into the thread) and that was without even taking into account the £75m RCF - has your opinion changed on that?
I do agree with you that the wages side of things is very important and I have repeatedly pointed out in the past that transfer spend only gives half the picture of how much money is being invested into the squad.
That's correct. There is/was a lot of cash there (100m, 120m, more ?), leaving aside the RCF. How much is still there we don't know at this juncture. Certainly enough to have bought an Ozil I would have thought and maybe someone else who would have done a better impression of being a right back than dear old JOS. But I'm convinced that Fergie is limited for choice because of wage costs and the policy of buying youngsters who don't demand much (comparatively) and have good potential re-sale values once Fergie and co have developed them. I also suspect that Fergie is quite willing to accept this strategy and to work with what he's got boosted by the cheapish "hopefuls" he's been collecting over the last few seasons. Now whether or not that is good enough right now for United campaigning at the highest level we shall have to wait and see.
at last and congrats a pretty objective post. In fairness the debate shouldn't be about pro or anti Glazer because I really believe we have no pros on this Forum. The discussion is merely between those half full versus those half empty fans .
Pretty well all the half full- and I include myself - don't want Glazer at the club but have faced the unpalatable fact that short of really damaging our club there is little we can do to move them on.
Some on the half empty side would hurt the club to get rid of the Dwarf and this is why arguments from the optimists get so heated. That for us is a step too far
I really believe that our only two serious targets in the last 2 seasons, Benzema and Ozzil wanted to go to Madrid and we really were not in there with a shout. Even if we had matched Madrid offer
Similarly with Ronaldo if the Massives or Rent Boys had wanted him enough to have bid for him he would still have ended up in Madrid albeit with a price hike. Unfortunately for us they knew that as did SAF with our 2 targets
You could be right but did we really have a full go at getting either of them ?
I have perhaps a rather old fashioned, naive if you like, view that players should want to play for United just as much as for anyone else - including Madrid and Barca. I think for a while that possibly was the case. Furthermore given the huge success we have had in the past, coupled with our glorious history, we should have the wherewithal to attract and buy anyone we want and that's at the heart of the Glazer issue.
Aside of Ozil and Benzema there must be others we could have targetted who would have improved the team. For starters, what about Sneijder ? I think we've missed him a few times !
I suppose you're right but you're as bad as anyone, especially when it comes to things like the sale of Ronaldo!
I just see a lot of things happening over the last five years that really, are no different to things which happened previous to that but are now leapt upon by the anti-Glazers as "evidence" that they're having a detrimental affect on us.
I mean, let us pretend that the Glazers were here at various other stages of our history instead of today.
What would the anti-Glazers have said back in 1995 when Fergie sold several of our best players and brought through a bunch of kids?
What would they have said during the 70s and 80s when past glories were well behind us?
What would they have said when Fergie somewhat inexplicably sold Jaap Stam?
There's a post on another thread about the time when Rooney made his United debut (six years ago now!). The team consisted of Djemba Djemba, Kleberson and Bellion. What would the anti-Glazers have made of that?
Basically, what I am saying is that a lot of what we see today is as good, if not better, than we have seen in the past but every little "negative" is attributed to the perceived detrimental impact the Glazers have had on the club. There is usually, however, a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation for much of what has happened/is happening, if you care to look for it.
This is not to say, by the way, that the Glazers have not brought some problems with them and I am being deliberately blind to them, it's just that the same could be said of any owners we might have had instead of them.
I'm also one of these people who believe that anyone who signs for United should really want to be a Manchester United player.
You have to admit though, when you're talking about overseas players, why would they have any particular leaning for Manchester United above, say, Real Madrid, Barca, Inter, Juventus etc etc?
It pains me to say it but these clubs are probably all perceived as being more glamorous and the cities more desirable to live in than Manchester.
As I say, you can look for reasons why such and such a player didn't sign for us and put it down to the financial situation but I think there's more to it than that and the pre-Glazer past is littered with instances where "targets" have chosen other clubs ahead of us.
Financially, the converse is true: A lot of the past is now in the present and will unwind in the future. The previous cash indebtedness cost never reflected the pik; it grew; and now we are entering the pik paying phase where the cash cost of our indebtedness will likely be:
Carveouts (one time payment) + bond interest + swap loss unwind + annual dividend
By my reckoning, this translates to around 150m this year and 70+m going forward. These figures could be revised downwards (or not) depending on what the Glazers do with their pik-holding.
Taking the carveouts will suck almost all the surplus cash from the club including the 'Ronaldo money' leaving the fund to replace Scholes and co pretty dry. Funds available to a new manager will be limited.
Taking any sizeable annual dividend will bring about a likely trade-off between
inward investment (facilities and player spend) and that dividend. This is implied by the JPM credit report issued earlier this year.
Another decision from the past that will have a negative impact on inward investment is the Aon deal. Over the next 4 years (including this one), the actual cash generated by the club will be around 9m less than stated. This will have an impact on inward investment but not on the maximum annual dividend that can be taken.
What do you think, TMRD? The club can absorb the massive exodus of cash to pay off malignant debt (none of its own making and some not even its own obligation) without any negative consequence?
As I said TMRD as long as the Glazers remain evasive for whatever reason you will assume I am wrong and vice versa, and the arguement will go on and on as either side is unable to strike the knock out blow.Certainly good for a bit of banter
Players will go where they are paid the most. You got Brazilians in Russia because its glamorous - more like they are getting good wedge.
The most loyalty you will find is if a player comes through the ranks and has local family and friends.
The most loyalty you will find is if a player comes through the ranks and has local family and friends.
You are correct that at the moment we dont know for sure how much cash is available, however we know for sure that large amounts of cash were available in the last 2/3 transfer windows but it seems that Fergie chose not to spend it - we will know more about potential PIK payments etc in the next few weeks when the next set of financials are released.
United have always had a very strict wage policy and it has resulted in us missing out on many players in the past - I do not believe that this is something that has only changed under the current regime.
Fergie has always talked about wanting players with a desire to come to OT, rather than breaking the bank for players who are just looking for the highest wage packet. The most recent example is Berbatov, it is clear that City would have offered him a better deal but he knew that United was the best choice!
We have also always had a policy of bringing young players into the team so that is nothing new either - how can we forget the infamous 'You'll never win anything with kids..." quote in the season where Fergie sold big name stars Hughes, Ince and Kanchelskis - they were replaced with what you might call "hopefuls" and we won the double that year!
As far as I am concerned, we have never been a club who paid the highest wages and we are rarely in the market for the biggest names in the world because that is just not the way Fergie likes to do things. Some people like to make out that this is a recent change but I would say that it has always been like that and of course we have enjoyed a huge amount of success in this way so there is no reason to change.
A lot of your previous reckoning went out of the window when the 20% PIK purchase was revealed though, I think, Redjazz.
You were saying at one point (if I remember correctly) that we could be looking at a net transfer budget of £5million/year.
You're not scaremongering again, by any chance, are you? We're back to square one here, aren't we? Do you not think the Glazers ever speak with Fergie? Do you not think all this has been discussed between them? Do you not think they are aware at all of what the squad situation is and what funds are likely to be required in the future? Do you think they'll wake up one day and half the squad will be retired and they go, "Doh! Didn't think of that!"
For the thousandth time, I believe the Glazers will NOT take money out of Manchester United to the detriment of the onfield competitiveness of the squad. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to do so.
You might say, "Where else will they get it from then?" but as we continually see with the Glazers, they have tricks up their sleeves, they have options and I believe that they will find a way.
This might not be the strongest argument you will read on here and I accept that it is somewhat naive and my trust in their judgement and decision making might be misplaced but as I have said before, without having a crystal ball or the ability to read their minds, my faith in what I believe their business-plan to be is central to my stance.
And the obligatory killer final paragraph full of loaded terms!
No. I think we're stuffed. United won't be here by 2017 and if it is, we'll be in the Conference.
Now that we know the outgoing costs (which appear to now be largely fixed), I think it would be helpful to know a bit more about the incoming revenues, don't you? What do expect them to be over the next seven years? Any idea?
Could the shortfall from the AON deal be made up by the increased number of other commercial partnership deals we have been setting up over the last couple of years?
Do you see any other reason to believe that revenues won't continue on a roughly upward trend over the coming years?
One thing I also strongly believe is that player wages will come down or at least freeze in coming years, too - which will help.
There are challenges ahead, make no mistake and I am not suggesting we're home and dry just yet but I can definitely see light at the end of the tunnel now and if we can get through this next few years, we could find ourselves as financially strong as we have ever been.
How was the kebab Shane? I love you. Hic.
We should have!
Exactly what I've been saying all along!
- Status