Not doubting the numbers but I am just asking how it compares to other sports.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
They’ve been promoting it a lot here over the recent years. On the flip side just because you might be into it doesn’t mean it is hugely popular in the U.K….
You think City don't pay over the odds, Grealish was way over the odds, United haven't invested wisely, that's the real difference
Peak Ronaldo was worth 200m, benzema 100m, modric 100m, ramos 100m, casemiro past his peak sold for 70m, Di Maria was there sold for 60m, pepe was worth about 50-60m. No wonder they didn't need to spend. And again, because you seem to be ignoring it, spending on a stable team, that players have time to adjust to is completely different to trying to build a whole new team from the ground up. And we've had to do it since prices went crazy, Madrid spent 300m in 2009, adjusted for prices now that's probably double, Ronaldo went for 80m and was a much better player than 220m neymar.
You can't just ignore these factors, we needed a total rebuild, with no spine to the team at a time when transfers have gone crazy. We've wasted money yes, but that's not the only factor here
In what sense? Numbers of supporters? I mean it’s absolutely nowhere near football but that wasn’t the point.
The initial ridiculous question was “how are teams from a sport I don’t follow so valuable”, built on the premise that nobody outside the US follows the NFL, that was the notion I was countering.
There are a number of drivers of the values of the biggest teams in the NFL, but biggest factor is the sheer amount of money generated and the salary cap which means that money doesn’t just end up turning into player wages. The ethics of that are enormously questionable but that’s the reality, and the changes in laws around gambling in the US recently has had a significant impact of franchise values as revenues are only going in one direction.
I literally gave you numbers, but sure.
The point is that even if grealish hasn't been great, he gets time to slot in, he comes into a team where he can slowly adjust, we spent 90m on Antony and need him to immediately start performing. City had a solid spine worth about 350m in today's prices. That's a huge difference to start with over the least decade, we had an aging squad with no value, they had the foundation of a title winning side for 5 years, they've been able to add pieces to a puzzle, not putting fires out while others spring up.
Imagine you have a house that's falling apart and your neighbour has one in pristine condition, while you're fixing the pipes, he's adding to his house, he's building a second floor. Then you need to fix the wiring, while he spends money on his garden etc. Even if you spend the same, you've just been fixing the foundations while he hasn't had a problem with that. And to try keep up with our neighbours we've spent money on the glossy finish and ignoring the rotting foundations. We've spent badly but the years of underinvestment from the Glazers left us needing a whole new team, while city had a team ready to compete at the top for years
I'm not ignoring anything. Of course we needed a rebuild. We did it, and we're still doing it a decade later because we failed at it. Of course Real would have spent more if they needed to, but the point is that we've spent more than enough to catch up. Liverpool couldn't have spent more, because they don't have the money.
The only club you could conceivable argue as being in a better position than us financially, taking into account both net spend and how the squads looked like a decade ago, is City.
Your number suggests that one in 5 people in the UK are nfl fans, that sounds like an enormous overestimation
We haven't thought we've had to overspend because of the dire state of the team. We couldn't afford to spend 40m on vinicius when we needed an immediate impact, the players we've had to sign have had to skew older and needed replaced quicker, because we needed players who could immediately come in and make a difference. With the strength of Madrid's team they could afford to buy promising youngsters, give them time to come through and if they failed, no big deal. We had to bring in players at 28 years old because we needed an instant impact, other top teams have been able to wait and sign the right players, and if they weren't available they could wait, we were 7th in the table and dropping, we needed to sign ready made players.
It's apples and oranges
And the reason is not because we didn't invest, we invested badly, United could have spent twice as much and they still would have been crap because they employed the wrong people, the wrong managers and bought the wrong players
It was caveated with the lower number that are considered “avid”, but still those numbers are from the leagues own research into the matter and they’ve invested heavily in the international market over the years so I don’t really doubt it.
Anyway this is way off topic, I only even engaged in the conversation because of the ridiculousness of the initial comment.
That's true to an extent, but we improved from moyes to van gaal when we spent 200m, we improved from van gaal to mourinho when we spent another shitload, we stopped improving when we finished second and decided not to invest. Then we improved again after spending on Bruno, granted the rest of the spending under ole wasn't great, but once again we spent a ton under ten hag and have improved, money had generally made us better even when it hasn't been spent well, an extra 350m over the last ten years might not have made us champions league winners, but we'd be better.
The survey was done by the same folks who claimed that United has 1.1billion fans?
This is like Chelsea fans blaming their performance on money. I'm sorry but it just doesn't track.
Of course it does, we finished 7th with Moyes, spent a ton of money and got top 4. We spend a ton of money under mourinho when van gaal leaves, we win the europa league, we spend more we finish with 81 points, we stop spending and we drop back, we spend on Bruno and things improve. Money generally has helped us, ok solskjaer spent a shitload without much to show for it, but again we've had to buy older players, with less resale value because we started from such a low position, this has meant needing to spend more to replace them in just a few seasons time.
Real Madrid had at the start of the decade a squad that I would say in today's prices was worth over a billion, they sold di Maria for 60m, ozil for 45m, Ronaldo for 100m, casemiro for 70m, they were all at the club in 2013, its not a low net spend because they've been shrewd its because they had a squad worth a billion and managed to sell players for 300m after they were surplus to requirements. We had no players in 2013 we could have sold, apart from Rooney who we probably should have, but we didn't have players that could give us 5-6 years at the top then get sold for 100m.
Ah yes, because we know how accurate these own researches are. Come on, man, you can't be this gullible
And judging by your tagline you're a fan of the team in question?
Like most things in life, the answer is in the middle. NFL isn't "big" in the UK. As matter of fact basketball is comfortably bigger I'd imagine, as it is across Europe too. But there is a following in the UK, and if you go to any decent sports bar on a Sunday night you'll probably see a few watching NFL. Absolutely no chance 1 in 5 is a "fan" though. More likely 1 in 5 can name a few teams and players.
NFL is still by and large an American thing and not as big as you think it is (in terms of popularity not numbers) which is why he wonders how the teams get sold for so much.
However being big in America is a sizeable chunk of the Western world and a good few parts of Asia so it makes sense they go for so much.
Ofcourse UK goverment welcome any type of middle eastern bid. They've abadoned the north for a long time. A Qatar bid who say they are going to invest into the club and Manchester itself? One less job for this mob to do.
Few articles last week said if it's going to be sold, it'll be sold by Easter and with the process complete by the opening of the transfer window.
Wasn't my point but I agree the Tories are cnuts.
I knew this Jim guy was a broke boy
I wish I would be as 'broke' as him!!
It's true that since Fergie retired we haven't made use of our finances and have made bad decisions from hiring managers to buying players. But it all stems from the ineptitude of the Glazers to David Gill and then Ed Woodward. And it was under Gill where the rot had first started where the football structure and youth development was falling way behind the competition. And the likes of Liverpool and City took advantage by developing/modernising their setup and having people in charge who would eventually aid Klopp and Guardiola who saw themselves as head coaches and not managers.
The issue with United was that we thought we could carry on going the 'manager controls all aspects' approach to the football side of the club and kept hiring managers and not head coaches. If you hire a manager who doesn't want to work with or develop the existing football structure, then the car crash will just be around the corner.. And that's exactly what happened with LVG, Mourinho and Ole who wanted total control and hence our recruitment was abysmal.
Liverpool did the same thing with Brendan Rodgers who refused to work under Liverpool's existing football structure and hence the Liverpool owners were forced into creating a transfer committee to appease Rodgers and make use of the existing football structure at the club which was led by Michael Edwards.
But all that did was create even more problems with Rodgers utilising his signings more than the signings made by Liverpool's recruitment team which was led by Barry Hunter and Dave Fallows. The piece linked below describes the mess a manager can create if he's not willing to work or develop the club's existing football structure. And that's one of the biggest mistakes Woodward made when hiring managers who didn't want to develop or work with the existing football structure.
https://www.thisisanfield.com/2015/...-myths-mistakes-liverpools-transfer-strategy/
The biggest mistake Ed Woodward made was in 2016, after firing LVG. At that time John Murtough had brought in the best scouts from all around the globe (per the transfer ground guru) and created the structure on the football side of the club which those scouts were coming in to fill in their respective regions. What Woodward did was he hired a manager in Mourinho who refused to work with the newly formed recruitment structure and hence the transfer committee was born and we would repeat the same mistakes Liverpool made when they hired Rodgers and he was constantly at loggerheads with Michael Edwards and Liverpool's recruitment team.
None of the big clubs in the world operate without a capable football structure. And without having a good support structure, a head coach will not be successful in this day and age. In my opinion, it's the duty of the owners/CEO to make sure that a scenario doesn't arise where the club's existing football structure is compromised by a manager. And hence why it's always sensible to allow a DoF type figure to hire the head coach and not a CEO/chairman.
And then on top of all that, Joel Glazer, Woodward, Judge and Baty made a mess of the wage structure. Hence our net spend is really high.
The issue with United was that we thought we could carry on going the 'manager controls all aspects' approach to the football side of the club and kept hiring managers and not head coaches. If you hire a manager who doesn't want to work with or develop the existing football structure, then the car crash will just be around the corner.. And that's exactly what happened with LVG, Mourinho and Ole who wanted total control and hence our recruitment was abysmal.
Liverpool did the same thing with Brendan Rodgers who refused to work under Liverpool's existing football structure and hence the Liverpool owners were forced into creating a transfer committee to appease Rodgers and make use of the existing football structure at the club which was led by Michael Edwards.
But all that did was create even more problems with Rodgers utilising his signings more than the signings made by Liverpool's recruitment team which was led by Barry Hunter and Dave Fallows. The piece linked below describes the mess a manager can create if he's not willing to work or develop the club's existing football structure. And that's one of the biggest mistakes Woodward made when hiring managers who didn't want to develop or work with the existing football structure.
https://www.thisisanfield.com/2015/...-myths-mistakes-liverpools-transfer-strategy/
The biggest mistake Ed Woodward made was in 2016, after firing LVG. At that time John Murtough had brought in the best scouts from all around the globe (per the transfer ground guru) and created the structure on the football side of the club which those scouts were coming in to fill in their respective regions. What Woodward did was he hired a manager in Mourinho who refused to work with the newly formed recruitment structure and hence the transfer committee was born and we would repeat the same mistakes Liverpool made when they hired Rodgers and he was constantly at loggerheads with Michael Edwards and Liverpool's recruitment team.
None of the big clubs in the world operate without a capable football structure. And without having a good support structure, a head coach will not be successful in this day and age. In my opinion, it's the duty of the owners/CEO to make sure that a scenario doesn't arise where the club's existing football structure is compromised by a manager. And hence why it's always sensible to allow a DoF type figure to hire the head coach and not a CEO/chairman.
And then on top of all that, Joel Glazer, Woodward, Judge and Baty made a mess of the wage structure. Hence our net spend is really high.
Last edited:
A bit weird from SJR to keep saying he is interested but wouldnt overpay. Theres no need to say that unless if you arent confident of winning.
People arguing about whether the issue has been the amount spent or expecting a new owner to splash cash on players are in for a shock when the takeover happens. The only way the Qataris or anyone else is spending big is by cooking the books, City-style. FFP won't allow it.
Cleaning the debt removes our interest payments, which is like 20-30m. A lack of dividends is another 20m. FFP allows the owners to cover up to 60m in losses, so a new owner adds about 100m. However, we lost 115m last year despite having CL football. While we've cut some big salaries, we are without CL money and likely still operating at a loss. But even IF we break even, you're still only talking 100m that we can spend before sales (and let's be honest, we aren't making hundreds of millions on sales).
Granted, there is a certain amount of nuance and unknowns (who we sell and what their contract status is, the amortization of contracts, investment in the youth and women's team which helps our FFP situation, etc.). But these aren't another 200m worth of nuance.
Cleaning the debt removes our interest payments, which is like 20-30m. A lack of dividends is another 20m. FFP allows the owners to cover up to 60m in losses, so a new owner adds about 100m. However, we lost 115m last year despite having CL football. While we've cut some big salaries, we are without CL money and likely still operating at a loss. But even IF we break even, you're still only talking 100m that we can spend before sales (and let's be honest, we aren't making hundreds of millions on sales).
Granted, there is a certain amount of nuance and unknowns (who we sell and what their contract status is, the amortization of contracts, investment in the youth and women's team which helps our FFP situation, etc.). But these aren't another 200m worth of nuance.
Anyone who thinks 1 in 5 UK citizens are fans of American football is either an idiot, making a bad faith argument, or trying to save face from a losing position. Or all 3.
all United woes stem from the rats, and the terrible businessmen/lecherous scum they are. But keeping Woodward at the helm, coupled with woodwards absolute inability to be even remotely competent, sunk us. Hope for long and miserable lives for all of them.
After the meeting with the United team, you would normally just keep your head down; work with your due diligence team --- and work towards the deadline of today. That's a 7-day turnaround and a feck load of work to do in that space of time before coming up with a firm offer today.
Why have an interview in between? Plus the message serves zero purposes towards win the bid at this point.
Last edited:
Didn't the United top brass have a meeting with the PL's FFP compliance team recently? United will comply with the rules.
Will Ratcliffe bring goldman sachs back to Manchester?
Your point is valid for Moyes era and maybe LVG era (although we spent like idiots under LVG as well) but the lack of spine issue cannot be used for Jose or Ole. It was some stupid spending by Woodward which led to us having always incompetent squad.
Now I do agree the damage done from 2009-13 is something Glazers are to fully blame. We could have signed some quality players like Hazard, Aguero, Silva, Yaya Toure for decent amount and we would have continued the dominance even after SAF retired but we chose to not to and let the likes of City go ahead of us.
FFP has changed from this year to FFP sustainability rules where 90% of the clubs turnover can be spent this year, if our turnover is £540m this year and wages are reduced due to Europa League to £325m New owner adds more than £100m because we don’t even have a working Cashflow right now, hence the loan deals in January. For the record 90% of £550m is £495m which could be spent on Wages, Agent fees, Administrative costs, and amortised transfer fees. So when you say selling players, does not give you another £200m it doesn’t quite work like that, the new rules are designed to get all clubs running at 70% wage, transfer, Admin and agent fees combined to gross turnover in 3 years time. This year we could sell players like Dean Henderson (20m) Antony Elanga(15M), S Mctominay (25m) all on 4 year contracts and receive £15m back on our transfer kitty yearly which could then be multiplied by 4 if we bought any new players this summer, effectively adding £60m to a transfer budget. These players cost the club nothing so there is no cost amortised to be subtracted from the amortised sale price. To be clear your right about the debt and the £60m in loses for a new owner but these costs and the interest payments would have been part of administrative running costs so eg if the Glaziers carried on and the wages were £325m, interest £20-30m on existing debt, the actual loss not only affects FFP but the cash in the bank and our ability to pay more than the sustainability rule.
Our transfer budget would be 325+25+120m loss so we would have £25m multiplied by 5 if we spent £125m on one player an and agent fees so a budget of probably £115m plus 10% of that as agent fees. So just like Todd Boehly with Chelsea who spent nearly £600m by putting players on 7 year contracts and amortising costs by 7 years, New owners if they cleared the debt, reduced interest payments and put working capital in the bank, they could effectively spend £400-500m combined over two transfer Windows
The bolded is incorrect, it’s well reported now that Moyes for example turned down Thiago. The club didn’t just try to give Fellaini, he was called dithering Dave by the Everton fans for a reason.
Now imagine ETH comes in at that point, and buys Thiago and another midfielder or CB instead of Fellaini and Mata. We now have the twlight excellent Carrick and Thiago in CM.
Already we’d have a miles better season and the following Summer we replace Rio, bring in Shaw and a winger. That next Summer LVG also turned down Kroos right?
So within 15 months of Fergie retiring a competent manager could have had Thiago and Kroos in midfield for us, back in 2013.
Suddenly we look back at Fergie leaving it alright for the next guy.
Instead we look at the failures of Moyes & LVG and their transfer dealing and put too much blame on SAF for what he left behind.
One of the reasons why I never looked back at Moyes's tenure with ANY sympathy. Van Gaal, Mourinho, Ole all had positive moments to remember. Not Moyes. The guy was a total clown and dragged our name through mud.
Are there any former United players who would make a big difference working on the football side? I can ONLY think of Van Der Sar, or maybe Jordi Cruyff, really. Anyone else you lot would want? Incey, Schmeichel, The Nevilles, Bruce? I wonder why the Qatari's are briefing this about getting ex-players involved.
- I reckon this is done with the story in the Telegraph today. 'Very confident' + their senior writers all adding names. I think there must have been big progress yesterday.
Last edited by a moderator:
Happy Bid Deadline Day everybody!
Bid day today.
Are we gonna reach 1000 pages?
And to you too
. Gonna be a long one.- Status