ESPN - Why Manchester United are still a mess under INEOS ownership

[Jock Steins Boots]

This is all fundamentally wrong at its foundation. You’re conflating money with profit.

What is the goal of Manchester United Football Club? Is it;

-Win trophies (by all means add ‘while playing exciting football to entertain the fans)

Or

-Make a profit

Profit has zero to do with the functional purpose of the Football Team. Fans, players and sponsors are simply not looking at Manchester United and thinking ‘Look at all the money that’s left over after income versus expenditure’.

But the two go hand in hand, if you haven't worked that out by now there's no hope.
As many others have pointed out, United are a business. Their business is football, just like Nikes business is sports equipment, just like Greggs is baked goods.
Are you seriously suggesting that none of these companies should make a profit? That they should just break even?

You're getting two completely different topics mixed up. You asked what's the goal of Manchester United FC. Well its actually both, to play good football/win things AND make money. They aren't exclusive, they go hand in hand.

Show me a football club that doesn't try to maximise profits. Money/profits are what allows a football club to progress, buy better players, build better stadiums. Where do you think that all comes from?

What you're effectively saying, is that if the roof at Old Trafford is leaking, then it should remain leaking, because the club shouldn't worry about money or making a profit, it should just worry about the football and to hell with the leaky roof.

Eerr...no pal. You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think football clubs shouldn't worry about profit and just play football. Football clubs haven't run like this for decades.

 

[Jock Steins Boots]

Did you deliberately conflate a player making profit for themselves versus the club they're playing for making a profit? Those two things are wildly and fundamentally different. The only reason a player will care if their club is profitable is if they care about the stability, viability and ability to be competitive. You can demonstrate all that whilst turning £0 profit.

No you've confused a player worrying about club profit with their own profit. I didn't mention this.
I was talking specifically about any player as an individual, will maximise their potential/profit where applicable.
You would do the same in your job, you may not worry about the company you work for turning a profit, but you will worry about getting the best salary you can out of that company. That, in effect, is maximising your profit.

However, you could easily argue that a player will look at a club and judge whether said club was doing OK financially. No player is going to move to a club to maximise their own salary, if they are told that said club was going into liquidation.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

If you'd had £150m in profit, you would have bought the £80m centre back and maybe the £50m centre back as a backup. That's why turning a profit is good.

Wrong end of the telescope.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

But this is so simplified its borderline unrecognizable... I mean, there is no real world way to know that the expensive CB just hasn't been bought because the money was meant for the owners pocket. Could be also that DOF didn't like his skillset, considered him not as suitable, too old whatever.

I literally boiled it down to the most route one example possible.

‘There’s no real world way’. There is. You have a transfer budget. If your transfer budget is £50m and you end the season with £50m profit, you HAD the money to improve the team with that £80m world class footballer.

Instead, you made a decision to put business before on field performance. It was a deliberately simple example. Of course there’s more nuance in reality, but it’s a solid enough example to talk around.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

But the two go hand in hand, if you haven't worked that out by now there's no hope.
As many others have pointed out, United are a business. Their business is football, just like Nikes business is sports equipment, just like Greggs is baked goods.
Are you seriously suggesting that none of these companies should make a profit? That they should just break even?

You're getting two completely different topics mixed up. You asked what's the goal of Manchester United FC. Well its actually both, to play good football/win things AND make money. They aren't exclusive, they go hand in hand.

Show me a football club that doesn't try to maximise profits. Money/profits are what allows a football club to progress, buy better players, build better stadiums. Where do you think that all comes from?

What you're effectively saying, is that if the roof at Old Trafford is leaking, then it should remain leaking, because the club shouldn't worry about money or making a profit, it should just worry about the football and to hell with the leaky roof.

Eerr...no pal. You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think football clubs shouldn't worry about profit and just play football. Football clubs haven't run like this for decades.

Manchester United are NOT a business. That’s the point. It’s a very modern thing to treat sports teams as businesses.

You seem to think that profit drives success. It doesn’t. Success drives profit.

Lord knows why you’re wanging on about not fixing the roof. At no point have I said that you should run the club into the ground.

I’m saying we have among the very highest revenues in world football. We can self fund stadium repairs, or a new one, and an academy, and player acquisitions, AND WIN.

Business success should be a byproduct of sporting success. Honestly, the Glazers and Woodward have ruined the lot of you. Business practices that pursue financial gains should NEVER come at the expense of on field success.

 

[M Bison]

I literally boiled it down to the most route one example possible.

‘There’s no real world way’. There is. You have a transfer budget. If your transfer budget is £50m and you end the season with £50m profit, you HAD the money to improve the team with that £80m world class footballer.

Instead, you made a decision to put business before on field performance. It was a deliberately simple example. Of course there’s more nuance in reality, but it’s a solid enough example to talk around.

The principle of what you're saying is reasonable, basically you're saying (i think) that all surplus should be reinvested back into the club and so the club is never sat on a "surplus".

The issue is that isnt how financials work, you might make a profit for 3 years and then reinvest it back in for a capital project and still show a profit as its capital investment (ie balance sheet), the reality is a club should make money each year, over a 20 year period perhaps it should stand still where cash is concerned and should perhaps break even over a longer period, buts its overly simplistic to say we shouldnt ever make money, its just the way financials work (P&L vs Balance Sheet / profit vs cash).

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

The principle of what you're saying is reasonable, basically you're saying (i think) that all surplus should be reinvested back into the club and so the club is never sat on a "surplus".

The issue is that isnt how financials work, you might make a profit for 3 years and then reinvest it back in for a capital project and still show a profit as its capital investment (ie balance sheet), the reality is a club should make money each year, over a 20 year period perhaps it should stand still where cash is concerned and should perhaps break even over a longer period, buts its overly simplistic to say we shouldnt ever make money, its just the way financials work (P&L vs Balance Sheet / profit vs cash).

You’re basically assuming my intent correctly.

My use of ‘profit’ as an absolute term has seen people think I don’t want the club to generate any money. Of course I want the club to take in as much money as possible and spend less than that.

The totality of the point is really that the club is obviously a business and capitalism is a thing. But in my opinion, if you’re regularly outperforming financial forecasts as a sports team, that’s directly oppositional to trying to win things.

City are (unfortunately) the easiest example. If we accept all their deals as valid that is. They’re the best team in England. They’ve recently churned out profits while winning loads of stuff. That almost can’t be criticised. ‘Ah Fcuk we won the treble after signing world class footballers, we sold a few, and we STILL made £80m’. My bleeding liberal heart would still say that they could have spared £20m to renovate every single football ground in Manchester as they exist as part of an ecosystem. But I’m well aware of the fact that’s nuts.

But a club the size of United that’s not winning anything of note, while turning a profit is unforgivable. It’s the equivalent of Utilities companies making a profit while polluting waterways. Their reason for existence is to provide clean water. Yet millions of pounds leaves that entity as they’ve made money. Despite the fact their principle business purpose hasn’t been delivered.

Everyone else judging United versus Greggs and whatever is totally missing the point.

 

[M Bison]

You’re basically assuming my intent correctly.

My use of ‘profit’ as an absolute term has seen people think I don’t want the club to generate any money. Of course I want the club to take in as much money as possible and spend less than that.

The totality of the point is really that the club is obviously a business and capitalism is a thing. But in my opinion, if you’re regularly outperforming financial forecasts as a sports team, that’s directly oppositional to trying to win things.

City are (unfortunately) the easiest example. If we accept all their deals as valid that is. They’re the best team in England. They’ve recently churned out profits while winning loads of stuff. That almost can’t be criticised. ‘Ah Fcuk we won the treble after signing world class footballers, we sold a few, and we STILL made £80m’. My bleeding liberal heart would still say that they could have spared £20m to renovate every single football ground in Manchester as they exist as part of an ecosystem. But I’m well aware of the fact that’s nuts.

But a club the size of United that’s not winning anything of note, while turning a profit is unforgivable. It’s the equivalent of Utilities companies making a profit while polluting waterways. Their reason for existence is to provide clean water. Yet millions of pounds leaves that entity as they’ve made money. Despite the fact their principle business purpose hasn’t been delivered.

Everyone else judging United versus Greggs and whatever is totally missing the point.

Yes i get the point you're making, its the nuance with how financials work that's thrown me in how you've positioned your point but the principle makes sense and is pretty inarguable.

Last line made me laugh too

 

[EireRed_GS]

The stuff about the job losses and how some longer term staff are being treated, that part is a disgrace.

But the stuff about the players. I have zero sympathy for them. Just coming across as spoilt divas again. Theyre all too easily offended again. Plus theres plenty other players out there would happily drive their own car a good distance just to get the chance to pull on the shirt

 

[slyadams]

No you've confused a player worrying about club profit with their own profit. I didn't mention this.
I was talking specifically about any player as an individual, will maximise their potential/profit where applicable.
You would do the same in your job, you may not worry about the company you work for turning a profit, but you will worry about getting the best salary you can out of that company. That, in effect, is maximising your profit.

However, you could easily argue that a player will look at a club and judge whether said club was doing OK financially. No player is going to move to a club to maximise their own salary, if they are told that said club was going into liquidation.

Eh, you literally said it exactly here:

You mentioned players are not attracted to profit. Of course they are, otherwise they would all be playing pub football, just for the love of the game. Take any player who plays professionally and you're looking at someone who is trying to maximise their profit.

That's literally saying a player worries about their own profit?!

 

[tenpoless]

Those scummy, chemical-smelling, tax-dodging, one-percent-worshipping, multi-club-owning, global-warming-causing, employee-sacking conglomerate bastards... If only Michael Knighton had succeeded with his hostile bid, United would be winning the non-Mickey Mouse double this season.

 

[Jock Steins Boots]

Manchester United are NOT a business. That’s the point. It’s a very modern thing to treat sports teams as businesses.

You seem to think that profit drives success. It doesn’t. Success drives profit.

Lord knows why you’re wanging on about not fixing the roof. At no point have I said that you should run the club into the ground.

I’m saying we have among the very highest revenues in world football. We can self fund stadium repairs, or a new one, and an academy, and player acquisitions, AND WIN.

Business success should be a byproduct of sporting success. Honestly, the Glazerd Woodward have ruined the lot of you. Business practices that pursue financial gains should NEVER come at the expense of on field success.

You seem to be changing your tune now.

I used the roof as an example and I used it once, I certainly didn't bang on about it, not like you have about Mason Greenwood anyway.

So now you've gone from saying United shouldn't be a business making profit that should only stick to football, to now saying they can do both. OK.

As I've pointed out a few times now, sporting success generally comes from investment. Investment comes from profit. The two go together, that's how businesses work. You make money, you reinvest. Always been like that.
Very rarely will you find any sports venture being successful WITHOUT investment.
Wrexham are a prime example of this, they lumbered around in the National League for years and no amount of pixie dust or people like you wishing-upon-a-star for some magical sporting success, got them out of that league. It was investment from Ryan and Rob. Fact.

And where do you think that 'investment' from Ryan Renolds came from? It came from his own profit from making films.

At some point that smell you'll realise is coffee.

 

[Jock Steins Boots]

Eh, you literally said it exactly here:

That's literally saying a player worries about their own profit?!

And they do. Show me a player that doesn't?
I know a few ex professionals and when you ask them why did they move from one club to another they always say 'more money...better contract'
I even know an ex pro who said he hated playing football (played for Arsenal) but he happened to be very good at it and the money was good.

What are you finding so hard to understand about players maximising their profits?

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

You seem to be changing your tune now.

I used the roof as an example and I used it once, I certainly didn't bang on about it, not like you have about Mason Greenwood anyway.

So now you've gone from saying United shouldn't be a business making profit that should only stick to football, to now saying they can do both. OK.

As I've pointed out a few times now, sporting success generally comes from investment. Investment comes from profit. The two go together, that's how businesses work. You make money, you reinvest. Always been like that.
Very rarely will you find any sports venture being successful WITHOUT investment.
Wrexham are a prime example of this, they lumbered around in the National League for years and no amount of pixie dust or people like you wishing-upon-a-star for some magical sporting success, got them out of that league. It was investment from Ryan and Rob. Fact.

And where do you think that 'investment' from Ryan Renolds came from? It came from his own profit from making films.

At some point that smell you'll realise is coffee.

Y’big daftie. Mason Greenwood is as relevant as the roof.

Go well lad.

 

[MancunianAngels]

Scrapping the euro away ticket collections is an interesting move...

 

[steffyr2]

I think all he's saying is that owners taking money out of club is bad and spend any income quickly. In your scenario he would see that as 0 profit, so would be good, because it's spent on the club. I think the vast majority agree with this tbh so I don't know why there's even a debate happening. Football success and money go hand in hand in the system we have and both affect the other. If you compare all the teams in England, there's obviously a positive correlation between football success and how much money is made/spent on the club (mostly spent). And regarding spending money quickly, there's gotta be some amount left for uncertainties etc, but too much shouldn't be sat on. That seems obvious too. "Clubs should aim for 0 profit" is a weird way of saying that though. I could make a club next week and have them make 0 profit (or at least a neglible loss). It doesn't mean they'll be good at football. Or have any footballers or anything else.

"Profit" comes from winning games. Making it to the CL, for example.

I'm not a fan of being owned by an oil-rich country or a Russian oligarch. There's nothing wrong by Utd being managed as a business, imo, so long as they're being managed well.