We're a public company and our debt hasn't changed since 2015. Just saying.
Let's talk money and why our transfer business has been so poor
- Thread starter sunama
- Start date
We're a public company and our debt hasn't changed since 2015. Just saying.
So alongside the money paid up front for Johnstone and Blind that's 35m left to play with. Rojo or another CB goes for 25-30m and we've got 60-65m.
If we were ever going to be serious about buying quality in the positions we need - if the figures above are all accurate - we would have needed to sell some of our better players like a Martial or a Mata + Blind/Shaw/Darmian and a couple of CBs.
Out of interest, do you know what the 68m we are still paying this year is for (and again next year)?
Lukaku/Pogba.
Were those deals installments?
Wrong about City. I think it was a couple of years back when they owners reached 1b (dollars) mark, and since then while they have spent a lot, they also have high revenue. So they total 'loss' has been somewhere in the range of 1.2-1.5b dollars.
City's value is estimated by Forbes at 2.2b dollars, so the sheikh not only has used it as propaganda tool but also has a close to 1b profit of they sell it today.
There are no charities in business.
I was looking at the following numbers, which state that even though we finished 2nd in the league, we earned the same amount of money as MCFC (1st place team), last season.
And LFC, who finished 4th, earned only £3.5M less than the league winners.
source
Let's assume that Jose told the board that to win the league we need to (net) spend £250M.
And to get top 4, we need to (net) spend £60M.
This gives a difference of £190M.
So, for us to mount a challenge, we need to spend an extra £190M.
From a business stand-point, why would the Glazers sanction the spending of £190M extra, given that the income from getting 1st place, is only £3.5M extra and won't cover that extra investment?
In other words,
invest £250M to earn £149M - loss of £101M
invest £60M to earn £146M - profit of £86M
Given these numbers, above, this would explain why the Glazers are not spending big.
Worryingly, are we set to become the new Arsenal? Wenger helped make the owners of AFC, huge amounts of money - spending very little, to maintain 4th place and was removed, only when the fans started boycotting games (reduced gate receipts). My suspicion is that this is what the Glazers have been targeting and in Jose, they finally have a manager who can consistently achieve this (Moyes/LVG, previously failed).
So, top 4, CL qualification, with an FA Cup, here and there, could be what Glazers have in mind for MUFC, for the next few years.
For my own sanity, please, somebody convince me using sensible logic, that this is not what is planned for MUFC.
It’s not just about the prize money. It’s more about maintaining the ‘value of the brand’. Coming second (at best) year on year will eventually impact upon the ability to attract sponsorship. Sponsors, like support, gravitate to success. Our whole business model is predicated on winning the ‘big trophies’. Not the League Cup, not the Europa League, not the Community Shield. We need a League or a Champions League win reasonably soon, otherwise the shareholders will get flakey as the sponsorships become less lucrative.
I feel like it could be one of two things.
1. United have spent a lot in the last few years and not made a lot back in player sales. Maybe the owners have said we need to take a step back and sell before we can buy.
2. Jose's spent a massive amount in the two years he's been with us. In terms of the team we have, the way we play and the things we've won, the return hasn't been great. Maybe the club are reluctant to give Jose another massive lump sum to spend unless he can win back their full confidence. They could even be planning to get rid of him by Christmas if things aren't going well and don't want to hand him £150m+ with that in their mind
Saying all that.......we could make two big signings in the next 48 hours and all of the above is nonsense
1. United have spent a lot in the last few years and not made a lot back in player sales. Maybe the owners have said we need to take a step back and sell before we can buy.
2. Jose's spent a massive amount in the two years he's been with us. In terms of the team we have, the way we play and the things we've won, the return hasn't been great. Maybe the club are reluctant to give Jose another massive lump sum to spend unless he can win back their full confidence. They could even be planning to get rid of him by Christmas if things aren't going well and don't want to hand him £150m+ with that in their mind
Saying all that.......we could make two big signings in the next 48 hours and all of the above is nonsense
Personally i think the issue is just that Jose has given a list of players he wants, and the board and Woodward are seeing too many older players with no resale value that cost too much. So from a business point of view it doesn't seem like a good deal to keep signing older players like we've been linked with recently. It could also be that Jose wants to strengthen areas where we've already got lots of players but we can't get rid of the deadwood.
I personally think, and this may not be a popular opinion, but we should consider getting a good director of football in to the club. Woodward does an amazing job at increasing the revenue at the club. He could get a company to sponsor anything at United it seems. However he's not a football guy so he doesn't necessarily know what would be a good decision or not regarding contracts or signings.
So I think if we brought in a top class director of football to handle the transfers, he could tell Jose yes those players will benefit the club let's get them in. At the same time, he could say no you've already got these players and these youngsters that can do the job for you so use them or learn how to use them.
I personally think, and this may not be a popular opinion, but we should consider getting a good director of football in to the club. Woodward does an amazing job at increasing the revenue at the club. He could get a company to sponsor anything at United it seems. However he's not a football guy so he doesn't necessarily know what would be a good decision or not regarding contracts or signings.
So I think if we brought in a top class director of football to handle the transfers, he could tell Jose yes those players will benefit the club let's get them in. At the same time, he could say no you've already got these players and these youngsters that can do the job for you so use them or learn how to use them.
If I were the owner; seeing that i pumped in almost a half billion to the team, and all I got is this shite show; I'd be a lot more cautious giving away more. Just common sense.
The Glazers has not pumped in any of their own money into the team. It is money the club has earned, and we still owe some of the transfer fees from last summer.
What the Glazers has done is cost this club around £500m+ either to interestpayments or dividends to themselves.
Glazers priority regarding this club:
1. Dividends
2. Repay debt
3. Wait for international streaming rights or something similar. Earning more $$$$
xxx. Winning trophies and play entertaining football.
The cash cow would dry soon without winning trophies and playing entertaining football.
Some time for that to happen. And when Amazon goes bananas to get the streaming rights for EPL from 2022 then we would see a major increase in income from the broadcasting. And this is what they are waiting for.
I think if you look at the Forbes report in the City Football Group you will find that two clubs in that group that only generated £41m were responsible for a £100m subsidy and City posted a profit of just over £1m. They tie up money in the CFG which includes marketing companies that charge their services to the clubs. Guess who owns them? Take a look at the Forbes report and tell me it’s nor charity by another name .
As for value of a club, that means bugger all if they don’t make money, genuine money that is. I suspect one day someone will find a stash of dodgy bank accounts in Abu Dhabi that UEFA know feck all about too. The Sheik made a bundle out of Barclays shares he promised not to sell but did . The Panorama programme from 2013 makes uncomfortable viewing for Barclays and the Sheik the highlight of which was Richard Bolton, the reporter, asking City fans outside the Emptyhad what they thought of it all to which most replied ‘Don’t care as long as we win ‘.
The reason why we haven't spent much this summer is definitely not down to lack of funds, this isn't the first time someone has accused us of now being skint and time and time again, they are proved wrong.
Why is everyone amoritizing the pogba and lukaku transfers to impact on this year but not amoritizing fred and dalot into future years to impact this year's budget less ? Highly inconsistent and makes all the analysis I've read ridiculous
The notion that the Glazers don't want to spend on buying top class players because their net cash flow annually will be lower doesn't take into account one very important consideration. If the Glazers ever want to sell United, they will want to add to the name recognition of the MUFC brand and the only way to do that is to win titles. Why do you think that 50% shares of Arsenal were bought today for a mere half a million pounds? They have been complacent the last 15 years and not won anything substantial and hence their valuation has not grown as it should have. If the Glazers invest in getting top class players and the team wins 2-3 titles in the next 5 years, the valuation of the team could increase over a billion pounds. They will make their return in a sale even if they lose a few mil a year.
