The PLC...

[JSV]

What do people think about it?

It's pretty fashionable as a United fan to slag the plc for whatever reason, but I seem to find alot of it is bollox...

The fact is the plc has enabled us to become the richest club in the world, an attractive destination for world class players and has given us top facilities including a world class stadium...

Not to mention the plc has also NOT raised prices for quite possibly the most in-demand tickets in the world above reasonable levels compared to some other premier league clubs...

Sure, Fergie's had a few run ins with em but I don't think he can claim he hasn't been given the resources he needs...

As far as I can see, all the plc does is ensure the club is always in a healthy financial state, and as has been proved by other clubs that haven't followed suit, the results can be disastrous eg. Lazio, Fiorentina, Milan, Real...

Long live the plc...

 

[Knoxy]

Was it the PLC that prevented the purchase of Paulo Di-canio because you hadn't yet sold Dwight Yorke?

A decision like that could be the difference between winning and losing the league.......

 

[JOBT]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>What do people think about it?

It's pretty fashionable as a United fan to slag the plc for whatever reason, but I seem to find alot of it is bollox...

The fact is the plc has enabled us to become the richest club in the world, an attractive destination for world class players and has given us top facilities including a world class stadium...

Not to mention the plc has also NOT raised prices for quite possibly the most in-demand tickets in the world above reasonable levels compared to some other premier league clubs...

Sure, Fergie's had a few run ins with em but I don't think he can claim he hasn't been given the resources he needs...

As far as I can see, all the plc does is ensure the club is always in a healthy financial state, and as has been proved by other clubs that haven't followed suit, the results can be disastrous eg. Lazio, Fiorentina, Milan, Real...

Long live the plc...</strong><hr></blockquote>


Although i think football has been ruied to a certain extent by big money and business.
one can only react to the current climate and i suppose i'm glad UTD has the plc to fall back on as we would never be the team that we are now if it were not for it.
besides it could be worse ... we could be like CHELSEA .... a twat chairman, buying anybody with a big name or being expelled by a big team ... chasing shadows in europe and england !

 

[michael owen's mum]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>Long live the plc...</strong><hr></blockquote>


wouldn't you prefer it to still have 'f.c.' on the badge, though?

 

[JOBT]

Originally posted by michael owen's mum:
<strong>


wouldn't you prefer it to still have 'f.c.' on the badge, though?</strong><hr></blockquote>

of course there are draw backs.. but then there are draw back of everything !!!

its the principle of missing 'FC' on the badge that is upsetting, not that the badge has been ruined by two letter being taken

 

[JOBT]

Originally posted by Knoxy:
<strong>Was it the PLC that prevented the purchase of Paulo Di-canio because you hadn't yet sold Dwight Yorke?

A decision like that could be the difference between winning and losing the league.......</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think anybody is really sure what happend around that time, there are so many differnt stories. so i couldn't comment !

re: 'winning and not winning the league' ..... doubt it !

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by michael owen's mum:
<strong>


wouldn't you prefer it to still have 'f.c.' on the badge, though?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, but as I said I think the positives far outweigh the negatives...

 

[manux399]

Originally posted by michael owen's mum:
<strong>


wouldn't you prefer it to still have 'f.c.' on the badge, though?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well said MOM, totally agree.

 

[Neil Thomson]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>

Yes, but as I said I think the positives far outweigh the negatives...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I must admit I don't think so, it could be just as well run as a Limited company, all it does imo is drain money from the club and make it forget its nature as a football club - for example the recent Financial Help Checkin bollox. I prefer the Shareholder's United line myself, and think we the fans should have a say in the running of our club. Personally I'd like to see it as a Co-Operative.

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by Knoxy:
<strong>Was it the PLC that prevented the purchase of Paulo Di-canio because you hadn't yet sold Dwight Yorke?

A decision like that could be the difference between winning and losing the league.......</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes it probably was, and it was a sound decision in my opinion...

Dwight Yorke is on a high salary at the moment and the fact is other clubs who weren't plc owned would have probably taken the same logical decision...

Also I would sceptical on the impact one player would have had on the title destination...

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
I must admit I don't think so, it could be just as well run as a Limited company, all it does imo is drain money from the club and make it forget its nature as a football club - for example the recent Financial Help Checkin bollox. I prefer the Shareholder's United line myself, and think we the fans should have a say in the running of our club. Personally I'd like to see it as a Co-Operative.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is no way a limited comapny could attract anywhere near the amount of funds a plc can...

I can't see how the plc which has a clear need for a winning team to increase revenue would take away the feeling of United being a football club...

 

[Knoxy]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>

Yes it probably was, and it was a sound decision in my opinion...

Dwight Yorke is on a high salary at the moment and the fact is other clubs who weren't plc owned would have probably taken the same logical decision...

Also I would sceptical on the impact one player would have had on the title destination...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not so sure that they would to be quite honest with you. Other clubs are far more likely to make the gamble (rightly or wrongly) to try and win stuff.

The title race could come down to the tightest of margins this year and you are effectivetly playing with 3 strikers in your squad at the moment, one of which hasn't even settled into English football yet.
I think Paulo di Canio could really have made a big difference in you run-in.

I was very pleased when you didn't sign him.....

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by manux399:
<strong>

Well said MOM, totally agree.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Would you prefer the success we've had in the recent years due to the plc to be exchanged for the fc on the badge?

I don't think anyone could say that...

 

[giggzy]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>

Would you prefer the success we've had in the recent years due to the plc to be exchanged for the fc on the badge?

I don't think anyone could say that...</strong><hr></blockquote>

hang on.


its seems like you're implying that our success is down to the PLC.

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>

hang on.


its seems like you're implying that our success is down to the PLC.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The plc has undoubtebly had a huge hand in it...

 

[giggzy]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>

The plc has undoubtebly had a huge hand in it...</strong><hr></blockquote>

how?

 

[Knoxy]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>

Would you prefer the success we've had in the recent years due to the plc to be exchanged for the fc on the badge?

I don't think anyone could say that...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think the point is, why did the PLC feel the need to remove the FC from the badge? What good has it done? how much money has that made?

It had always been there so why did the PLC need to make that adjustment?

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by Knoxy:
<strong>

I'm not so sure that they would to be quite honest with you. Other clubs are far more likely to make the gamble (rightly or wrongly) to try and win stuff.

The title race could come down to the tightest of margins this year and you are effectivetly playing with 3 strikers in your squad at the moment, one of which hasn't even settled into English football yet.
I think Paulo di Canio could really have made a big difference in you run-in.

I was very pleased when you didn't sign him.....

</strong><hr></blockquote>

To attempt to discredit a financial system that has given the club so much good over a period of time, by saying they were the reason we didn't sign Di Canio is being very short sighted IMO...

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>

how?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Gigzzy, read my first post...

 

[giggzy]

Originally posted by Knoxy:
<strong>

I think the point is, why did the PLC feel the need to remove the FC from the badge? What good has it done? how much money has that made?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

marketing.

aresnal have also dropped the 'FC' on their new badge yet they aren't a PLC

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by Knoxy:
<strong>

I think the point is, why did the PLC feel the need to remove the FC from the badge? What good has it done? how much money has that made?

It had always been there so why did the PLC need to make that adjustment?</strong><hr></blockquote>

As I said, that was one decision I disagreed with, however the plc felt it made United more marketable by making the name simpler...

I don't think how much money it has made can be measured...

Again, I disagreed with that particular decision...

 

[giggzy]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>
It's pretty fashionable as a United fan to slag the plc for whatever reason, but I seem to find alot of it is bollox...

The fact is the plc has enabled us to become the richest club in the world, an attractive destination for world class players and has given us top facilities including a world class stadium...

</strong><hr></blockquote>

ok, JSV..


how has the PLC enabled us to become the richest club in the world??

personally i think its less to do with the PLC than you think.

 

[Knoxy]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>

To attempt to discredit a financial system that has given the club so much good over a period of time, by saying they were the reason we didn't sign Di Canio is being very short sighted IMO...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't really care whether or not your PLC is discredited, I'm merely pointing out a possible disadvantage to having a PLC and therefore a reason why people wouldn't like them.
In this instance they are directly affecting the work of the manager with the possible result that you might not be as successful this season as you could of been.

I think the main flaw to having a PLC is that their major concern is not that you win the league or the FA cup (altho the cash benefits of doing so are obviously attractive), it's that you make money.

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>

ok, JSV..


how has the PLC enabled us to become the richest club in the world??

personally i think its less to do with the PLC than you think.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Without the plc we wouldn't have become the wealthiest club in the world... that is undisputable...

Explain...

 

[giggzy]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>

As I said, that was one decision I disagreed with, however the plc felt it made United more marketable by making the name simpler...

</strong><hr></blockquote>

yep...

its very americanised ie a bit like the NFL, NBA, HHL teams..

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by Knoxy:
<strong>

I don't really care whether or not your PLC is discredited, I'm merely pointing out a possible disadvantage to having a PLC and therefore a reason why people wouldn't like them.
In this instance they are directly affecting the work of the manager with the possible result that you might not be as successful this season as you could of been.

I think the main flaw to having a PLC is that their major concern is not that you win the league or the FA cup (altho the cash benefits of doing so are obviously attractive), it's that you make money.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The two go hand in hand... always...

A club that is not as successful = Less public intrest, less merchandising sold, less TV revenues etc.

As I said it is absoloutely essential the club remains in a strong financial position, and the plc obviously thought it would be a better decision for the club to rid itself of a striker who was giving no input on the field, yet having a major output on the bank balance...

The blame for the Di Canio situation should be put on Dwight Yorke and not the plc...

 

[giggzy]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>

Without the plc we wouldn't have become the wealthiest club in the world... that is undisputable...

</strong><hr></blockquote>

you answer my question first.. how is it undisputable???

feck it...

United's wealth is due to success on the pitch.. we ALWAYS splashed out money on big named players hence have broken transfer fee records BEFORE the PLC was created. IF SAF wasn't as successful as he has been, United would not be in the position it's in... furthermore, we been very lucky that the we started our domination at the beginning of the Sky generation... the revenue and exposure (due to sky) around the world has played a great part in United's growth...


back to you... how has the PLC enabled us to become the richest club in the world?? and why is it undisputable?

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>
back to you... how has the PLC enabled us to become the richest club in the world?? and why is it undisputable?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok, let's talk about basic economics...

ltds become plcs when they want to expand, become bigger, have more revenue... that is indisputable...

Now what i'm saying is we may have been able to break UK transfer records pre-plc but never really managed to compete with the big guns of Europe in the player market... We were very far behind in terms of our stadium, training facilities, marketing abilities...

We don't have a Cragnotti, Moratti, Perez etc. and so no matter how successful we were we simply would not be able to generate enough money to compete on the world stage, not only in the transfer market, but as a football club as a whole...

If you think we were as proportionally well off pre-plc then you are very mistaken...

 

[Neil Thomson]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>

Ok, let's talk about basic economics...

ltds become plcs when they want to expand, become bigger, have more revenue... that is indisputable...

Now what i'm saying is we may have been able to break UK transfer records pre-plc but never really managed to compete with the big guns of Europe in the player market... We were very far behind in terms of our stadium, training facilities, marketing abilities...

We don't have a Cragnotti, Moratti, Perez etc. and so no matter how successful we were we simply would not be able to generate enough money to compete on the world stage, not only in the transfer market, but as a football club as a whole...

If you think we were as proportionally well off pre-plc then you are very mistaken...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the Sky money, and exploitation of merchandising streams are bigger reasons for our financial growth - that and winning trophies (which started long before we became a plc).

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
I think the Sky money, and exploitation of merchandising streams are bigger reasons for our financial growth - that and winning trophies (which started long before we became a plc).</strong><hr></blockquote>

The exploitation you mentioned needs lots of cash, which wouldn't have been available as a ltd...

Also the same Sky money was available to other clubs, who haven't reaped the same benefits???

 

[giggzy]

Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
I think the Sky money, and exploitation of merchandising streams are bigger reasons for our financial growth - that and winning trophies (which started long before we became a plc).</strong><hr></blockquote>

exactly.

 

[Neil Thomson]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>

The exploitation you mentioned needs lots of cash, which wouldn't have been available as a ltd...

Also the same Sky money was available to other clubs, who haven't reaped the same benefits???</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does every prem team get the same money from the Sky deal, are they all shown equally??
We've also had a bigger ground than other clubs, which is still our biggest source of revenue. Winning trophies and getting into Europe each year is also a big bonus, with the European Cup not always being available to the top 4 teams - that gave us a big boost ahead of them.

 

[JSV]

Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
Does every prem team get the same money from the Sky deal, are they all shown equally??
We've also had a bigger ground than other clubs, which is still our biggest source of revenue. Winning trophies and getting into Europe each year is also a big bonus, with the European Cup not always being available to the top 4 teams - that gave us a big boost ahead of them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, but the othet top clubs were also given as much exposure as us...

The major stadium expansion happened post-plc so it could be argued they had a large hand in that...

My point is we would not have become a global force without the plc, maybe the wealthiest in the UK, but never wealthier than Barca etc.

 

[Neil Thomson]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>

No, but the othet top clubs were also given as much exposure as us...

The major stadium expansion happened post-plc so it could be argued they had a large hand in that...

My point is we would not have become a global force without the plc, maybe the wealthiest in the UK, but never wealthier than Barca etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't like to argue that point without the facts at hand, is there anyway we can get the top 10 turnover of clubs for the last 15 years?

 

[yaps]

Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>
Not to mention the plc has also NOT raised prices </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes it has...

Like the time they promised it wouldn't go up and they did, and the the time when they decided to blame Roy Keane . . .

 

[Wibble]

Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong> Personally I'd like to see it as a Co-Operative.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What a good idea <img src="graemlins/houllier.gif" border="0" alt="[Houllier]" /> I'm sure a commitee of Caf posters would be able to run the place. Assuming that spending cash on players, reducing ticket prices and removing the seats are the only things that need doing.

We could do away with the megastore and sell tie-dyed United shirts from a stall run by whoever turns up.

 

[Wibble]

Without the PLC we would not be in a financial position to buy world class players or pay the wages of the ones we already have. It might have been cozier in the "good old days" but I know which I prefer.

There are always going to be changes we don't like, some of which, like the missing FC, that seem stupid and uneccesary but thems the breaks.

 

[Aberdeen Al]

The PLC have ensured that the UTD brand is now a global name, the biggest in the world.We can now compete with anyone in the world for almost any player, although the PLC would, (quite rightly) baulk at paying 40/50 million for one player, no one is worth that.It invests in the future development of players, that is the way forward for any business, develop and train from within your organisation, then bring people through the ranks, and when the need arises, bring in someone who can help do a better job, or improve the squad, but it must have limits.
Sky and the internet boom have happened at exactly the right time for UTD, it has coincided with them being the best team around, all the PLC have done is exploit this, who in their right mind wouldn't.?The best players are attracted by the best teams, but also by the ones who will pay amongst the best wages.We need the turnover to pay for the team, and the club is one of the best at keeping wages in line with turnover, those who are paying 70 - 80% of turnover on wages can't possibly survive.
The PLC will ensure UTD will survive, and continue to grow.

 

[Neil Thomson]

Originally posted by Wibble:
<strong>

What a good idea <img src="graemlins/houllier.gif" border="0" alt="[Houllier]" /> I'm sure a commitee of Caf posters would be able to run the place. Assuming that spending cash on players, reducing ticket prices and removing the seats are the only things that need doing.

We could do away with the megastore and sell tie-dyed United shirts from a stall run by whoever turns up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah all co-operatives are run like that! The difference between a plc and a limited company is that a Plc can raise money for investment from the stock market, but also has to give a large return on that investment. Another difference is that it is vulnerable to take-overs - it was only the MMC that stopped Murdoch running our club, and it is still very possible that we will be taken over in the next few years by the Coolmore mafia. Whether a company is a Plc, a Ltd. company, or a co-operative makes little difference to the quality of management - there are some very rich and well run Limited companies you know. We were very well run even before being a Plc. The advantage of a Co-Operative is that the club becomes answerable not only to shareholders, but also to the fans. This doesn't mean it is run by the fans, but it does give them an official say in the same way that the major institutional investors currently do. Maybe you'd like to find out a bit more about all the range of alternatives, particularly about Shareholders United and IMUSA, before you make such shallow judgements.

 

[Wibble]

Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
Yeah all co-operatives are run like that! </strong>

But they can be and they get rid of all that nasty proffesionalism

<strong>The difference between a plc and a limited company is that a Plc can raise money for investment from the stock market, but also has to give a large return on that investment. Another difference is that it is vulnerable to take-overs - it was only the MMC that stopped Murdoch running our club, and it is still very possible that we will be taken over in the next few years by the Coolmore mafia. Whether a company is a Plc, a Ltd. company, or a co-operative makes little difference to the quality of management - there are some very rich and well run Limited companies you know. We were very well run even before being a Plc. The advantage of a Co-Operative is that the club becomes answerable not only to shareholders, but also to the fans. This doesn't mean it is run by the fans, but it does give them an official say in the same way that the major institutional investors currently do. Maybe you'd like to find out a bit more about all the range of alternatives, particularly about Shareholders United and IMUSA, before you make such shallow judgements.</strong>

Name me 1 large well run co-operative. All of the decent ones turn themselves into PLC's<hr></blockquote>