Woodward (old thread)

[Randall Flagg]

No you don't, i've acknowledged the class of 92, hence me saying in an earlier post "Sir Alex trust in youth, really? Other than the class of 92, Sir Alex was terrible with youth." which made you reply to me with those 6 names - We are on about what Manchester United have produced since the class of 92.

Sir Alex retired 2013, 21 years after the class of 92 - In that time, 6 players went on to be regulars for Manchester United. To me Alex Ferguson always going on about Manchester United's youth and how it's Manchester United's policy giving youth opportunities and people people recycling that on here (which made me reply) is just a load of bollocks.

Moyes was only at the club for 9 months, but gave a chance to an academy prospect, who Sir Alex would never have given a chance to last season and reason i can say that confidently is there was no indication what so ever Adnan would be given a opportunity at Manchester United under Sir Alex, he came in from under the radar and was a shock to everyone, as said Sir Alex would have gone the Zaha route (a young player he paid for).

If Moyes was at Manchester United for 21 years (the horror to think about that) i would bet, more than 6 youth players would have gone on to play for us, same for Van Gaal and many other managers, so what does that say about Sir Alex and youth? Says to me his development of youth and him giving a teams own youth from academies a chance is all a myth.

Its called the class of 92, but most didnt break through until 94-96. Brown and O'Shea began to break through in 99.

Adnan was on the bench in Fergies final game. If that isnt an indication of Fergies thoughts on him I dont know what is. He clearly wanted to hand him his debut in his final game which would have been quite the honour. It was such a crazy game against WBA though he wasnt able too.

I will say it again. In this day and age for big clubs its very hard to bring kids through. So to get 6 through to play over 100 games between 99-2012 is not a bad return

If we were at a level of everton, no doubt he would have brought through far more.

Apart from Pogba who should have gotten the chance by the way?

 

[NoWinNoFee]

Maybe 'Sir Alex and youth' or 'Manchester United and youth after the class of 92' would make a good separate thread.

 

[Stobzilla]

The standard coming through the academy 1993 - 2007 was on the whole, shocking. after being hamstrung by the 90 minute rule. But then Mulensteen came in and revitalised the technical coaching side which we are now seeing the benefits of.

After 92, what has there seriously been from an individual talent that gave any indication they could step into our first team ? Bear in mind that the standard had been raised higher than when the '92 lads came in given our subsequent success. The ones immediately after that stood the best chance though were

Keith Gillespie - Could have been a fantastic player, was asked for as a makeweight in the Andy Cole deal, no brainer but had he stayed he would have been a main stay in the squad.

Terry Cooke - Injuries

John Curtis - Possibly injuries, just seemed not good enough though.

Ben Thornley - Again, brilliant player from all accounts, injuries hampered him as well.

Then you are looking at names like David Johnson, Bardsley, Greening, Spector, Mark Lynch and countless others who were all simply not good enough for us at the time they were coming through.

Pogba is the only one Fergie has seemingly gotten wrong and it still may be too early to tell on that.

 

[Drummer]

I don't think we overpaid for Herrera or Shaw.

I agree but I think its a reflection of how the united fans have gotten used to us not spending the asking rate for good potential youth prospects or quality talent. . I still don't understand why fans give a sh*t of the cost of a player if they perform for the club.

Unfortunately we are competing on a financial level, generally speaking (not necessarily directly), with Barca, Madrid, Bayern, Chelsea, City, PSG and even Monaco.

The going rate for good players has gone up because there is way more money in the game and more clubs vying for less players. Just because its sugar daddy's or ridiculously indebted clubs like Madrid who are spending the money doesn't change the fact that if we want to compete with the top clubs for top signings we may have to overpay for players.

I know this is debatable because its hard to quantify inflation in football but I don't consider the cost of Shaw/Herrara more then that of Anderson or Nani when they were bought. And when you consider we spent £30mil on rio over 10 years ago, you have to ask is Shaws cost really that high?!

If the club continues to take the approach that it will only purchase players at how they value them then the question has to be asked, who at the club decides the value of a player? Who makes the choice on whether to meet an asking price or not? If the club places an importance on player resale/marketability, how will that effect our ability to get our managers preferred targets if they don't really fit into this bracket?

The truth is that we don't know because what the club states publically and what it does in the background may not necessarily be the same. The club can publically state that there is no limit on funds available, but the criteria on signing certain players may hinder the manager in actually getting his preferred targets and may class certain targets as not value for money in the eyes of the club.

 

[ravelston]

If you assume that our youth development process didn't destroy or discard a stream of potentially top class players, then you have to come to the conclusion that what came out of the process was consistent with what went in. So the spotlight has to shift to the way we select(ed) the kids that we bring into the system. I doubt if it's a coincidence that Rossi, Pique, Pogba and Januzaj, the most skillful players we have produced in their positions for many years, all came to the club late in their development processes. Our failure to grow players like these through the system to me means that either we are not selecting for skill or we are not concentrating sufficiently on the development of skill in the early years. Either way, it's a problem that takes a long time to correct - if we are screwing up with the 8 year olds, how long after putting it right do we start getting finished product?

 

[Empire]

I agree but I think its a reflection of how the united fans have gotten used to us not spending the asking rate for good potential youth prospects or quality talent. . I still don't understand why fans give a sh*t of the cost of a player if they perform for the club.

We care for the cost of a player because every club has a finite transfer budget and it is understandable fans want to extract maximum value from that budget.

From the discussions I have had with you in the past it seems apparent you on the other hand want the Glazers to spend as much as possible even if it is a detriment to the club. You will never be satisfied until the Glazers are bankrupt even if it means Manchester United suffers immensely.

Unfortunately we are competing on a financial level, generally speaking (not necessarily directly), with Barca, Madrid, Bayern, Chelsea, City, PSG and even Monaco.

The going rate for good players has gone up because there is way more money in the game and more clubs vying for less players. Just because its sugar daddy's or ridiculously indebted clubs like Madrid who are spending the money doesn't change the fact that if we want to compete with the top clubs for top signings we may have to overpay for players.

It's not overpaying for players if their going rate has gone up.

I know this is debatable because its hard to quantify inflation in football but I don't consider the cost of Shaw/Herrara more then that of Anderson or Nani when they were bought. And when you consider we spent £30mil on rio over 10 years ago, you have to ask is Shaws cost really that high?!

Anderson and Nani turned out well didn't they? You have to question whether we over spent on the likes of Anderson, Nani and Young.

If the club continues to take the approach that it will only purchase players at how they value them then the question has to be asked, who at the club decides the value of a player? Who makes the choice on whether to meet an asking price or not? If the club places an importance on player resale/marketability, how will that effect our ability to get our managers preferred targets if they don't really fit into this bracket?

Alex Ferguson said he decided that.

You seem to like to imply Ferguson is a liar and a yes man.

Woodward has spoken how Louis van Gaal has freedom to decide who he wants and he won't force a player upon him. I'm sure Louis van Gaal will come out and say the same, you will proceed to state the person who is probably the least a yes man in the world to be a yes man.

The truth is that we don't know because what the club states publically and what it does in the background may not necessarily be the same. The club can publically state that there is no limit on funds available, but the criteria on signing certain players may hinder the manager in actually getting his preferred targets and may class certain targets as not value for money in the eyes of the club.

You don't know yet you spend an awful lot of time debating. This further points to some weird obsession with the Glazers.

 

[Sam]

I don't think we overpaid for Herrera or Shaw.

We clearly did with Shaw. Only a United fan with the red tinted specs would argue otherwise.

 

[United22]

I don't think we overpaid for Herrera or Shaw.

We overpaid for both, just look at the transfers around the market to see how (exception of Suarez/James)

 

[Matador8]

It seems you're damned when you do, and damned when you don't. It wasn't long ago people were moaning that he never gave interviews, now he talks too much!. One thing did concern in his interview with Stewart Gardner is that he referred transfer business as "trades" and how he likes to get a good deal. I wouldn't really be comfortable splashing out £70m on a player either, the game has gone mad.

 

[redevil2]

He's really not doing himself any favour! Now clubs won't sell to United unless we write fat cheque even players do not warrant it.. Shut up Woody! The media attention crave has gotten the better of him now.

 

[Empire]

We clearly did with Shaw. Only a United fan with the red tinted specs would argue otherwise.

He has the potential to be one of the best left backs in the world.

If we get 15 years out of him that's about £2m a season.

Say we get 5 seasons out of RVP I think that's about £5m per season.

Look at what we spent on Rooney, adjust that for 2014 money and it will be much much higher.

Chelsea have paid £16m for Filipe Luis, if they get 5 seasons out of him that will be £3.2m per season.

Without a doubt my calculations are flawed, I haven't even taken into account wages and also how marketable the player is but they're there just to paint a picture. Your posts suggests we unarguably overpaid for Luke Shaw, well then that's wrong.

 

[Sam]

He has the potential to be one of the best left backs in the world.

If we get 15 years out of him that's about £2m a season.

Say we get 5 seasons out of RVP I think that's about £5m per season.

Look at what we spent on Rooney, adjust that for 2014 money and it will be much much higher.

Chelsea have paid £16m for Filipe Luis, if they get 5 seasons out of him that will be £3.2m per season.

Without a doubt my calculations are flawed, I haven't even taken into account wages and also how marketable the player is but they're there just to paint a picture. Your posts suggests we unarguably overpaid for Luke Shaw, well then that's wrong.

But all of that is based on assumptions. There is no way we can know if Shaw will become one of the best left backs or spend 15 years here. Also, its the kind of thing everyone on here mocks Liverpool fans for doing when trying to justify transfers.

What you can do though, is compare the price we paid for Shaw, to other transfers. And that shows we significantly overpaid. He's already something like the 4th most expensive defender ever, and the most expensive teenager ever. And lets not forget he's a left back, who are hardly known for comanding huge, record breaking, fees.

As I say, the only people saying we haven't overpaid, are United fans.

 

[Empire]

But all of that is based on assumptions. There is no way we can know if Shaw will become one of the best left backs or spend 15 years here. Also, its the kind of thing everyone on here mocks Liverpool fans for doing when trying to justify transfers.

What you can do though, is compare the price we paid for Shaw, to other transfers. And that shows we significantly overpaid. He's already something like the 4th most expensive defender ever, and the most expensive teenager ever. And lets not forget he's a left back, who are hardly known for comanding huge, record breaking, fees.

As I say, the only people saying we haven't overpaid, are United fans.

There is no way we could have known for sure whether RVP would remain injury free. You take calculated risks, surely this is obvious?

I also said potential to become. Without a doubt he has the potential to become one of the best, from that point forth it becomes a calculated risk.

If Liverpool got Shaw for £30m, we would have been like wtf...

4th most expensive defender ever? Well not per season, you are looking at things as an absolute instead of the value we will extract from them.

Barcelona just paid £16m for Mathieu who will be 31 in October, if they get even 3 seasons out of him that's over £5m per season or if they get 4 seasons out of him that's £4m per season so Luke Shaw is already way better value for money.

We do need to put these prices in context.

 

[Rado_N]

Woody must have one of the most critiqued jobs in the world.

Millions of United fans around the world reckon they are in a position to judge how well he's doing his job, with the vast majority only willing to comment when they think badly of him.

People used to hate Gill, now his reign is the good old days. All the while our commercial revenue streams go from strength to strength.

 

[Empire]

We overpaid for both, just look at the transfers around the market to see how (exception of Suarez/James)

You would rather Mathieu for £16m like the mighty Barcelona? A club actually in the champions league and with world class talent all over...

Shaw has just turned 19 and will be that age for all of this season just like Mathieu will be 31 for most of this season.

In 15 seasons Shaw will be 34, his value works out to £2m per season.

In 3 seasons Mathieu will be 34, his value works out to £5m per season.

Mathieu is probably a better player than Shaw however is he really worth 2.5 times as much?

 

[ottosec]

The way I see it, he basically put himself under pressure. Let's be honest, we already signed 2 decent players without any issue, if we would sign maybe one or two more that can add to the squad people would have been pleased.

But after he came out and boasted how much money we got and even ended with "Watch this space", there is no wonder that people expect big signings and will be much harder to please now.

 

[Will Absolute]

It seems you're damned when you do, and damned when you don't. It wasn't long ago people were moaning that he never gave interviews, now he talks too much!. One thing did concern in his interview with Stewart Gardner is that he referred transfer business as "trades" and how he likes to get a good deal. I wouldn't really be comfortable splashing out £70m on a player either, the game has gone mad.

Which is entirely the wrong approach, and one of the reasons football men rather than business types or accountants should be in charge of our transfers.

To an accountant, everything has a definite value, and, if a footballer is 'worth' £30M, a win - a 'good deal' - is getting him for £29M, and a loss is paying £31M. But in football, a win is getting the right player who will improve the team, and a loss is missing out on that player, and/or getting the wrong player. Few clubs or fans complain about paying a little over the odds if a player turns out to be a success. It's the failures that cost a club, both financially and on the pitch. Missing out on top targets for the sake of a few millions and buying cheaper but inferior alternatives greatly increases the risk of failure. As United have found out in the last 6/7 years.

 

[Matador8]

Which is entirely the wrong approach, and one of the reasons football men rather than business types or accountants should be in charge of our transfers.

To an accountant, everything has a definite value, and, if a footballer is 'worth' £30M, a win - a 'good deal' - is getting him for £29M, and a loss is paying £31M. But in football, a win is getting the right player who will improve the team, and a loss is missing out on that player, and/or getting the wrong player. Few clubs or fans complain about paying a little over the odds if a player turns out to be a success. It's the failures that cost a club, both financially and on the pitch. Missing out on top targets for the sake of a few millions and buying cheaper but inferior alternatives greatly increases the risk of failure. As United have found out in the last 6/7 years.

let's face it, he's an accountant by trade. It's difficult to judge what really is good value in today's market. I certainly don't envy the man atm. He needs to deliver big signings after his latest statement, after spending close to £130m in the last Twelve months. Tough School.

 

[Mindhunter]

Which is entirely the wrong approach, and one of the reasons football men rather than business types or accountants should be in charge of our transfers.

To an accountant, everything has a definite value, and, if a footballer is 'worth' £30M, a win - a 'good deal' - is getting him for £29M, and a loss is paying £31M. But in football, a win is getting the right player who will improve the team, and a loss is missing out on that player, and/or getting the wrong player. Few clubs or fans complain about paying a little over the odds if a player turns out to be a success. It's the failures that cost a club, both financially and on the pitch. Missing out on top targets for the sake of a few millions and buying cheaper but inferior alternatives greatly increases the risk of failure. As United have found out in the last 6/7 years.

You have no quotes or facts to base this on. Give me one credible source that says we missed out on a player due to haggling over a couple of million quid. Also, to put things in perspective, you are talking about the most successful football CEO in the word today in terms of maximizing revenues.

If anything, just the fact that he got a 750m contract from Adidas itself should ensure that there is no chance whatsoever that we will go down the Liverpool route. I am extremely thankful to him for that.

 

[Sammyjunn]

We clearly did with Shaw. Only a United fan with the red tinted specs would argue otherwise.

I have convinced enough non Mancunians that we havent overpayed, he was voted the best LB of the PL with an age of 18, he already has near 70 matches PL experience, there arent much LB of good quality around, so if there is such a mega talent its a bit logic that you have to pay much, he will be home grown, he is already an international, he is English, he has like 15 top years ahead of him.

 

[MDFC Manager]

So what if we overpaid? He's a player who wanted to play for us, the manager wanted him and the club had no issues with paying up what was needed to get him here.

 

[Sunny Jim]

He's really not doing himself any favour! Now clubs won't sell to United unless we write fat cheque even players do not warrant it.. Shut up Woody! The media attention crave has gotten the better of him now.

Last summer all over again

 

[Will Absolute]

You have no quotes or facts to base this on. Give me one credible source that says we missed out on a player due to haggling over a couple of million quid. Also, to put things in perspective, you are talking about the most successful football CEO in the word today in terms of maximizing revenues.

If anything, just the fact that he got a 750m contract from Adidas itself should ensure that there is no chance whatsoever that we will go down the Liverpool route. I am extremely thankful to him for that.

Maximizing revenues is always good news for the Glazers, but unless the money is spent on players, it's meaningless to the club or the fans.

The 'value in the market' mantra in the Fergie/Gill era says a good deal about our approach at that time. More importantly, the quality of player we acquired from about 2007 onward speaks for itself. We were mostly buying price inflated Premiership players in the £10M - £20M range, while City and Chelsea (not to mention Bayern, Real and Barca) were buying from top European leagues in the £20M - £30M and higher ranges.

I don't know the details of negotiations, but Gill and Fergie repeatedly stated publicly that we passed on players because they weren't 'value'.

 

[Mindhunter]

Maximizing revenues is always good news for the Glazers, but unless the money is spent on players, it's meaningless to the club or the fans.

The 'value in the market' mantra in the Fergie/Gill era says a good deal about our approach at that time. More importantly, the quality of player we acquired from about 2007 onward speaks for itself. We were mostly buying price inflated Premiership players in the £10M - £20M range, while City and Chelsea (not to mention Bayern, Real and Barca) were buying from top European leagues in the £20M - £30M and higher ranges.

I don't know the details of negotiations, but Gill and Fergie repeatedly stated publicly that we passed on players because they weren't 'value'.

Yes we look for value in the market. What's wrong in there? And Gill/Fergie were before Woodward's time. Since his arrival we have spent a shitload of money in the market. So your pain around Fergie not spending money doesn't say anything against Woodward. Why blame him?

Also, I refuted your point about we missing out on players because we haggled for 1 or 2m which I think is completely untrue unless you can quote a source/fact.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

You have to question his motives for all this 'look at how much money we've got', and ' we can break the transfer record if we want' , it rings a few alarm bells for me.

Surely if we are serious about getting top players in then he would just keep his mouth shut, the fact he keeps talking about it makes me think we will not.

 

[Will Absolute]

Yes we look for value in the market. What's wrong in there? And Gill/Fergie were before Woodward's time. Since his arrival we have spent a shitload of money in the market. So your pain around Fergie not spending money doesn't say anything against Woodward. Why blame him?

Also, I refuted your point about we missing out on players because we haggled for 1 or 2m which I think is completely untrue unless you can quote a source/fact.

To calculate value it's necessary to factor in the probability of a player's making a successful contribution to the team. Players who fail - a high proportion of the whole - are always bad value. Successful players are good value, even if the buying club 'overpaid'. Immediately after the purchase of Carrick, Fergie said on TV he thought United might have paid 'a few million too much'. He also repeatedly cited the £24.5M Chelsea paid for Essien as above value. Does anyone agree with that assessment now? Both those players were successful, and fans of neither club would want to go back in time and undo those deals. On the other hand, the £17M we paid for Ashley Young, a cheap, second best alternative, looks like money down the drain.

Accountants are used to thinking in terms of assets with an easily defined value and a fairly predictable return. Footballers are not like that. The return on investment can be hugely positive, or, if a player fails, effectively negative. The most sensible policy is to buy the best you can afford with the least likelihood of failure. Florentino Perez was succinct: 'The dearest players are often the cheapest'.

I think I already addressed your point about losing out due to haggling over small money.

 

[United22]

He is probably reading all of this now, as someone mentioned that he checks out "forums" and this is the biggest one for United right? Hi Woody!

 

[Mindhunter]

To calculate value it's necessary to factor in the probability of a player's making a successful contribution to the team. Players who fail - a high proportion of the whole - are always bad value. Successful players are good value, even if the buying club 'overpaid'. Immediately after the purchase of Carrick, Fergie said on TV he thought United might have paid 'a few million too much'. He also repeatedly cited the £24.5M Chelsea paid for Essien as above value. Does anyone agree with that assessment now? Both those players were successful, and fans of neither club would want to go back in time and undo those deals. On the other hand, the £17M we paid for Ashley Young, a cheap, second best alternative, looks like money down the drain.

Accountants are used to thinking in terms of assets with an easily defined value and a fairly predictable return. Footballers are not like that. The return on investment can be hugely positive, or, if a player fails, effectively negative. The most sensible policy is to buy the best you can afford with the least likelihood of failure. Florentino Perez was succinct: 'The dearest players are often the cheapest'.

I think I already addressed your point about losing out due to haggling over small money.

I completely agree with the point that we shouldn't be bothered to pay higher sums as long as it improves the first team. I just fail to understand why you blame Woodward for it when it is pretty clear that it was the strategy followed by the previous regime? Since Woodward has come in, our revenues have skyrocketed and we have actually paid huge sums of money to secure Fellaini, Mata, Herrera and Shaw.

Also, I don't see how you have addressed the bolded point. Under Gill, it was reported that we pulled out of a few transfers as we didn't want to match the agent fees involved but as far as I know there hasn't been a single article or quote from anybody of repute that says that we pulled out of transfers over 1-2m bucks under Woodward.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Get on with it Ed ffs (for fecks sake). These players aint gonna sign themselves. Also I think you need to stand up to Loius to earn his respect. When he gives you his list of Dutch players just scoff and screw it up into a ball before throwing it at his face.

 

[ravelston]

It swings both ways Gladiator..

The main point is that the glazers didn't take a huge risk by leveraging the club more then any owners in the history of the sport but they greatly limited the clubs chances of success by putting restrictions on spending. If you have to spend £60mil on debt before anything else each year, it's limiting your options, unlike a plc that can at least decide dividends.

It is questionable how successful the club would of been com medically had SAF not gotten the success he had with a very conservative budget in comparison to his major rivals in England and Europe. Don't even have to go through city's figures cause their salary is over a third per annum of ours and they has spent over half a billion the last few years.

You need only look at uniteds most expensive player to barca or Madrids to get a basic idea of what level united are competing for players. These clubs expect to compete for cl and la primera and their spending matches these ambitions.

Spending on players has increased dramatically over the last 10 years , yet our 2nd most expensive signing was rio Ferdinand up until last January. If you factor in football inflation, which is difficult, it's fair to say that rios cost today could of easily been double. With inflation most of our expensive signings were before the glazers tenure.

They limited spending (they didn't increase budget as income/revenues increased. They limited players that could be bought- only players with resale value. Rvp was the first top player SAF was allowed to sign.

They took huge risks financially and with transfer policy and got desperately lucky. Only after success (which wasn't guaranteed) have they been able to exploit the product "Manchester United". You literally can't flog a dead horse and one can only wonder what might of happened had the squad desperately needed the kind of investment it needs now, what might of happened when the club simply didn't have the money to invest while having to prioritise the servicing of the debt.

Ah but sure everything worked out so the glazers are genius's?! No wonder the economic system of the world is so f**ked. People don't care to reflect on why its in the state it is and it's the same with the glazers and Woodward. Because they got lucky (investing in sport is not an exact science or a guarantee), people think they are extremely clever.

Does anybody on this forum think that for all our supposed transfer funds available that there is any chance the club will buy a £70mil player? If we are as big a club as any, surely we shouldn't be afraid to flex our financial muscle?! Not a f**king chance.. Of course , if we were to believe some fans, it was that SAF, moyes and now LVG don't like spending big money to sign the top players of the world!!

First 4 years after the takeover: United net spend £110.4m (not including the Rooney/Ronaldo money); Barca net spend £96.8m.

Last 5 years: United net spend £226.6m; Barca net spend £150.6m. (figures from Transfermarkt)

Of course, in the year between (2009-10), we sold Ronaldo while they bought Ibrahimovic - big difference.

Anything else - do yourself.

 

[Drummer]

First 4 years after the takeover: United net spend £110.4m (not including the Rooney/Ronaldo money); Barca net spend £96.8m.

Last 5 years: United net spend £226.6m; Barca net spend £150.6m. (figures from Transfermarkt)

Of course, in the year between (2009-10), we sold Ronaldo while they bought Ibrahimovic - big difference.

Anything else - do yourself.

Some of those figures on transfermarket are dubious....

Transfer market website doesn't include the £12mil the club made off selling obi mikel.

Where the f**k are they getting the transfer figures for players? Anderson didn't cost £30mil and nani and Heargreaves?!!! WTF?!

And did you just discount the ronaldo sale and ibrahimovic purchase because it didn't tie in with your argument? It changes the 110mil to actually 50mil.. That's 38mil if we include the obi mikel transfer and doesn't even take into account the questionable transfer figures of some of the players.

The reason the ronaldo sale is valid to the discussions is because it actually happened. You can't just discount it from the records cause you want to. Do I really have to point that out????

Nicely selective with the figures....

 

[Redjazz]

Some of those figures on transfermarket are dubious....

Transfer market website doesn't include the £12mil the club made off selling obi mikel.

Where the f**k are they getting the transfer figures for players? Anderson didn't cost £30mil and nani and Heargreaves?!!! WTF?!

And did you just discount the ronaldo sale and ibrahimovic purchase because it didn't tie in with your argument? It changes the 110mil to actually 50mil.. That's 38mil if we include the obi mikel transfer and doesn't even take into account the questionable transfer figures of some of the players.

The reason the ronaldo sale is valid to the discussions is because it actually happened. You can't just discount it from the records cause you want to. Do I really have to point that out????

Nicely selective with the figures....

They are no better than Transferleague really.

The "Net Total" figure appearing on Transferleague (and Transfermarkt) isn't a net spend figure; it is merely the difference between the full transfer fees to be paid and received (assuming that the reported figures are indeed accurate). Net spend is the difference between actual fees paid and received in a period. If total fees aren't paid or received upfront, then the difference between Transferleague\transfermarkt and the financial accounts can be substantial. Even if you were to adjust for balances outstanding, differences would still remain due to sales\purchases being allocated to different periods, Transferleague\transfermarkt not including other acquisition and sale costs associated with player transfers, the omission of contingent payments, and so on.
You really need to look at the financial accounts for accurate net spend figures: For instance, MU's net spend for the first 4 years is £25.5m and not the £110.4 derived from Transfermarkt.
All MU accounts can be accessed (for free) over the net. As mentioned, Andersred as a resource section featuring RF accounts.


Difficult to find reliable info for comparables. RM publish annual accounts in English; from the most recent account (2012/2013), net spend figures can be extrapolated going back to the 2001. The Swiss Ramble has at various times commented on the financial health of other big clubs- you might be able to able to fashion the comparison you require from there.

 

[Drummer]

They are no better than Transferleague really.

The "Net Total" figure appearing on Transferleague (and Transfermarkt) isn't a net spend figure; it is merely the difference between the full transfer fees to be paid and received (assuming that the reported figures are indeed accurate). Net spend is the difference between actual fees paid and received in a period. If total fees aren't paid or received upfront, then the difference between Transferleague\transfermarkt and the financial accounts can be substantial. Even if you were to adjust for balances outstanding, differences would still remain due to sales\purchases being allocated to different periods, Transferleague\transfermarkt not including other acquisition and sale costs associated with player transfers, the omission of contingent payments, and so on.
You really need to look at the financial accounts for accurate net spend figures: For instance, MU's net spend for the first 4 years is £25.5m and not the £110.4 derived from Transfermarkt.
All MU accounts can be accessed (for free) over the net. As mentioned, Andersred as a resource section featuring RF accounts.


Difficult to find reliable info for comparables. RM publish annual accounts in English; from the most recent account (2012/2013), net spend figures can be extrapolated going back to the 2001. The Swiss Ramble has at various times commented on the financial health of other big clubs- you might be able to able to fashion the comparison you require from there.

Thanks for that redjazz....

 

[IwatUwat]

He's really not doing himself any favour! Now clubs won't sell to United unless we write fat cheque even players do not warrant it.. Shut up Woody! The media attention crave has gotten the better of him now.

Was surprised he made this quote quite so public, I understand he's trying to keep fans happy, but hopefully he's negotiating with teams and this surely puts teams we're bargaining with in a better position in terms they know we're trying to have a big summer and need to sign players now CEO shouting about having cash.

Not many other CEO's are as public as him. Yes fans crave it but I was happy with we are working on it, watch this space.

Rather than yeah we have loads of cash and dont mind breaking the bank, whilst not actually putting in any formal bids.

 

[ravelston]

They are no better than Transferleague really.

The "Net Total" figure appearing on Transferleague (and Transfermarkt) isn't a net spend figure; it is merely the difference between the full transfer fees to be paid and received (assuming that the reported figures are indeed accurate). Net spend is the difference between actual fees paid and received in a period. If total fees aren't paid or received upfront, then the difference between Transferleague\transfermarkt and the financial accounts can be substantial. Even if you were to adjust for balances outstanding, differences would still remain due to sales\purchases being allocated to different periods, Transferleague\transfermarkt not including other acquisition and sale costs associated with player transfers, the omission of contingent payments, and so on.
You really need to look at the financial accounts for accurate net spend figures: For instance, MU's net spend for the first 4 years is £25.5m and not the derived from Transfermarkt.
All MU accounts can be accessed (for free) over the net. As mentioned, Andersred as a resource section featuring RF accounts.


Difficult to find reliable info for comparables. RM publish annual accounts in English; from the most recent account (2012/2013), net spend figures can be extrapolated going back to the 2001. The Swiss Ramble has at various times commented on the financial health of other big clubs- you might be able to able to fashion the comparison you require from there.

One of the difficulties with the "transfer" sites is that they're based on transfer seasons (one summer and one winter window) rather than financial years. As financial years tend to end in the middle of the summer window you really can't marry the two sources. The upshot is that Transfermarkt is correct (within the bounds of the information available to them) when you look at "transfer years" - those years just don't map very well onto financial years. Mostly when people look at net spend they use the transfer year sites - hence the £110.4m for the first four 'transfer years". While you're right with the £25.5m for the first four financial years, it leaves you with no basis for comparison with other clubs (which seems to be what Drummer is looking for). In the past I've tried to hack my way through the RM accounts, but they really are a nightmare (and I don't think Barca would be any better). Looking at financial years, United's net spend for the other 4 3/4 years since the takeover (i.e. through Q3 2014) is £181.3m - this does not include Herrera and Shaw of course.

The last time I looked, transferleague.com understated United's spending on players since 2005 by around £68m. I think Transfermarkt are a little better but, as you say, neither of them is good at picking up contingent payments etc.

 

[Redjazz]

One of the difficulties with the "transfer" sites is that they're based on transfer seasons (one summer and one winter window) rather than financial years. As financial years tend to end in the middle of the summer window you really can't marry the two sources. The upshot is that Transfermarkt is correct (within the bounds of the information available to them) when you look at "transfer years" - those years just don't map very well onto financial years. Mostly when people look at net spend they use the transfer year sites - hence the £110.4m for the first four 'transfer years". While you're right with the £25.5m for the first four financial years, it leaves you with no basis for comparison with other clubs (which seems to be what Drummer is looking for). In the past I've tried to hack my way through the RM accounts, but they really are a nightmare (and I don't think Barca would be any better). Looking at financial years, United's net spend for the other 4 3/4 years since the takeover (i.e. through Q3 2014) is £181.3m - this does not include Herrera and Shaw of course.

The last time I looked, transferleague.com understated United's spending on players since 2005 by around £68m. I think Transfermarkt are a little better but, as you say, neither of them is good at picking up contingent payments etc.

Or to be more succinct (and quote myself): "Differences [between the financials and the transfer sites] would still remain due to sales\purchases being allocated to different periods."

Transfermarkt's closer accord with actual net spend is purely accidental- it's an example of how two wrongs can almost make a right. It's pretty apparent if you look at the "Transfer sums" that something (probably an exchange rate glitch) is amiss.
Their "Transfer sums" are (almost systemically) too high (as would any "net total" amount) and as a result the deficit to actual net spend is reduced.
We can confirm this by looking at some transfers for which we have detailed information*:
The total consideration (including conditional amounts) for all of the named players bought in 2003\2004 and 2004\2005 (Van Der Sar, Heinze, Kleberson, Ronaldo, Saha, Smith, Rooney) was £75.4m. Transfermarkt's total "Transfer sum" for the same players is £91.17m. Transferleague is much more accurate with a figure of £73.85m.

So no, I wouldn't be recommending Tranfermarkt as a source for net spend even if the unreliable input produces an answer that seems to be right.

* Manchester United PLC Annual reports for 2004 and 2005 (only) provide detailed info (Notes 10 and 11) on transfer fees, agent fees, and so forth.

 

[Sad Chris]

We clearly did [overspend] with Shaw. Only a United fan with the red tinted specs would argue otherwise.

I disagree. It's a completely different market nowadays than it was pre-Beckham. I think Shaw will turn out to be a huge success in many ways.
On the footy side we have one of the brightest talents in footy playing a position we needed to replace anyway. We could be getting 10-15 years of consistent stability out of Shaw.
Next, he'll surely be marketed in a way that we'll benefit from. It won't just be kit sales, it'll be a package similar to Rooney's one. Ad campaigns with Adidas, our new Asian sponsor BlingBlingInDaEar and others are also reasons why we can afford to pay for him. He's a good looking young lad, who has plenty of marketing potential.
I think you underestimate the skills and knowledge of Woody and his team in making money. I have no doubt that buying Shaw will be a lucrative, profitable piece of business for United.
Btw no red tinted specs here.

 

[Sad Chris]

We overpaid for both, just look at the transfers around the market to see how (exception of Suarez/James)

Just a quick add-on to my previous post:
You're comparing United to the other clubs in the market and are not noticing that we are the biggest club worldwide in marketing. If I want to learn more about an industry, I look at how the biggest and best behave. I don't look at the way Warrior does business and say that Adidas are wrong taking their approach. I accept that Adidas have been successful for a very, very long period of time. They have a proven track record of success.
We're talking about finances here, not about success on the field. No need to look at other clubs saying they know more about the monetary side of the game than we do. They don't.

 

[gooDevil]

I disagree. It's a completely different market nowadays than it was pre-Beckham. I think Shaw will turn out to be a huge success in many ways.
On the footy side we have one of the brightest talents in footy playing a position we needed to replace anyway. We could be getting 10-15 years of consistent stability out of Shaw.
Next, he'll surely be marketed in a way that we'll benefit from. It won't just be kit sales, it'll be a package similar to Rooney's one. Ad campaigns with Adidas, our new Asian sponsor BlingBlingInDaEar and others are also reasons why we can afford to pay for him. He's a good looking young lad, who has plenty of marketing potential.
I think you underestimate the skills and knowledge of Woody and his team in making money. I have no doubt that buying Shaw will be a lucrative, profitable piece of business for United.
Btw no red tinted specs here.

Being handsome has to be worth quite a bit extra on the marketing side, probably contributes a bit to the fee.

 

[Escobar]

It's been quiet for too long. It seems like it takes us forever to close a deal which I wonder why. With Herrera and Shaw we had months of preparation. We might negotiate for every penny which drags on or the big guys are not so keen on United