Our transfer budget?

Spoonatov · 8th July 2008, 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I'm not convinced either way.

Of course, no single player is worth 70m pounds to any club so in that respect Ronaldo is overpriced and we should certainly sell him.

On the other hand, we will then go out and spend 25m on a viable replacement, who won't be as good and will not deliver the end product Ronaldo does. They also won't be as marketable, and our chances of landing trophies will almost certainly decrease, along with the revenue that comes with that.

There probably isn't enough in it to be certain either way. The absolute best solution is to keep the player for x number of years, reap the benefits, and sell him for the same price in x number of years. No guarantees on that either though.

Well, yes, I agree. In the end it's about having a great team. But £100m or whatever, should enable any club to strengthen their first team. Although it's debatable whether losing Ronaldo and adding other players will improve us. So, yeah it's not as cut and dry as I might have made it sound.

sammsky1 · 8th July 2008, 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoonov

As for Beckham. . .most of the shirts sold in Asia are fake.

was just about to say exactly the same thing

Garethw · 8th July 2008, 17:19

I was under the impression that the Hargreaves transfer cash was set aside from Summer '06?

I fully expect there to be (ATLEAST) 25-30 million pounds set aside for transfers this summer.

Our success on and off the pitch last season will surely have guaranteed this.

The only thing stopping us from signing players will be if SAF's targets are not available.

ralphie88 · 8th July 2008, 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by talking robot

I think that globally, there are lots of fair weather fans out there. Also new fans are continually joining. If a likely ballon d'or winner like Ronaldo were to go to Madrid, Madrid would be more likely to pick up available fans and United less likely to do so. This would be especially true if Madrid were to win the champion's league and we suddenly went flat. (...)

So in that respect, I do think Ronaldo's presence is worth a large amount of money to us. Just how much is up for debate though, and as you pointed out, it might be a lot less than many on here suspect.

The problem is that most of these 'fair weather' fans don't pay a lot of money, particularly in the Far East. They typically don't come to the ground. If they buy a shirt it may well just be a fake. And if they can't get the TV coverage for free then they will watch someone else. The EPL has suffered terribly in China since the new TV deal put it on PPV. The Chinese have simply lost interest and watch Liga 1 instead cos it's on free-to-air TV.

ralphie88 · 8th July 2008, 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garethw

I was under the impression that the Hargreaves transfer cash was set aside from Summer '06?

I fully expect there to be (ATLEAST) 25-30 million pounds set aside for transfers this summer.

Our success on and off the pitch last season will surely have guaranteed this.

The only thing stopping us from signing players will be if SAF's targets are not available.

As for the first claim, not a chance. Not a cat's chance in hell.

As to the second, the Glazer business plan will stop us spending that amount. The debt is a reality and the servicing of the interest HAS to come before transfer spending.

Spoonatov · 8th July 2008, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

The problem is that most of these 'fair weather' fans don't pay a lot of money, particularly in the Far East. They typically don't come to the ground. If they buy a shirt it may well just be a fake. And if they can't get the TV coverage for free then they will watch someone else. The EPL has suffered terribly in China since the new TV deal put it on PPV. The Chinese have simply lost interest and watch Liga 1 instead cos it's on free-to-air TV.

Which is why I think the UK will be the only place where we'd stand to make tens of millions via PPV. Also, you can get hold of United matches for free outside of the UK. I think the States may also be a potential cash cow for PPV. It must be the main reason why clubs head off there.

ralphie88 · 8th July 2008, 17:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoonov

Which is why I think the UK will be the only place were we'd stand to make tens of millions via PPV. Also, you can get hold of United matches free outside of the UK. I think the States may also be a potential cash cow for PPV. I think it must be the main reason why clubs head off there.

Difficult to disagree with any of that. The interesting thing will be if we hit a recession in this country - not sure how the likes of Setanta would cope with that.

Bilbo · 8th July 2008, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

As for the first claim, not a chance. Not a cat's chance in hell.

As to the second, the Glazer business plan will stop us spending that amount. The debt is a reality and the servicing of the interest HAS to come before transfer spending.

We have no way of knowing essentially. We don't have many players (that we want to sell) that will generate significant funds, but our revenue this year will be dramatically increased so I'm sure there would be funds available if required.

However, it would be difficult for anyone (incl. Ferguson) to justify the point that we NEED to spend anything this summer. Even a striker will not be necessary if Saha can get a run of fitness. The transfer muppets will probably slit their wrists if we don't buy anyone, but it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Tibs · 8th July 2008, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilbo

We have no way of knowing essentially. We don't have many players (that we want to sell) that will generate significant funds, but our revenue this year will be dramatically increased so I'm sure there would be funds available if required.

However, it would be difficult for anyone (incl. Ferguson) to justify the point that we NEED to spend anything this summer. Even a striker will not be necessary if Saha can get a run of fitness. The transfer muppets will probably slit their wrists if we don't buy anyone, but it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Lets not kid ourselves

MadDogg · 8th July 2008, 17:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devil_forever

It probably isn't as much as some may imagine, as hargreaves' fee (£18 mill rising to £20 mill) will be paid this summer (not last as most people think).

I think you might be a little mixed up there. Hargreaves fee basically came from the previous seasons transfer kitty, the same season we bought Carrick (we had the money ready to spend on him but couldn't talk Bayern into selling until the following season). Maybe that's what you heard?

Tevez will cost us £5m this season. I'm guessing Nani and Anderson will cost us another £8-10m between them. We might have had to pay Spurs another million or so because of the clauses in Carrick's contract. Maybe Hargreaves had clauses as well, although I think that was a simple up-front fee. So that's roughly £15m spent there.

We recieved about £6m from Pique. We'll probably make a few million from selling a couple of reserves (Eagles perhaps). If we sell one of Silvestre or Saha we'll come out pretty much even.

We haven't spent all that much in terms of net spent in previous seasons, but I do think we'll have a fair bit more this time around because of the massive prize money from winning both the PL and CL. £25-30m or so.

MadDogg · 8th July 2008, 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

As for the first claim, not a chance. Not a cat's chance in hell.

As to the second, the Glazer business plan will stop us spending that amount. The debt is a reality and the servicing of the interest HAS to come before transfer spending.

We had a lot more money coming in last season than any other season previously. Obviously they have to service the interest, but that certainly won't take all the prizemoney we recieved for winning the PL and CL, as well as the sponsership.

ralphie88 · 8th July 2008, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilbo

We have no way of knowing essentially. We don't have many players (that we want to sell) that will generate significant funds, but our revenue this year will be dramatically increased so I'm sure there would be funds available if required.

However, it would be difficult for anyone (incl. Ferguson) to justify the point that we NEED to spend anything this summer. Even a striker will not be necessary if Saha can get a run of fitness. The transfer muppets will probably slit their wrists if we don't buy anyone, but it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Revenue has increased, but the failure to re-finance and the increase in the debt isn't going to mean there's much extra money going. Agree entirely about being able to make the case that transfer are necessary - it's not going to be easily done. That said, I'd like to see a striker in and Saha out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadDogg

I think you might be a little mixed up there. Hargreaves fee basically came from the previous seasons transfer kitty, the same season we bought Carrick (we had the money ready to spend on him but couldn't talk Bayern into selling until the following season). Maybe that's what you heard?

Tevez will cost us £5m this season. I'm guessing Nani and Anderson will cost us another £8-10m between them. We might have had to pay Spurs another million or so because of the clauses in Carrick's contract. Maybe Hargreaves had clauses as well, although I think that was a simple up-front fee. So that's roughly £15m spent there.

We recieved about £6m from Pique. We'll probably make a few million from selling a couple of reserves (Eagles perhaps). If we sell one of Silvestre or Saha we'll come out pretty much even.

We haven't spent all that much in terms of net spent in previous seasons, but I do think we'll have a fair bit more this time around because of the massive prize money from winning both the PL and CL. £25-30m or so.

That's a good analysis, except for the prize money aspect, which is vastly less (around £5m for winning the CL I think) unless you meant total revnue, which is much more. United would have accounted for reaching the latter stages of the CL I guess.

MadDogg · 8th July 2008, 18:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

That's a good analysis, except for the prize money aspect, which is vastly less (around £5m for winning the CL I think) unless you meant total revnue, which is much more. United would have accounted for reaching the latter stages of the CL I guess.

We probably expected to reach the quarters. Anything more would be a bonus. So the extra prize money from reaching the semi's, then the final, then winning it, that adds up. Plus the extra gate takings from the semis. Plus as champions, I believe we then get extra television revenue for this coming season. With the same from winning the PL.

The overall revenue has increased quite a lot.

Edit: The £25-30m was what I thought we'd spend, not the prizemoney I thought we'd made.

esmufc07 · 8th July 2008, 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

As for the first claim, not a chance. Not a cat's chance in hell.

As to the second, the Glazer business plan will stop us spending that amount. The debt is a reality and the servicing of the interest HAS to come before transfer spending.

And to service that debt the club needs to be successful. And to be successful you have to spend in the transfer market. (Amongst other things of course, Leeds being the example)

Likelihood is we won't spend £25-£30m this summer because we don't need to, not because we don't have access to the funds.

The Glazers know what to do in order to service the debt (Not repay it) and then make a profit come the end of the day, they are very, very successful businessmen which is what people tend to forget.

ralphie88 · 8th July 2008, 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by esmufc07

The Glazers know what to do in order to service the debt (Not repay it) and then make a profit come the end of the day, they are very, very successful businessmen which is what people tend to forget.

Yes, they increase the income (from the fans) and reduce outgoings as far as they can (one of the ways they can do this is by reducing net transfer spending). Which is why I can't see us spending more than £10-15m net (again).

BUT, we will see what happens.

ralphie88 · 8th July 2008, 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadDogg

Edit: The £25-30m was what I thought we'd spend, not the prizemoney I thought we'd made.

Ah right, makes sense now. Can't see it myself, but there you go.

Richter · 8th July 2008, 18:28

United always pay in installments. We paid £14 million for Nani and Anderson last summer so we have to pay another £14 million for them this summer. Plus Sporting and Porto could both earn around £3 million each in money based on success,appearances and international caps. Because of our success last season that's probably £1 or £2 million extra to them. Then there is a bit of money going to Bayern because we won a couple of things. And United has to pay MSI £5 million for this seasons Tevez loan unless United buy him permanently this summer. So that's around £20 million already spent/committed.

esmufc07 · 8th July 2008, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

Yes, they increase the income (from the fans) and reduce outgoings as far as they can (one of the ways they can do this is by reducing net transfer spending). Which is why I can't see us spending more than £10-15m net (again).

BUT, we will see what happens.

All Business' try and reduce outgoings as much as they can, it just makes common sense. And obviously the bulk of the income is also going to be brought in by the fans, yes they have increased ticket prices as a result (Something which I think would have happened regardless) but as long as there is a high demand, the prices will rise.

We have just been more cautious and much more successful in the transfe rmarket since the Glazers arrived, which has, evidently so, been a good thing.

CasaStreets · 8th July 2008, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tibs

Fergie said we're buying one young player...we're signing Hunter for £16 million

And we all know that Fergie never lies...

ralphie88 · 8th July 2008, 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by esmufc07

All Business' try and reduce outgoings as much as they can, it just makes common sense. And obviously the bulk of the income is also going to be brought in by the fans, yes they have increased ticket prices as a result (Something which I think would have happened regardless) but as long as there is a high demand, the prices will rise.

We have just been more cautious and much more successful in the transfe rmarket since the Glazers arrived, which has, evidently so, been a good thing.

There's not a chance that tickets would have gone up by 60% since 2005 if we didn't have that amount of debt to service. And not a chance we'd have brought in the ACS. It was in their original business plan (leaked to The Times just after the takeover) as the way in which they intended on paying the debt - this pressure wouldn't have been on the Plc, which tended to increase ticket prices by much smaller installments and often freeze prices.

The way they have acted has been in contrast to the lies they told the DTI when the takeover was under investigation that they would not increase ticket prices significantly. Again, I'm surprised you support the Glazers on their ticketing policies.

But you're right about having to be more cautious in the transfer market.

esmufc07 · 8th July 2008, 20:26

I'm not supporting their ticketing policies, I just understand their reasoning behind it that's all. Doesn't mean I like it, because I don't. They are not Man Utd fans, they want the cash to make a profit.

It's like if I took over Arsenal I would charge as high a price I could on everything in order for me to make more money.

Tibs · 8th July 2008, 21:08

I'd rather they got us sponsored by a few more big name companies.

Put an Intel Inside logo at the back of the shirts if its going to make us £50 million

KingEric7 · 8th July 2008, 21:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devil_forever

But then why at the start of the season were people saying that he wasn't match fit? now the excuse is that he's worn out. Anyway we'll see how he does next season, if you think that he's worth anywhere near £35 mill after having the season he's had for us, then you're easy to please.

There need not be any excuses. He's had a wonderful season.

hotshot2004 · 9th July 2008, 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoonov

Again, that's bollocks, and I've touched on it in the Ronaldo thread. There is no way the figures add up. Just look at Real's revenue pre and post Beckham. And also look at our during Ronaldo's time and before. The revenue and profits haven;t changed much. . .well, they have thanks to gate receipts and kit sponsorship. I think most of you lot are gullible. Real probably only mentioned those figures to get a loan. Most of the revenue is created via gate receipts, sponsorship and TV revenue. Merchandising is minuscule. Relatively speaking, of course. So, Ronaldo will never be worth that much off pitch. And anyone who believes so is clearly on drugs. Real are posturing. They think buying the biggest name from the biggest club in the world, makes them bigger than J-Lo's arse.

If we got a £100m offer, the Glazers would bite their hands off. You can go a long way with that type of cash. First of all, less than half of it would for pay for a new South Stand. . .imagine the extra revenue.

Hi Spoonov, i think you should read this. I bet real are trying to sign Ronaldo as they see it can lead them to top of revenue standings.

The effect of David beckham

Real Madrid's revenue from club merchandise, such as shirts, jumped 67 per cent in Beckham's first season alone, and climbed another 6.5 per cent in the year to June. Overall commercial income, which includes money from deals with the likes of Siemens, Adidas and Pepsi, which have all grown in value with the "Beckham effect", now stands at around £80m a year. Real Madrid also earned £48m (26 per cent of turnover) from match-day income (primarily ticket sales), £44m (24 per cent) from television, and £16m (8 per cent) from promotional activities such as lucrative overseas tours and friendliness, which have also become better earners because of David Beckham. And whereas Real Madrid's annual wage bill (£98m) now equates to 52 per cent of turnover, and is falling towards an expected ratio of 47 per cent next year.
With the financial improvement, Real Madrid is now the richest club in the world, beating Manchester United who won the title 8th consecutive years.
2005 Football clubs revenue ranks[1]:
1 Real Madrid (Spain) $330 million
Manchester United was No. 1 when it had David Beckham. Now Real Madrid has him and became No. 1.

[1] Source: http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/section_...0402%2C00.html, Deloitte Football Money League 2006.

kanchelskis14 · 9th July 2008, 00:46

I have never realy bought the idea of 'budget' or some sort of fixed figure of what we can spend. I reckon we generally work on the basis of if we feel a player is needed, we'll have a fair go for him.

People were talking of budgets back when we signed Ruud and Veron for one summer for £50m. I'm sre we didn't have a £50m budget, we simply went for the players we needed.

For instance, if we are only 'allowed' to spend £25m this summer apparently, i'd still back us to go for Benzema if we were tld we could have him for £30m., given as i reckon he's the one Fergie wants.

kinkster · 9th July 2008, 00:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoonov

Which is why I think the UK will be the only place where we'd stand to make tens of millions via PPV. Also, you can get hold of United matches for free outside of the UK. I think the States may also be a potential cash cow for PPV. It must be the main reason why clubs head off there.

this is true i watch most of the away games that arnt shown on sky on a US chanel via the internet. They are beemed live so must be a market for it and tapping into that will be a huge cash cow.

The way forward has to be united being able to show there own games on mutv and selling that to markets like asia and the states

8th July 2008, 17:19	#43 (permalink)
Garethw Reserve Team Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: England; The home of James Bond, Fish and chips and Chavs! Posts: 2,254	I was under the impression that the Hargreaves transfer cash was set aside from Summer '06? I fully expect there to be (ATLEAST) 25-30 million pounds set aside for transfers this summer. Our success on and off the pitch last season will surely have guaranteed this. The only thing stopping us from signing players will be if SAF's targets are not available.

8th July 2008, 18:28	#57 (permalink)
Richter Hairy big footed Swede Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Trying to burn down Marca's office Posts: 25,638	United always pay in installments. We paid £14 million for Nani and Anderson last summer so we have to pay another £14 million for them this summer. Plus Sporting and Porto could both earn around £3 million each in money based on success,appearances and international caps. Because of our success last season that's probably £1 or £2 million extra to them. Then there is a bit of money going to Bayern because we won a couple of things. And United has to pay MSI £5 million for this seasons Tevez loan unless United buy him permanently this summer. So that's around £20 million already spent/committed.

8th July 2008, 20:26	#61 (permalink)
esmufc07 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Cobra on my left; Leopard on my right! Posts: 145	I'm not supporting their ticketing policies, I just understand their reasoning behind it that's all. Doesn't mean I like it, because I don't. They are not Man Utd fans, they want the cash to make a profit. It's like if I took over Arsenal I would charge as high a price I could on everything in order for me to make more money.

8th July 2008, 21:08	#62 (permalink)
Tibs Reserve Team Player Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,864	I'd rather they got us sponsored by a few more big name companies. Put an Intel Inside logo at the back of the shirts if its going to make us £50 million

9th July 2008, 00:46	#65 (permalink)
kanchelskis14 Transfer Enthusiast Join Date: May 2004 Location: The slums of Hackney Posts: 12,919	I have never realy bought the idea of 'budget' or some sort of fixed figure of what we can spend. I reckon we generally work on the basis of if we feel a player is needed, we'll have a fair go for him. People were talking of budgets back when we signed Ruud and Veron for one summer for £50m. I'm sre we didn't have a £50m budget, we simply went for the players we needed. For instance, if we are only 'allowed' to spend £25m this summer apparently, i'd still back us to go for Benzema if we were tld we could have him for £30m., given as i reckon he's the one Fergie wants.