ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by sammsky1, Jan 2, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Feb 25, 2012

    Annihilate Now! ...or later, I'm not fussy

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    20,813
    Location:
    This Space Is For Sale
    I think those "most expensive" numbers are just standard seats in the North and South Stand... but I'd have to check that.

    Why are Liverpool our most effective comparison?? On what grounds?? And why shouldn't we be offering similar levels to Wigan and Blackburn?? 7 years ago our prices were comparable with Bolton, Blackburn, Villa and the such... and now are prices have increased at a greater rate then any of those clubs... so what's changed in the last 7 years??

    My research was to point out that, the Glaziers hike in ticket prices hasn't been comparable or in-line with most Premiership teams, and on that basis, I would venture that ticket prices wouldn't have been as high today if we had remained a PLC, I still don't see why that is not the case.
  2. Feb 25, 2012

    Sir A1ex Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    24,174
    Location:
    Where the goals come from.
    Hang on, let me understand... you said something else that may not have been as ridiculous, so I'm not allowed to question the part that clearly is? Right.

    So back to the original point - How can it be a contributing factor? There's absolutely no way that you can say inflation plays any part in a change in the relative price of tickets between clubs. It's just nonsense.
  3. Feb 25, 2012

    Sir A1ex Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    24,174
    Location:
    Where the goals come from.
    Like all other Premier League clubs.

    If you bother read the post you'll see that Zarlak said that inflation was a contributing factor in us rising up the Premier League "league table" of ticket prices.
    Whereas anybody with half a brain cell can see that can't be true.

    Your cherry-picking of clubs that suit your argument is a totally different point that I've not been involved in discussing in this thread.
  4. Feb 25, 2012

    Zarlak Steve Round (Moderator)

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    32,434
    Location:
    Truth like rain don't give a fuck who it falls on.
    There is absolutely no way that tickets to see football games has inflated in the last 10 years? Really? That's what you're trying to tell me?

    Try harder.

    Prices for football tickets have inflated naturally, as more money has come into the game. Mixed with success, our prices have risen even more. It's common sense. It's not the sole factor as I already explained.

    EDIT: I apologise if you misunderstood what I typed to mean inflation in the sense of CPI and RPI, I trusted that to quote your good self, anybody with half a brain cell would know this wasn't what I was referring to as the figures clearly don't match.
  5. Feb 25, 2012

    Sir A1ex Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    24,174
    Location:
    Where the goals come from.
    What on earth are you on about? Have you not bothered read the earlier posts (including your own:houllier:) or are you just really slow? Of course I'm not denying there's been inflation, where have I said that?

    I'll recap for you - it's very simple:

    You claim that inflation is a contributing factor in our ticket prices now being more expensive than they were relative to other clubs.

    I'm pointing out the trivially obvious point that this makes no sense - inflation will hit all clubs equally. The relative rise in prices must be entirely down to other factors, not inflation.

    (If you still don't understand the word "relative" you cold always Google it)
  6. Feb 25, 2012

    Sir A1ex Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    24,174
    Location:
    Where the goals come from.
    Th problem is, you are trying to make call on what a "reasonable" / "fair" etc price is for our tickets, which is very subjective.

    Whereas AN and others are making a much simpler and easily demonstrable point: Prior to the Glazers, we had pretty cheap tickets relative to other clubs, but this is no longer the case, at least to anywhere near the same degree.

    One of the many ways that the Glazers have maximised our revenue is to push ticket prices to the most the market can take. So going back to the point which I believe started all this, it's perfectly valid to talk about how the missing £500m could have been "spent" on cheaper tickets.
  7. Feb 25, 2012

    Zarlak Steve Round (Moderator)

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    32,434
    Location:
    Truth like rain don't give a fuck who it falls on.
    If you can find where in my posts, I said that inflation is a contributing factor in our ticket prices being relative to other clubs then you win, but I suspect you won't find that, mainly because I never said it.

    So let me recap for you - it's very simple:

    I claimed that inflation of prices in football have led to an inflation of our own prices - this is true. You've accepted this by saying it hit all clubs, (including our own) therefore it is a factor. - check.

    On top of this, other factors such as our own success, which is not relative to other clubs because they haven't enjoyed the success we have, have also contributed to an increase in our ticket prices. - check.

    Of course if you had just read the original post properly rather than smacking a gazebo on the end of my post that I didn't put there originally, none of this confusion would have come about.
  8. Feb 25, 2012

    Sir A1ex Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    24,174
    Location:
    Where the goals come from.
    Oh, come on Zarlak...

    This is exactly what I quoted in my very first post on the matter. Talk about wasting time...:rolleyes:
  9. Feb 25, 2012

    Zarlak Steve Round (Moderator)

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    32,434
    Location:
    Truth like rain don't give a fuck who it falls on.
    Well done for once again not reading something, are you going for a world record?

    Show me where I said 'relative to other clubs' which is what you claim I said.

    Oh wait, you can't. Because I didn't say it at any point. The only one wasting time here is you, trying to pretend I said something I didn't because you didn't read my post properly. I said that our price rise is natural, because of a.) and b.). Nowhere did I mention other clubs, or that our price rise was relative to theirs, or that inflation in Manchester was more than anywhere else, or that inflation has affected us more so than other clubs. You're just making shit up. I said that our price rise was a result of a.) inflation of prices, which it is partly, you've conceded this yourself, and b.) our success on the pitch and a result of our stature icnreasing which has bolstered it even more.
  10. Feb 25, 2012

    Sir A1ex Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    24,174
    Location:
    Where the goals come from.
    You were replying to A.N's post, it's there for everybody to see.

    Don't accuse people of making shit up when it's there in black and white on the previous page, it makes you look daft.

    At best you didn't read the post you were replying to, which is pretty dumb in itself.
  11. Feb 25, 2012

    Zarlak Steve Round (Moderator)

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    32,434
    Location:
    Truth like rain don't give a fuck who it falls on.
    :lol: I was replying to ANs post about our price rise. The fact that I didn't mention something, means I wasn't talking about it.

    You said, plain and simple, that I said something I didn't.

    No I didn't, and you're quite right, it's black and white and clear for all to see. At no point, in any of my posts, did I include what you have said I claimed. For me to claim it, I have to have said it, because I haven't said it, I haven't claimed it. I'm not sure how much further you can twist this in order to come out of it without just admitting that I never claimed what you said I did.

    So yeah, if you make shit up and say that I said things I didn't, then I will say to you that you're making shit up, problem with that? Don't make shit up then. Address what I actually typed, rather than a part of what somebody else typed, that I didn't mention.

    The longer you drag this petty squabble out, the funnier it becomes. You know clearly what I meant, because I've now explained it to you multiple times, you know clearly that I didn't even say what you claim I said, this exchange is pointless.
  12. Feb 25, 2012

    Sir A1ex Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    24,174
    Location:
    Where the goals come from.
    This is a waste of time, you're either incredibly thick, or pretending to be to try and avoid the point.


    A.N's post is entirely, 100% about relative prices. What part of the following is about across-the board increases in ticket prices, rather than the relative price of ours against other clubs?:

    Well… if you consider that in 2005, when the Glazers started their tenure, we had the 8th cheapest seat in the Premier League house and the 12th most expensive seat. Both around the middle but crucially in the top half for cheapest and bottom for most expensive.

    Now though, we have the joint 14th cheapest seat in the League, and the 4th most expensive seat.

    Bit of a dramatic turnaround if you ask me, but ya’ll can make your own minds up.

    Maybe you should steer clear of the "reply" button if you're going to deny that your post is about the one you're replying to?

    That's true. I'm prepared to accept the fact people may think I'm being a little petty and wasting my time - it's you they'll be really laughing at for desperately trying to defend a load of rubbish and not being prepared to admit you just got it wrong
  13. Feb 25, 2012

    Zarlak Steve Round (Moderator)

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    32,434
    Location:
    Truth like rain don't give a fuck who it falls on.
    :lol: Very ironic, when you replying to me, has been post after post pretending I've said stuff I've never said.

    I get it, you didn't read my post. You don't need to keep confirming that to me or anybody else in this thread with each subsequent reply. The person I was replying to understood perfectly well my post, it seems only you are having difficulty.

    Let's put this to bed once and for all. The line I was replying to in his post was 'Bit of a dramatic turnaround if you ask me'

    Bit of a dramatic turnaround, that once we were cheap and now we are more expensive, the 4th most expensive, as opposed to one of the most cheap.

    I replied, saying that this is natural that our prices have risen so, considering a.) the increase in inflation which has hit all clubs as you said yourself therefore higher prices, plus the success we have achieved that other clubs have not, which has pushed our premium up as logically, it should and has.

    He didn't have this incredible difficulty you seem to be having comprehending my post, nor did he reply with shite remarks like 'I didn't realise inflation was higher in Manchester than anywhere else' or retort to pretending I said things that I didn't, he read my post and replied properly to it. Nor did he focus on the inflation part, as it wasn't as major a part of my post as you're pretending it is.

    So yeah, since you're the only one having difficulty with this, maybe you should take your own advice.
  14. Feb 25, 2012

    Sir A1ex Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    24,174
    Location:
    Where the goals come from.
    :lol:

    Oh my God, tell me you didn't just post that?:lol:

    OK, I can see I'm not going to get anywhere here, you're just too thick. I shall take my leave of this quarrel and leave it here for everybody to laugh at.

    I'll just leave you with this though -

    rel·a·tive
       [rel-uh-tiv]

    noun
    ...
    2.
    something having, or standing in, some relation to something else
  15. Feb 25, 2012

    Zarlak Steve Round (Moderator)

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    32,434
    Location:
    Truth like rain don't give a fuck who it falls on.
    I'm perfectly aware of what the word you think I was talking about, but in actual fact I never once mentioned, means. :)

    Now you comprehend the post that everybody else had no trouble understanding, about why I think our rise in prices (do you need me to remind you that I'm talking about just our price rise, and nothing to do with other clubs?) is justified, we can go back to talking about what everybody was talking about before you stumbled in confused. Unless you want to just keep this merry go round going about relative to other clubs which I've already told you over and over I'm not talking about. Why you can't just accept that and move on rather than revisiting it I've got no idea.

    Oh wait, you're taking your leave. Score.
  16. Feb 25, 2012

    Sir A1ex Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    24,174
    Location:
    Where the goals come from.
    :lol:

    http://tramchase.com/feckflickr/data/zomg-youve-won-internet.gif
  17. Feb 26, 2012

    Rood nostradamus like gloater

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    14,609
    Location:
    The Republik Of Mancunia
    Our prices were cheap, we were lucky. In fact I have pointed out in the past that our cheap ticket prices was actually one of the major factors that attracted the Glazers to buy the club, the PLC realised this late on and tried to raise prices to protect against them but it was too late.

    The figures show that the average annual price rise for the past 5 years has been around the same as it was for the previous 5 years under the PLC. The main difference is the ACS.
    So we have not changed much in ticket price policy, I suppose other clubs have not been able to get away with the same increases over the years due to lack of demand.
  18. Feb 26, 2012

    robertsoncrusoe Thinks the mods have too much power..

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,091
    Location:
    new york city
    And when the Glazers go, so will GCHQ......... funny that!
  19. Feb 27, 2012

    712 Formerly '711' but that was a ridiculous username!

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    10,910
    Location:
    Watching newts and beetle larvae eating tadpoles
    I'm still getting emails asking me to buy a season ticket, for the remaining quarter of a season.

    How stupid I feel now for not understanding the great Season Ticket Waiting List Debate.

    The waiting was them waiting for me, not the other way round.
  20. Feb 28, 2012

    RedCanuck Full Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,416
    Location:
    Toronto
    I don't disagree with the core of your points Rood, just want to throw a couple of points in the mix.
    The PLC consistently underpriced the tickets at OT, that was one of the problems. If you remember when the Glazers started their takeover the PLC (which opposed them) hiked ticket prices in order to take some value out of that revenue stream and get that value into the share price, making it harder for the Glazers to finance the share purchase. The low ticket prices under the PLC were one of the main reasons United was such a good target for a leveraged takeover.

    Ticket prices pretty much hit the ceiling under the Glazers since (if I remember correctly) we were seeing some less than capacity attendances so they held ticket prices the past few years.

    Best case for ticket prices would have been the Sky takeover going through.
  21. Feb 28, 2012

    Rood nostradamus like gloater

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    14,609
    Location:
    The Republik Of Mancunia
    Yes I already made the point that our overly cheap ticket prices were one of the main reasons that attracted the Glazers.

    Fans who talk about how cheap prices were under the PLC dont seem to accept that it was a big mistake to underprice our tickets in those days, it made us very vulnerable to takeover.
  22. Feb 28, 2012

    Sir A1ex Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    24,174
    Location:
    Where the goals come from.
    The point is true that low ticket prices made us attractive, but I don't know if you can call it a mistake. Was it also a mistake to win lots of trophies? I can't see the Glazers having been nearly as keen on buying if we'd just been relegated...

    It's like saying having lots of nice possessions is a mistake, as you might get robbed.
  23. Feb 28, 2012

    Rood nostradamus like gloater

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    14,609
    Location:
    The Republik Of Mancunia
    No its not like that at all.

    In hindsight I believe it was a mistake, I certainly wasnt complaining at the time though. The PLC also realised it and jacked up prices in their last season, Im sure if they had their time again they would have done it sooner.

    and you couldnt be more wrong about the trophies and relegation - business vultures like the Glazers would love to buy a club like ours when times are bad and you can get it on the cheap. e.g. See Liverpool.
  24. Feb 28, 2012

    finneh Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,086
    Are you including figures for players bought before the Glazers took over, but that had to be paid for (in part) afterwards? If so I'd say that's a bit of a false figure, given that who knows if the Glazers would have sanctioned deals made before they took over.

    I make it around £10m a year net spend on players since their takeover, meaning we should have around £100m to spend if Fergie feels it necessary.
  25. Feb 29, 2012

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    And that surplus is there precisely because we sold one player for a world record £80m transfer fee.

    There hasn't been a low level of investment. Average gross spend since the Glazers bought the club has been £45m per season. There has been a £48m net cash outflow on transfers in the current financial year. Our wage bill continues to show double digit growth year on year. The fifth highest in Europe only behind two sugar daddy funded clubs and two clubs with their own individual TV deals.

    I think your problem is that you compare our transfer activity with an extremely select group of clubs that we can't reasonably be expected to compete against in the market. If you're ever able to accept that as a fact of life then I think your mood will improve considerably.
  26. Feb 29, 2012

    forevrared Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,250
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    It got lost in the LOL's of Robben's winner, but I wonder how much Fraizer Campbell made for United today by making his England debut. His fee was apparently 3.5m rising to 6m, and surely a large chunk of that would have been playing for England.

    I figure the finances thread would be as good a thread as any to speculate.
  27. Mar 1, 2012

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    I'm including c. £15m relating to the Rooney and Ronaldo transfers that was paid out in the 2005/06 financial year. I don't see why that shouldn't be included in the figure for the post-takeover expenditure. It obviously should. Gill said at the time Rooney was bought that the transfer would affect the club's ability to sign players in the following financial year. Thanks to the Glazers of course we were still able to sign Evra and Vidic in January 2006. I doubt whether the PLC would have sanctioned those signings.

    The average net cash spend on transfers since the takeover has been £17.7m per year. That's from the independently audited accounts and not, with the absolute greatest of respect, from your back of the fag packet calculations.
  28. Mar 3, 2012

    UnitedRoadRed Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,745
    Location:
    Manchester
    Gross spend means nothing. You must consider what has been recouped to finance it compared to what the promised net spend was. The bottom line is that the Glazers promised a net £25m plus marquee players as required.

    Slightly tongue-in-cheek but if we buy Ronaldo back this summer, we're back on track I reckon.
  29. Mar 3, 2012

    Pexbo Takes body parts and sells them on Amazon.

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    17,186
    Location:
    T'Internet
    I think the point GCHQ is making is that nobody could have envisaged recieving £80m for Ronaldo. That's a completely extraordinary scenario and completely skews the figures.

    I'm sure that if Ronaldo had gone for a "normal" transfer fee, say £30m, then they'd be pretty close to that £25m a season net spend they promised.

    If your argument is that because we received that money for Ronaldo, then we should have spent it to keep closer to the promised £25m a season then that is, quite frankly, the height of muppetry and spending for the sake of spending.
  30. Mar 3, 2012

    gooDevil Worst scout ever

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    21,052
    Location:
    The Kids are the Future
    I think some people expected us to try to replace Ronaldo with a high profile signing in his position, which didn't happen.

    Of course it's not that easy as paying 80m back out and getting another Ronaldo, but I can certainly see how some would conclude, from a fan's perspective, it's a raw deal.
  31. Mar 3, 2012

    Pexbo Takes body parts and sells them on Amazon.

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    17,186
    Location:
    T'Internet
    Another thing I have never seen considered in the finances is what Ronaldo would have earned had he stayed here. Something like another £20m?
  32. Mar 3, 2012

    Rood nostradamus like gloater

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    14,609
    Location:
    The Republik Of Mancunia
    Exactly - the £25m a year thing was a general guideline mentioned 7 years ago, it is hardly a contractual argeement that has to be adhered to regardless.
  33. Mar 9, 2012

    Redjazz Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    351
    Location:
    Scattered
  34. Mar 10, 2012

    Rood nostradamus like gloater

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    14,609
    Location:
    The Republik Of Mancunia
  35. Mar 10, 2012

    Will Absolute Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    Southern Ireland
    Why do you think the Glazers are interested? Are they feeling the fan pressure to eliminate the debt?
  36. Mar 10, 2012

    Sir A1ex Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    24,174
    Location:
    Where the goals come from.
    I was reading this and it suddenly clicked - the Glazers have totally kept to their word.

    IIRC they talked of £25m per year, plus a "marquee player" every few years. They didn't specify whether we'd be buying or selling that marquee player.:smirk:
  37. Mar 10, 2012

    Will Absolute Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    Southern Ireland
    That's Uncle Mal for you - shake hands and count your fingers.

    I'm betting our next 'marquee player' will be Rooney. :(

    ( I'm not really anti-Glazer, but decent jokes are hard to find )
  38. Mar 12, 2012

    Rood nostradamus like gloater

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    14,609
    Location:
    The Republik Of Mancunia
    That might be one consideration, but it is unlikely to be the main reason.
    The Glazers have indicated that they plan to pay off some of the debt, but it is difficult to comment until we see details of how many shares they want to sell and what exactly they plan to do with the proceeds.
  39. Mar 12, 2012

    Will Absolute Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    Southern Ireland
    I'm inclined to agree - they've been pretty thick-skinned so far.

    But if they're not selling their own shares what else can they do with the money except pay off the debt? And a 20% sale would clear it completely.
  40. Mar 12, 2012

    Rood nostradamus like gloater

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    14,609
    Location:
    The Republik Of Mancunia
    Well they would be selling their own shares seeing as they own them all, so in theory they can do whatever they want with the proceeds. However, I seem to remember that there are some details in the bond prospectus about what can be done with cash from a float, I cant remember the details off the top of my head.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page