Our club's economy compared to other PL clubs in the past 10 years

Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by Giggsyking, Jan 10, 2019 at 20:00.

  1. Jan 10, 2019 at 20:00
    #1

    Giggsyking Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,245
    I will make it short
    the pictures will talk more

    [​IMG]

    united have the highest source of funds, was wondering about the 318 m owner financing!!


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Spurs and the new stadium made them one of the few clubs seeking loans.

    [​IMG]

    and the sad truth, most of our money goes into the pockets of the Glazers and to pay the interest on their loan.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    Spurs and half a billion on the new stadium

    [​IMG]

    800 m could have built 3 teams in 10 years.

    [​IMG]
  2. Jan 10, 2019 at 20:07
    #2

    Raw Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    20,236
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    So in 10 years the Glazers have invested 320m and took out 800m. Lovely.
  3. Jan 10, 2019 at 20:38
    #3

    NFM New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2015
    Messages:
    129
    The £320m is the average value of the loan on the books , its just the way its accounted for.
    There is no breakdown of the 'interest and dividends'. The majority of the £800m is interest on the loans. I think I recall the Glazers taking about £20m per year on average as dividends, so maybe up to £200m went to them directly over this period of time. They didn't put anything 'in' as its all debt financed, thanks to our vice Chairman and his banking chums.
    Arsenal paid £30m tax on operating income about half of United's. So roughly United would have paid £60m tax rather than £14m if the loans were not there, say £50m more. This figure should be compared to loan interest of say £600m.
    Its clear that the financing model employed by the Glazers benefits them , and dis-benefits United. It could be argued that the commercial 'sweating' of the assets to produce twice as much operating income as Arsenal was the result of necessity because of the financing model. Would United have created such a rapacious commercial machine if it wasn't for the interest burden? No-one will ever know, but it is at least debateable.
    Taking all this into account I think we can safely say that at least £300m more could have been used to finance purchase of players and/or enhance OT over this period if the financing of the Glazer takeover was taken out of the equation.
    The big question remains, if this had been the case would it have been money spent wisely? The experience of the last 5 years appears to show that its quite difficult to spend this amount on transfer fees wisely. City are the exception, but then they are in so many ways. Its impossible to compare an oil country backed 'toy' with any semblance of normal sporting or business behaviour or experience. I suggest Liverpool are showing that its much more important to get the club's mentality positive and spend wisely.
    There is absolutely no reason why United can't compete on equal or better terms with the best run non-oil state backed clubs.
  4. Jan 10, 2019 at 20:44
    #4

    VorZakone What would Kenny G do?

    Joined:
    May 9, 2013
    Messages:
    15,454
    Wasn't there already a thread on this?
  5. Jan 10, 2019 at 20:47
    #5

    Eplel New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    70
    Further proof that no matter how much silverware they ̶w̶i̶n̶ buy, City will always be a small club
  6. Jan 10, 2019 at 20:50
    #6

    Adisa likes to take afvanadva wothowi doubt

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    31,528
    Location:
    Birmingham
    How much do we currently pay a year on debt and interest servicing?
  7. Jan 10, 2019 at 21:29
    #7

    M Bison Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2015
    Messages:
    3,067
    Location:
    In the Wilderness
    Supports:
    York City
    Surprised at Chelsea’s numbers, thought they’d have greater income than that.
  8. Jan 10, 2019 at 22:45
    #8

    lewwoo Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,230
    Location:
    Bridgwater
    So nearly 50% of our funds have gone on loans and interest in the last 10 years and only 32% on players. At the same time City have used 64% of their funds on player purchases. Some wonder why we are behind them and still believe the glazers have been good for the club.
  9. Jan 10, 2019 at 22:49
    #9

    freeurmind weak willed

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    2,677
    Location:
    Jose's hotel room
    I really believe the Glazers secretly pay posters to post positive things about them on here.
  10. Jan 10, 2019 at 23:26
    #10

    Gasolin Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,271
    Location:
    NYC
    If we don't win back the league or the CL soon, none of this really matters.
  11. Jan 10, 2019 at 23:55
    #11

    wolvored Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2016
    Messages:
    3,763
    I have wondered whether they have fake posters working for them at times
  12. Jan 11, 2019 at 00:42
    #12

    Subho611 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    2,538
    To do what? Purchase the unsold season tickets?
  13. Jan 11, 2019 at 01:00
    #13

    Ed9 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Location:
    Epping
    So we make the most money by far but we spend the smallest part of it bar Spurs (stadium). Nice.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2019 at 05:17
  14. Jan 11, 2019 at 07:10
    #14

    winteriscoming New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Supports:
    City
    Apparently, rumour has it, that last month United have opened their books for appraisal by a third party's company.

    This presumably would be to assess the true value the company for a bid to buy.

    Looks like you lads are saying Au Revoir to the Glazer family.
  15. Jan 11, 2019 at 08:56
    #15

    Adisa likes to take afvanadva wothowi doubt

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    31,528
    Location:
    Birmingham
    Looked at the income statement. Approximately $40m.
  16. Jan 11, 2019 at 09:04
    #16

    sun_tzu The Art of Bore

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    11,698
    Location:
    Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.
    I look forward to welcoming our new Saudi overlords
  17. Jan 11, 2019 at 09:09
    #17

    Patrick08 Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2018
    Messages:
    2,003
    The money we spent was enough to win it. It's the poor quality of football and scouting and who you spend it on is responsible for the mess also the absolutely lethargic poor transition plan from Fergie.

    It's happens to every successful cooperation without a plan and by complacency as you consider yourselves too good to fail and don't value the people who worked hard to succeed.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019 at 09:24
  18. Jan 11, 2019 at 09:22
    #18

    Ian Reus Ended 14 years of Grand National sweepstakes

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2014
    Messages:
    5,072
    Location:
    Belfast
    They don't make anything on shirt sales in Africa.
  19. Jan 11, 2019 at 12:37
    #19

    lewwoo Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,230
    Location:
    Bridgwater
    If those figures are right then we have spent £528 mill on players in the last decade versus Citys £906 mill despite having a superior income to them. It is unfortunate but money spent on players and wages usually shows in league posistions and success. We are falling behind city because we havent been investing at the same levels they have over a period of time due to servicing debts. Look at the quality of their squad against ours. How many of our team would get in to their first eleven? De Gea, Pogba and maybe Martial?
  20. Jan 11, 2019 at 12:49
    #20

    Sterling Archer Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    2,082
    Oh c'mon guys, they clearly rather save every penny for their own pockets. But I do wonder why any United fan would be so supportive of them. It just seems illogical. I'm American and even my sense of patriotism doesn't offer any room for sympathy. Maybe moreso, I can certify they're financial leeches because that's what our business is about.
  21. Jan 11, 2019 at 13:05
    #21

    lewwoo Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,230
    Location:
    Bridgwater
    Is it really that far fetched? That the owners or figures on the board wouldn't think it a good idea to get a few employees on the biggest Utd forum on the internet to push their own agenda.
  22. Jan 11, 2019 at 13:58
    #22

    Sterling Archer Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    2,082
    Sounds like you may think too highly of us. We're not that important. Drop in the bucket compared to the larger fanbase.
  23. Jan 11, 2019 at 14:12
    #23

    Patrick08 Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2018
    Messages:
    2,003
    Liverpool havent spent much, neither Barcelona or Madrid or juventus. City and psg funded the team by dodgy means every one knows that. We spent it on wrong players and managers after we had no succession plan to Fergie
  24. Jan 11, 2019 at 14:44
    #24

    RedCurry Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2016
    Messages:
    2,710
    Location:
    Toronto
    I am one of the posters here who doesn't have a problem with the Glazers. That's not to say that I love them or anything.

    But unless we have a sugar daddy owner, any business family who spends £4 billion to buy the club, would hardly do it for charity and the goodness of their hearts. They will want to make that money back. Glazers are not doing anything different than what any business owner would do.
  25. Jan 11, 2019 at 14:46
    #25

    haram Full Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2017
    Messages:
    8,540
    Arsenal's source of funds being 100% operations :lol:.
  26. Jan 11, 2019 at 15:24
    #26

    Sterling Archer Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    2,082
    That's a really fair point, accurate and I do agree there. I'm more confused by the folks that consider the Glazer ownership as nothing but good for the club. Usual points of debate stem around how much the owners have spent on us versus other owners that seem more like rich benefactors than business owners. As far as what the Glazers are doing it's simple business math. Increase cash flow, profits up, lower debt, moderate spending in accordance. So making top 4 is really the benchmark for football whereas their commerical unit is more important on a regular basis. It's why we've gone 5 years without a suitable football structure starting from Gill's replacement. Anyone that says that's been good for the club is missing the point of how a business , one that's listed publicly, gets the confidence of the people that matter...and it's not fans.
  27. Jan 11, 2019 at 15:43
    #27

    TheLord New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    105
    I think some of the data is incorrect.
    Can someone explain what the first column in the first picture means? Operational funding (?) of Tottenham is twice that of Liverpool, three times that of City and almost ten times that of Chelsea !

    Many data don’t make sense to me. Is this a reliable source?
  28. Jan 11, 2019 at 15:55
    #28

    Sassy Colin Death or the gladioli!

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    46,324
    Location:
    Aliens are in control of my tagline & location
    This

    Just another illustration of the way City are ruining football.
  29. Jan 11, 2019 at 16:39
    #29

    RedCurry Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2016
    Messages:
    2,710
    Location:
    Toronto
    What you're saying is that Glazers should manage the club better and I agree with that. They either have to be hands-on or hire someone who is. Manchester United should be winning titles and anything else should be regarded as failure. In that sense, I agree that Glazers are failing.
  30. Jan 11, 2019 at 17:03
    #30

    Sterling Archer Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    2,082
    Absolutely. One of the most frustrating aspects here is that it really shouldn't have been that hard for the Glazer's to do both. They had a godsend in Sir Alex and when he left, it wasn't a team or club in shambles. We hadn't been out of the top 4 in 2+ decades or something like that. Feck me, we had just become England's most successful team. Their blind eye to the football side ran this ship into the rocks.

    Before we even look at transfers, I'm hyper critical of every single appointment made. Ed Woodward was not signed to prioritize the football. Each manager til the interim one now has been picked for all the wrong reasons, none of which were keeping with the club ethos.

    And I am extremely jealous at the nurture and prudence exhibited by the "sugar daddies". And this goes back to 2003. You see Chelsea come in and take Peter Kenyon. With the City takeover, they've again hired the right executives to build their football side. With the latter, one of my biggest gripes is that City have a partner MLS team that plays in New York City. I just can't wrap my head around not going after something like that. Well I guess I can - Glazers don't care. This isn't a globalization project for them. It's a monetary one.

    This went from just a straight forward yup, we both agree to full on rant. My apologies. Can't help getting emotional about this.
  31. Jan 11, 2019 at 17:19
    #31

    Giggsyking Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,245
    the data comes from a brit blogger lives in Switzerland and he write about business in football since 2015. He takes the data from the clubs annual reports and analyze it.
    https://twitter.com/swissramble
  32. Jan 11, 2019 at 19:03
    #32

    M Utd New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2018
    Messages:
    111
    I've had a quick glance through and I've not see anyone else say good work for the effort of putting that together.
    Certainly some interesting number and is raises lots of questions. I was chatting a colleague the other day and they were saying that they are fed up with football. When we were chatting he put it down to the way many big clubs operate now. He's a older chap and think he misses the 70s, 80s and 90s.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019 at 19:57
  33. Jan 11, 2019 at 19:27
    #33

    Moonred Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,180
    Location:
    Virgo Supercluster
    :lol:
  34. Jan 12, 2019 at 10:09
    #34

    Keefy18 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2018
    Messages:
    106
    Location:
    Dublin
    I really like Swiss Rambles tweets, done really well.

    Problem here with these tweets and one very important and key factor that is not reported from what I can see is.... Moneyball! ;) AKA.... Wages!

    United have an annual wage bill now of £300m plus... Where is it?

    The "Use of Funds" graph is therefore wrong, as wages are obviously a "use of funds".

    Are we now saying that £300m plus doesn't matter? It's not an operating expense?