ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[thegregster]

So essentially we then can't do what Bayern are doing then as they regularly have a splurge in the summer albeit their main splurge next summer is probably on the agents fees/signing on bonuses for Lewandowski.

They are competitive but they havent spent anything close to what the likes of City and Chelsea have.

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/bayern-munich/transferrekorde/verein_27.html

 

[FlawlessThaw]

They are competitive but they havent spent anything close to what the likes of City and Chelsea have.

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/bayern-munich/transferrekorde/verein_27.html

That's the point, they don't need to when they don't have a domestic sugar daddy club to directly compete with.They can poach Gotze for the 2nd best club in the league for £32m. We could never do something like that in the Premier League. There's no sugar daddy club to inflate the prices for them when they purchase domestically and when they purchase overseas, they can at the very least guarantee CL football year in year out.

 

[KingMinger22]

It's not just the sugar daddy effect in the PL though. It's the fact that there are 5 of the 10 clubs with the highest revenues in world football in the league. It's also the fact that every club in the league has high revenues comparative to those in the same positions in La Liga and the Bundesliga. Really high revenues.

 

[KingMinger22]

We could be looking at up to 100m this summer is all problems are to be solved. We'll recoup feck all too on the players we lose so this is going to be a painful one for the owners if they go through with it.

I think if you look at market rates, £100m is barely half what you would expect to spend to bridge the gap between our squad and Citys, let alone Barca/Real/Bayern.

Of course, you might get a string of unknowns that turn out to be the next Ronaldo type signings but it is obviously very, very difficult and unlikely.

 

[roseguy64]

I think if you look at market rates, £100m is barely half what you would expect to spend to bridge the gap between our squad and Citys, let alone Barca/Real/Bayern.

What? Over/underrate much?

 

[Irwinwastheking]

I think if you look at market rates, £100m is barely half what you would expect to spend to bridge the gap between our squad and Citys, let alone Barca/Real/Bayern.

Of course, you might get a string of unknowns that turn out to be the next Ronaldo type signings but it is obviously very, very difficult and unlikely.

I don't think that's true man. I think we have a very very good squad, we just need a sprinkling of magic in our starting eleven.

In these figures I'm including the sum I'd guess we'd get for the players going out.

GK, maybe replace Lindegard - 5 million
Defence - Hopefully Coentrao now so that's nothing in the summer, and perhaps a replacement for Vidic if he leaves - 10 million
midfield - this is where the real money needs to be spend - Serious quality on the wings and in the middle with nothing probably coming in - 75-85 million
We're OK up front this summer, we're

Honestly I think is we do something like that, lose 3-4 players and bring in 3-4 players for a NET spend of 80-100 million we will be fully competitive with them again.

 

[thegregster]

I think if you look at market rates, £100m is barely half what you would expect to spend to bridge the gap between our squad and Citys, let alone Barca/Real/Bayern.

Of course, you might get a string of unknowns that turn out to be the next Ronaldo type signings but it is obviously very, very difficult and unlikely.

Real Madrid has won a single league and hasnt even got to a CL final in the last 5 seasons after a huge splurge.

City have won a single league and have only once got out of their group.

You are totally overrating them.

 

[KingMinger22]

In the other thread on the ''rebuild'' someone said we're two quality CMs and a winger off City. Not to forget a LB.

If that's true, how much do you honestly think a player of similar quality to Toure or Fernandinho will cost this summer? Times it by two.

If Coentrao is available at, say, £15m he will be a lot cheaper than someone like Shaw who will be at the very least £25m, probably £30m.

What about a quality winger?

I think a proven, quality player is going to set us back around £40m in any of the midfield positions. That would be a reasonable budget, based on recent fees.

 

[Pexbo]

What? Over/underrate much?

I fully agree with him.

By today's market we need a top quality winger, a top quality midfielder to play with Carrick and one to replace him, an excellent left back and a centreback too if Rio and Vidic leave which is looking likely.


CB: £15m-£20m
Winger: Reus? £30m
CM's: Gundogan and Vidal £30m and £45m
LB: Coentrao: £20m


That's about £150m right there. Call it "being a muppet" or whatever but we're talking about bringing our squad up to the level of City and beyond that, Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern.

 

[thegregster]

In the other thread on the ''rebuild'' someone said we're two quality CMs and a winger off City. Not to forget a LB.

If that's true, how much do you honestly think a player of similar quality to Toure or Fernandinho will cost this summer? Times it by two.

If Coentrao is available at, say, £15m he will be a lot cheaper than someone like Shaw who will be at the very least £25m, probably £30m.

What about a quality winger?

I think a proven, quality player is going to set us back around £40m in any of the midfield positions. That would be a reasonable budget, based on recent fees.

We have spent £143million since May 2011. Typical we spend around £50mil a year. The Glazers only need find another £50mil. They aren't stupid. They know an extra £50mil now is a small price to pay to keep their investment in good shape.

 

[KingMinger22]

I fully agree with him.

By today's market we need a top quality winger, a top quality midfielder to play with Carrick and one to replace him, an excellent left back and a centreback too if Rio and Vidic leave which is looking likely.


CB: £15m-£20m
Winger: Reus? £30m
CM's: Gundogan and Vidal £30m and £45m
LB: Coentrao: £20m


That's about £150m right there. Call it "being a muppet" or whatever but we're talking about bringing our squad up to the level of City and beyond that, Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern.

Those figures are unrealistic. Gundogan and Reus at £30m? More like £45-50m

It would take some wizzadry to fix this squad and buy, say, 5 good players for £150m.

Fellaini was £27.5m ffs

 

[Pexbo]

Those figures are unrealistic. Gundogan and Reus at £30m? More like £45-50m

It would take some wizzadry to fix this squad and buy, say, 5 good players for £150m.

Fellaini was £27.5m ffs

They were conservative estimates. I agree with what your point though, serious investment is needed and it won't be cheap.

The thing is, £200m spent right now and we can relax and let the sways grow organically over the next few years offsetting that money over a 4 year period.

 

[Ramshock]

Two world class players would have us competing at the very top again. People tend to underestimate the effect one or two world class players would have on a team like United. If Ronaldo had managed to find his way back to United last summer we would be on top or at least in the top two easily in my opinion.

 

[711]

Those figures are unrealistic. Gundogan and Reus at £30m? More like £45-50m

It would take some wizzadry to fix this squad and buy, say, 5 good players for £150m.

Fellaini was £27.5m ffs

Yes, but, we should make the most of what we have.

We don't need a centre-back for next season.
A 4th choice central striker is a luxury in our situation - sell Hernandez now, his goal-to-games ratio would ensure a good fee.
We have options at no 10, sell Kagawa now, again whilst the fee will be good.

Add two big sales to the money we should have, and three big signings, as in big, should be do-able. Sit back and watch Hernandez and Kagawa's value fall and they might not.

 

[KingMinger22]

Two world class players would have us competing at the very top again. People tend to underestimate the effect one or two world class players would have on a team like United. If Ronaldo had managed to find his way back to United last summer we would be on top or at least in the top two easily in my opinion.

Good point. Though I would add Ronaldo would have cost at least £100m and the wages of Rooney and RVP combined.

In terms of sellable assets, a lot of the players we expect to leave will be going for free or low fees as they are not that good and expect high wages, relative to the clubs that will be interested. Getting the likes of Rio, Evra, Giggs, and possibly Vidic will free a lot of cash from the wage bill though.

Also, Hernandez and Kagawa are options that probably could pull in at least £15m in each if we chose to sell them. Kag would surely be attractive to BVB if we approach them for Reus or Gundogan though I'd like to see him get another season here, playing with good players.

Valencia, Young, Nani, Buttner, maybe Cleverly might fetch a few million each.

Either way, we may be able to fetch an additional £20-50m to spend from sales, as well as a good £20m+ off the annual wage bill to pay some good salaries.

Four quality first teamers and we are back in action. Moyes certainly seems to see how much we're lacking in talent right now and recent results will say much to the owners.

 

[Sir Matt]

Just think what we could have done with the $1bn we spent on financing the privilege to be owned by the Glazers.

 

[KingMinger22]

We are going to pay heavilly for our transfer failings of the past five years. Clubs will expect crazy money as we are 1) desperate 2) Fellaini benchmark.

Players will need to be lied with bumper pay packets also as we wont even have CL to offer.

 

[KingMinger22]

Good, if a little depressing, article...

http://www.theguardian.com/football...united-share-price-david-moyes-premier-league

Highlights that in the 2012 IPO prospectus the Glazer's expect net transfer spend to be £25-30m per year and that the model is based on finishing 3rd in the league.

Honestly, post-Fergie does anyone really think any manager can compete for the title and CL with £30m to sound per season? The answer is obviously a no.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

Chelsea and City were lucky enough to be bought by very rich owners we were taken over by cnuts looking to make money, we were never going to be able to compete financially and finally it's showing, we might just have to get used to this.

 

[Rory 7]

Two world class players would have us competing at the very top again. People tend to underestimate the effect one or two world class players would have on a team like United. If Ronaldo had managed to find his way back to United last summer we would be on top or at least in the top two easily in my opinion.

I agree with this big time, momentum was lost for us in the summer, we needed a big signing to herald the Moyes era, we needed to signal our intent. Instead we got Fellaini. Perhaps this was inevitable given the Glazer's strategy. That's my big fear, our owners have built the clubs finances on sand, they've effectively been taking a punt on United, I've been saying that for years. Long term their presence at the club is nothing short of poison.

 

[Sir Matt]

I wouldn't be surprised for the Glazers to do with United what they did with their NFL team after its success. Reduce the cost of players, sign young talent, trade them before they get expensive, and be continually awful. Fortunately for them, theres' no relegation in the NFL. They won't want to spend money and haven't done so overall in the last 5 years. They take half of the money from the IPO out of the club after spending 50% of the club's worth on financing costs they incurred in the purchase. If the club could spend what it earned rather than what it is allowed to by the owners who were too tight to buy the club with their own money, it would be competitive with any team in the world. Instead, we spend enough to buy one great player every year on debt that the club itself didn't even "earn".

 

[711]

I wouldn't be surprised for the Glazers to do with United what they did with their NFL team after its success. Reduce the cost of players, sign young talent, trade them before they get expensive, and be continually awful. Fortunately for them, theres' no relegation in the NFL. They won't want to spend money and haven't done so overall in the last 5 years. They take half of the money from the IPO out of the club after spending 50% of the club's worth on financing costs they incurred in the purchase. If the club could spend what it earned rather than what it is allowed to by the owners who were too tight to buy the club with their own money, it would be competitive with any team in the world. Instead, we spend enough to buy one great player every year on debt that the club itself didn't even "earn".

Isn't it round about now that some pillock comes on to tell us how we've all forgotten how much we spend on wages?
No other club has wages, apparently.

 

[KingMinger22]

Isn't it round about now that some pillock comes on to tell us how we've all forgotten how much we spend on wages?
No other club has wages, apparently.

And they always forget we spend proportionally the second lowest in the league on wages.

 

[Bestie07]

Is there any place where I can get our total revenue, money spent on wages and net spend on transfers since 2000 onwards? I'm really interested to know the difference in the total money spent on playing staff (fees + wages) as a percentage of the total revenue for each of these years. Reckon it would be interesting.

 

[Rood]

I wouldn't be surprised for the Glazers to do with United what they did with their NFL team after its success. Reduce the cost of players, sign young talent, trade them before they get expensive, and be continually awful.

Now why the feck would they do that? They would end up losing huge amounts of money.
Comparing to the NFL is stupid, it works in a completley different way to the PL - their shitty NFL club makes a profit for them even by coming bottom of the league and losing every game, they have very little incentive to invest in that team.

They are here to make money and to do that in the PL they need the club to be successful. I am sure they will be worried about the current situation, they will not be happy if we miss out on CL qualification - the share price has already taken a nosedive in anticipation of finishing outside the top4 this season.

 

[Rood]

And they always forget we spend proportionally the second lowest in the league on wages.

We have always stuck to a 50% wage ratio, but having a sustainable wage policy is not a negative - clubs spending the bulk of their income on wages are either backed by sugardaddies or struggling to make ends meet. That's the whole point of FFP.

Is there any place where I can get our total revenue, money spent on wages and net spend on transfers since 2000 onwards? I'm really interested to know the difference in the total money spent on playing staff (fees + wages) as a percentage of the total revenue for each of these years. Reckon it would be interesting.

this kind of info is publicly available, in fact Im sure charts showing this kind of thing are already posted in this thread.

 

[Plugsy]

Why is it every scenario makes the Glazer's more likely to sell?

"We're successful, never going to be a better time to sell"

"We're in decline, right chance to sell up"

"It's Thursday, bound to happen!"

 

[Irwinwastheking]

Are we out of the CL next season then? I was sure it was decided by the final league position and not where you are in January.

 

[Plugsy]

And they always forget we spend proportionally the second lowest in the league on wages.

Uh-huh
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...n-told-to-sell-before-he-can-buy-9019238.html

Sir Alex Ferguson will not be allowed to expand his squad this summer, even though he believes it is too weak to compete in Europe.
Last month, the Manchester United manager complained that he had only 18 outfield players to choose from, leaving him at a disadvantage compared to the likes of Real Madrid and Juventus. However, despite the club yesterday announcing a 32 per cent increase in profits before player disposals in the six months to 31 January, the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, said he will not sanction any transfers unless the squad size is kept at current levels.

"It is fair to say that if Sir Alex wants to buy someone, he will have to sell someone else," Kenyon said

...
Even though United maintain the highest wage bill in the Premiership, at £39.7m for the six-month period, it still represents only 43 per cent of their turnover, below that achieved by any of their rivals.

Wait, what is it again? Oh yes, we spent more under the PLC and Sir Alex is only a Glazer apologist because he'd never dare lash out at his paymasters.

The sort-term memory when it comes to the reality of the PLC is absolutely fecking insane. You people, within a year, will be calling that Savile guy 'not a bad bloke' your short term memory is that shit.

Could you imagine Woodward saying what Kenyon said or a situation where it was even RUMOURED Moyes was being denied players? The fanbase would go fecking insane. Rightly. But here we have a situation where it happened on a regular basis and people go around yearning for the days of the PLC. It's why these anti-Glazer points and arguments have no foundation in anything but fantasy and fiction.

 

[Sir Matt]

Now why the feck would they do that? They would end up losing huge amounts of money.
Comparing to the NFL is stupid, it works in a completley different way to the PL - their shitty NFL club makes a profit for them even by coming bottom of the league and losing every game, they have very little incentive to invest in that team.

They are here to make money and to do that in the PL they need the club to be successful. I am sure they will be worried about the current situation, they will not be happy if we miss out on CL qualification - the share price has already taken a nosedive in anticipation of finishing outside the top4 this season.

United could make money for them by being solidly 4th every year with revenue from the Champions League and never winning anything. If they can do that by spending the bare minimum amount of money, it's all the better for them. Hell, they could sell 39% of the club with similarly classed shares to their IPO and maintain total control while making money. The Glazers don't care about winning trophies. They just want the club to be good enough to make money.

 

[Plugsy]

United could make money for them by being solidly 4th every year with revenue from the Champions League and never winning anything. If they can do that by spending the bare minimum amount of money, it's all the better for them. Hell, they could sell 39% of the club with similarly classed shares to their IPO and maintain total control while making money. The Glazers don't care about winning trophies. They just want the club to be good enough to make money.

That's what every owner(ship structure) we've ever has ever cared about.

I don't get this Disneyfication of our history. As if the evil owners wrestled the club from a lovable philanthropist eight years ago. I don't know what past it is people want to return to. Because whatever past it is, doesn't seem to have ever existed.

 

[Bojan11]

United could make money for them by being solidly 4th every year with revenue from the Champions League and never winning anything. If they can do that by spending the bare minimum amount of money, it's all the better for them. Hell, they could sell 39% of the club with similarly classed shares to their IPO and maintain total control while making money. The Glazers don't care about winning trophies. They just want the club to be good enough to make money.

4th does not get you the big sponsorship deals though.

 

[Rood]

United could make money for them by being solidly 4th every year with revenue from the Champions League and never winning anything. If they can do that by spending the bare minimum amount of money, it's all the better for them. Hell, they could sell 39% of the club with similarly classed shares to their IPO and maintain total control while making money. The Glazers don't care about winning trophies. They just want the club to be good enough to make money.

Yes I agree that they want CL football - so why did you earlier say you wouldnt be suprised if they did the same as they have with the NFL team and slash the wage bill to make us 'continually awful'? You are not making any sense Im afraid.

Also they would make the maximum amount of money by winning trophies - in terms of commercial deals, a winning team is a more attractive proposition so there is an incentive for them.

 

[Sir Matt]

That's what every owner(ship structure) we've ever has ever cared about.

I don't get this Disneyfication of our history. As if the evil owners wrestled the club from a lovable philanthropist eight years ago. I don't know what past it is people want to return to. Because whatever past it is, doesn't seem to have ever existed.

Did I mention the PLC? If so, please point it out. I mentioned nothing about our past ownership structures and only that the Glazers are happy to take whatever they can get from the club. There are alternatives to the Glazers' ownership that aren't a PLC, in case you weren't aware.

Yes I agree that they want CL football - so why would did you earlier say you wouldnt be suprised if they did the same as they have with the NFL team and slash the wage bill to make us 'continually awful'? You are not making any sense Im afraid.

Also they would make the maximum amount of money by winning trophies - in terms of commercial deals, a winning team is a more attractive proposition so there is an incentive for them.

Of course they would make more money from the Champions League but would also be required to spend more money and take more risks. With the Chevrolet deal, premier league deal, and the other 84 sponsors we have, they can manage to make more money than any other Premier League club without the Champions League. They can play moneyball with United and be mediocre while making a consistent, large amount of money. If United have to spend £50m+ to compete for the Champions League and only stand to make £60m from it, that's not much upside. Spending £30m on Berbatov and £28m on Fellaini isn't going to convince them that risking large transfers are worth it.

 

[Plugsy]

Did I mention the PLC? If so, please point it out. I mentioned nothing about our past ownership structures and only that the Glazers are happy to take whatever they can get from the club. There are alternatives to the Glazers' ownership that aren't a PLC, in case you weren't aware.

So the outrage is now that since the Glazer's bought us we no longer have an ownership structure we never had?

 

[Sir Matt]

So the outrage is now that since the Glazer's bought us we no longer have an ownership structure we never had?

No, the argument is that they are terrible owners, regardless of ownership structure.

I would rather the ownership be reminiscent of Bayern Munich, where fans/members own 82% of the club but none of them is looking to make money off the club. Their ticket prices are substantially lower, they spend tons of money, and no one is taking money out of the club to line his pockets.

 

[AlwaysRedwood]

So the outrage is now that since the Glazer's bought us we no longer have an ownership structure we never had?

The game has changed considerably since the PLC. The Glazers are not good owners for the current model. PLC is irrelevant.

 

[Rood]

No, the argument is that they are terrible owners, regardless of ownership structure.

I would rather the ownership be reminiscent of Bayern Munich, where fans/members own 82% of the club but none of them is looking to make money off the club. Their ticket prices are substantially lower, they spend tons of money, and no one is taking money out of the club to line his pockets.

Well I doubt you would find many who wouldnt want that! But unfortunately the English game is not set up in the same way as the German one and our club has never been owned by the fans, for decades now we have been run as a business so it is not something that just started recently - Im not saying I like it, but thats just the way it is.

Although it is interesting to note that I see MUST are starting to talk about the potential for fans to buy shares in the club again, an interesting development but we are a long way away from fan ownership at the moment.

 

[Adebesi]

They reckon we should buy shares even though they have no voting rights? Has the Phoenix Fund been buying them?

 

[Rood]

They reckon we should buy shares even though they have no voting rights? Has the Phoenix Fund been buying them?

I dont think so but you should direct those questions to MUST.
I dont know the full rationale behind it all, just saw a few messages mentioning it and some talk about raising money from fans to buy a stake in the club. Nice idea in theory, whether it is acheivable is another matter.