One thing i know. We cant afford to spend above 200m per season
We dont have a transfer budget. We have a wage budget.
The late Malcolm Glazer was an astute businessman. The increase in the value of the club is more down to the global increase in football worldwide than their or Woodwards financial decisions.
Naw, thats way to simplified. You cant just take cash at hand in the last quarterly report and say that its our "transfer budget". Transfers are paid over time in arrears much like salaries if its not some weird Neymar-situation and you have to pay his release clause upfront.. If Sancho, Kane, and one of Koke and Saul suddenly would become available in one window that would be a 400m gross spend and we would jump on it. As long as it would fit our wage bill. Thats not spending, its investment. Those players wont be worth less in two or three years, probably more.
So you mean that it was not a financial decision by them buying the club anticipating just this? There was not many other takers of United back in 2003, mind you. I dont really care about the Glazers as long as they keep spending money in the way they have been doing lately. But one thing you cant take from them is that the leveraged takeover back when was an excellent financial decision by them. Even if you find it morally abhorrent or not.
Yes. You can dress it up as 200m this year and installment.
Yeah, I agree, we are a bit hamstrung by having a lot of instalments left to pay from earlier transfers. Getting rid of Lukaku was one step.
Are you disputing that the club put a lot of money in our youth setup during the last 5 years and that its actually starting to bear fruit? And if not why should not Woodward highlight something that is at the core of the club and we should be proud of? The last crop of youngsters coming through are the most exciting we have had for quite a while. Its not like when LvG had to play CBJ at left back. Things have improved tremendously. How is this something to be negative about?
I was asking the question. And what fruit is it bearing may I ask? So if you are talking in the past 5 years, what fruits are we now seeing that was invested 5 years ago?
Greenwood, Garner, Williams, Gomes and Chong are probably the best young players that have made the first team squad for a long time. They will not all make it, even if I give the first three a very good chance. And its not about how much money was invested 5 years ago, its about how we have continued to invest money in our academy and youth setup since Sir Alex left and enabled those players to continue their development at the club. I really dont see the point of your original post. Whats bad about this?
The point about my original post on this is Ed keeps on talking about the youth. How we've played the most youth players than the other clubs. How we have nearly reached 4,000 consecutive games whereby youth member have been involved with the first team. What is the point in mentioning this to bunch of investors? Investors who had one question, how much more activity will we be having on our app?!
Yes he is, and trying to pull the wool over our eyes again. We will sill only spend part of what we get for players going out. If Pogba goes for 150million, we will spend 100 million of this money.
Ok, I am going to bow out of this discussion with this:
You brought into the conversation about the last 5 years of investment of youth. You clearly said it for a reason. Which you still haven't been clear on? What was it in the last 5 years that happened that Ed can be so proud of?
Haha, very true.
Exactly. And a huge one at that.
Hahahaha. It's hard to argue against this too.
Thanks for this. So what is it claimed United are the highest?
i don’t and I came in here hoping somebody had summarised the difference in a couple of sentences. If you would be so kind...?
Maybe app downloads?
Hahahaha maybe. But I didn't word my question correctly, I meant to ask, why is it claimed that United are the number one financial team?
I'm talking about post-takeover... Malcolm Glazer did some shrewd business with the takeover over us and Tampa Bay. The increase in the value of our club since the takeover is not down to some ingenious financial medling by the Glazers or Woodward.
Barca’s budgeted revenue this season is €875m, and that includes like €20-25m in revenue from their other sports clubs. If we qualified for the CL we’d probably make about £640m (€750m).
"Where Barcelona is largely different, however, is that Barcelona includes the profit from the sale of players as part of its revenue number. Other teams do not regard such income as operating income but a number accounted for as a "special" item and added after operating expenses have been subtracted from operating revenues to then give the overall operating profit.
Not sure where that figure is coming from. For the most recent season, to quote Barcelona itself:
https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/club...ic-plan/commissions-and-bodies/annual-reports
Net debt is debt minus the cash held on the balance sheet. So if you spend that cash, on something like transfers your net debt will increase without your actual debt increasing which is what happened here.i don’t and I came in here hoping somebody had summarised the difference in a couple of sentences. If you would be so kind...?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Slowly? It has been pretty fast to be fair.
