How much money are the Glazers now saving through wages of our offloaded players?

Denis79

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
4,076
Your argument is very valid and I agree with it but maybe not the last part, I do not believe that the lack of investment from 05 to 13 is the cause of our current problems, what difference would investing big money in 05/06/07/08 and even 09 make to us now? Any players bought for big money back then would be well finished by now. Also, had we brought in a proper manager in 2013 and spent the 400m(or whatever amount it is) that we have spent since on other players such as Van dyke, Salah, De bryune, B Silva, Modric, Kroos (the list is endless) rather than Fellaini & co we would not be in any kind of a mess now and so its decisions made over the last 6 years rather than lack of investment between 05 and 13 that have us in the current state in my view.
I'm not saying you're wrong but I believe that because of the lack of investment between 2005-13 SAF hung on to ageing top players because he couldn't afford to replace them with younger players of equal quality, by 2013 we fielded one of the oldest teams in the PL. Ending up with a massive rebuild.
 

MackRobinson

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,258
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Why do you say it is stupid on so many levels to see the interest payments as a form of money being taken out of the club? This money would not be leaving the club had the glazers not mortgaged it to the hilt, right? Or am I missing something?
Yeah. You're missing the fact that part of the debt is used as working capital. There is no point in buying a club without the funds to actually run it.
 

Dennis_Law

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Messages
52
Supports
Aberdeen
In hindsight we should have spent more in the latter part of SAF's era. I don't think anyone predicted how football would change though. SAF didn't want to be a part of £100 Mill + transfer windows & paying huge agent fees. It is bad for the game. It would have also given the impression that he was buying the league. He had overcome Blackburn & Chelsea & thought he could do the same with City. The problem was that Blackburn & Chelsea had the backing of individuals whereas City were backed by a state. Blackburn & Chelsea gave us a chance to catch up by reigning in their spending. There was no let up from City with £100 Mill + transfer windows becoming the norm for them. By the time we realized how the landscape had changed SAF was on the brink of retirement.

It was a mistake from SAF to appoint Moyes. There was a lack of viable candidates though. Pep was 1st choice but refused. There will have likely been other options. It's very likely some of these refused as following SAF was a poisoned chalice. Taking this into account it wasn't too left field to appoint a stable PL manager. It proved to be a bad gamble. to rectify this we appointed big name managers with glittering CV's. These too have also failed.

The Coolmore saga was poor from all concerned. The horse was generating 10's of Millions per year. It was crazy not having legal papers drawn up stating who was entitled to what.
This is spot on.
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,929
Why do you say it is stupid on so many levels to see the interest payments as a form of money being taken out of the club? This money would not be leaving the club had the glazers not mortgaged it to the hilt, right? Or am I missing something?
Because the concept of money "leaving the club" is weird to begin with. Its a cost for financing the club.
If the Glazers would pay off say half of the debt they would have to finance by equity instead, which would be more expensive for them and thus also actually worse for the club. Its no coincidence that all businesses operate with some form of debt. Its the reasonable thing to do since its more effective, tax-wise, etc.
The alternative would be the Glazers taking out much more money in dividends instead to cover what they essentially would consider a financing cost. That would be money leaving the club and since the Glazers has sold 20 percent of the shares they would even have to leverage the dividends even higher to recieve the same amount as would have before we went go public.
For me its useless to compare reality to the unicorn that is United being debt-free. Thats never going to happen, the most important thing now its that the debt is being serviced and handled sensibly. Which it has been so far.
 

Falcow

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
208
Location
Dublin
I'm not saying you're wrong but I believe that because of the lack of investment between 2005-13 SAF hung on to ageing top players because he couldn't afford to replace them with younger players of equal quality, by 2013 we fielded one of the oldest teams in the PL. Ending up with a massive rebuild.
Yeah fair enough, Scholes out of retirement being an example I guess. If only Fergie had bought Aguero and Hazard and taken Robben and Schneijder in exchange for Ronaldo.....if only.
 

Falcow

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
208
Location
Dublin
Yeah. You're missing the fact that part of the debt is used as working capital. There is no point in buying a club without the funds to actually run it.
Are you certain that is the case though? I thought all of the debt was used to purchase the club and that the club has plenty of funds generated through its revenues for working capital.
 

Falcow

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
208
Location
Dublin
Because the concept of money "leaving the club" is weird to begin with. Its a cost for financing the club.
If the Glazers would pay off say half of the debt they would have to finance by equity instead, which would be more expensive for them and thus also actually worse for the club. Its no coincidence that all businesses operate with some form of debt. Its the reasonable thing to do since its more effective, tax-wise, etc.
The alternative would be the Glazers taking out much more money in dividends instead to cover what they essentially would consider a financing cost. That would be money leaving the club and since the Glazers has sold 20 percent of the shares they would even have to leverage the dividends even higher to recieve the same amount as would have before we went go public.
For me its useless to compare reality to the unicorn that is United being debt-free. Thats never going to happen, the most important thing now its that the debt is being serviced and handled sensibly. Which it has been so far.
Fair enough and I agree that debt is sometimes not necessarily a bad thing if it is used for investment purposes but the debt in this case was only used to fund their original investment in the club and nothing else and so the club in no way benefited from this debt i.e. no investment in players or stadium upgrade etc so.

Re the bolded part, finance what exactly?
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,929
Fair enough and I agree that debt is sometimes not necessarily a bad thing if it is used for investment purposes but the debt in this case was only used to fund their original investment in the club and nothing else and so the club in no way benefited from this debt i.e. no investment in players or stadium upgrade etc so.

Re the bolded part, finance what exactly?
I am not sure I understand the question. The club´s operations I guess you can say nowadays. The takeover happened 15 years or so ago.
With the refinancing and going public, etc the club now carries a 500m something gross debt. Perfectably servicable and no buyer of United would remove that debt. There is a major risk that a new buyer would do another LBO though and put the club in 1,5bn debt or something. But thats another argument.
Our financing now is quite different from the days of the PIKs and how the buyout was leveraged back when, and I personally think it is time to let that go.
I was against the buyout when it happened as well btw, thought it carried way to much risk for the club. But to be fair the clubs finances are in excellent shape now looking forward.
You can say a lot about the Glazers but they carried out the business plan that they set out to do.
I dont think its really relevant to compare forms of debt either for the reasons I stated earlier. Spurs borrowed 600m plus for their new stadium. Why did not Levy put 600m of his own money in instead? Because its cheaper to finance by debt. And no one is giving Levy shit about that. Which is completely correct because it would have cost him more to do it by equity and it would hurt the clubs bottomline.
What you will hear is that: yeah, but Spurs got a new stadium for that so it was OK to borrow money.
I think its down to people still in this modern day age thinking that its a difference between the clubs money and the owners money when its actually is the exact same thing.
Spurs is Levys asset (very simplistically I know) and how he finances it does not matter except for it to being as advantageous financially for Levy as possible. And if it is for him it will actually benefit the club as well in the long run. Its the same with the Glazers IMO.
 
Last edited:

Keefy18

Full Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
1,405
He has given himself a 60% pay rise this year so needs to clear some wages to balance the books.
Don’t forget Ed the Red 60% pay rise for all the success and joy he has brought to the club since taking charge.
Has he though? A rumor started from a s*it rag like the sun. Hardly the most reputable source is it?

Sigh. The naivety on here is astounding at times. Stadium and playing staff in absolute decline whilst the owners’ personal profit escalates. Anyone who thinks there’ll be additions to the squad or substantial recruitment in the summer has not been paying attention the past near-decade and a half.
How is it "naive" to think club owners who have spent over a £1b on transfer fees alone in 7 years would spend more next season?

Our problem has never been amount spent, just how it has been spent.

Ironic to suggest other supporters haven't paid attention then, every knows we've spent mind boggling amounts of money.

People also forget that Sanchez wages were also offset by Mkhitaryan's wages.

I'm not convinced wages are an issue in deciding whether to buy players at all.
No they weren't! On what feckin planet was Mikha earning the same wage as Sanchez?

Moyes was given a perfectly acceptable squad & dragged it into the gutter.
The squad SAF left didn't need major surgery.
Sadly he did leave a squad behind in woeful condition. SAF winning that league in 2013 is nothing short of a miracle!

You can bang on all you like about winning the league but the reality is Fr Time had caught up with Fergie and pretty much the entire senior playing staff that had made him so successful. He bled every last bit of success he could from them.

My own personal feelings on the under investment in the post Ronaldo years was a mix of factors.
1) Glazers tying up purse strings to sort the debt out (they cleared the worst PIK loans around this time).
2) Fergie was ageing and the game was changing too fast for him and he had a very strong disliking for many of the games agents and refused to deal with many, that and his judgement on players was declining. Calling Jones could be as good as Duncan Edwards and refusing to deal with Pogba, set the club back £90m a few years later then.
3) I believe between them (Glazers, Gill & Fergie) they knew his retirement was coming close and they wanted to have sufficient funds for the rebuild post retirement that he couldn't do.

Anyway if you look at that league winning team from 2013 - Giggs (38), Scholes (37), Rio (33), Berbatov (31), Evra (31), Carrick & Vidic (30). That's the bulk of the senior players who delivered on field for him at the wrong side of 30 and either retiring or one foot in retirement.

The younger players left after that, simply weren't up to it either like Welbeck, Cleverly, Nani & Anderson.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-united/startseite/verein/985/saison_id/2012
 

fergiesarmy1

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
3,597
@Keefy18

It’s in the accounts he has gone from £2.6 million in 2015 to £4.15 million in 2018 while presiding over a shit show, he should be getting sacked not being given a pay rise. I don’t think he has given Ole a hope in hell of top 4 even top 6 is a stretch which is a dereliction of duty as far as I’m concerned.
 

edgar allan

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
2,730
How is it "naive" to think club owners who have spent over a £1b on transfer fees alone in 7 years would spend more next season?

Our problem has never been amount spent, just how it has been spent.

Ironic to suggest other supporters haven't paid attention then, every knows we've spent mind boggling amounts of money
Look at our net spend over the last 2 years. Less than Arsenal, Wolves , Villa and Brighton, similar to West ham & Everton.
Yes we have wasted money in the past but the cash cow is being milked now right infront of your eyes.
 

Keefy18

Full Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
1,405
@Keefy18

It’s in the accounts he has gone from £2.6 million in 2015 to £4.15 million in 2018 while presiding over a shit show, he should be getting sacked not being given a pay rise. I don’t think he has given Ole a hope in hell of top 4 even top 6 is a stretch which is a dereliction of duty as far as I’m concerned.
Does it actually say CEO salary?

Look at our net spend over the last 2 years. Less than Arsenal, Wolves , Villa and Brighton, similar to West ham & Everton.
Yes we have wasted money in the past but the cash cow is being milked now right infront of your eyes.
Net spend is an extremely weak argument, arguably the absolute worst argument to put forward.

There is far more going on in transfer the the vast majority of supporters consider.

What about release clauses? Agent fees? Wages (A massive consideration these days), VAT, FA Fee, Signing bonuses and finally image rights.. All these extras are separate from the reported fees we generally just use.

The club with probably the best net spend in recent years is Liverpool (not looked at any definite figures here).

See, the vital part of net spend figures that often isn't considered is the loss loss of significant assets (that's what each player is now in the game). Folks think net spend should suggest huge sums of money spent, it doesn't.

So, Liverpool lost Suarez, Sterling & Coutinho in 3 out of 5 of the post Ferguson years. Hardly something to praise is it?

It's only this summer where we have offloaded significant names / big investments to balance the books and guess what, we still have folks like you creating rhetoric. What I'm saying is, when we are spending huge sums you ignore it and create anti glazer narratives, then when we try balance the books for the auld net spend they (the glazers) are also in the wrong and they are "milking" the club. Both sides matter of fact can't be true, it has to be one or the other.

Which is it?

As for the list of clubs like Arsenal, Wolves and Villa... seriously?

We've outspent all those clubs massively in terms of transfer fees.

If we consider the post Ferguson years

Man United Spend - £946m approx - https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-united/alletransfers/verein/985
Arsenal spend - £621m approx https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-arsenal/alletransfers/verein/11

I can't even be arsed going looking at Wolves & Villa's spend cause its completely irrelevant and untrue what your saying.
 

Dante

Bang Average but can post Blindfolded for 15 secs
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
17,123
Location
My wit's end
We should overspend on all our transfer so that Manchester United stops becoming profitable and the Glazers leave.

Maddison for £120m and Longstaff for £60m?

Yes, please. Piss off, Avram.
 

edgar allan

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
2,730
Does it actually say CEO salary?



Net spend is an extremely weak argument, arguably the absolute worst argument to put forward.

There is far more going on in transfer the the vast majority of supporters consider.

What about release clauses? Agent fees? Wages (A massive consideration these days), VAT, FA Fee, Signing bonuses and finally image rights.. All these extras are separate from the reported fees we generally just use.

The club with probably the best net spend in recent years is Liverpool (not looked at any definite figures here), but I'd suggest them because of how many top talents they've off loaded.

See, that's the vital part net spend figures doesn't consider. Folks think net spend should suggest huge sums of money spent, it doesn't. It also factors in the loss of significant assets (that's what each player is now in the game).

So, Liverpool lost Suarez, Sterling & Coutinho in 3 out of 5 of the post Ferguson years. Hardly something to be praise is it?

It's only this summer where we have offloaded significant names / big investments to balance the books and guess what, we still have folks like you creating rhetoric. What I'm saying is, when we are spending huge sums you ignore it and create anti glazer narratives, then when we try balance the books for the auld net spend they (the glazers) are also in the wrong and they are "milking" the club. Both sides matter of fact can't be true, it has to be one or the other.

Which is it?

As for the list of clubs like Arsenal, Wolves and Villa... seriously?

We've outspent all those clubs massively in terms of transfer fees.

If we consider the post Ferguson years

Man United Spend - £946m approx - https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-united/alletransfers/verein/985
Arsenal spend - £621m approx https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-arsenal/alletransfers/verein/11

I can't even be arsed going looking at Wolves & Villa's spend cause its completely irrelevant and untrue what your saying.
Are you employed by the Glaziers??
Net spend is a better picture of how much money the club has to actually put into to the team.
We have been underperforming for years and in the last 2 years our net spend is there for all to see.

Let's look at how much money the Glaziers have leeched from the club in the last 2 years and compare it to our net transfer spend.

Big club, huge income.....small time greedy owners.
 

C'est Moi Cantona

Full Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
6,492
He's a good writer this guy, but as for the content there is nothing there that isn't blatantly obvious, this was staring us in the face all summer long.

The main jist is about the betting perspective/opportunities, basically saying that we are a good 'sell' with a point total set at 65-66.5, which you'd have to agree, I couldn't see us getting that this season.

Interesting line from article - "The concern for sellers would be that a couple more bad results - and they meet Leicester, West Ham, Arsenal and Liverpool in their next five league assignments - might lead to the Solskjaer experiment being terminated and the possible recruitment of superior operators Mauricio Pochettino or Max Allegri."

Which again seems obvious, but you'd not think it listening to this place, 'he has a free shot this season come what may', 'needs another summer window', 'Only relegation fears should get him sacked', etc, which I agree to a point, because he's been done up like a kipper this season, but he'll be gone just like the rest if it unravels quickly.
 

Keefy18

Full Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
1,405
Are you employed by the Glaziers??
No, just applying common sense.

Net spend is a better picture of how much money the club has to actually put into to the team.
No it isn't.

Liverpool have spent similar amounts to Arsenal - £635M approx - https://www.transferleague.co.uk/liverpool/english-football-teams/liverpool-transfers
Liverpool have received in sales - £480m approx
Net spend of approx -£150m.

We've out spent Liverpool by £300m approx at least, approx figure of £946m on transfer fees.
We sold - £280m approx
Net spend of approx -£660m

So explain to me how net spend provides "better picture of how much money the club has to actually put into to the team"?

Like I say, net spend is without a doubt the dumbest metric to use.

We have been underperforming for years and in the last 2 years our net spend is there for all to see.

Let's look at how much money the Glaziers have leeched from the club in the last 2 years and compare it to our net transfer spend.

Big club, huge income.....small time greedy owners.
Yes we have under performed but it isn't due to lack of financial investment. It's down to key areas not being invested in and over paying for average input and in turn creating a bad attitude within the players.

They take dividends due to the ownership structure which goes back decades and the Edwards family were taking dividends also.
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,929
Are you employed by the Glaziers??
Net spend is a better picture of how much money the club has to actually put into to the team.
We have been underperforming for years and in the last 2 years our net spend is there for all to see.

Let's look at how much money the Glaziers have leeched from the club in the last 2 years and compare it to our net transfer spend.

Big club, huge income.....small time greedy owners.
Its really not. Its bordering to irrelevant. Here is some figures for you:
Sanchez: just 25m in transfer fee: insane wages and by far the most costly transfer the club have ever made. But is hardly noticed in your "net spend" world.
Zlatan: 0m in transfer fee; also fecking expensive because of his wages. Very costly transfer. Is not noticed at all either in your "net spend" world.
Then you can make the contrary argument:
Pogba: 80m. Now worth 150m something. How does this compute with your "net spend"? It doesnt because its a lazy and irrelevant way of looking at transfers.
 

fergiesarmy1

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
3,597
He's a good writer this guy, but as for the content there is nothing there that isn't blatantly obvious, this was staring us in the face all summer long.

The main jist is about the betting perspective/opportunities, basically saying that we are a good 'sell' with a point total set at 65-66.5, which you'd have to agree, I couldn't see us getting that this season.

Interesting line from article - "The concern for sellers would be that a couple more bad results - and they meet Leicester, West Ham, Arsenal and Liverpool in their next five league assignments - might lead to the Solskjaer experiment being terminated and the possible recruitment of superior operators Mauricio Pochettino or Max Allegri."

Which again seems obvious, but you'd not think it listening to this place, 'he has a free shot this season come what may', 'needs another summer window', 'Only relegation fears should get him sacked', etc, which I agree to a point, because he's been done up like a kipper this season, but he'll be gone just like the rest if it unravels quickly.
He’s not holding many punches though especially around Pogba.

If we come to the point of another managerial change and Woodward remains I give up.
 

Keefy18

Full Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
1,405
Its really not. Its bordering to irrelevant. Here is some figures for you:
Sanchez: just 25m in transfer fee: insane wages and by far the most costly transfer the club have ever made. But is hardly noticed in your "net spend" world.
Zlatan: 0m in transfer fee; also fecking expensive because of his wages. Very costly transfer. Is not noticed at all either in your "net spend" world.
Then you can make the contrary argument:
Pogba: 80m. Now worth 150m something. How does this compute with your "net spend"? It doesnt because its a lazy and irrelevant way of looking at transfers.
Yep there is also this.

The very, very rough figures I am posting from transfer league don't factor in "free" transfers like Zlatan (£16m wages) and Sanchez being a "swap" but his wages setting us back £25m as rumored.

As per Swiss Ramble, our wage bill increased 46% but you get folks read some anti glazer BS from twitter about Jose not being backed and not arsed doing their own research believing it hook, line and sinker.

All this before we get into the "bells and whistles" of transfers like the VAT, Signing on fees, bonuses, wages and a big one now to...agent fees.

Liverpool spent a PL record last year in agent fees getting VVD, Allison & Fabinho done.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/apr/04/liverpool-paid-43m-agents-spurs-113m-profit-record

One summer / season of big investment they've had in reality and Klopp was back working with nothing.
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,929
Yep there is also this.

The very, very rough figures I am posting from transfer league don't factor in "free" transfers like Zlatan (£16m wages) and Sanchez being a "swap" but his wages setting us back £25m as rumored.

As per Swiss Ramble, our wage bill increased 46% but you get folks read some anti glazer BS from twitter about Jose not being backed and not arsed doing their own research believing it hook, line and sinker.

All this before we get into the "bells and whistles" of transfers like the VAT, Signing on fees, bonuses, wages and a big one now to...agent fees.

Liverpool spent a PL record last year in agent fees getting VVD, Allison & Fabinho done.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/apr/04/liverpool-paid-43m-agents-spurs-113m-profit-record

One summer / season of big investment they've had in reality and Klopp was back working with nothing.
Yeah, I should have added agent fees and sign-on fees in the Sanchez and Zlatan examples as well. They were all crazy high, so you are completely correct. Do they show up in this "net spend world"? Naw, they dont.
Then you have transfers like a 50m Matic whose asset value now is none/nada. Compare that to Pogba and/or even Lindelöf that are worth more now than what we invested in them. How can you compare those?
Net spend means nothing. You cant compare one transfer to another. All are different.
If one wants to have a basic understanding how much a club spends on the squad the most simplistic way is probably to look at 75% wage bill and 25% gross spend on the players that are still in the squad. It will get you closer to what the club spends on their players yearly. But its still not close enough of an algorithm to be anywhere near exact.
And we had the largest wage bill in the PL and the nxt largest gross spend after City.
Not spending money is NOT the problem.
 

MackRobinson

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,258
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Are you certain that is the case though? I thought all of the debt was used to purchase the club and that the club has plenty of funds generated through its revenues for working capital.
Given the original owners were ACTIVELY looking for investors before the Glazer's purchased the club and, less importantly, they recommended minority shareholders sell their shares to push the deal through, I highly doubt the previous owners had "plenty of funds".
 

Keefy18

Full Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
1,405
Given the original owners were ACTIVELY looking for investors before the Glazer's purchased the club and, less importantly, they recommended minority shareholders sell their shares to push the deal through, I highly doubt the previous owners had "plenty of funds".
In fairness, Magnier & McManus were each worth about £1b or so at the time I believe.

Each are worth over £2b currently.
 

edgar allan

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
2,730
Its really not. Its bordering to irrelevant. Here is some figures for you:
Sanchez: just 25m in transfer fee: insane wages and by far the most costly transfer the club have ever made. But is hardly noticed in your "net spend" world.
Zlatan: 0m in transfer fee; also fecking expensive because of his wages. Very costly transfer. Is not noticed at all either in your "net spend" world.
Then you can make the contrary argument:
Pogba: 80m. Now worth 150m something. How does this compute with your "net spend"? It doesnt because its a lazy and irrelevant way of looking at transfers.
I didn't say it was the only indicator of the investment in the club but it is an important indicator.
Free transfers and big wages spread over 3-5 years are more palatable to a money pinching owner than having to release a large transfer fee upfront AND big wages too.

We needed to invest to strengthen this summer and unfortunately as in many summers before, the money has stayed ( largely) in the Glaziers rich pockets.
 

edgar allan

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
2,730
Pogba: 80m. Now worth 150m something. How does this compute with your "net spend"? It doesnt because its a lazy and irrelevant way of looking at transfers.
No-one will be paying anywhere close to that amount for Pogba.
 

MackRobinson

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,258
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
In fairness, Magnier & McManus were each worth about £1b or so at the time I believe.

Each are worth over £2b currently.
Doesn't matter if they weren't willing to invest in United (that would probably require liquidation of other assets).
 

Keefy18

Full Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
1,405
Doesn't matter if they weren't willing to invest in United (that would probably require liquidation of other assets).
They invested in the few years they were part owners, just with the fall out with Ferguson they were willing to sell then.

I don't recall stories of them not willing to invest in United.
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,929
Doesn't matter if they weren't willing to invest in United (that would probably require liquidation of other assets).
The story behind Cubics ownership of United is pretty well-documented, they had been looking to sell the club for a while until they finally accepted the proposals from the Glazers.
Its actually quite interesting now when one look backs to those days. Its easy now to say that the Glazers have used United for a free ride and that anyone could have done the same, etc.
To be fair back then to own a footballclub was not all that. Leeds had just crashed and burned. Its not like people were cuing up to buy United at that time. Cubic wanted rid of United and you might say that part of it was due to the conflict with Sir Alex. I would say that the big reason was that they didnt see it as a good investment anymore. And it seems like not many others did either.
I was against the LBO at the time but looking back I wonder how things had turned out if Cubic didnt sell to the Glazers at the time?
A couple of more years infighting between the owners? Sir Alex would surely had left sooner rather than later.
And maybe we would one day have been taken over by Shinawatra instead of City. Or Gillett and Hicks?
To be completely fair the successful takeovers of English PL-clubs since 2000... you can count them on one hand. The disastrous takeovers are plenty.
Leeds,
Portsmouth,
Aston Villa,
Everton,
Arsenal with Kroenke,
Liverpool almost bankrupted by Gillett and Hicks
City with Shinawatra.
The list is preddy much endless. Which is kind of strange with the economic development of the league during even those early years. That does not just apply to United but shows that it might not be so fecking easy to run a football club of our size,
My point is that there is pretty much two success-stories between 2000 and 2010: Its the Glazers and Abramovich. Levy has done OK with Spurs but winning absolutely nothing.
In retrospect I would not revert the LBO today even if I was against it then. It had could have ended up quite terribly.
Fact is that there is not a lot of prospective buyers of a football club even people seem to think that they would be lining up should the Glazers decide to sell. Was not back then and especially is not now when United is worth 5 times was it was back then.
 

C'est Moi Cantona

Full Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
6,492
He’s not holding many punches though especially around Pogba.

If we come to the point of another managerial change and Woodward remains I give up.
I think he's just seeing it for what it is, the only thing I disagree with is the Rashford part, I'm not seeing him as a 'potentially top notch premier league hitman' at all, Martial stands fair more chance imo.

As for Woodward going, he's overseen so much failure already that it's fairly clear he's been kept regardless of what happens now, for reasons only the Glazers know.
 

Dennis_Law

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Messages
52
Supports
Aberdeen
Pogba: 80m. Now worth 150m something. How does this compute with your "net spend"? It doesnt because its a lazy and irrelevant way of looking at transfers.
Occasionally on here I read stuff that makes me fall off my chair.... in what universe is Paul Pogba worth 150m? Utd. will be lucky to get their 80 mill back the way things are going - he certainly has not doubled in value.
 
Last edited:

Denis79

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
4,076
Yeah fair enough, Scholes out of retirement being an example I guess. If only Fergie had bought Aguero and Hazard and taken Robben and Schneijder in exchange for Ronaldo.....if only.
At the time we could have attracted any of those players, sad when you think about it.
 

WR10

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
4,899
Location
Dream
Has anyone actually answered the question? I’m curious. I tried scanning through the thread to find the numbers
 

Falcow

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
208
Location
Dublin
Has anyone actually answered the question? I’m curious. I tried scanning through the thread to find the numbers
I'm not sure if it's a fair question, as didn't we have the highest wages of any club until recently? So if we are now back down to being in the top 5 clubs in the world in terms of highest wages then we are not really saving anything. I think our wages are probably in line with our turnover relative to peers.
 

Falcow

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
208
Location
Dublin
I am not sure I understand the question. The club´s operations I guess you can say nowadays. The takeover happened 15 years or so ago.
With the refinancing and going public, etc the club now carries a 500m something gross debt. Perfectably servicable and no buyer of United would remove that debt. There is a major risk that a new buyer would do another LBO though and put the club in 1,5bn debt or something. But thats another argument.
Our financing now is quite different from the days of the PIKs and how the buyout was leveraged back when, and I personally think it is time to let that go.
I was against the buyout when it happened as well btw, thought it carried way to much risk for the club. But to be fair the clubs finances are in excellent shape now looking forward.
You can say a lot about the Glazers but they carried out the business plan that they set out to do.
I dont think its really relevant to compare forms of debt either for the reasons I stated earlier. Spurs borrowed 600m plus for their new stadium. Why did not Levy put 600m of his own money in instead? Because its cheaper to finance by debt. And no one is giving Levy shit about that. Which is completely correct because it would have cost him more to do it by equity and it would hurt the clubs bottomline.
What you will hear is that: yeah, but Spurs got a new stadium for that so it was OK to borrow money.
I think its down to people still in this modern day age thinking that its a difference between the clubs money and the owners money when its actually is the exact same thing.
Spurs is Levys asset (very simplistically I know) and how he finances it does not matter except for it to being as advantageous financially for Levy as possible. And if it is for him it will actually benefit the club as well in the long run. Its the same with the Glazers IMO.
I think you are of the view that the 500m debt has financed our operations - it hasn't, it financed the purchase of the club only and is therefore bad debt (for the club at least but not the Glazers obviously) as opposed to being good debt like debt used to finance operations, players or stadium redevelopment might be.

As for Levy....he doesnt own spurs, spurs is owned by Enic int Ltd which is in turn owned by Joe Lewis. Presumably levy has shares in Enic as well but he certainly doesnt own it or spurs.
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,929
I think you are of the view that the 500m debt has financed our operations - it hasn't, it financed the purchase of the club only and is therefore bad debt (for the club at least but not the Glazers obviously) as opposed to being good debt like debt used to finance operations, players or stadium redevelopment might be.

As for Levy....he doesnt own spurs, spurs is owned by Enic int Ltd which is in turn owned by Joe Lewis. Presumably levy has shares in Enic as well but he certainly doesnt own it or spurs.
Yeah, I understood that this was your take on things. We have to agree to disagree then. There is no technical difference between "good" debt and "bad" debt. It appears on the same page of the clubs balance sheet. You can have a moral issue with how the Glazers purchased the club, but thats something else.
Would you have been more happy if the Glazers emptied the clubs coffers when they took over the club and then borrowed money anew to finance the new quadrants?
Would it suddenly have made it "good debt"? Now they used money set of for this (they did not have to) already cash at hand. Is there really a difference?
Would you have been more happy if the club paid off 10m monthly every season and then in the summer borrowed 100m new money for transfers? Would it have suddenly made it "good debt"?
What you are doing IMO is looking at the Glazers and the club at two separate entities. Which many do from a moral perspective. Its kinda understandable. From a financial point of view it makes no sense though.
 
Last edited:

fergiesarmy1

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
3,597
Occasionally on here I read stuff that makes me fall off my chair.... in what universe is Paul Pogba worth 150m? Utd. will be lucky to get their 80 mill back the way things are going - he certainly has not doubled in value.
I think we will see a profit if his season isn’t a disaster mainly due to his marketability, £150m is pie in the sky now though.
 

Champagne Football

Full Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
2,921
Location
El Beatle
It's a huge relief to get so much dead wood off the payroll.

I don't think in history there's ever been a club that offered such an attractive gravy train package, to so many free-loaders who were only too happy,to jump on board, and enjoy the all expenses paid 5 star holiday.... Getting rid of the extravagant train driver named Jose was an important first step.
 
Last edited:

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,929
I think we will see a profit if his season isn’t a disaster mainly due to his marketability, £150m is pie in the sky now though.
I absolutely think that Real will fork out 150m plus for Pogba next summer. It does not mean that I necessarily think he is worth it as a football player. IMO it would have happened this summer if Real hadnt blown all their.... on other players.
In a transfer reality when an unproven Portugese kid goes for 115m and an overweight 28 year old Chelsea player goes for 100m with just one year of his contract: Pogba will go for at least 150m nxt summer. He will have two years left on his contract as well.
Many of our fans said that we would have to give away Lukaku for free and that no-one but maybe West Ham would want him. Ended up with Inter and Juve (not exactly shit-clubs) battling it out for him and him going for 70m something.
We do have a severe tendency to underestimate the value of our own players.
 

fergiesarmy1

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
3,597
I’ll bet on £120m plus add-ons which will be champions league titles and ballon dors which ain’t gonna happen for him.