Thats really cheap! Proved his point though
Manchester United Financial thread
- Thread starter RedMachine03
- Start date
To put this into some sort of context United's debt in 2010 was been reported at around £750 million (inc PIK), and in the same year the turnover was roughly £280 million, now our turnover is £515 million, and the debt Is £410 million (probably only temporarily aswell), if we had the same ratio of turnover to debt as we did in 2010 now it would need to be well over £1.3 billion, we also pay a much lower interest rate than we did in 2010, so whilst the papers still love to use it to grab readers, it's of no real concern as things stand.
Oh it absolutely did, it's unbelievable how much better the foreign fans have it.
So way better than the shit deal we get then.
Alright mate don't rub it in!
On the plus side i can go to the home united matches!
Haha, I do feel for you!Alright mate don't rub it in!
On the plus side i can go to the home united matches!
But yeah, I can perhaps afford to attend two home matches, so there’s that.Previously, my cable bill was $175 a month. Foreign fans have it better, sure.
I am assuming that players are reported as assets on balance sheets and many assets, actually majority of them, are not liquid assets. They are depreciated over a duration they will be used and may or may not have a salvage value at the end. If a player's value was considered to be lower than the carrying value(usually their transfer fee depreciated over a time span) he had to be written down as an impairment. I can be almost certain that they can't just take assets out and put them back in to the balance sheets.
Edit: It was indeed an impairment and they did reverse it. I am surprised players' impairment is allowed to be reversed. But meh what do I know. From our own revenue analysis:
"Exceptional credit for the quarter was £4.8 million, relating to a reversal of a registrations’ impairment charge for a player now considered to be re-established as a member of the first team playing squad."
Last edited:
Agreed
You'd always have more profit without debt. Interest charges reduce your profit hence the tax breaks, so the absence of that gives you more profit. Very different story with cash though which is what i think you meant, the idea being you'd pay less in interest less tax than dividends for the equivalent funding, but that becomes less relevant in a model where your cost of equity is uncapped, your owners are free to take as much money out of the club as they wish, and they do.
Nevertheless, I don't see your debt level as a huge worry. Particularly given it's largely driven by currency movements.
My point was what constitutes as a "large" number of players? He also said that our transfer activity would be less than the last three or so years, yet a number of older players will need to be replaced in the short term as well as adding to the squad in general. Given the current climate in the market it's seems unlikely this will be an inexpensive process, although we now appear to be more bullish with our outgoing business.
All looking rosy then! Imagine if we win a couple more trophy's this year and get back in the CL
£540m this year without being in the CL. How much would we bring in if we had finished top 4 last season?
Economy fairly unlikely to hold up I would have thought ? Going to take about ten years to get any kind of decent deal in place
Sure didn't the interest rate fall with Brexit as well. The two would cancel each other anyway. I'd say the interest charge is probably the same
Can someone with a bit more knowledge elaborate on the above for me? Would our debts actually be held in dollars wherever they are (off-shore etc?) therefore there is no real increase as this would only be if paying debt off in GDP?
Off the top of my head, I believe most, or all, of our remaining debt is in the form of bonds denominated in dollars. But the club's accounts are presented in sterling, meaning that, for accounting purposes, the dollar debt is converted into pounds. If the dollar rises with respect to the pound, the value of the bond debt expressed in pounds also rises.
The practical significance of this depends on the sources of the club's income. If most income is in pounds then the club loses out. But if the club has significant dollar income this can compensate for the rise in debt. If, for instance, the club has negotiated its international sponsorship deals in dollars.
In any case, the bond debt isn't due for repayment for years. It's the dollar/pound exchange rate when the debt falls due that really matters. Right now the increase in debt is purely a bookkeeping issue.
Ch
Cheers for this. That was my thinking!
Yes, but maybe because we have no exact clue with the financial situation and we are worry of the dept thing and the future of our club.
Exciting times- our first 'official coffee partner'. Cheesy quote to boot, oh, and they're revamping Red Cafe.
http://ir.manutd.com/press-releases.aspx
MUTV app is greatest thing for me as I don't have time to watch sport much (no cable), so I watch only things related to Manchester United. Although I wish I can watch it off-line sometime, I won't complain much as I am paying only $3 a month (US) and can watch tons of on-demand videos.
the question is though can we compete with City and PSG financially?
Could we spend £200m on one player?
Could we send what £100m on a few fullbacks?
Are we now looking at these tier levels for teams?
1) PSG/MAN CITY £200-£300m+ spend (unlimited)
2) Real/Barca/Chelsea/Man Utd (£100m - £150m)
3) Bayern (£80m+)
If the CL final is PSG V Man City....then it's well and truelly set. Can the Glazers model break into that tier? How? If not..what to do?
Could we spend £200m on one player?
Could we send what £100m on a few fullbacks?
Are we now looking at these tier levels for teams?
1) PSG/MAN CITY £200-£300m+ spend (unlimited)
2) Real/Barca/Chelsea/Man Utd (£100m - £150m)
3) Bayern (£80m+)
If the CL final is PSG V Man City....then it's well and truelly set. Can the Glazers model break into that tier? How? If not..what to do?
No and I hope we never do
why?
The old saying was "Money cannot buy you success"
That has been proven wrong since Chelsea.
I get what you say though..with so much "free" money comes reckless spending..merceneries...no youth..no team building.
Just pray we never become a Liverpool kind of club.
Money definitely helps, but it's not the most important factor. Clubs like Monaco and Leicester have shown it's possible to get a league winning squad without being a huge spender. Money usually keeps that squad together though.
Lately we've concentrated on "buying the best" instead of making the best, that usually was our mantra. I feel we need to get a mixture of that going.
Because once we do that it becomes the normality for the market. At the moment psg are the outlying markers. It’s not sustainable.
Best to buy a mixture and develop players as much as possible. It’s also better for team building
I have absolutely no idea what any of that means.
1. PSG
2. The rest
But look at them now, those best players at Monaco and Leicester are all gone. And Leicester is hardly competitive again. Football and most professional sports are big business, and money is important if not the most important. Tradition and history means something, but I don't want us to be like Liverpool (mostly competitive but don't win anything for years).
[
We spent close to 200 million on 2 players in just over a year. And hold the record for the top 2 transfers fees in the country. We are not that far behind city in financial muscle.
I think it means that the Glaziers got considerably richer as the day progressed. I am sure they will pay themselves a few more million in dividends as a reward.
Ah! I see, good on them, couldn’t think of anyone more deserving. Yay! The Glazers.
I think you underestimate our financial powers compared to the City and PSG, also we have advantages over FFP than them because they can't spend more as much as they like than they earned from their source and our revenue is so huge. Since 2014, we spent 490m net, more than PSG 398m net and behind City's spending £533m net. I'm not sure what you mean by "model" because we are already in that tiers. if Glazer wants to take it to another level, we'd spend more 100m-150m than City and PSG per season and comply with FFP and If City and PSG choose to catch up with us, they'd be in trouble cos they'd exceed their balance that will get FFP's attention and will give them a punishment for breaching FFP's rules and force them to sell players to clear loss/negative balance.
City and PSG can't compete with us financially.
City’s record signing is De Bruyne at £55m, United have twice since smashed that. You spend plenty.
You could always cancel the naughty channels
you'll find City have to also spend £130m+ on the next world class player they want. pre 2015 it was a lot saner. Pogba would now go for £130m.
If De Bruyne say went to Real...what do you think they would have to pay? £140m? £150m?
Player inflation, interesting topic. How much would Wayne Rooney and Rio Ferdinand cost now? Nobody cares about player inflation when it works the other way and they’re comparing PL spend.
Net spend the last 5 seasons for City is £80m and for United £70m, roughly and if I recall correctly. It's a funny idea that they're spending more than us. I think it might be coming from that feller Goldbridge over at the United Stand. He has been saying repeatedly that the board hasn't backed Mourinho, basing it on the lack of Perisic in the summer.