Sorry ralphie but you continue to make things up to support your argument.
The only "top, top player" that I can remember us buying was Veron. That really was one for the transfer muppets to get orgasmic about at the time.
Yes, we have always bought high quality players but I think you're looking back with the red-tinted specs a bit here.
In 2001 Real Madrid signed Zidane for 75million (euros) - at the time, I think that was in the region of £45million. Now, that is a top, top player going for a fee that we have never even come close to matching to this day - almost ten years on.
But this is where you are coming from with your argument, that we should be buying the "Zidane's" of today because that's what we used to do. You're wrong.
You're also forgetting the fact that our most expensive transfer came during the Glazer era (Berbatov).
True. We did buy "
top, top players such as Djemba Djemba, Bellion and Kleberson" during the PLC days. We also purchased complete duds in Ferdinand(2002) and Rooney (2005). What was Fergie thinking, paying British and World record fees for a defender and a teenager? Presumably he must have thought he was buying world class talent with those world record fees. Will he ever learn?
As for the pressures to reduce costs being less under the PLC, I don't know where you're coming from to be honest.
The wage bill under the PLC was £80m at its peak. Turnover was around £150m at its peak.
The wage bill is now £130m and the turnover £285m.
That means that, all else being equal, we should have £85m more to play with under the Glazers than we did before. This being the case, the debt is having very little effect on us in terms of us being under pressure to cut costs at the expense of a competitive squad.
You're basically doing what MUST do in a lot of their arguments - just looking for the anti-Glazer angle and going with it without regard for where it leaves other arguments (in a state of contradiction mostly).
Again, I point you to something I was saying a few days ago - look at where we were in the league for the last couple of years of the PLC - miles behind. Chelsea were buying all the players and we were reduced to buying such "top, top players" such as Djemba Djemba, Bellion and Kleberson.
Where do you get your figures? I hope you aren't in the habit of making "things up to support your argument".
Turnover in 2004 was 170m. Turnover in 2003 was 173m.
We had\have other operating expenses besides staff costs; and those jumped from 30-35m then to 50m-60m today.
True, EBITDA (cash profits) has increased from the last full year accounts under the plc-58m in 2004 (peak) to 100m today. But in the last 7 years of the PLC proper (1998-2004), cash profits (ranging from 27m to 58m) supported an average net spend on players of c. 20m pa. Since then the net spend has halved (10m-11m) even though cash profits have increased.
The total deficit in player net spend (under the Glazer plan) is around 70-80m- this is (25-10'ish) by 5. Had we used all the 'Ronaldo money' to purchase players then the actual net spend would equal the planned net spend and hence no deficit and fewer complaints about the net spend figures.
However, the total deficit in net spend (roughly the fungible equivalent of the 'Ronaldo money') still remains in the bank (or did so at YE 2010).
It's ridiculous to claim that all the 'Ronaldo money' has been spent when the club's accounts categorically refute it: Cash in bank at YE 2008 was 50m. Cash in bank at YE 2009- post the Ronaldo sale and the Aon downpayment- was 150m. It has since increased to 164m. Andersred, in his blog, provides a more complete explanation for this build-up in cash reserves.
Of course it's nonsense to claim that the club must spend 25m (net) on players every year merely because that is what the plan allows. But if the club spends less than plan, then you would expect a surplus to build up (Vs plan) and, indeed, that's the situation the club finds itself in; the club has a large cash surplus than
can be directed to inward investment. A large chunk of it (95m in carveouts)
can also be used to pay down the PIK.
If the Glazers take the carveouts, it will happen this year; financially, it makes senses to do so as soon as possible; and next year the carveouts would be treated as a 'relevant expense' under the FFP regs, with our break-even position taking a massive hit. And if\when the carveouts are taken, cash reserves will fall back to pre-Ronaldo, pre-Aon levels.
I realise I'm circling the 'Mulberry bush' a bit here and I am likey to draw deserved censure along the lines of:
Does this not all belong in the main Glazer thread?
But, in my defence, I am responding to the dodgy financial finaglings of a certain poster.
