Football 2013-2014

[eFestivals]

Bloody hell Neil. The Champions League is a large portion of income and the Glazers are using a lot of money for debt management but Man U are one of the richest clubs in the world.

no they're not. They are a club with one of the biggest turnovers in the world. A very different thing.

And turnover means naff all. It's spare cash or profit that counts, nothing else. As a business, Utd very definitely have none of that if they're out of the chumps.

They have an income over in Asia that other premier league clubs can only dream of. The Champions League is MUCH less a % of their income than it would be for Spurs. Leeds spent less time in the Champions League than Newcastle, and took out ridiculous loans in an attempt to maintain that position and income. Man U have been established at the top for decades, they're not in comparable situations at all.

Turnover means naff all. Got it??

Care to tell me hopw Utd will regain a high position if they fall?

By spending, but only if they have money to spend (and that can only come from the Glazers' pockets).

Edited December 10, 2013 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

Man U's turnover is phenomenal. Their profit margins exceed the Champs Lge bonus + broadcasting money (not inc. whatever increase the BT Sport package will endow). The reason it's not spent is that most of it goes on accelerated servicing of the Glazer's debt, however the structure of those loans means that while there is an advantage to paying them off quickly, they don't actually need to reduce the total debt year-on-year. They can spend using money that has for the past 3 years gone on reducing the debt. It would increase the amount on funding it long-term, but if that spend ensures (as far as any can) Champs Lge revenue then it's obviously worth doing.

It's also worth noting, that while they have a high wage bill (although still substantially smaller than City and Chelsea and comparable to Arsenal's), a lot of their high-wage players have contracts expiring. Vidic, Rio, Fabio, and Evra. Vidic will almost certainly get an extension, but probably with a paycut, Rio is debatable, but there'll certainly be cuts there, Fabio will probably be released, and he'll have been on the same as his brother. No idea what will happen with Evra, but if they splash the cash to sign Baines they'll almost certainly look to get Evra's wages off the bill - and the decline in wages will offset a degree of the transfer fee.

Man U can spend money, their low profit margin isn't a result of committed expenditure, it's chosen to service the debt which doesn't have to be done every year to that extent and of course there was the big RVP and Fellaini fees.

It's a shame Swiss Ramble hasn't done an article yet this season, I'm sure they'd be able to explain why Man U aren't reliant on Champs Lge football (they did an article on Arsenal about that a few months ago), but you can at least look at the figures for the past 3 seasons and see that it'll be possible.

Regardless, my big point is that they are in a MUCH better position than Leeds were. They didn't speculate to get the Champions League, they've been in it for ages and are an established club. They won't have a rapid descent right down the leagues the moment they finish 5th.

[eFestivals]

Man U's turnover is phenomenal.

and means absolutely nothing to anything of this.

Their profit margins exceed the Champs Lge bonus + broadcasting money

2013 - £17.2m

2012 - £23m

2011 - £29.7m

Complete crap.

Regardless, my big point is that they are in a MUCH better position than Leeds were. They didn't speculate to get the Champions League, they've been in it for ages and are an established club. They won't have a rapid descent right down the leagues the moment they finish 5th.

A loss is a loss is a loss. That's the same for Man Utd as it is for Leeds.

For Utd, reversing that loss will causes further losses.

It's do-able (as I've kept saying), but only if the Glazers are prepared to put their hands in their pockets, something they've not been prepared to do for all the while they've owned the club.

[TheGayTent]

Leeds fucked themselves by selling their training ground and securing loans against future ticket sales - which depended upon high ticket prices (I.e. Champions league matches) and sell outs, i.e. Successful domestically.

I don't see Man Utd going down that route, or needing to go down that route.

[eFestivals]

Leeds fucked themselves by selling their training ground and securing loans against future ticket sales - which depended upon high ticket prices (I.e. Champions league matches) and sell outs, i.e. Successful domestically.

I don't see Man Utd going down that route, or needing to go down that route.

Leeds is one extreme of things. It probably won't be the same for Utd ... but then again I bet few expected what happened to Leeds.

Outside the chumps, things would get financially tight for Utd at a time when they'd need to be spending big money, and spending big money carries no guarantees.

If they even have big money to spend.

[kaosmark2]

Outside the chumps, things would get financially tight for Utd at a time when they'd need to be spending big money, and spending big money carries no guarantees.

[pink_triangle]

While I agree man u need to spend big to compete with man city, chelsea and possibly arsenal. That still leaves one place free in the top 4. The likes of Liverpool, everton and spurs may get a top 4 position, but I don't see any making the place their own and effectively locking man utd out. Even with a reduction of transfer fee and wage budget, theres no reason they can't compete with the others who don't have mega wage budgets either.

While I don't see man utd returning to the glory of the fergie days, I don't see them making up.the numbers either. I also think glazer will have his eye on selling up one day and will want to keep the brand competitive to get the best price.

[eFestivals]

I'm not trying to say they'll be completely fucked - tho that could happen, it depends on the choices that are made by the club (poor choices = poor outcome) - but I am trying to put across that it's very unlikely to be business as usual in the way that Utd fans seem to be expecting.

If Utd miss out on the chumps, and particularly because of the general state of the squad (there's too few automatic first choicers, for ,more than one reason), they're going to need to spend to bounce back up at a time when (because of no chumps money) they'll be particularly strapped for cash.

For all anyone knows the Glazers might decide they can make the most cash going forwards from not being in the chumps by mid-tabling things from then on.

All sorts of different possibilities are possible, with the most financially stable option being to choose to mid-table it for a while, and the big gamble is to spend big.

The Glazers don't strike me as gamblers (chancers, yes ) by how they've run the club to date, they strike me as the sort of people who like a sure bet.

[eFestivals]

Not arguing against that at all. I'm just saying they have high enough turnover to cope.

As I keep saying, turnover means absolutely nothing. Only the spendable counts.

[kaosmark2]

I am trying to put across that it's very unlikely to be business as usual in the way that Utd fans seem to be expecting.

Edited December 10, 2013 by kaosmark2

[Wooderson]

Utd not getting into the CL thus creating a little instability/break on their price could be just the ticket for a Qatari (for example) takeover.

[eFestivals]

While I agree man u need to spend big to compete with man city, chelsea and possibly arsenal. That still leaves one place free in the top 4. The likes of Liverpool, everton and spurs may get a top 4 position, but I don't see any making the place their own and effectively locking man utd out. Even with a reduction of transfer fee and wage budget, theres no reason they can't compete with the others who don't have mega wage budgets either.

For staying in the top 4, any team that is already in there has an advantage over a team that isn't. They can attract better players (and probably on cheaper terms too).

I'd say Spurs is a good parallel for the position Utd might well find themselves in - trying to get in that top 4 but refusing to take a big gamble for it and so failing.

Unless a club is able to make continual megabucks spends in a similar way to Chelsea and City it's not going to be a walkover just because they're Man Utd.

While I don't see man utd returning to the glory of the fergie days, I don't see them making up.the numbers either. I also think glazer will have his eye on selling up one day and will want to keep the brand competitive to get the best price.

Because they're hocked up to the eyeballs, the Glazers can only really sell out at a premium price.

If Utd drop a level and stay there for a while, that's likely to make it difficult for them to sell up without them being bankrupt (the sale not covering what they owe), and so causing them to hold onto the club as hard as they can - much as H&G tried to with Liverpool as things spiralled downwards (but without the same forced sale coming to the rescue).

Edited December 10, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

No, the spendable counts for what you can spend, high turnover means you've got a bit more leeway, a better ability to look at long-term management, and if you can make savings somewhere

I agree with that, but it'll still throw things into turmoil, and the effects of cuts can easily impact on the playing side of things.

- and I believe Man U certainly can on the wage bill, and I'd argue Rooney and RVP are playing for transfers, and they could cash in one of them and reinvest in younger players - then that higher turnover can allow for a continued spend.

I agree that it would be hard to hold onto those 2, but any guaranteed-to-work replacements will cost around what they sell for. So there's not really any benefit to be had over these two players.

But to get back up will need more than two players of that quality, or serious upgrades for the rest of the squad - and there's quite a few there with no or minimal resale values.

Man U without Champions League are closer to profit than Chelsea or City without (if FFP is enforced).

Perhaps (I've not looked to know), but in that sort of situation its the sugar daddies who could, not more impressive figures from business but which still shows a loss.

[eFestivals]

Utd not getting into the CL thus creating a little instability/break on their price could be just the ticket for a Qatari (for example) takeover.

who will pay 'market price' and not dreamers price.

It won't be the conditions for the Glazers to be able to sell, I reckon. That fact is where I reckon any real damage to the club will come from, if it does.

[kaosmark2]

I agree with that, but it'll still throw things into turmoil, and the effects of cuts can easily impact on the playing side of things.

[eFestivals]

Oh yeah, I don't think Man U will be back near the title anytime soon, I just don't think they're going end up in crisis freefall. Certainly not due to one season out of the Champions League.

If they manage just one season out of the CL then it's pretty likely they'll be fine.

But that's a big 'if'. An instant return will be a harder task than it will be (if it happens) this season to drop out of the CL.

Just cos they're man utd it's not going to be any easier for them than it's been for Liverpool. It's only when you can throw around real money like city that it's a guarantee (and even then it can take time).

And Rooney would fetch a huge fee.

Not sure about that. It would be him wanting to go and them needing to sell, don't forget. And there's not too much on his contract by next summer either, I don't think.

and reinvest in younger players for other positions they could improve the overall team with little net spend.

yeah, that's been working out well for them the last few years, hasn't it? Edited December 10, 2013 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

If they manage just one season out of the CL then it's pretty likely they'll be fine.

But that's a big 'if'. An instant return will be a harder task than it will be (if it happens) this season to drop out of the CL.

Just cos they're man utd it's not going to be any easier for them than it's been for Liverpool. It's only when you can throw around real money like city that it's a guarantee (and even then it can take time).

[kaosmark2]

Overhyping much?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24464349

[pink_triangle]

I'm not trying to say they'll be completely fucked - tho that could happen, it depends on the choices that are made by the club (poor choices = poor outcome) - but I am trying to put across that it's very unlikely to be business as usual in the way that Utd fans seem to be expecting.

If Utd miss out on the chumps, and particularly because of the general state of the squad (there's too few automatic first choicers, for ,more than one reason), they're going to need to spend to bounce back up at a time when (because of no chumps money) they'll be particularly strapped for cash.

For all anyone knows the Glazers might decide they can make the most cash going forwards from not being in the chumps by mid-tabling things from then on.

All sorts of different possibilities are possible, with the most financially stable option being to choose to mid-table it for a while, and the big gamble is to spend big.

The Glazers don't strike me as gamblers (chancers, yes ) by how they've run the club to date, they strike me as the sort of people who like a sure bet.

[pink_triangle]

Overhyping much?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24464349

[kaosmark2]

I think I have lost track, wasn't Andros Townsend the next big thing a couple of months ago!!

[lharris92]

know its days on but got pointed towards a twitter account that was basically spouting how fifa rigged the world cup draw

https://twitter.com/FraudeMundial14

its in spanish but basically claimed to know all the groups beforehand and posted the argentinian group before the draw.

no idea if its legit or not but an interesting theory

[Bobs]

Overhyping much?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24464349

[pink_triangle]

Didn't arsenal win their last season. City still my favourites for the premiership, despite losing away games they could easily have won most of them from the performances. I see their home form continuing and the results starting to pick up away.

[eFestivals]

£30-40m spread out over 4 years doesn't make as big a difference at that level as overall transfer strategy.

eh??? ... who with Chumps footie is spending that little?

OK, Arsenal are but they've got a tried and tested and proven development strategy.

Man Utd* have tried to do that and failed dismally, as today's squad shows - which means that they'll need to be spending the £50M they won't have if they've not got CL footie.

(* counter arguments about earlier fergie successes with that don't count for much. 1, it was fergie, and 2, it was 20 years ago with just one group of players and so clearly more luck than judgement).

Spurs have spent £110M this summer, and while they've lost Bale that spend should be seeing a significant squad upgrade ... but it's been the opposite.

But Man Utd will be perfection trying similar?

Depends where the blame lies I guess. The last 3 years certainly hasn't seen many brought in though, I think that was Fergie deciding to invest for one last trophy rather than rebuild.

He's still bought in or brought thru plenty of youngsters in those last few years.

They're simply not good enough as this season shows - at least, not good enough without fergie.

There's no guarantees with kids, as every team that's tried it has proven.