Football 2014/15

[eFestivals]

Arf, you've been saying the same for years, sadly your dreams are further from being realised than ever

I've been saying they have no money, and they clearly have no money.

The world can turn to shite very quickly for a footie club. For instance, where will Utd be if they spunk £200M this summer but end up in 7th again? This summer's spend has got to work, cos they won't have anything much to spend next summer.

[Benj]

I've been saying they have no money, and they clearly have no money.

The world can turn to shite very quickly for a footie club. For instance, where will Utd be if they spunk £200M this summer but end up in 7th again? This summer's spend has got to work, cos they won't have anything much to spend next summer.

You also said this - http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/124749-football-english-leagues/page-497#entry3075504

And it does nothing to address the fact that the club is essentially losing £50M+ each year at the moment - with reduced income to come over the next five years making things far worse, as they've already had half the cash from the new (yet to start) shirt deal, and TV money will be down significantly with the next TV deal.

What reduced income?!? Since then their commercial deals have rocketed and the TV money has increased hugely and seems likely to do so further.

The Glazers may have no money (well they have at least 90 million it seems), Utd has never been in ruder health financially and the likelihood of any huge collapse is no more likely than it was back in 2010

Yes you're right, continued poor performances could see revenues fall over time, it hasn't affected LFC too much in regards to non playing revs, so I suspect we will see no similar fall at Utd if

[eFestivals]

What reduced income?!?

It's not happened yet, has it? Over the last year they've had CL money.

It's on from here that the potential consequences start to grow.

While they're getting extra TV money, so is everyone else. And that is going to mean nothing of any actual benefit for clubs, because they'll continue to spend more than they're earning to try and over-take clubs above them.

The Glazers may have no money (well they have at least 90 million it seems), Utd has never been in ruder health financially and the likelihood of any huge collapse is no more likely than it was back in 2010

nah. It's all supported via an incrediably stupid valuation of the club.

It's a valuation that only works in a world where there's people with too much money who want to buy toys for themselves. In all normal commercial senses, it's a joke valuation.

Yes you're right, continued poor performances could see revenues fall over time, it hasn't affected LFC too much in regards to non playing revs, so I suspect we will see no similar fall at Utd if

erm ... did the near collapse of LFC pass you by? Were you nin a coma or something?

The revenues couldn't support LFC, and Utd's revenues can't support Utd.

The Glazers have got this far only by selling off bits and pieces to mug punters so they're able to cover the trading losses* at the club.

(* there's not losses every year, but on average it's a loss-making business).

Edited July 31, 2014 by eFestivals

[LondonTom]

Sounds like Morrison has got himself in trouble.

Again.

Big Sam is likely rubbing his hands with glee right now. "Told you all".

I wish West Ham would stop making statements about players, we've had Nolan say our season depends on Andy Caroll being fit and the next day his out for 4 months. Now this with Ravel after Sulivan spouting off again.

[pink_triangle]

Man utd still have the ability to sort out sponsorship deals that their rivals could only dream. Of course if they have a few bad seasons this could reduce their pulling power. Then again if fans finally show some balls and pay attention to what the glazers are doing things may change for the better, maybe they can even get those scarfs out again.

I doubt Liverpool had a chance of getting Bertrand, why run the risk of strengthening a rival. I personally think it is a lucky escape, he isn't any better than what they already have.

[Gucci Piggy]

If Man Utd fail to qualify for the CL for a second season, the shirt deal is reduced to £52.5m a year; a 30% reduction on the current £75m a year.

[Benj]

It's not happened yet, has it? Over the last year they've had CL money.

It's on from here that the potential consequences start to grow.

While they're getting extra TV money, so is everyone else. And that is going to mean nothing of any actual benefit for clubs, because they'll continue to spend more than they're earning to try and over-take clubs above them.

nah. It's all supported via an incrediably stupid valuation of the club.

It's a valuation that only works in a world where there's people with too much money who want to buy toys for themselves. In all normal commercial senses, it's a joke valuation.

erm ... did the near collapse of LFC pass you by? Were you nin a coma or something?

The revenues couldn't support LFC, and Utd's revenues can't support Utd.

The Glazers have got this far only by selling off bits and pieces to mug punters so they're able to cover the trading losses* at the club.

(* there's not losses every year, but on average it's a loss-making business).

Again where you claimed they were in a much better position than Utd before it all went tits up

Utd's position is a completely different ball game, the commercial deals in place now, dwarf those in place at LFC at the time, they are very much in rude financial, health and the new deals will cover any CL shortfall until they get back into the completition.

The Club is worth far more than the Glazer debt (not a case with LFC) and there will be plenty of takes (as with LFC) if things ever did get bad

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-15/manchester-united-quarterly-profit-triples-as-finance-costs-drop.html

[ThomThomDrum]

If Man Utd fail to qualify for the CL for a second season, the shirt deal is reduced to £52.5m a year; a 30% reduction on the current £75m a year.

Which is an unbelievably great deal still for any team playing CL let alone a team that would not be in it!! Crazy money. Fair play to the people at Utd for striking that deal. Cant help but think we will see a massive upward movement in deals in the coming years on the back of it. I believe Liverpools deal with Warrior was only short term, so it will be interesting to see what they do in 2015 when its up. I dont see them getting this much, but they should very much be able to improve significantly from where they are. Especially if they can manage to stay in the top 4 this coming season

[zahidf]

Which is an unbelievably great deal still for any team playing CL let alone a team that would not be in it!! Crazy money. Fair play to the people at Utd for striking that deal. Cant help but think we will see a massive upward movement in deals in the coming years on the back of it. I believe Liverpools deal with Warrior was only short term, so it will be interesting to see what they do in 2015 when its up. I dont see them getting this much, but they should very much be able to improve significantly from where they are. Especially if they can manage to stay in the top 4 this coming season

I heard they don't get 100% profit from the T-shirts though, only part of it.

[mrtourette]

I didn't think they got any profits for the actual sales. I though the manufacturer paid the club for the right to make their shirts, and then the manufacturer kept the revenues from the sales.

[eFestivals]

Man utd still have the ability to sort out sponsorship deals that their rivals could only dream.

yep, but that'll start to fall away if they remain unsuccessful on the pitch.

And while people want to believe they'll bounce back to the top almost instantly, years or even decades in the doldrums are not impossible as a look back at the 70s and 80s gets to show.

I'm not saying that financial difficulties for Utd are imminent, I'm saying that as things stand with the Glazers they're always just over the horizon. Whether they come into view will depend on whether Utd perk up or not.

[ThomThomDrum]

yep, but that'll start to fall away if they remain unsuccessful on the pitch.

They got a 10 year deal with Adidas and even if they dont qualify for the CL in those 10 years and the incur the 30% drop mentioned above their deal is still better than the next biggest deal which currently Real get............

And somehow I dont think we will see Man U not qualify for the CL for 10 years. That would be like winning the lotto!!!

[eFestivals]

[Benj]

I didn't think they got any profits for the actual sales. I though the manufacturer paid the club for the right to make their shirts, and then the manufacturer kept the revenues from the sales.

They have a deal with Kitbag for their merchandising, no idea if Kitbag pay a flat fee (as they do to Everton) or its some kind of profit sharing thing

[mrtourette]

They have a deal with Kitbag for their merchandising, no idea if Kitbag pay a flat fee (as they do to Everton) or its some kind of profit sharing thing

But Kitbag's a retailer, I'm on about the shirt manufacturer. So when it's reported that Nike pay Man Utd £75m a year is that a flat fee (and then Nike keep all the money from sales) or do they have to give Man Utd a percentage of sales as well?

[Gucci Piggy]

From what I've read Adidas have all the rights to all Man Utd merchandise, and get 100% of profits from it. Whereas most deals allow the club to sell some merchandise themselves, and keep the profits (or at least some of the profits).

[Benj]

yup - and that's because H&G were much better at hiding their lack of money than the Glazers have been. I was under the belief that H&G had the funds t6o p[ump in if necessary - when the funds became needed, it was only then that the whole dire situation became fully exposed.

It's an "if". And that's the whole bleedin' point.

On a normal commercial valuation, Utd is worth very little (same for all clubs, near enough). That's where the biggest danger lies for the Glazers and Utd, because one day footie will no longer be a rich man's plaything as it is today.

Because of the underlying debts (which are much greater than those showing on Utd's books, cos hundreds of millions of the debts have been transferred to the Glazers) Utd's whole position is sustained via the ridiculous valuations that clubs have at the mo.

Why does it have no value, it is making huge profits, despite having to pay off large debts. As you reported they've just sold £90 million worth of the business, 5%, which very much values it at £1.8 billion.

People would not be investing these monies unless they expected a return, they WILL get it with Utd, this is not Rich men playing about, this is businessmen making investments upon which they expect a return.

You'll no doubt still be piping up on here in 2018 once more exclaiming doom and gloom for Utd despite them likely returning to the CL and making EVEN more money in the meantime and once again claim the arse is going to fall out of the game despite BT paying record amounts for the license

[Benj]

But Kitbag's a retailer, I'm on about the shirt manufacturer. So when it's reported that Nike pay Man Utd £75m a year is that a flat fee (and then Nike keep all the money from sales) or do they have to give Man Utd a percentage of sales as well?

No idea, you'd assume all 3 parties would take a slice of differing levels, how its cut, who knows?

[pink_triangle]

yep, but that'll start to fall away if they remain unsuccessful on the pitch.

In some ways it is a no win situation for man utd. If they remain unsuccessful on the pitch the deals will get worse. However recent years of watching man utd have shown that if they are successful, the majority of the fans couldn't care less about the Glazers raping their club.

[eFestivals]

Why does it have no value, it is making huge profits

it's not making huge profits. On average, it's a losing money.

despite having to pay off large debts. As you reported they've just sold £90 million worth of the business, 5%, which very much values it at £1.8 billion.

yup, mug punters.

A valuation of that level should be giving a profit of around £180M average a year.

People would not be investing these monies unless they expected a return

so go on then, show me the dividends lol

[Bobs]

Where on earth are you getting those numbers from? Reporting on wages is notoriously full of bullshit and are highly exaggerated, but even saying that the reported numbers are less than those.

The figures were widely reported in the local media at the time. Whilst speculation, i'd imagine that the local press, affilliated to the club, have a better knowledge, than say, me or you.

Assuming figures are correct, it's ridiculous that you're paying double what we are.

I don't think it is.

Ridiculous that our star players get more than yours? In the kindest possible way, we've been consistently in the top 7-8 for the last 10 years now, and whilst we may not of set the world alight, we've signed some crucial players, and the likes of the Baines, Coleman's, Barkley's and Lukaku's all merit (in football comparisons), the fee they receive. Whereas, again, without trying to be disrespectful, who's Newcastle's best player? Krul or Gouffran, well in my opinion they warrant less than that.

Obviously Newcastle fans consider themselves a big club, and that's fair enough, but when you consider that you wouldn't quarry what Spurs pay their players, then it's surprising to see you do about Everton, when us and Spurs are about the same in terms of ability, whereas Newcastle are not, therefore their star players, shouldn't merit silly wages, as it'd just be a mere rip off.

[TheGayTent]

Morrison remanded in custody for a week...for allegedly assaulting his ex and her mother.

Innocent til proven guilty and all that but...nice bloke.

[TheGayTent]

With reference to the Everton/Newcastle wages debate. Newcastle were doing it, if not worse for donkeys years. It's only stopped because Ashley hasn't got any money

[eFestivals]

It's only stopped because Ashley hasn't got any money

you do know he's Britain's 5th richest man, don't you?

[mrtourette]

The figures were widely reported in the local media at the time. Whilst speculation, i'd imagine that the local press, affilliated to the club, have a better knowledge, than say, me or you.

Yeah I'm gonna call bullshit on those figures.

'Widely reported in the local media at the time' seems incredibly vague, and it must have been only in print as there's exactly one online report from the Echo mentioning wages, and that's Pienaar on £70k (whereas it was apparently widely reported in the local media at the time that it was £60k). I doubt very much that local journalists have much more idea of the intricacies of players contracts than the national press, they're all just pulling numbers out of their arsehole.