I think you should link the "special" fans to the 300m operating profits we turned over the year coming up to 2010-11 season as well. Some still think we are broke, we don't make money and "debt" automatically means no transfer funds. Sorry guys, we're not Liverpool we are Man Utd.
Give it 5 years and our debt won't even be noticeable. Obviously it's not ideal having to use club profit to pay off those debts, but that's just the way it is, and let's not pretend the Glazers haven't massively improved the commercial side of the club.
FFP is a load of rubbish anyway, Uefa are already backing down on the whole banning clubs from Europe stuff.
Weren't they investigating the Manchester City stadium rights sponsor thing? What was their verdict on that?
Don't think they were investigating anything, they just said they would if they felt the need.
Arab,
All in numbers are out there, if anyone wants proof of any of what I've said, a google search will trips the answers. I've tried to avoid using any monetary values in my explanation of the situation, because I'm hoping people will see that this is a simplified, but factually correct explanation, and that if I started giving specifics, someone would only pipe up with numbers that are slightly different from somewhere and it would spoil what this is intended to be.
That's some sterling work there, both by yourself and your clubs financial director. Being the most successful club during the lucrative and more media exposed Premier League era has certainly paid dividends. (literally by the sounds of it).
Now to take this thread off topic like southsurreymanc did ours. Irrespective of how great a financial position you find yourselves in, you won't get Modric. Certainly not in January and not in the future unless you give Levy the big bucks.
Again, congrats, you're rich, good luck over the festive period, but as well as asking us to better understand your club's finances, I ask that your fans on here, however plastic, understand the contractual status or our top players and how stubborn our chairman is.
Just how much of your profit goes on the paying the interest on these loans the owners saddled your club with.?
Now to take this thread off topic like southsurreymanc did ours. Irrespective of how great a financial position you find yourselves in, you won't get Modric. Certainly not in January and not in the future unless you give Levy the big bucks.
...................................................
Don't worry mate, not all of us listen to newspaper rumours and get worked up, demanding we throw £40m at any player we get linked with.
comment by King arry (U7920)
We don't want Modric, SLM is a wum just ignore him Levy proved in the summer he won't budge, and if you guys want top 4 then you need to hold on to all your good players which you will do. I don't even think fergie will buy in January either to be honest.
It is also worth noting that, with the way football has become all about money, as long as Manchester United do everything to stay the most supported and profitable football club in the world, we will never truly decline nor stop competing at the top. Investment and investors make it practically impossible. We will always have the best coaches, best business minds, best players and best management of every kind, because modern football is about money. And we will ALWAYS make the most money.
Groovy,
A flipping lot of it!
King arry (U7920)
If you have an issue with SLM please take it up with him instead of taking a good article off topic. Believe it or not, we have no control over what he says.
Hypothetical scenario.
Businessman A takes a loan of £x amount to buy and overhaul a club and puts that loan debt onto the club itself. This debt/loan will gradually be reduced by the club's yearly revenue profit over the course of the length of the loan, as per terms and conditions of the original loan itself.
Is that a concern when it comes to FFP? Only if the club is unable to cover the loan repayments one would suspect. One possible and notable change in circumstance that could affect a club's ability to cover its debt being failure to qualify for the Champions League. But then failure to qualify for that competition can't then be punished by exclusion from that competition should it then transpire that a club can't meet the requirements imposed through the FFP regulations.
As it stands, United may well have no problem with meeting the FFP regulations, even despite the debt (which you correctly infer is manageable and more importantly being reduced). But it is doubtful that such a consortium/business plan will be able to be repeated in light of the FFP. Which, considering United are the most valuable sporting club in the world actually makes a complete mockery of the FFP itself.
And then to suggest that it would cripple the likes of City and Chelsea also makes a mockery of the FFP. These clubs are not spending money which their owner can't afford, so in that sense there is no financial problem whatsoever. The problem that does need to be addressed - where I agree with the theory behind the FFP - is to stop clubs spending beyond their means when they (or indeed their owners) can't afford it. A la Portsmouth and Leeds.
Great article mate, the sad thing is that a lot of our 'supposed fans' do not know this. They are the ones that really need enlightenment.
As for the SLM comment regarding Modric, I wonder what his obsession is with a midfielder who averages 3 goals and 3 assists a season, is barged off the ball, doesn't tackle or track back and disappears in the big games. With all due respect to the Spurs fans, the only way I would want Modric at the club is if he came on a free transfer.
Spurs are on the up and will not be selling their players as Chelsea found out this season.
Ripleys
I have to say, the FFP rules are not fair at all, and I certainly wouldn't have voted for them myself.
They make the old guard untouchable.
They make breaking in to the upper echelons of football impossible.
They devastate any club who have been recently introduced to the top of the game, because these clubs just don't make enough money to buy a seat at the table. It's sort of a "Your money isn't good enough for us" scenario.
Strange and sad.
RipleysCat
The FFP regulations mean that City will have to turnover more than they spend, so it doesn't matter how rich the owner is, money he puts into the club won't help beat the regulations.
City need to vastly increase their turnover, which is definitely possible, and lower their wage bill by getting players like Bridge and Adebayor off the books.
The FFP could be an issue for them if they don't do this, but I would guess that their financial team is working on it and knows what it's doing.
good article..Modric would be a dream at Utd tho
I'm sure they'll be fine, arabs are usually well smart when it comes to finances
There are lots of ways around the rules if you have infinite finances, such as spending on infrastructure around the ground, for example a Man City hotel, the cost of building the hotel is not counted as expenditure but the revenue generated is counted as income.
I'd be smart with finances if I had that much oil
It's OK, Dimitar's hair keeps us alive in the oil game.
Rusty, I know what the FFP regulations mean. My point is that it should matter, within reason, what an owner can and can not do with that what he owns. He can invest into his own company within any other industry in order to improve it. So why not football? Especially when football is littered with historical examples of clubs benefitting from investment, including even the clubs that we regard to be the biggest in the world today.
That, in my opinion isn't, nor shouldn't, be a problem. What has been proven to be a problem however is a club (and/or its owner) spending money it doesn't have in order to speculate to accumulate. As seen at the likes of Leeds and Portsmouth. But even then that only becomes a problem when the club fails. And at that point, the "threats" posited by the FFP regulations become the least of a club's worry anyway.
So the question (the logical extension of that) then should be - should a person who can't afford to do so be able to buy a club? The answer is (in my opinion) a resounding no. Michael Knighton pulled out of a deal to buy United because he didn't have the money. The Glazers simply put the cost of buying the club back onto the club itself. In all honesty I'm not surprised there are many United fans who are/were incredibly angry about that.
So now we have a possible situation where the world's most valuable club is able to operate within the guidelines of the FFP under a circumstance that I would presume the FFP would veto in any other situation. Don't get me wrong - that's not a criticism of United. It's a criticism of the FFP. United shouldn't face expulsion, and the only arguable scenario in which United may struggle to meet the requirements of the FFP is if they failed to qualify for the Champions League on a regular basis, and should that happen the threat underlined by the FFP becomes moot anyway!
Sign in if you want to comment
Basic explanation of our debt and the FFP
Page 1 of 2
posted on 26/12/11
I think you should link the "special" fans to the 300m operating profits we turned over the year coming up to 2010-11 season as well. Some still think we are broke, we don't make money and "debt" automatically means no transfer funds. Sorry guys, we're not Liverpool we are Man Utd.
posted on 26/12/11
Give it 5 years and our debt won't even be noticeable. Obviously it's not ideal having to use club profit to pay off those debts, but that's just the way it is, and let's not pretend the Glazers haven't massively improved the commercial side of the club.
FFP is a load of rubbish anyway, Uefa are already backing down on the whole banning clubs from Europe stuff.
posted on 26/12/11
Weren't they investigating the Manchester City stadium rights sponsor thing? What was their verdict on that?
posted on 26/12/11
Don't think they were investigating anything, they just said they would if they felt the need.
posted on 26/12/11
Arab,
All in numbers are out there, if anyone wants proof of any of what I've said, a google search will trips the answers. I've tried to avoid using any monetary values in my explanation of the situation, because I'm hoping people will see that this is a simplified, but factually correct explanation, and that if I started giving specifics, someone would only pipe up with numbers that are slightly different from somewhere and it would spoil what this is intended to be.
posted on 26/12/11
Good idea
posted on 26/12/11
That's some sterling work there, both by yourself and your clubs financial director. Being the most successful club during the lucrative and more media exposed Premier League era has certainly paid dividends. (literally by the sounds of it).
Now to take this thread off topic like southsurreymanc did ours. Irrespective of how great a financial position you find yourselves in, you won't get Modric. Certainly not in January and not in the future unless you give Levy the big bucks.
Again, congrats, you're rich, good luck over the festive period, but as well as asking us to better understand your club's finances, I ask that your fans on here, however plastic, understand the contractual status or our top players and how stubborn our chairman is.
posted on 26/12/11
Just how much of your profit goes on the paying the interest on these loans the owners saddled your club with.?
posted on 26/12/11
Now to take this thread off topic like southsurreymanc did ours. Irrespective of how great a financial position you find yourselves in, you won't get Modric. Certainly not in January and not in the future unless you give Levy the big bucks.
...................................................
Don't worry mate, not all of us listen to newspaper rumours and get worked up, demanding we throw £40m at any player we get linked with.
posted on 26/12/11
comment by King arry (U7920)
We don't want Modric, SLM is a wum just ignore him Levy proved in the summer he won't budge, and if you guys want top 4 then you need to hold on to all your good players which you will do. I don't even think fergie will buy in January either to be honest.
posted on 26/12/11
It is also worth noting that, with the way football has become all about money, as long as Manchester United do everything to stay the most supported and profitable football club in the world, we will never truly decline nor stop competing at the top. Investment and investors make it practically impossible. We will always have the best coaches, best business minds, best players and best management of every kind, because modern football is about money. And we will ALWAYS make the most money.
posted on 26/12/11
Groovy,
A flipping lot of it!
posted on 26/12/11
King arry (U7920)
If you have an issue with SLM please take it up with him instead of taking a good article off topic. Believe it or not, we have no control over what he says.
posted on 26/12/11
Hypothetical scenario.
Businessman A takes a loan of £x amount to buy and overhaul a club and puts that loan debt onto the club itself. This debt/loan will gradually be reduced by the club's yearly revenue profit over the course of the length of the loan, as per terms and conditions of the original loan itself.
Is that a concern when it comes to FFP? Only if the club is unable to cover the loan repayments one would suspect. One possible and notable change in circumstance that could affect a club's ability to cover its debt being failure to qualify for the Champions League. But then failure to qualify for that competition can't then be punished by exclusion from that competition should it then transpire that a club can't meet the requirements imposed through the FFP regulations.
As it stands, United may well have no problem with meeting the FFP regulations, even despite the debt (which you correctly infer is manageable and more importantly being reduced). But it is doubtful that such a consortium/business plan will be able to be repeated in light of the FFP. Which, considering United are the most valuable sporting club in the world actually makes a complete mockery of the FFP itself.
And then to suggest that it would cripple the likes of City and Chelsea also makes a mockery of the FFP. These clubs are not spending money which their owner can't afford, so in that sense there is no financial problem whatsoever. The problem that does need to be addressed - where I agree with the theory behind the FFP - is to stop clubs spending beyond their means when they (or indeed their owners) can't afford it. A la Portsmouth and Leeds.
posted on 26/12/11
Great article mate, the sad thing is that a lot of our 'supposed fans' do not know this. They are the ones that really need enlightenment.
As for the SLM comment regarding Modric, I wonder what his obsession is with a midfielder who averages 3 goals and 3 assists a season, is barged off the ball, doesn't tackle or track back and disappears in the big games. With all due respect to the Spurs fans, the only way I would want Modric at the club is if he came on a free transfer.
Spurs are on the up and will not be selling their players as Chelsea found out this season.
posted on 26/12/11
Ripleys
I have to say, the FFP rules are not fair at all, and I certainly wouldn't have voted for them myself.
They make the old guard untouchable.
They make breaking in to the upper echelons of football impossible.
They devastate any club who have been recently introduced to the top of the game, because these clubs just don't make enough money to buy a seat at the table. It's sort of a "Your money isn't good enough for us" scenario.
Strange and sad.
posted on 26/12/11
RipleysCat
The FFP regulations mean that City will have to turnover more than they spend, so it doesn't matter how rich the owner is, money he puts into the club won't help beat the regulations.
City need to vastly increase their turnover, which is definitely possible, and lower their wage bill by getting players like Bridge and Adebayor off the books.
The FFP could be an issue for them if they don't do this, but I would guess that their financial team is working on it and knows what it's doing.
posted on 26/12/11
good article..Modric would be a dream at Utd tho
posted on 26/12/11
I'm sure they'll be fine, arabs are usually well smart when it comes to finances
posted on 26/12/11
There are lots of ways around the rules if you have infinite finances, such as spending on infrastructure around the ground, for example a Man City hotel, the cost of building the hotel is not counted as expenditure but the revenue generated is counted as income.
posted on 26/12/11
I'd be smart with finances if I had that much oil
posted on 26/12/11
I wish we had oil
posted on 26/12/11
It's OK, Dimitar's hair keeps us alive in the oil game.
posted on 26/12/11
posted on 26/12/11
Rusty, I know what the FFP regulations mean. My point is that it should matter, within reason, what an owner can and can not do with that what he owns. He can invest into his own company within any other industry in order to improve it. So why not football? Especially when football is littered with historical examples of clubs benefitting from investment, including even the clubs that we regard to be the biggest in the world today.
That, in my opinion isn't, nor shouldn't, be a problem. What has been proven to be a problem however is a club (and/or its owner) spending money it doesn't have in order to speculate to accumulate. As seen at the likes of Leeds and Portsmouth. But even then that only becomes a problem when the club fails. And at that point, the "threats" posited by the FFP regulations become the least of a club's worry anyway.
So the question (the logical extension of that) then should be - should a person who can't afford to do so be able to buy a club? The answer is (in my opinion) a resounding no. Michael Knighton pulled out of a deal to buy United because he didn't have the money. The Glazers simply put the cost of buying the club back onto the club itself. In all honesty I'm not surprised there are many United fans who are/were incredibly angry about that.
So now we have a possible situation where the world's most valuable club is able to operate within the guidelines of the FFP under a circumstance that I would presume the FFP would veto in any other situation. Don't get me wrong - that's not a criticism of United. It's a criticism of the FFP. United shouldn't face expulsion, and the only arguable scenario in which United may struggle to meet the requirements of the FFP is if they failed to qualify for the Champions League on a regular basis, and should that happen the threat underlined by the FFP becomes moot anyway!
Page 1 of 2