The old Man Utd Thread

[Liamness]

I doubt City will sell him to us, and even if they accept a bid, we could face the embarrassment of Birmingham City flashing the cash and putting him out of our reach.

[Majora]

Well there is an illogical statement, considering those 100 games obviously include games last season when you were "relatively settled".

Yeah I meant the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 seasons we were fairly settled, particularly the first season. Last Season he started his slow descent into random mixing and matching and now you may as well pick the team out of a hat. It wouldn't surprise me for him to randomly play Gibson, Anderson, Bernatov and Owen next week for no particular reason other than he isn't sure what to do anymore.

[Gringo]

@Phresh

I wasnt talking about sigining big names from abroad but rather big names in general. I mentioned Villa and Silva as they are the ones people seem to think United should get in.

Hugely hypothetical senario here. If the league was still like a few years ago with the 'big four' dominating, the rest in their own league and lets say Villa still had Doug Ellis as their chairman. United might want Ashley Young, offer 20-30 million for him and sign him. This isn't possible anymore. Now I know the league is radically different and the transfer market is markedly different also but this is the general idea im trying to get at. United no longer have the buying power to afford the best players from other clubs in the premiership. The idea of signing a Rio or Rooney for 30m is no longer a reality if the accounts are as the economists say.

I agree that Evans is very good. Problem is that who knows when Rio is gonna be back and if he even can reach the same level as before. Couple this with all the talk of Vidic leaving and that leaves only one really good centre back. Brown is good but he's never been of Vidic or Rio's level.

At the end of the day United have been spolit with the Scholes, Giggs, Neville, Keane etc generation. Problem is that the young successor's dont look to be of that standard, (how could they be in fairness) and Ronaldo legged it so that possibly leaves the necessity to buy which it doesnt seem we can.

[Poppalarge]

Shawcross

WTF ?

We only sold him recently

[Gringo]

WTF ?

We only sold him recently

Yes and Utd have a first option buy back clause built into that sale.

[phresh]

@Phresh

I wasnt talking about sigining big names from abroad but rather big names in general. I mentioned Villa and Silva as they are the ones people seem to think United should get in.

Hugely hypothetical senario here. If the league was still like a few years ago with the 'big four' dominating, the rest in their own league and lets say Villa still had Doug Ellis as their chairman. United might want Ashley Young, offer 20-30 million for him and sign him. This isn't possible anymore. Now I know the league is radically different and the transfer market is markedly different also but this is the general idea im trying to get at. United no longer have the buying power to afford the best players from other clubs in the premiership. The idea of signing a Rio or Rooney for 30m is no longer a reality if the accounts are as the economists say.

We still haven't gone out and bough that many big names in general though. A lot of the players would be classed as big names now even though they weren't when we bought them and I think that is often not taken into account. The point about Ashley Young (the fee, not the player) is relatively moot as we did pay 30 million for a player last season.

As Bowser pointed out Ferguson has always spent what is required on players he really wants, like Ferdinand, Rooney and Berbatov. There is of course that matter of the bid we put in for Benzema this summer although a lot of fans seem to completely ignore that as it doesn't support their own arguments.

[Rockboy]

There is of course that matter of the bid we put in for Benzema this summer although a lot of fans seem to completely ignore that as it doesn't support their own arguments.

The thing that amazes me about that, is that we didn't add some sort of clause into the Ronaldo deal to prevent Real from bidding for Benzema. He was obviously Fergie's big summer signing target, to be bought with some of the Ronaldo money, and yet there was seemingly no sort of agreement in place before the Ronaldo deal went through, either with Real or Benzema.

[ckny]

And they clearly only bought him because we were interested. It's like they saw how cool we were with Ronaldo going, knowing that Benzema was a dead cert. So they swooped in thinking they'd missed something we hadn't.

Kinda like when Chelsea bought Essien, Robben and Kezman.

[a big boy]

Na, Real needed a striker with Ruud out for almost the whole of last season and only wont for Benzema after Valencia refused to play ball witht he David Villa deal. But why no one at either club can see how much better he is than Benzema is beyond me.

[phresh]

Na, Real needed a striker with Ruud out for almost the whole of last season and only wont for Benzema after Valencia refused to play ball witht he David Villa deal. But why no one at either club can see how much better he is than Benzema is beyond me.

According to Athletico they also offered 30 million for Forlan before going for Villa and then finally Benzema.

[a big boy]

And they rejected £30 mill for him? Mental.

Apparently their new manager sees him as deadwood these days anyway if Fergie fancys a punt...

[bowser123]

There is of course that matter of the bid we put in for Benzema this summer although a lot of fans seem to completely ignore that as it doesn't support their own arguments.

You see the clubs statement today? About the bond issue and operating profit?

"Hey guys, it's cool, we made 50M profit. Told you we weren't fucked!"

What it says in the tiny footnote though is that profit included the sale of Ronaldo. So, had he not been sold, a club that won it's third title in a row, reached a consecutive Champions League final, won the League Cup, reached the semis of the FA, full gates, record sponsorship deals, record turnover etc etc etc would have made a loss of thirty million.

Now, you tell me, we pretty much did everything possible on the field and probably off it too last year. Short of selling Rooney for another 80 this summer, how are we going to break even, nevermind make a profit to actually buy the striker, right back, goalkeeper and central midfielder we desperately need?

At least the media have started to wake up and print stories pointing this sort of stuff out, just a shame it wasn't done 5 years ago.

[redbloodcell]

Now, you tell me, we pretty much did everything possible on the field and probably off it too last year. Short of selling Rooney for another 80 this summer, how are we going to break even, nevermind make a profit to actually buy the striker, right back, goalkeeper and central midfielder we desperately need?

Not having to service that half a billion pound debt will put you back into positive, which is the value they're targeting with the bonds. If you take that interest and the sale of Ronaldo out it would only equate to £10.1m profit though, which doesn't seem like its enough for a club that won plenty last season.

[phresh]

You see the clubs statement today? About the bond issue and operating profit?

What it says in the tiny footnote though is that profit included the sale of Ronaldo. So, had he not been sold, a club that won it's third title in a row, reached a consecutive Champions League final, won the League Cup, reached the semis of the FA, full gates, record sponsorship deals, record turnover etc etc etc would have made a loss of thirty million.

Now, you tell me, we pretty much did everything possible on the field and probably off it too last year. Short of selling Rooney for another 80 this summer, how are we going to break even, nevermind make a profit to actually buy the striker, right back, goalkeeper and central midfielder we desperately need?

Well of course the profit included the sale of Ronaldo, why do you make it out to be some kind of big deal because it was in the small print? What is the point in looking at the loss we would have made without selling Ronaldo? We sold him and we made a profit, and lest we forget there was the small matter of the credit crunch as well. Who knows if we'll break even next year, you would assume that the effect of the credit crunch will have diminshed and it's fair to say there will be a few people on their way out in the summer. As for players coming in we'll just have to wait and see won't we?

It is of course ridiculous that we should have to sell our players to make a profit. For me the most depressing thing about it is that the whole practive of leveraging debt against a company is a standard business practice in this country and seemingly nobody (who can change anything) gives a shit. We won't be the last club to be bought in this way and i'm dubious any UEFA rules will have an impact on the top clubs. As for the bond issue it is currently the (much) lesser of two evils so fingers crossed it will go ahead.

[fatbob]

The Guardian is going Glazer crazy this week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/ja...training-ground

[Poppalarge]

"United must sell Rooney"

"United to sell Old Trafford"

"United to sell Carrington"

WTF.

All because the posted profits included the Ronaldo fee!

[Liamness]

Ideally, the Glazers will eventually list us publicly again. Very few people have the money to buy a football club outright. They may refinance anyway, and wait till the global economy's a bit happier looking. Oh, and they'll want to maintain a sizeable share themselves. Hanging onto the club themselves just isn't sustainable, especially if our success on the pitch stops. The same applies to Liverpool.

Both clubs have the option of mortgaging or selling their biggest assets. Obviously that will massively affect resale value, and I doubt even the Glazers will see it as wise. The fact is, there is nothing clever that they can do to get out of this; they either need to get shot or go down with the club.

[DC Lemon]

I can't think of any positive spin to put on selling Rooney at any price. Therefore it better not happen. But I'm glad this kind of talk is happening because the Glazers have had it too easy in recent seasons and every fan should remember that ultimately, even if we seal a fourth straight league title, we need rid of them.

That said, Liverpool and Newcastle fans haven't had any luck in forcing out the cancers eating away at their clubs anyway.

[Liamness]

Mike Ashley's problem isn't a lack of investment, though. If anything, he's let the wage bill bloat to the point where he's going 'I want to sell', and no-one's biting because the club isn't particularly profitable. There's been sales which would probably piss off most fans, but they've still got quality in the squad and I'm sure they'll bounce back into the top tier looking like more of a team.

[FATEone]

Ideally, the Glazers will eventually list us publicly again. Very few people have the money to buy a football club outright. They may refinance anyway, and wait till the global economy's a bit happier looking. Oh, and they'll want to maintain a sizeable share themselves. Hanging onto the club themselves just isn't sustainable, especially if our success on the pitch stops. The same applies to Liverpool.

Both clubs have the option of mortgaging or selling their biggest assets. Obviously that will massively affect resale value, and I doubt even the Glazers will see it as wise. The fact is, there is nothing clever that they can do to get out of this; they either need to get shot or go down with the club.

How exactly does the credit crunch effect Manchester Utd?

I think what you guys (maybe not Bowser) are failing to realise is that the Glazers are making money.. a fucking lot of it. They way that they've structured the finances means they will be 'paid' a premium every year. Money goes straight into their pockets whether the club itself makes a profit or loss. It's clear that was their intention all along, as there is no way any successful businessman could forecast the club would make a vast amount of money more than it already was when they bought it. Not a club like Man Utd. They'll keep creaming those millions every year no matter what. In the virtually impossible event that it did go all tits up, they wouldn't lose out, as I'm sure you're all aware, the club would just become the property of the banks.

[Guest]

One for you guys

http://www.bargaincrazy.com/epages/Bargain...&SID=582994

[fatbob]

Anyone listen to Football Weekly yesterday?

They had a section on our financial worries. Mostly a lot of the things discussed before thats been worrying me pretty much since the takeover.

If its all true we're absolutely fucked.

[Guest]

One for you guys

http://www.bargaincrazy.com/epages/Bargain...&SID=582994

I like the way you've linked to the XL size.

[The Fox]

Anyone listen to Football Weekly yesterday?

They had a section on our financial worries. Mostly a lot of the things discussed before thats been worrying me pretty much since the takeover.

If its all true we're absolutely fucked.

Yeah I heard that. I thought Glendenning's point about the Ferguson/Rock of Gibraltar thing was quite interesting.

But yeah, it doesn't sound good if what David Conn was saying is true. Conn seemed absolutely certain that the Ronaldo money was not available for transfers, and as an expert in football finance I assume he'd be in the know on that front.

[a big boy]

It's almost impossible to see the Glazer's keeping on and the club keeping in good shape, because let's face it you aren't going to sign a new sponsorship deal, win the league, get to the champion's league final and manage to sell a player like Ronaldo for £80 mill every season. And especially when you think what it might cost in the coming seasons to maintain the level of success that the owners seem to need, you have to wonder with so many key players only getting older what sort of investment that might require and what kind of spiral not meeting those goals might create. And if Conn's to be believed, that money simply doesn't exist except in the Glazer's own pockets that they've taken out of the club...

[phresh]

But yeah, it doesn't sound good if what David Conn was saying is true. Conn seemed absolutely certain that the Ronaldo money was not available for transfers, and as an expert in football finance I assume he'd be in the know on that front.

I'm not sure anybody knows too much more than what is in the 'Bond Prospectus' or whatever it is called. The Ronaldo money is in the bank (with another £50 million or so) so it is 'available' in the sense that it hasn't actually been spent yet. The main reason for the bond issue (which will be at a higher interest rate than our current loans) is to get to the PIK's. The PIK's are basically like taking out cash on your credit card (in our current situation), it's lent at a higher interest rate than everything else and you don't start paying it back until everything else has been settled. By converting the loans to Bonds the Glazers can then get to the PIK's and start to pay those off. There is a condition somewhere that states that they can take upto £70 million from United and put it into Red Holdings, presumably to pay off some of the PIK's. The analysts are obviously just allocating the Ronaldo transfer to this deal.

I assume the Carrington 'sale' relates to the PIK's too. There is no mention of it being sold (unless it was in the 'risks' section of the prospectus, I can't remember), just being transferred from United to Red Holdings who would then lease it back to United. It's just a way of moving cash between the two parts of the business.

It's almost impossible to see the Glazer's keeping on and the club keeping in good shape, because let's face it you aren't going to sign a new sponsorship deal, win the league, get to the champion's league final and manage to sell a player like Ronaldo for £80 mill every season. And especially when you think what it might cost in the coming seasons to maintain the level of success that the owners seem to need, you have to wonder with so many key players only getting older what sort of investment that might require and what kind of spiral not meeting those goals might create. And if Conn's to be believed, that money simply doesn't exist except in the Glazer's own pockets that they've taken out of the club...

The Glazers long term intentions are to sell the club for a profit so they can't afford for the club to drop down the league. The bond issue is a fairly clear sign they don't intend to sell the club just yet so in a roundabout way if it fails then they might seek to sell the club. At the moment if a new owner could come in and clear the debt then the club would go from potential doom and gloom to being one of the (financially) healthiest clubs in the world. I would say the margins are fine but realistically any buyer would be looking at over £1billion, hardly a small amount of cash. I think it might hinge on what form the UEFA financial regulations take but we still don't really have any idea what form they would take.

[Liamness]

How exactly does the credit crunch effect Manchester Utd?

It affects the Glazer's ability to sell at a price they'd consider acceptable, there's less money around so prices dip. I hope they sell, and I'm sure if they even see it as an option, they think it's the wrong time right now. I hope they change their mind, the increases in payments will probably outweigh the benefits of waiting.

In the virtually impossible event that it did go all tits up, they wouldn't lose out, as I'm sure you're all aware, the club would just become the property of the banks.

Well, their plan isn't sustainable, so this becomes more likely the longer they hold onto the club. Our debt is being traded about, so who knows who would own us if the Glazers really fuck up. They'd certainly lose out, as the money they have put into the club, for what it is, would be gone. Yes, they have withdrawn from the bank of United from time to time, but you'd have to assume they don't want to make a loss on this venture. With all the interest, they're heading that way.

[Guest]

According the the BBC site, we're playing Neville again at RB. Why? Does he have some kind of hold over Fergie?

After some of the performances he's put in this season I wouldn't play him ever again. He's just too slow these days to be of any use. We might as well go with 3 defenders and play Owen up front with Berbs and Rooney.

[Chooch]

Nani is playing too.

[Gringo]

This is it for Nani. Last chance saloon. He would need to show something. People saying rafael has a knock so there is no other choice but to play Neville I guess.