Manchester United Talk banner
41 - 49 of 49 Posts

·
A curry and a crate of wifebeater please!!
Joined
·
25,242 Posts
OK, so if we collapsed you'd be heart broken and would stop supporting us?

Some fan you are.
If we collapsed there wouldn't be a club to support you muppet!!
Of course I'd still have my cherished memories and the odd bit of memorabilia I have but that would be it.
Anyway, that isn't going to happen, it was just a hypothetical situation
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
I share your concerns - and I think many are in denial

I would swap the bitters financial position for ours in a heartbeat - how are they going to go bust??

Their debts have been cleared - 'real cash' paid up front rather than over years has been used for their transfers - their balance sheet is not being loaded with massive debt - unlike the our model where it is like some huge buy to let investment with the tenant (us) paying the landlord's (MG) mortgage while the asset appreciates

Clubs like the scouse and others are also far more at risk and obviously RM should be a major risk - but there seem to be different rules and regulations in Spain

We have 2 problems in today's financial world:

1/ Yes - we can afford to manage our current level of debt - but it seems we cannot really afford to increase it and with the transfer market being affected by the likes of the bitters - and worryingly more cash-rich investors coming on to the scene - we will find it hard to get the top players (I am delighted we are top at the moment but this is not a strong squad in comparison to previous ones) - so we may be unable to significantly improve our squad in the next couple of years

2/ For those clubs that are heavily loaded with debt then there is major risk if the revenue of those clubs reduces - obviously the scouse are the major risk here if they drop out of the CL places - but even we would be hurt if we do not keep winning things year on year.

And combined these 2 issues are the rub - if we cannot afford to increase our debt for new players then we might just start to fail to win trophies - which impacts revenue - which further reduces ability to fund transfers and so on......

I think this is what SAF was meaning - as always he is very clever in the way he words it and it sounds as if he is talking about other clubs - certainly not us - but our model was set to give him £25m a year - which seemed a lot - not now. It is for these reasons that clubs like RM and ourselves (also Chelsea) have been lobbying Platini to put restrictions on the rich owners and make transfers funding dependent on revenue which would be good for us.

Yes - I am very very worried and I would really wish that we had been bought by a very rich person rather than a buy to let investor
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,699 Posts
Discussion Starter · #46 ·
Manchester Derby Will Be the Most Expensive Game in History - WSJ.com

Saturday's soccer match between Manchester United and Manchester City of the English Premier League, a game known as the "Manchester Derby," is likely to be played in the sort of bleak and drizzly weather conditions one might expect.

But this won't be just another regularly-scheduled whistle stop on the British soccer calendar. It will be the richest match played in any sport, at any time, anywhere on the planet Earth.

According to analyst estimates, team statements and media reports, the players on the field and on the two benches in the Manchester Derby will have cost their teams roughly $850 million to acquire, or about as much as NASA spent to refurbish the Hubble Telescope.

Those numbers should prove comforting to baseball fans who are worried about the profligacy of the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox. When those teams meet, there's only about $380 million in player investments on display. In pro football, the NFL record belongs to the free-spending Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins, who met twice this season. But the total only came to about $350 million.

Even Spain's two notoriously extravagant teams, Real Madrid and Barcelona—which are the two biggest soccer clubs in the world by revenues—fall short in this arena when they play one another. While Madrid's player investments are on par with the top English clubs, it's not scheduled to play any of them this season. Barcelona still draws many of its players from its youth development program, which greatly reduces the amount of money it takes to assemble a team.

The Derby's reign at the top of the money pile won't last long. Next month's match between Manchester City and Chelsea will shoot past it to set a new combined record of about $900 million. By the time Manchester United and Chelsea (combined player investment: over $800 million) square off in two upcoming matches this season, the Derby will have fallen to fourth-place on the all-time list.

These records reflect a wave of spending by English clubs this year during the recently completed period known as the "transfer window," when teams in the EPL can juggle their rosters. Unlike North American team sports, soccer clubs don't just acquire players for the cost of their salaries. They're also expected to pay the player's current club an additional "transfer fee."

These payments, which are usually many multiples above what the player will earn, have increased dramatically at the high end in recent years. For instance, Chelsea spent $80 million during last month's transfer window for Spanish striker Fernando Torres. On Saturday, Manchester City will show off Edin Dzeko, the Bosnian striker the team acquired last month for $44 million.

These financial records may not be broken any time soon. Beginning next season, the first effects of European soccer's new rules on spending, known as the Financial Fair Play regulations, will ripple through the free-spending front offices of the world's best-known clubs. The rules will largely prohibit clubs from spending more than they earn in revenue.

While the regulations won't be enforced until the 2013-2014 season, the accounting process will begin next season, with the likely result that the clubs that have leapfrogged to the fore by shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire star players will be forced to curb spending.

"It will have to affect their behavior," says Dan Jones, who leads the Sports Business Group for Deloitte, the publisher of two annual reports on international soccer finances. "For the clubs that want to participate in European competitions, they will have to bring things back into line and break even."

Representatives for Manchester United, Manchester City and Chelsea did not return messages seeking comment.

While these three Premier League teams (obviously) rank near the top among all international club teams in spending, they may not be able to generate enough revenue to sustain those levels under the new rules. Among all international clubs, Manchester United ranks No. 3 by revenues, Chelsea is No. 6 and Manchester City No. 11 according the to the latest Deloitte Football Money League report, released Thursday. Manchester City only cracked the top 20 for the first time last year.

Chelsea's owner, Roman Abramovich, and Manchester City's Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan have used their own personal fortunes to invest in improving their teams.

Under the new system implemented by UEFA, European soccer's governing body, "the drive will be to generate more revenue from your local market to ... spend on players," said Rob Tilliss, principal at InnerCircle Sports. "The rules will create stability and make it punitive to overspend on players beyond your means."

For now, though, fans of runaway sports profligacy (you know who you are!) will have plenty to cheer about.
 
41 - 49 of 49 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top