Utter bollox. The money we bought Carroll and the others with was 'ours' through the sale of Torres and investment by our new(at the time of Carrolls and Suarez signings)new owners. Utd bought Christine for 26m? and sold him for 80m,was that profit earned?,was it Utd's or the Glazers?
Funny isn't it. The Glazers can walk away anytime they want leaving Manchester United totally and utterly insolvent. After all it's not their money that is at risk is it? In the meantime these so called paragons have been sucking profit out of United. Oh and though very little is said (in public at least) the PIK problem has not gone away. We are living in very uncertain fiancial times. None of the problems with the global finnacial system have even started to be addressed, the Euro crisis is very far from over and the US economy is still on very shaky ground *despite trillions of 'phoney money'. This is certainly not the time to be carrying such huge debts.
shawn your knowledge of finance and accountancy is very poor if you believe that you can spend 65m from income.
United are repaying the debts with money to spare. If they were failing to meet the payments any of the 'worries' or problems which Liverpool fans are pointing out might then concern us. However as we continue to easily meet our repayments, reduce our debts continuously and continue to improve both operating profits and income I'm happy enough with our financial position ( obviously it could however be be a lot better).
United's income is hugely above what we pay for debts and the assets of the club are worth far more than the liabilities. You're an idiot for thinking that makes us insolvent. Suggest you look up what it means. And they are fine owners imo. Im willing to bet the money they take out for themselves and not debt payments is less as a % than a number of United's past owners, they aren't having regular bust ups with SAF, the great man doesn't have to go begging cap in hand to a bunch of shareholders to sign people.... Don't you worry about our debts sunshine, not only are they being paid off but united are worth way more than the total amount of debts so there's no danger of us going bust.
Mancini is bringing back Tevez into play..it can work and it can also backfire.Who is going to get the blame,if it does not work.?
Eric, you can't blame us for having a little fun. However, there is more than a grain of truth in what I said about the level of the debt in a financially volatile climate. Whilst we follow the teams that we support and still think of them as clubs, they are far from being that they are major commercial organisations. Therefore they are subject to all of the corporate strengths and weaknesses. They can be bought and sold without reference to us and their commercial fortunes can change very very quickly. As this thread was supposed to be about City, let's look at them as an example. They are delighted with their new owners. But why, when their interest in English football was already known, did they chose City and not Liverpool or United? Now don't tell me that they couldn't have bought United because that is not true (all debt can be bought). Could part of that answer be that the corporate life cycles (I can forward references if you want) would indicate that there was more opportunity to grow City (and hence more potential profit growth) than there was in either of our clubs. When previously I have been saying that United are coming to the end of their period of dominance, My evaluation has not just been based upon footballing success (though that is a factor) but also on the life cycles of organisations.
Morning Dave, I agree in with some of the points in there. The main point I would disagree with you though is the reason they bought City. As you pointed out they could have bought United, Liverpool or really any other club for that matter should they have wanted - I believe they actually did look at a few other clubs ( Everton ? ). I doubt the reason they bought City was due to growth, I think it was more to do with the challenge ( the other club in Manchester potentially knocking United off their perch ? ) as I don't think the owners at City have any interest in the valuation or growth of City as a investment ( spending 107% of their income on wages would suggest that ). After all where is the challenge of purchasing a already successful club where they already have all the world class infrastucture and facilities etc in place ? These clubs are like play things for the billionaire owners. I'd like to think (hope ) that football is immune from the organational lifecycle you are refering to, simply due to the vast amounts of money involved. I completely understand it hasn't been the case in the past ( not a dig at Liverpool ) but when Liverpools period of dominance did end there simply wasn't the same finances around the game at the time. One of the main reasons we have been able to maintain the gap is due to United ( and other top 4/CL teams ) being so much better off now than other Premier League teams who aren't in it. Histrocially it made a difference but now the dfifference is massive. It will be interesting to see how the FFP rules effect the game though.
Sorry Eric, forgot to say "Mornin" - how rude There's a lot in what you say about City but you also have to remember that billionaires remain billionaires because they hate to loose. Profit or trophies its all the same to them and trophies bring profit. Even their playthings have to have some profit element to them.
I said yesterday I thought United will will the league due to the easier run in of the two teams but more than that, i actually hope United win it. I don't like what the owners of the likes of Chelsea and Man City have done to football, it has pushed transfers and wages to an even stupider level, and in order to compete clubs, such as us, United and Spurs have had to spend a bit more than they otherwise would have on a player just because a rumour goes round that those two might be interested, or clubs bench mark prices based on the fees paid by the Mega rich. I don't want City to win because I hope the wheels fall off so that when we can get our house in order we have more places to compete for in the top 4, United have a track record of success that will keep them attracting quality players for years to come, like we have been able to. If City's money goes they will have nothing. Their business model is not sustainable, when the next accounts come out I think its looking like wages will be 115% of revenue. The business Model of United and Liverpool is sustainable, if the Glaziers left United would still be fine as even their high level of debt is serviceable, they are not making year on year losses. I have nothing against Man City's fans, and I dont want their club ruined, it just bothers me that rich playboys are using football clubs like a plaything, it has encouraged rash spending, diminished investment in youth and is bad for the league. United winning the league this year just makes it that bit more likeley that Man City wont get too much stronger. But then, what do I know - they could go and spend £150m on three players and boss it next year.
RM is not bringing him back by choice Tevezs legal team have obviously given him no option, Balotelli and Agueros performances at the weekend were way below their usual standard, maybe carlos coming back may give the team a boost, having watched the game on Sundays we could do with one.
Citeh have the better players on paper, Yernited have the better mental approach I think Citeh need to get Tevez back in the side,regardless of the circumstances, if he starts playin he could win them the League
You may be right about the financial climate but the debt is anything but volatile. They're long-term bonds with fixed annual returns with buy back due in 2017. The only element of volatility is the dollar exchange rate. The club are buying back a chunk of bonds each year, so that by the time they are due, we will not have to pay anything like the original 500m.
