There are two sets of taxes and fees. There are taxes and fees the employee pays and taxes and fees the employer pays. So yes, you earn say £200k a week (lucky you)- sure, you will then have taxes and fees taken out... but your employer will also be paying taxes and fees separately. It's probably different for super-high earners, but I've always been told by people who run their own businesses that the wage you pay your employee is only half the cost associated with that employee.
True, the worth of the club doesn't directly impact us... but it correlates with, the more the club is worth, the more money it is expected to bring in each year. No debt helps FSG because they can sell the club for more should they sell. No debt helps us the fans because it means, we can pay more in transfers in a sustained fashion than we could if we were paying interest on previous players. Whether a club is worth £1bn or £5bn is based on its earning potential. Us being worth £5bn suggests we are making more money (or have the potential to) than we did when FSG took over... and yes, £300m was an epic swindle, we probably were worth £1bn even back then. Our revenue has still grown substantially.
we were never worth that back then. we had a crumbling stadium, large debt from Moores and no prospects when they sold up to g&h. those swindlers threw more debt on. neither exploited the fan base at all. fsg has simply looked after fsg's interests. a small regional group have grown massively into he USA off our back and have grown club revune globally. fsg are making the coin in the USA off us. we get the far east. it's really thst simple. fans pay more and more and they get their repayments for anything put in beforeand exploit the asset massively
Well, Newcastle hasn't won anything since 1955 and Chelsea finished last season in the bottom half of the table!
They run sports franchises. That's what they do. They bought us on the cheap have managed 'conservatively' and benefited from the current boom in football worldwide. They don't care about football, we could be playing tiddlywinks and they wouldn't even notice. It's all about the mighty $.
We were valued at $1bn (then @ £660m) by Forbes, shortly before the 2008 Crash. I mention that because DIC came back in with one last effort to buy the club for £500m in 2009, which would still have paid off H&G's debts and left them with a joint profit of @ £40m each), but Hicks was holding out for that $1bn from before the crash. He got exactly what he deserved, the greedy, venal ****, but it's naive of us not to realise that though FSG are not shysters like them, they're still not exactly dripping with honesty in all this. The Glazers have milked MU for billions and left them in huge debt and a crumbling stadium, BUT - they've never wanted for players and wages. And when the Glazers go, somebody will but them, build a new stadium and pay off their debt because, like us, United are a huge, worldwide brand. I'm not saying I'd have preferred the Glazers, but I would definitely prefer less parsimonious owners than we have now, and I believe the club is big enough to be more ambitious without having the bailiffs towing the car away from the drive (that never happened to me, honest ).
There are so many sugar-daddy clubs these days it's going to reach a peak. Not everyone can buy a league. It can be nothing but frustrating when you pump your dirty money into a league and win nothing. Chelsea will be first to collapse. Boehly isn't rich enough to keep pumping such funds in and not get a result. He can't compete with nation-states. Then it will be between City and Newcastle. If Newcastle can't eclipse City they will eventually give up rather than paying large amounts to finish second. If City get eclipsed by Newcastle it may take a little longer- City have recent success in their mouth, it may take a 10, 15 years before their owners throw in the towel if they get outspent by Newcastle. Either way, can't see Sugar-Daddy spending lasting forever (not with any one club at least... as sugar daddies get bored, new sugar daddies will emerge no doubt). Chelsea got off the hook with Roman because he gave them a soft-landing, he gradually got bored and reduced spending as City took over. Nation-states and investment funds are going to switch more suddenly- when they realise their funding isn't providing the ad for their country that they hoped, they'll cut their losses and pull out. They're not fans of the clubs, they won't care how they collapse.
so basically someone put a spurious value on the club and the real offer you report was half of it. so we were not well run and had no structures to speak of to generate the revues to under pun these valuations. man utd are massively over valued currently by a fake and murky Chelsea deal that actually has 2 elements that are inflating it money for a mythical stadium and money for abramovich. our value of 4 billion is massively over inflated too.
Part of the problem with fan's frustration regarding transfers is that it's all played out on social media. Links to exciting players, when in reality there are no links; personal terms agreed, when they aren't; bids submitted, when they haven't been; etc. etc. There are a few weeks left till the window shuts. I'm waiting to see where we are then before being concerned and even if we don't address all the needs this window, we are going into the season with two fantastic new players and some very talented young ones.
The question regarding FSG is have they taken the club as far as they can? With the changes in football ownership in recent years can FSG keep up anymore? And if they can't should they sell up and move on? There is a straw that will break soon and that is if FSG demonstrate they are no longer willing/able to challenge against the top of the league and are just happy to stay in the upper reaches of the league occasional winning a cup. That is probably closer now that it has been before.
Yes, and it only takes one journalist with a following to say Liverpool FC agree personal terms with Joshua Kimmich, and then all the other journalists parrot the statement, and suddenly it's all over the news and social media that we're about to sign Kimmich. (no, we're not linked with him don't get excited)
Not sure if you're agreeing with me, but I agree with you that Hicks was deluded thinking we were then worth $1bn even before the crash, and all the valuations -including ours - of Prem clubs are ironically akin to the sub-prime house price bubble in the US that collapsed like a Tory PMs defence of lying in Parliament.
they had one before us. they were like Derek trotter and Rodney. they have a singular penchant for buying poor franchises in the other USA sports. we are apparently thier most valuable asset, though over inflated and frankly we are way out of their league imo
Ok Donga, we differ on this subject, but take this as an attempt at a meaningful debate. In your second paragraph you outline what the Glazers have done for MU then follow that up by saying you don't want similar done with us. Therefore I'm not really sure what your point is in bringing them up? By all means just state that you want someone who will put more money into the club but citing the effect of a process you disagree with isn't really a good argument, imo. I've enquired of several #fsgout posters as to who they would like to replace them, but the answers are always vague. I'd be quite happy if they were replaced by someone more effective but I have no idea who - it's far easier to identify a problem than its solution. I see three types of potential owners; a sugar daddy for whom we're a vanity project; someone who will saddle the club with debt; or the state fund of murderous tyrants. I don't want any of these. If someone can come up with a viable, ethical alternative I'm all ears.
