Accounts out at 11am

Originally Posted by Withers

I think the big difference then was that arguably all that hadn't yet really started to impact on the matchday if you just wanted to ignore it.

yeah true. just hand over your cash on the gate and stand in the End

the future was still pretty clearly mapped out though wasn't it. put it this way, is anybody even vaguely surprised, generally speaking, at what's happened throughout the last 20 years? the scale of the change has been driven by the unprecedented longevity of success maybe, but even that was widely predicted...

Originally Posted by Coracao

5 years on...

Shame everyone doesn't grasp this tbh. They might get it by 2025.

i'm only 11 tho

Originally Posted by King Julian

i'm only 11 tho

Watch out for Believe.

But I DO want to see some puppies

Originally Posted by borsuk

personally, i find it hard to believe that you can look at that car crash of a financial situation and find the 'key point' to be how much we spend on transfers. not the increase in prices, the driving away of the traditional fan base, the astonishingly shabby commercialisation of the club (all of which are lauded in that article as something to strive for and which are a model for all other businesses, sorry football clubs :shakehead.

there's some pretty good analysis there overall, though as i say the author's values seem rather inconsistent - he appears to like the way the glazers run the club commercially but not to like the debt; personally i hate both and see them as two sides of the same coin.

strictly on the transfers, the analysis is pretty amateurish, from relying on headline transfer figures without including wages, through ignoring the structure of deals, to focusing on post-glazer alone without comparison with pre-glazer spending and without reference to other clubs' spending patterns over time - hence the author comes out with a figure of £7m for the glazers' entire time, while andersred (whose analysis is far superior, using the accounts rather than an internet site and factoring in more than just newspaper report transfer fee figures) finds over £30m in the last 12 months. but, of course, this just illustrates the problem of focusing on net spending in itself as though this statistic means anything, when one transfer in or out of the size of ronaldo can completely skew the figures. but we've been through this numerous times and it seems pointless to do it all over again.



good podcast that.

That's exactly the point that you continue to ignore. Net spend is even lower than before, despite the huge increase in turnover, and the fact that wages still only account for 46% of turnover.

I'm not gonna bother continuing this point with you, because it's like trying to have a conversation with a sheep.

You talk about him lauding the Glazers, but he's merely commenting to on the increase in this area, whilst highlighting that United still lag behind Bayern Munich and Real Madrid in terms of commercial income. I think his overall opinion of the Glazers is pretty clear in the following paragraph:

Not only is this an incredibly high amount of debt, but it is also unproductive debt for the club. In contrast to United, clubs like Chelsea and Manchester City have used their debt to fund the purchase of better players, while Arsenal used theirs to build a new stadium. United’s debt was only used to enable the Glazers to buy the company.

He then agrees with Drasdo's comment:

We could be competing with Man City and Chelsea for the best players. Instead of squeezing spend on players and pushing up ticket prices, we could be giving supporters who are being priced out, those that have supported the club for many years, the opportunity to watch their team. All of this is because one family decided they wanted to own our football club.

You can jump on your high horse all you like, but football is a business. The difference is, if we were a PLC, money not paid out on shareholder dividends ans corporation tax would go on the team, the academy and the stadium.

Andersred's 'far superior' analysis finds over £30m over the past 12 months. Wow. And how about the 4 years before that? . There will be no Glazer transfer splurge - the debt mountain can barely be controlled as it is, next year we'll probably turn a small profit once interest payments are taken care of. All your talk about how transfer spending is just part of a bigger debt is rubbish, the debt is the focus for the foreseeable - even that blog that you think is so good admits there's a good chance we will go in decline because afford top players.

The justification was always that at least the commercialisation of the club was making the team better. Now it's just making it worse!

can't believe people are still banging on about net £#%&!ing spend

United's net spend has always fluctuated season by season throughout its current 20 year period of unprecedented success. what other clubs are doing in the market should be seen purely in the context of them trying to compete with United. the fact United currently has a manager who can continue to challenge for all the top honours regardless of the cash thrown at the game by the likes of Walker, Abromovich and now the oil industry bloke at city should be celebrated not slated.

no doubt the usual #@&%!s will respond by pointing out that the likes of Barry, De Jong and Johnson are actually better than United's midfielders

Originally Posted by andyroo

The justification was always that at least the commercialisation of the club was making the team better. Now it's just making it worse!

was it?

Originally Posted by King Julian

But I DO want to see some puppies

http://www.utdforum.com/forum/member.php?u=2166

http://www.utdforum.com/forum/member.php?u=184

Hth assists.

Net spend, £#%&!ing crazy.

In 2050 some of the older ones will be saying (if they're still alive) 'ah but look at how much United's spending fluctuated in the early noughties' .

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

can't believe people are still banging on about net £#%&!ing spend

United's net spend has always fluctuated season by season throughout its current 20 year period of unprecedented success. what other clubs are doing in the market should be seen purely in the context of them trying to compete with United. the fact United currently has a manager who can continue to challenge for all the top honours regardless of the cash thrown at the game by the likes of Walker, Abromovich and now the oil industry bloke at city should be celebrated not slated.

no doubt the usual #@&%!s will respond by pointing out that the likes of Barry, De Jong and Johnson are actually better than United's midfielders

I'd have Johnson at OT in a flash tbh.

Originally Posted by Coracao

Seemed straightforward...

We should have signed both...

We got 'lucky' in the sense that Carrick and Scholes were able to play pretty much the full season. This was especially a risk, considering Scholes had been out for months at the end of the previous season with his eye problem. Ferguson rectified this when he signed Anderson and Hargreaves the following season.



Surely net spending is the more important figure here.

that's what I meant, yes.

we were shitting it that summer. it was really looking likely we'd be buggered and I'm sure I remember Ferguson saying he wasn't sure what the £#%&! would happen in midfield.

Senna went on to have some cracking seasons, I believe. And he played well in the last world cup until he got injured iirc.

the irony being that what would've been his full time replacement has ended up crocked for yonks.

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

I'd have Johnson at OT in a flash tbh.

somebody from city told me hes becoming a right problem though.
attitude has changed completely due to his success

why he has been on the bench more than starting

Originally Posted by Coracao

Seemed straightforward...

We should have signed both...

We got 'lucky' in the sense that Carrick and Scholes were able to play pretty much the full season. This was especially a risk, considering Scholes had been out for months at the end of the previous season with his eye problem. Ferguson rectified this when he signed Anderson and Hargreaves the following season.

The reason we didn't get Senna is because Fergie wanted Hargreaves. He would have got him the same summer as Carrick but Bayern said we'd have to wait a year.

Originally Posted by Sloane

somebody from city told me hes becoming a right problem though.
attitude has changed completely due to his money

why he has been on the bench more than starting

Fixed your post.

Originally Posted by andyroo

Fixed your post.

well yeah but thats because of his status hes grown a massive ego also

Originally Posted by reem

that's what I meant, yes.

we were shitting it that summer. it was really looking likely we'd be buggered and I'm sure I remember Ferguson saying he wasn't sure what the £#%&! would happen in midfield.

Senna went on to have some cracking seasons, I believe. And he played well in the last world cup until he got injured iirc.

the irony being that what would've been his full time replacement has ended up crocked for yonks.

Just on Senna... he wasn't in the world cup squad, but he'd been brilliant for Spain at the Confed cup and particularly at Euro 08. But with Fabregas and Busquets coming in they didn't really need him any more.

But yeah he'd have done a job for us all right.

Originally Posted by Liu Jian

That's exactly the point that you continue to ignore. Net spend is even lower than before, despite the huge increase in turnover, and the fact that wages still only account for 46% of turnover.

I'm not gonna bother continuing this point with you, because it's like trying to have a conversation with a sheep.

You talk about him lauding the Glazers, but he's merely commenting to on the increase in this area, whilst highlighting that United still lag behind Bayern Munich and Real Madrid in terms of commercial income. I think his overall opinion of the Glazers is pretty clear in the following paragraph:



He then agrees with Drasdo's comment:



You can jump on your high horse all you like, but football is a business. The difference is, if we were a PLC, money not paid out on shareholder dividends ans corporation tax would go on the team, the academy and the stadium.

Andersred's 'far superior' analysis finds over £30m over the past 12 months. Wow. And how about the 4 years before that? . There will be no Glazer transfer splurge - the debt mountain can barely be controlled as it is, next year we'll probably turn a small profit once interest payments are taken care of. All your talk about how transfer spending is just part of a bigger debt is rubbish, the debt is the focus for the foreseeable - even that blog that you think is so good admits there's a good chance we will go in decline because afford top players.

ffs. did you actually read the post or just stick random sentences together on the topic? as an exercise in missing the point that takes some £#%&!ing beating.


btw, that podcast has some interesting takes on football around the world. the interview with andersred was interesting. the rant of that norn irish fella after the interview had me laughing out loud on the tram though.

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

I'd have Johnson at OT in a flash tbh.

given good health, would you have him over Giggs, Valencia or Nani? of course you £#%&!ing wouldn't.

Originally Posted by borsuk

ffs. did you actually read the post or just stick random sentences together on the topic? as an exercise in missing the point that takes some £#%&!ing beating.


btw, that podcast has some interesting takes on football around the world. the interview with andersred was interesting. the rant of that norn irish fella after the interview had me laughing out loud on the tram though.

Talking to you is like talking to an Alzheimer's patient.

Or someone who's just really £#%&!ing thick .