United’s summer WARCHEST

Originally Posted by 92ToBury

At its simplest...

We have two lots of stock - voting and investment.

The Glazers control the voting stock, the investment stock is traded daily.

Part of pension portfolios is stocks and shares, based on low, medium and high risk (you can specify this in your pension options in some schemes). Plus, there are people who trade shares to hold for short term and/or long term gain plus annual dividend pay-outs (everyone who holds a share at the dividend cut off point gets paid out a dividend for each share they hold).

How it relates to United, or more importantly to the Glazers, is that if the market have no faith in United's short, medium or long-term success, they'll cash out and see us as a bad investment, share prices will fall and club value will drop. You can imagine the Glazers cashing in a chunk of shares after Ronaldo's arrival and shirt sales announcement while the price was high. When we finish the season trophyless, share price will drop.

What Deadwood tried to do to make the books look better was to protect assets like Phil Jones by giving them longer and better contracts as it looked better for the books that assets were protected. Essentially, we've seen successive managers hamstrung on what they can do with the squad for the sake of accounting and share success. Whether this remains in place now he's gone remains to be seen. The squad come September will be the best indicator.

Serious question, who values the player (asset), or how is the value of the asset determined when it comes to football when the potential value of that asset can fluctuate constantly.

Surely it can't just be based off the value of the players contract, or is it?

Originally Posted by Drexl

so you agree with me then?

The Glazers own United, so it has everything to do with us. We're currently run as a sports brand with a few teams where the organisation is geared up to be profitable and make money for the owners. Share price is linked to a whole host of factors (some less likely to change in football) - all sorts of things from confidence in management, government stability, foreign investment and ability to secure credit, to name a few.

As we have certain assets (players) on longer term contracts, we can secure credit leveraged against players, as well as things like future season ticket sales (which is how Leeds went under - at their peak, they had 28k season ticket holders, secured investment leveraged against future ST sales, but failure on the pitch led to failure off it as fans "cashed out" and didn't renew).

Until we put the team first, don't get your hopes up about turning the ship around so that the dog wags the tail for a change. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we get rid of who most of us think should go (probably a common theme if you asked Fredsters to name their top ten squad members who they would bin regardless of contract length).

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Serious question, who values the player (asset), or how is the value of the asset determined when it comes to football when the potential value of that asset can fluctuate constantly.

Surely it can't just be based off the value of the players contract, or is it?

Age and contract length are two main factors. If you want Phil Jones (yeah, I know, stop it), you have to, as a bare minimum, buy his contract out. Others are obvious - they all play for United, so carry the same credentials of league, brand, etc, - while generally the higher up the pitch the more they should be worth. Yeah, yeah, slabhead.

Let's say Jones has 3 years left on his 75k pw contract. That's £3.9m per year of his contract you'd have to pay to buy him out. Then pay him £75k per week or we have to pick up the slack. That's at its most basic level but there are other considerations in that (e.g. resale value at 29 for him is a lot less than, say, Henderson at 23).

Originally Posted by 92ToBury

Age and contract length are two main factors. If you want Phil Jones (yeah, I know, stop it), you have to, as a bare minimum, buy his contract out. Others are obvious - they all play for United, so carry the same credentials of league, brand, etc, - while generally the higher up the pitch the more they should be worth. Yeah, yeah, slabhead.

Let's say Jones has 3 years left on his 75k pw contract. That's £3.9m per year of his contract you'd have to pay to buy him out. Then pay him £75k per week or we have to pick up the slack. That's at its most basic level but there are other considerations in that (e.g. resale value at 29 for him is a lot less than, say, Henderson at 23).

Thanks, I get it. I think.

I think it's the thought of Phil Jones being considered an 'asset' which is throwing me off slightly.

Are there tax benefits with amortisation/depreciating assets from an accounting pov? Given we keep players on huge contracts long past usefulness and significant resale value?

Originally Posted by 92ToBury

The Glazers own United, so it has everything to do with us.

Great knowledge dump, and you have a greater grasp of the situ than crocodile shoes, but still it is just a textbook c&p.

United is wholly owned by the glazers.

YES they cashed in and sold some shares BUT UNLIKE A NORMAL SHARE ISSUE these shares do not grant the owner the right to VOTE at the agm (meaning they have zero say in the running of the club/they cannot sack the board).

Furthermore, these shares do not accrue any dividends. Ha!

They were just a quick buck making exercise for the Glazers, not united.

The only way investors can make money on them is to buy them for x amount of pounds, then sell them for a better price. They are literally like those cards you used to get in bubble gum.

The only time share price and club value is an issue is if the Glazers (NOT UNITED) want to sell more shares.

anyhoo bored now

Originally Posted by armchair

We need a firesale. For players to be shocked into action. They are all too comfortable. There are no consequences. Big names that are coasting need to be binned as well as the numerous malingerers that spend more time talking to the press than playing.

It really is that simple. There has to be consequences to their poor performances and attitude.

See how happy they are when they're playing for Brighton/Palace/Everton.

There are very few worth keeping.

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Thanks, I get it. I think.

I think it's the thought of Phil Jones being considered an 'asset' which is throwing me off slightly.

Intangible asset - one that lacks physical substance. Nuff said.

Originally Posted by dunk

Are there tax benefits with amortisation/depreciating assets from an accounting pov? Given we keep players on huge contracts long past usefulness and significant resale value?

My understanding/memory of this is that they meet the definition of an intangible asset because they arise from legal rights (i.e. ownership of the player via registration).

Originally Posted by Drexl

Great knowledge dump, and you have a greater grasp of the situ than crocodile shoes, but still it is just a textbook c&p.

United is wholly owned by the glazers.

YES they cashed in and sold some shares BUT UNLIKE A NORMAL SHARE ISSUE these shares do not grant the owner the right to VOTE at the agm (meaning they have zero say in the running of the club/they cannot sack the board).

Furthermore, these shares do not accrue any dividends. Ha!

They were just a quick buck making exercise for the Glazers, not united.

The only way investors can make money on them is to buy them for x amount of pounds, then sell them for a better price. They are literally like those cards you used to get in bubble gum.

The only time share price and club value is an issue is if the Glazers (NOT UNITED) want to sell more shares.

anyhoo bored now

I appreciate the two tiers and decision-making authority that comes with it - you're also wrong about the voting rights. Class B ordinary shares are entitled to 10 votes per share and holders of Class A ordinary shares are entitled to one vote per share. There is therefore a finite amount of Class A ordinary shares that they can release/create/sell.

My main point about shares was giving an overview of how they work, why they are traded, etc., for laymen.

Don't care if you're bored, you raised it

You know that there's a connection - the share price is manipulated to keep investment attractive so that they make more money when selling. Again, the club is there to help them facilitate that. What's infuriating is that they won't abandon stupid squad management and let a manager truly go for it. The club won't suffer, in fact, quite the opposite; if you're chasing the title, you're guaranteeing top four - the vermin and berts never mention top four these days and just assume it, a position we should be in.

Originally Posted by 92ToBury

Intangible asset - one that lacks physical substance. Nuff said.


My understanding/memory of this is that they meet the definition of an intangible asset because they arise from legal rights (i.e. ownership of the player via registration).



I appreciate the two tiers and decision-making authority that comes with it - you're also wrong about the voting rights. Class B ordinary shares are entitled to 10 votes per share and holders of Class A ordinary shares are entitled to one vote per share. There is therefore a finite amount of Class A ordinary shares that they can release/create/sell.

My main point about shares was giving an overview of how they work, why they are traded, etc., for laymen.

Don't care if you're bored, you raised it

You know that there's a connection - the share price is manipulated to keep investment attractive so that they make more money when selling. Again, the club is there to help them facilitate that. What's infuriating is that they won't abandon stupid squad management and let a manager truly go for it. The club won't suffer, in fact, quite the opposite; if you're chasing the title, you're guaranteeing top four - the vermin and berts never mention top four these days and just assume it, a position we should be in.

I'm bored because we aren't having a conversation; you are just dumping everything you know about stocks and shares

Originally Posted by Drexl

I'm bored because we aren't having a conversation; you are just dumping everything you know about stocks and shares

Nah, I can't be arsed doing that. That would be boring. I was allowing others to appreciate the situation we're in - to serve the Glazers.

On topic. What do you see as the most likely way of removing them?
Fans devalue the club?
Hostile bidder?
Unfortunately we're well down the "who's next after Abramovich?" list of dodgy owners.

Originally Posted by 92ToBury

Nah, I can't be arsed doing that. That would be boring. I was allowing others to appreciate the situation we're in - to serve the Glazers.

You actually said the opposite

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Serious question, who values the player (asset), or how is the value of the asset determined when it comes to football when the potential value of that asset can fluctuate constantly.

Surely it can't just be based off the value of the players contract, or is it?

The amount you pay for a player is the only thing that hits the balance sheet

The player's "value" (ie the price you paid for them) is depreciated (amortised to be precise: the equivalent thing for an intangible asset)in equal parts, over the length of their contract, through the profit and loss account (reducing profit and your liabilty to pay tax and all those other juicy things)

Originally Posted by 92ToBury

Intangible asset - one that lacks physical substance. Nuff said.

Originally Posted by Drexl

The amount you pay for a player is the only thing that hits the balance sheet

The player's "value" (ie the price you paid for them) is depreciated (amortised to be precise: the equivalent thing for an intangible asset)in equal parts, over the length of their contract, through the profit and loss account (reducing profit and your liabilty to pay tax and all those other juicy things)

Originally Posted by Patty_b

This is EXACTLY why I hate accountancy BULLSHITTERS

Originally Posted by Drexl

This is EXACTLY why I hate accountancy BULLSHITTERS

And exactly why I didn't go into amortisation of player contracts - didn't know anywhere near enough to claim I do.

It’s the logic of keeping shit/barely used players on big contracts rather than selling that absolutely baffles me. I’m convinced there has to be some sort of accountancy shenanigans that makes it better to have 15 players getting paid for doing £#%&! than to just sell them/let them go and not have to pay them

Originally Posted by dunk

It’s the logic of keeping shit/barely used players on big contracts rather than selling that absolutely baffles me. I’m convinced there has to be some sort of accountancy shenanigans that makes it better to have 15 players getting paid for doing £#%&! than to just sell them/let them go and not have to pay them

The main thing I can think of is no transfer fees (and much smaller agent fees).

Originally Posted by 92ToBury

The main thing I can think of is no transfer fees (and much smaller agent fees).

Maybe. But surely that’s redundant if they aren’t playing or aren’t good enough?

We gave Bailly a contract and were trying to sell him the same week, apparently, he still had 18 months on his original deal IIRC

Hmm yet another "pivotal" summer for us in the transfer market. Surely now the lesson has been learned? United will not progress under this ownership regardless of playing personnel or manager.

The malaise comes down from the top. It is amazing how the ESL protests evaporated in the blink of an eye. Was signing Ronaldo all it took to placate the support?

Originally Posted by dunk

Maybe. But surely that’s redundant if they aren’t playing or aren’t good enough?

We gave Bailly a contract and were trying to sell him the same week, apparently, he still had 18 months on his original deal IIRC

The clubs a joke

Tuanzabe could have been kept on as 4th choice CB and both Bailly and Jones let go/sold

Mengi promoted next season as 4th/5th choice

Money saved on wages… done.

If the fans can see why can’t the £#%&!wits running the place see it?

Edit-

The likes of Mata, Matic, Wan B, Martial could be sold in the summer and replaced in the squad by Hannibal, Garner, Laird and Elanga. It’s obvious what needs to be done but they’re too thick to understand it is my guess.

Originally Posted by 92ToBury

At its simplest...

We have two lots of stock - voting and investment.

The Glazers control the voting stock, the investment stock is traded daily.

Part of pension portfolios is stocks and shares, based on low, medium and high risk (you can specify this in your pension options in some schemes). Plus, there are people who trade shares to hold for short term and/or long term gain plus annual dividend pay-outs (everyone who holds a share at the dividend cut off point gets paid out a dividend for each share they hold).

How it relates to United, or more importantly to the Glazers, is that if the market have no faith in United's short, medium or long-term success, they'll cash out and see us as a bad investment, share prices will fall and club value will drop. You can imagine the Glazers cashing in a chunk of shares after Ronaldo's arrival and shirt sales announcement while the price was high. When we finish the season trophyless, share price will drop.

What Deadwood tried to do to make the books look better was to protect assets like Phil Jones by giving them longer and better contracts as it looked better for the books that assets were protected. Essentially, we've seen successive managers hamstrung on what they can do with the squad for the sake of accounting and share success. Whether this remains in place now he's gone remains to be seen. The squad come September will be the best indicator.

I have a friend who is a Liverpool fan who loves rubbing it in on how he keeps cashing in on Manchester United Stock.

"Oh Alexis Sanchez! That will drive up shirt sales! Better buy in. You know he's past his prime and your club isn't going anywhere"

He buys the stock when it's low, and cashes out as soon as the stock rises as a result of summer transfer window excitement.

If he thinks there is going to be a good quarterly earning he'll buy in a few days before to see if the stock gets a bump, and cashes out straight away.

The club seems privy to signing flashy big name players, instead of young relatively unknown talent like Klopp does, because it generates immediate sales for their next quarterly earnings.....having the stock on the NYSE is a big problem....

but it's probably the only way the Glazer's can fund the club, they don't have a lot of money as far as billionaires go, hence leveraging the club in debt.

Originally Posted by armchair

We need a firesale. For players to be shocked into action. They are all too comfortable. There are no consequences. Big names that are coasting need to be binned as well as the numerous malingerers that spend more time talking to the press than playing.

Sounds great, until the United Players realise that they are onto a good screw wages wise, that they wont get anywhere else, and look to Gareth Bale as a precedent. Golf Anyone?