three billion

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozan...at-3-billion/?

£#%&!ing gimps

with the seperate sponsorship deals they've brought I can see it tbh. the problem is is that that kind of money from that kind of revenue is only worth it's value in the same way. this is where they'll start to make their real money but keep going and laughing at sparky's corporate youtube vids, things are going to be just fine.

Originally Posted by believe

the problem is is that that kind of money from that kind of revenue is only worth it's value in the same way.

What does that mean?

Originally Posted by believe

with the seperate sponsorship deals they've brought I can see it tbh. the problem is is that that kind of money from that kind of revenue is only worth it's value in the same way. this is where they'll start to make their real money but keep going and laughing at sparky's corporate youtube vids, things are going to be just fine.

hark at gordon gecko over here.

Originally Posted by RedMenace

What does that mean?

for example if DHL sponsor us for 30million they'll probably pay that over a period but the club value will still be increased by 30 million. therefore it will detract any investment and the owners can still keep offering small %'s of what they receive while never truly revealing what they are making.

I have come to a point where they're not as bad as initially thought but they will make more money out of the mugs that go than anyone ever did. They can still plough 50 million or so a season into this squad and United will remain there or thereabouts in terms of success and as long as that happens nothing will change.

GM are paying the club $559 million to have one of their brands plastered across the players shirts for the next seven years. The new Nike deal will bring in even more, probably over a shorter period. Next years PL TV contract will be worth almost £6 billion. There's also a new Champions League TV contract from 2016 I think? The occasional threat of a European 'Super League' will see the amount of money clubs get from UEFA go up substantially too.

United's a licence to print money.

In other news, Michael Knighton's just been found hanging from a rafter.

Originally Posted by utd99

In other news, Michael Knighton's just been found hanging from a rafter.

Whisked away by aliens, more like

Originally Posted by Sparky***

tbf people laugh at you a lot, it may have been for something else.

that's really funny

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

this is basically pure fantasy

the club will hardly be affected by a short period without success

the value of the club has rocketed in the last 3 years with only 1 major trophy won throughout that time

I agree but it's really only worth what someone will pay for it, values can go down as well as up depending on the success of the brand.

the reality is that United were still the best supported club in England despite going an entire generation without even qualifying for the European Cup.

Yes again I agree we won't lose the core support though JCLs and gloryhunters would £#%&! off so not a bad thing and the fickle newer fans of the far east etc. would shift to more successful teams and use their branded bankcards, mobiles instead of all the other shit they currently get with United on it.

of course if United went 2 or 3 seasons without qualifying for the CL then revenues would be affected to a degree and the costs would be passed
down through the club. But is that likely to happen? I mean really?

I just don't see a way a new manager would survive without a trophy the way Fergie did over his first few years - the bedsheets would be out in a few matches if things were going pear shaped, the media would £#%&!ing love it and be sticking the boot in, Joe £#%&!wit would read and hear how manager X was a total pile of shit and should go, the pressure would be absolutely intense and the stability the business model requires lost. Very slippery slope to be on with possible rinse and repeat with the next manager. Even dragging united into the CL in 4th spot would be considered a massive failure by the standards Fergie has set .

people love to talk about the period immediately post Fergie as if it's almost the most likely scenario that the next manager(s) will fail. It isn't. The most likely scenario is that the next manager will be shit hot and will quickly find a level of success. He will have the best supported club in the country, in one of the biggest clubs in the game, with some of the best facilities and best players around and a chance to compete for (some of) the best players in the transfer market ffs

Would you be prepared to stake losing a cool billion or two on the most likely scenario or would you rather walk away with a £#%&!ing good wedge while you could – gamblers they aint.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

hark at gordon gecko over here.

Originally Posted by skcollob

the value of the club has rocketed in the last 3 years with only 1 major trophy won throughout that time

I agree but it's really only worth what someone will pay for it, values can go down as well as up depending on the success of the brand.

the reality is that United were still the best supported club in England despite going an entire generation without even qualifying for the European Cup.

Yes again I agree we won't lose the core support though JCLs and gloryhunters would £#%&! off so not a bad thing and the fickle newer fans of the far east etc. would shift to more successful teams and use their branded bankcards, mobiles instead of all the other shit they currently get with United on it.

of course if United went 2 or 3 seasons without qualifying for the CL then revenues would be affected to a degree and the costs would be passed
down through the club. But is that likely to happen? I mean really?

I just don't see a way a new manager would survive without a trophy the way Fergie did over his first few years - the bedsheets would be out in a few matches if things were going pear shaped, the media would £#%&!ing love it and be sticking the boot in, Joe £#%&!wit would read and hear how manager X was a total pile of shit and should go, the pressure would be absolutely intense and the stability the business model requires lost. Very slippery slope to be on with possible rinse and repeat with the next manager. Even dragging united into the CL in 4th spot would be considered a massive failure by the standards Fergie has set .

people love to talk about the period immediately post Fergie as if it's almost the most likely scenario that the next manager(s) will fail. It isn't. The most likely scenario is that the next manager will be shit hot and will quickly find a level of success. He will have the best supported club in the country, in one of the biggest clubs in the game, with some of the best facilities and best players around and a chance to compete for (some of) the best players in the transfer market ffs

Would you be prepared to stake losing a cool billion or two on the most likely scenario or would you rather walk away with a £#%&!ing good wedge while you could – gamblers they aint.

this 3bn figure is just the latest value someone has forecast, it's not actual; there is nothing at all to suggest that they are going to walk away at 3bn, they might never walk away. the most important thing here is that they won't owe a £#%&!ing penny of their own money anyway, so what difference does it make to them? And what else is there above Manchester United that they'd like to shift the money into? There may be something down the line, but United is arguably as big as it can get in sport in terms of global interest, and that's why it's so rich in the first place.

I've heard people claim that the step up in exploiting the potential market could have been achieved by anyone, but let's be honest, they've done an expert job and it's barely imaginable that they could have done much better than they have inside a decade. If we thought this Sky league was a license to print money from 1992, then they have shown exactly how to milk this grotesque bastard.

And what if it turned out that changing the manager made it better on the pitch, not worse? What if the new manager retained most of the Ferguson teams' best traits and brought a continental approach to it that created something even more spectacular? they will never be able to change the fact that the club is in Manchester, but they may be able to make Manchester a lot more enticing than it is right now. In a perverse way the oil money being poured into City is hardly going to hurt the Glazer's own project in that regard either.

fwiw I don't think there's much in the JCL argument either; I don't think the new fans are likely to just £#%&! United off at the first sign of a downturn in success. I don't remember crowds tumbling in the 1st half of the 90s when Arsenal threatened the club's position; I don't remember crowds tumbling when Chelsea came along - United won 1 league title and 1 FA Cup in 5 seasons up until 2007, and have won 1 league title and nowt else (major) in the last 3 seasons. If United were shite and couldn't compete for a few seasons on the trot there'd likely be a hardening of the support rather than a break-up of it imo. DHL and whoever the £#%&! else sponsor us might drop the price down, but there'd still be huge numbers in all the deals, up front deals and hidden ones alike...

try not to open this can of worms up too often these days cus the whole thing is depressing whichever way you look at it compared to the 'innocent' corruption of the pre-Sky days... but there's no going back. everything is a version of the same thing. the FA Cup magic is a pay day. the league pyramid is a series of potential pay days. TV coverage is part of the package and each one covered is a pay day and a compromise of sorts... blah blah blah

$3.3 bn.

You'd think we could afford a decent £#%&!ing pitch wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by utd99

$3.3 bn.

You'd think we could afford a decent £#%&!ing pitch wouldn't you?

what exactly has happened to the pitch? i know it's taken on a lot of water etc recently but why the £#%&! has it suddenly disintegrated over the last month?

Originally Posted by Sparky***

what exactly has happened to the pitch? i know it's taken on a lot of water etc recently but why the £#%&! has it suddenly disintegrated over the last month?

I'd answer, but you'd probably just say something like "thanks Percy Thrower"

1. any revenue/sponsorship increase could have been achieved without the takeover or the debt;

2. we didn't need the debt and we got nothing in exchange for it. it represented an unnecessary gamble with no upside for the club;

3. we have been starved of cash for transfers. please don't argue;

4. we'd have to cope with fergie going whatever, but the idea the new manager will get to buy a new world class squad is mere fantasy;

5. just £#%&!ing look at them.......

3. we have been starved of cash for transfers. please don't argue;

Interesting new debating technique.

75,000+ at OT for the next game.

Piglets at the teat.

Originally Posted by jem

1. any revenue/sponsorship increase could have been achieved without the takeover or the debt;

2. we didn't need the debt and we got nothing in exchange for it. it represented an unnecessary gamble with no upside for the club;

3. we have been starved of cash for transfers. please don't argue;

4. we'd have to cope with fergie going whatever, but the idea the new manager will get to buy a new world class squad is mere fantasy;

5. just £#%&!ing look at them.......

be fair jem, you know as well as anybody that 1 isn't true... you can argue that it has been done and therefore anybody could have done it all you like, but that's not the reality. The reality is that them being seen as not giving a shit about United has been played expertly by them to the overall good - without even selling naming rights, either.

2 there was an almost immediate upside, as Ferguson felt released from whatever perceived shackles he felt and United became more successful than ever

3 no, a fortune has been spent on players these past 7 years - by my reckoning it's about £285m (transfer league)

4 true about Fergie, but not sure what the other bit is about - who thinks United would need to do that, let alone would ever do it?

5 good point

Originally Posted by utd99

Interesting new debating technique.

well.. it's either a weary :shakehead: or "anyone who disagrees with me is a £#%&!wit".

speaking of which.... here's the new abaf.....

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

be fair jem, you know as well as anybody that 1 isn't true... you can argue that it has been done and therefore anybody could have done it all you like, but that's not the reality. The reality is that them being seen as not giving a shit about United has been played expertly by them to the overall good - without even selling naming rights, either.

2 there was an almost immediate upside, as Ferguson felt released from whatever perceived shackles he felt and United became more successful than ever

3 no, a fortune has been spent on players these past 7 years - by my reckoning it's about £285m (transfer league)

4 true about Fergie, but not sure what the other bit is about - who thinks United would need to do that, let alone would ever do it?

5 good point

* sigh*


I was all for naming rights.

incidentally, where has all the money come from?