I'd say abrammovich probably had significantly more liquid wealth, Jim's seems to be tied to ineos. He also paid a hell of a lot less than 6bn leaving a lot more for transfers and was spending at a time when there was less money in football.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
I'd say abrammovich probably had significantly more liquid wealth, Jim's seems to be tied to ineos. He also paid a hell of a lot less than 6bn leaving a lot more for transfers and was spending at a time when there was less money in football.
He was funded by the Russian state, it was Russian state funds in Chelsea that were laundered through him.
Does that make him a state?
Tbf could also have added 99% of people in every country outside of the USA and probably Canada have never heard of.
But who cares about that when they've won major titles, played brilliant football and we well haven't. Whilst spending a lot more. Do you draw any solace from your bolded point with that in mind?
That's slightly departing from the point of the thread anyway.
Post Moyes the Glazers/club have spent enough to compete at the very top. It's irrefutable. I don't understand this need to desperately try and find holes in that. This club has enough dosh to compete. It just needs better qualified people.
I thought the point was that money alone doesn't win leagues, and while it doesn't, its not accurate to just look at the figures spent. We needed a lot more investment than city post 12/13. We have spent less by about 100m, and we get less value for our spending because of the United tax. If we'd spent the money we've used servicing the debt and paying dividends over the last decade I have no doubt we'd be top of the league, even if it was Woodward who was spending that money
This is going to be a shock for you, so sit down and brace yourself, but your life experience doesn’t equal everybody’s life experience.
This all comes down to competence. A debt ridden United is as financially powerful as a cheating City, but they've spent it better. Liverpool, Real Madrid, Bayern? We're blowing them out of the water money wise.
All this talk about how we need state funds is a giant cope and a lie. People want state money, and will lie to themselves and everyone else to justify it, but it's not at all needed.
The last decade? How much have we spent on debt servicing and dividends in that time jm?
Well post moyes we needed an entire new first xi apart from goalkeeper. And that's been at a time when prices were rising massively, so the underinvestment under fergie really came back to bite us.
The money that's gone to interest, debt payments and dividends would have made a big difference if it was all spent on the club
You know the US & Canada are almost 400 million people right? And that the US is the World’s biggest economy?
You think they took Chelsea off him and kicked him out of the country just because he had a Russian passport? He was sportswashing with Russia state money, that's why they froze his accounts and assets.
I'm not comparing him to City or PSG but that's the truth of the matter.
Last edited:
no.
This says 155m just on dividends the last 7 years. I'd imagine more on interest payments than that plus more dividends in the preceding 3 years. You're probably talking at least an extra 3-400m that hasn't been spent on the team. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference, but look at 17/18, we finish with 81 points, look like we're finally starting to get somewhere, we get one signing which is Fred and that's it.
Look at this season, we're doing very well, potentially in a title race, but we're bargain basement shopping in January despite being in clear need of a striker.
Anyone who doesn't think the clubs financial situation has held us back at all over the last decade isn't being realistic
As @Regulus Arcturus Black has asked, how much have we spent on dividends and debt paymemts since Moyes?
Edit: Just seen your amswer.
The club has practically wasted a billion on transfers over the last decade. Why would that extra £150 million in dividends savings be spent any better. After a wasted billion where does that confidence come from?
It's not that we need state funds, though I would note that real have managed to massively spend on their infrastructure and had spend 300m in 2009 building the spine of a team that lasted a decade and was done mostly before transfer fees went crazy, modric and benzema have given them a decade of service, we're bought for 30m each, but would have been 80m signings in this market. So it's not exactly fair comparing them.
We do need someone to clear our debt and not take dividends, whether that's a state or not, I'd prefer not, but I don't see it being realistic for a private investor.
Indeed, that was the point but only in part.
It was also the point that we don't want to challenge once in 5 but every damn year and in the current environment that means being able to drop money on two 100m players from the place we are currently in.
When I say some people do not read, I do not joke. Or they purposely misrepresent the point to keep pedalling their tired logic of 'we just need better people '.
This says average 20m a year so since moyes that's nearly 200m in interest payments
https://www.independent.ie/sport/so...ster-uniteds-finances-explained-41929595.html
The article I posted above had 155m in dividends since 2015, so combined about 350m, not much I suppose, probably wouldn't have helped to spend that on the team
Er, I never mentioned anyone blocking anything. I'm taking the piss out of the Tweet. ''The UK Government welcomes Qatar's bid...''
Believe what exactly?
Yeah, I think people are ignoring we need a top striker, probably 100m there. We need a top midfielder because casemiro csn be suspended, injured and is over 30. We need a good right back, we either need to re sign de gea on huge wages or sign a new goalkeeper. The only positions we're really happy with is rashford at left wing, casemiro at centre mid, shaw at left back, and martinez and varane at centre back. Everywhere else we need investment and we need investment in the squad.
People just looking at the last decade are ignoring how much transfer fees have jumped over that time period, and how bad a state we were in after the moyes season
We don't need that, no, it'll just make it easier, because we can then spend more than everyone else instead of as much as a few others and more than the rest.
Of course the Glazers have harmed United tremendously, but because we're so crazy rich that means we're still on par with the richest clubs in the world. We've just wasted it all.
Our net spend over last 10 years is the highest in the world.
Now add competent decision makers to that. Imagine for instance Fergie and Gill with that net spend.
What do you think happens to on pitch results?
Having competent people in charge of the largest net spend in football seems a fresher logic than "it's not enough"
We also had to overspend coming back from a low base of no spending. The years and years of "No value in the market" and lack of investment by the Glazers under Fergie eventually came back to bite us when we had to go out and invest and we did it by sacrificing the competency of the footballing management (all round) within the club. We are still at the point where we need serious investment on the field to challenge for the league.
I’m struggling to see how Woodward with Moyes, LVG, Mourinho and Ole would have had up winning leagues if we’d spent 35m more every year sadly mate.
It’s not money that’s our issue, it’s been how we spend it and our choice of manager, now that looks right, everything starts to look cheaper and smarter, like Martinez, Eriksen.
Would never have guessed looking at some parts of the USA. But yeah it’s just fascinating to me that a country with around 3 national sports, all of which are pretty insulated within the USA, with no team that is globally supported like say United or Real would have a sports team sell for so much.
hence why I said 99% not 100%
I reckon ETH is delighted with 3 of his back 4, Eriksen, Cas, Anthony, Bruno & Rashford.
He’d want an FDJ type, a proper forward & a right back.
We have plenty of money for amortising that without state backing.
Again it's not solely that we wasted it all, look at our team a decade ago, Rooney was past his best, rio and vidic were near retirement, evra was near retirement, Carrick was past his best, van persie was hit or miss, the right back situation wasn't great, valencia and young were decent wingers but not title winning standard on their own. The value of our first xi post fergie was shockingly low, whereas City had Silva, aguero, toure, kompany, zabaleta. Buying that kind of spine in today's prices would cost you 300-400m.
They had a hugely valuable squad and we needed massive overhaul because the Glazers had barely invested, ever since we sold Ronaldo and didn't renew tevez, and instead bought Michael Owen and valencia, we had fergie's genius but the squad has basically been getting patched up, and we've had so many holes for so long, yes the money could have been better spent, but the problem is city have been able to slow players into a winning side, we've needed people to come in and change our fortunes by themselves. City had that spine for so long, that a bad signing or two didn't affect them, we needed a new signing in every single position. Even with someone more competent than Woodward, it's a far more difficult task than spending at City post 2013
Yes, and we did that. We just did it extremely poorly.
We have a net spent of £750m higher than Real Madrid over the last decade. £600m more than Liverpool, and their squad was garbage 10 years ago. We are still at the point where we need serious investment because we've wasted all the money, not because we haven't spent.
hence why I said 99% not 100%
There’s estimated to be over 13 million NFL fans in the UK, with around 4 million of those considered “avid” fans. There’s been NFL games played in the UK since 2007 and there’s been lots of speculation about a team being permanently run from London.
Just because you’re not into it doesn’t mean it’s not hugely popular.
Well again my feeling is that most of the damage was done over the fergie years where they barely spent, we needed a whole new first xi post fergie because they'd let the team totally deteriorate since it's peak in 08, we sold key players and didn't replace them, we let others age out of being premier league quality without replacing them. Signing a whole new team is not an easy task. City had kompany, aguero, Silva, fernandinho all bought before prices went totally crazy (though fernandinho was near the start of that) it's far easier to bring in players to a side with its spine already built instead of having to patch up one area of team, while another rips apart. I'm not saying it can't be done, or that we haven't wasted money, because we have, but just comparing the amounts spent since 2013 doesn't take into account the massively different situations
Both Madrid and Liverpool in particular invested off the field which we didn't do or rather have done too late so it's no surprise that when we did spend that we did it poorly. Even now we are still doing it. The owners are god awful, people will blame Woodward, but the owners put him there and made the club rotten in the inside.
I still think that’s harsh on Fergie, goes for @jm99 too. If someone like ETH came in post SAF and spent the Mata/Fellaini money, followed then by the 200m first LVG Summer, we’ve have instead spoken about Fergie’s wise/shrewd spending.
It’s only that 300m being wasted with 14 months of his retirement that leads people now to somehow blame a lack investment under SAF.
Say what you want, but you can’t convince me an ETH type wouldn’t have had that squad purring within 15 months with a 300m investment.
Over the last decade, real Madrid already had Ronaldo, modric, benzema, Sergio ramos, pepe, varane, casemiro. No shit, they didn't have to spend like us. We needed a whole new first xi when moyes came in, other clubs had some big assets to sell like Liverpool with suarez and coutinho, City had an incredible base, we had literally nothing, a bunch of players with no sale value, and who were past their best besides de gea. We've needed to build an entire team when prices have went through the roof, if we'd even had one young defender, young midfielder and striker to build around it would have made things way easier, but we didn't, we had nothing and we've never really managed to catch up to what was needed, we've also been plugging one hole while another opens because of how bad things were allowed to get
While NFL is getting more popular, I think you are overestimating its global reach.
Yeah, it makes money because the US is a financial powerhouse and people like spending money to be associated with their team but really, the money made by US franchises does not equate popularity.
Overestimating how? Those numbers are from the leagues own data, what’s the basis for your suggestion they’re overestimated other than your own assumption?
No, fergie was a genius, and he got the last out of a squad at its end. Evra, vidic, rio, Carrick, Rooney, van perspective, giggs, Scholes all needed replaced. Fergie managed to get the absolute best out of players like Rafael, cleverly, Anderson, but none of those players have went on to have sparkling careers elsewhere. We needed a total overhaul, we have spent badly, but city have made mistakes too, they just had a strong team already in place meaning the mistakes were less costly, meaning they could spend 100s of millions on full backs knowing they had kompany, fernandinho, toure, Silva and aguero as brilliant players to build around. If they'd had to plug those 5 holes at the same time like we did, they'd have either spent a lot more, or done a lot worse
I don't think that's harsh on Fergie, in fact it shows what a great manager he was albeit he was reliant on pulling a world class player for one season. But the squad was crying out for players even under him, vast amount of time spent crying out for a midfielder. That's on the Glazers not on Fergie.
They thought they could get away with it under Moyes by only giving him Fellaini but that quickly backfired and we have been behind ever since.
ETH has done well after a £150m+ investment so possibly be great after £300m.
£750m.
- Status