January Signings (manU)

Hobart

I won't quote you, as your reply is quite dis-jointed. Firstly, having read your reply, I would like to point out a couple of things. 1 you attack the post, not the poster. Secondly, you may seem to think that you have explained yourself, you have not. Thirdly, it is a good idea to read replies, before making one of your own. The postage stamp line is really funny, my chair has broken from laughing. Lastly, you stated that Manu released all Fees, including agents fees??? Big deal. Announcing something , after the fact, is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. Can you actually not see that?

Lemlin

The Muppet wrote:

As you have already seen by a couple of replies the rest of the users are getting fed up with you games. I have no intention of ruining this forum by playing along.

It is obvious to me and obviously to other membere here you could write what you know about soccer on the back of a postage stamp and have room left over.

You must think the users here are stupid if you think they can not see what you are doing.I,m not playing your game any more, this ends now. From this point on I will selectively reply to your posts.

I repeat the advice I gave you yesterday .Give it up man you are making a public show of yourself. Thats not just my opinon BTW.

Well said. In all honesty, we all make mistakes but how could someone who follows football at all not have heard about the saga over the Robben transfer.

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

To illustrate what I mean I will use Arsenal purchas of Reyes. There was not so much as a whisper of that deal going through until it was signed and sealed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/3067779.stm

I believe that Reyes signed for the Arse in Jan of 04. Some 6 months after this (and other stories regarding Arsenal's targets) appeared on the BBC sports section.

Hardly what you would call "not so much as a whisper " is it?

Anyhow, what do I know.

Lemlin

Hobart wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/3067779.stm

I believe that Reyes signed for the Arse in Jan of 04. Some 6 months after this (and other stories regarding Arsenal's targets) appeared on the BBC sports section.

Hardly what you would call "not so much as a whisper " is it?

Anyhow, what do I know.

I'm surprised you've even heard of the Reyes transfer. As pointed out by The Muppet it received a lot less media coverage than the Robben transfer, which managed to pass you by.

SpAcEd OuT

Vidic prefers Viola to Man Utd
Friday 16 December, 2005
Nemanja Vidic’s move to Fiorentina seems ever closer after his agent admitted he would rather play in Italy than for Manchester United.

The Serbia & Montenegro international is being courted by a host of European clubs including Liverpool, United and Palermo, but it seems that the prospect of playing for the Tuscan outfit most appeals to the Spartak Moscow defender.

"Liverpool showed an interest one month ago but they never made an official offer," said Vidic’s Italian agent, Silvano Martina. "The player has been happy at Spartak but would like to move on.

"He will leave in January and his intention is to move to Italy, but if Manchester showed an interest then he may consider it."

Vidic first caught the eye of, among others, United and Inter during his time at Red Star Belgrade, for whom he played as captain.

He then made the surprise decision to sign for Spartak where he has displayed his powerful and imposing centre-back qualities to great effect.

However, having signed until 2008, the Russian club want to make the most of their prize asset by selling him to the highest bidder and Fiorentina have been showing the most interest in acquiring his services.

"If Vidic were to get such an offer, we will want £10m in compensation," said Spartak chief executive Sergei Shavlo.

However, Martina insists that the 24-year-old has a release clause in his contract worth approximately £5m – the fee the Gigliati are prepared to spend to secure his signature in the New Year.

"Vidic has a contract until 2008 but has a release clause he can exercise at any time, provided a payment of £4.7m is made," Martina added.

"His dream is to play in Serie A. He came very close to signing for Parma but the deal fell through following the scandal of Parmalat."

Another of the reasons the defender is keen to join Fiorentina is the lucrative salary he has been offered. It has been reported that he will be handed a four-year contract worth £2m-a-year.

http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/dec16k.html

Hobart

Lemlin wrote:

I'm surprised you've even heard of the Reyes transfer. As pointed out by The Muppet it received a lot less media coverage than the Robben transfer, which managed to pass you by.

No. He did not say that. You are wrong.

blastman

Hobart wrote:

It doesn't. It also does not matter if you do your dealings in private or take out a full page ad on page 3 of the Sun to advertise your intentions. It gives no advantage nor puts a disadvantage on the club.

I'd just like to say that what I meant was that being £500 million in debt but a private company leaves you with a transfer budget of thrupence ha'penny (approx.) which cannot be construed as any sort of advantage in the transfer market.

As you were....

PHB

Arsenal are in a debt of 260 million, does that mean they have no transfer budget?

The transfer budget is not related to the debt, you honastly think a self-made billionaire would spend all his money on a club, and then not realise the important of large transfer kitties?

blastman

Oh sorry, I forgot what a keen follower of "sock-er" he was. Obviously I've misjudged his footballing acumen there.

There's a difference between putting yourself in debt through capital investment and putting yourself in debt to pay someone else's bank loans.

PHB

Oh sorry, I forgot what a keen follower of "sock-er" he was. Obviously I've misjudged his footballing acumen there.

Yes, but he understands business, and business requires investment, i.e. transfer budget, so stop being silly.

There's a difference between putting yourself in debt through capital investment and putting yourself in debt to pay someone else's bank loans.

Difference between

Investment Debt
AND
Purchasing Debt

Well first off, both have to be paid.
Arsenal owe money to 6 banks, and because of this they were forced to accept a long term deal with Emirates for both shirt sponsorship and stadium sponsorship, which the fans didn't want.

Man Utd have had to make no such assurances.

The only difference is that Arsenals debt is being paid off through increased revenue from the investment, i.e. the stadium and ticket prices.
Uniteds is based on future profit increases, for example, from the building of 7500 new seats, which was paid for without the need of a loan, due to the large amount of cash United had.

If United are going to fail, its more than likely that Arsenal will too. But nobody expects that, cause both teams have a great manager who have built their success on youth, and will continue to do so, so stop just making things up.

blastman

PHB wrote:

Yes, but he understands business, and business requires investment, i.e. transfer budget, so stop being silly.

Does he? So why can no other analyst that I've read see how his plan, assuming he has one, work given the level of debt he has brought on the club? Why was he forced to go to not one but three separate US hedge funds to borrow high-risk capital with its attendant 18-20% interest rates? Business also requires you to repay your loans.

PHB wrote:

Difference between

Investment Debt
AND
Purchasing Debt

Well first off, both have to be paid.
Arsenal owe money to 6 banks, and because of this they were forced to accept a long term deal with Emirates for both shirt sponsorship and stadium sponsorship, which the fans didn't want.

Like it or not though, Arsenal HAVE that sponsorship. Utd have just lost their shirt sponsorship as Vodafone exercised their get-out clause and ended the deal two years early. So far, no-one has rushed in and snapped up this extremely lucrative (i.e. for Glazer Inc.) business opportunity.

PHB wrote:

Man Utd have had to make no such assurances.

Nor have they ruled it out completely either, despite saying that OT isn't for sale, the dollar is all Glazer cares about.

PHB wrote:

The only difference is that Arsenals debt is being paid off through increased revenue from the investment, i.e. the stadium and ticket prices.
Uniteds is based on future profit increases, for example, from the building of 7500 new seats, which was paid for without the need of a loan, due to the large amount of cash United had.

What cash Utd had is largely irrelevant, as it's long since wiped out, and the amount spent building 7500 extra seats is a small drop compared to the debt they are currently carrying. Arsenal are increasing their capacity by what, 50% at least? That's a lot more revenue than an extra 7500 seats will generate for you.

PHB wrote:

If United are going to fail, its more than likely that Arsenal will too. But nobody expects that, cause both teams have a great manager who have built their success on youth, and will continue to do so, so stop just making things up.

Two enormous leaps of faith there. As it happens, I don't think either team will fail, but I don't see how one failing means the other "more than likely" would as well. The reasons for their debts, and the structure of the repayments are completely different (although I don't claim to have looked into in detail what Arsenal have done, mind you). Utd have spent big on young players, like Rooney and Ronaldo, Arsenal have been miserly by comparison, but have been arguably more successful bringing young players through, like Van Persie and Fabergas. There is no guarantee of success for either, however, so if I'm making things up, it would appear I'm not the only one.

The Muppet

blastman wrote:

Like it or not though, Arsenal HAVE that sponsorship. Utd have just lost their shirt sponsorship as Vodafone exercised their get-out clause and ended the deal two years early. So far, no-one has rushed in and snapped up this extremely lucrative (i.e. for Glazer Inc.) business opportunity.

That's true, however there has been a healthy interested from some of the largest companies in the world (coca cola, sony, google). Whoever becomes the new sponsor is expected to have to pay more than Vodaphone.

TheMonster

ABUs despite there being no proof have decided that the Glazers taking over will mean less transfer funds available. There is no point in arguing with them ABUism is the exact opposite and far strong than "rose-tinted glasses".

blastman

TheMonster wrote:

ABUs despite there being no proof have decided that the Glazers taking over will mean less transfer funds available. There is no point in arguing with them ABUism is the exact opposite and far strong than "rose-tinted glasses".

Just for the record, if you're accusing me of ABUism, you're way off the mark.

The Muppet, there may be "healthy interest" from these companies, but none of them has put their money where their mouth is, allegedly because Utd are looking for astronomical money for the privilege. AFAIK, at least one major company (American Express) has already balked at the asking price.

TheMonster

blastman wrote:

The Muppet, there may be "healthy interest" from these companies, but none of them has put their money where their mouth is, allegedly because Utd are looking for astronomical money for the privilege. AFAIK, at least one major company (American Express) has already balked at the asking price.

Link - And the asking price was how much? If true doesn't show lack of interest.

BTW show proof that there is no transfer money there. Plenty of proof that there is.

Jivin Turkey

blastman wrote:

Why was he forced to go to not one but three separate US hedge funds to borrow high-risk capital with its attendant 18-20% interest rates? Business also requires you to repay your loans.

Links?

You do realise how commercially ridiculous interest rates of 18-20% sound?

PHB

Jesus, you sound like the guys over at the FC United forum.

Does he? So why can no other analyst that I've read see how his plan, assuming he has one, work given the level of debt he has brought on the club?

None? None in the entire world! Nope, none you've read, which is very different.
Thats because the only ones who talk are the people who know they can get a news story out of it. The guy has 3 very intelligent sons and a huge number of financial advisors, and backers.
The backers wouldn't back him if they didn't think it would work.
The financial advisors wouldn't back him because it would give them a bad rep.
The sons wouldn't back him, cause its their money too.
You might say the sons are blinded by loyalty to United or something, which Joel appears to be quite the supporter, but sure thats a good thing too.

Why was he forced to go to not one but three separate US hedge funds to borrow high-risk capital with its attendant 18-20% interest rates? Business also requires you to repay your loans.

18-20%?
Please prodive a link, cause thats just a lie. HYPER-BOLE!

Furthmore, the deal is structured against 3 hedge funds, because there isn't one hedge fund who is willing to give that sorta cash readily, cause, theres always a risk in investment

Like it or not though, Arsenal HAVE that sponsorship. Utd have just lost their shirt sponsorship as Vodafone exercised their get-out clause and ended the deal two years early. So far, no-one has rushed in and snapped up this extremely lucrative (i.e. for Glazer Inc.) business opportunity.

The Muppet, there may be "healthy interest" from these companies, but none of them has put their money where their mouth is, allegedly because Utd are looking for astronomical money for the privilege. AFAIK, at least one major company (American Express) has already balked at the asking price.

There two posts seem to be contradicting themselves.
What has happened is a lot of people have jumped in and offered United what they were getting before, 8 million a year for their shirt deals. Arsenal get 10 million a year for shirt and stadium rights. Chelsea get 10 million a year for shirts alone afaik.
United are looking for 12 million a year for shirts alone. Hence why American express baulked, as you put it, at the figure. I fully expect them to get at least 11 million, cause Glazier is a pretty good business man.


--

Two enormous leaps of faith there. As it happens, I don't think either team will fail, but I don't see how one failing means the other "more than likely" would as well. The reasons for their debts, and the structure of the repayments are completely different (although I don't claim to have looked into in detail what Arsenal have done, mind you).

Nope you havn't. Yet you claim the deals are totally different in structure. Heres my question, do the banks give Arsenal special dispensation to miss a payment or something? The only difference is that Man Utd's is more. The reasons are irrelvent btw, the only thing that matters is payment.

Utd have spent big on young players, like Rooney and Ronaldo, Arsenal have been miserly by comparison, but have been arguably more successful bringing young players through, like Van Persie and Fabergas. There is no guarantee of success for either, however, so if I'm making things up, it would appear I'm not the only one.

United spent big on Rooney. 30 million, lots of money. I doubt many would argue it wasn't worth it.
Ronaldo was only 7 million.

The players you talk about are Van Persie and Fabergas, who I would compare to players like Rossi and Pique, but at a lower level.
Arsenals crop are about 2 years ahead of Uniteds, but the talent is still there, and I'd argue moreso at United.

blastman

Lads, I'm sure you're quite capable of finding the information yourself, it's publicly available. However, for those that accused me of lying, here's at least one mention of the interest rates repayble on the PIK financing (hedge funds):

"Debts and targets: The Glazer finances

· The Manchester United takeover cost Glazer £790m, along with £34m in banking and legal fees.

This was met with:

· £265m of senior debt provided by a syndicate of banks, led by America's JP Morgan.

· £275m in pay-in-kind debt (Piks) provided by three New York hedge funds, Perry Capital, Citadel Horizon and Ochs-Ziff. This attracts interest charges of up to 20% a year.

The Glazer business plan assumes:

· United always make it into the Champions League knockout stage and are in the Premiership's top four.

· Club revenues rise by 52% from £161m to £246m within five years. Glazer expects to meet this by raising matchday turnover by 61%, media rights by 13% and a 76% increase in additional commercial turnover.

· If before July 2007, United fail to achieve 85% of (unspecified) target operating profits, the hedge funds win powers including appointment of a quarter of the directors.

· If the Piks have not been paid off by 2010, the holders could claim 30% of Glazer's shares in the club."

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,1649369,00.html

blastman

PHB wrote:

I fully expect them to get at least 11 million, cause Glazier is a pretty good business man.

Riiiight, that's a pretty solid basis for expecting someone to hand over 11 million.

Oh, and my point about the young players is that no matter how good they are, they do not GUARANTEE success.

The Muppet

blastman wrote:

Riiiight, that's a pretty solid basis for expecting someone to hand over 11 million.

TBH blastman you are trying to make a big deal out of the sponsorship situation when there is nothing for united fans to be worried about in that regard . United will get a better sponsorship deal than the one they had with Vodaphone.

I,m no fan of the Glaziers but for the moment they own the club I support and apart from buying it against the wishes of the fans they have done nothing wrong so far in the running of it AFAIK.

blastman

I'm not trying to make a big deal out of the sponsorship at all, I'm just pointing out that expecting someone to come along and offer a record shirt sponsorship deal to a team that isn't doing particularly well at the moment is optimistic, to say the least.

You're right though that the Glazers have done nothing wrong. But that's because they've done nothing at all, really.

The Muppet

blastman wrote:

I'm not trying to make a big deal out of the sponsorship at all, I'm just pointing out that expecting someone to come along and offer a record shirt sponsorship deal to a team that isn't doing particularly well at the moment is optimistic, to say the least.

From what I have read on the matter I do not think I am being over optimistic but we will just have to wait and see what pans out in the end. There certainly will be a deal done with someone so There is not much point arguing over it until we know the terms.

blastman wrote:

You're right though that the Glazers have done nothing wrong. But that's because they've done nothing at all, really.

I wouldn't think that to be the case either. They have made some changes behind the scenes but considering the concerns of United Fans (me included) before the take over I dont think we have much to complain about so far.

The Rooster

Football clubs who are PLCs do not make public details of who they are thinking of buying. Never have, never will. Leaks happen all the time of course (90% of them are probably false!), the fact that Arsenal transfers rarely leak are nothing to do with them not being a PLC.

ManU disclose no more details of the salaries and inducements paid to all their players than any other club. They only started disclosing agents fees recently because of the accusations that were flying round about Ferguson during his feud with Magnier and McManus.

Good news for United that Vidic's buy-out clause has been leaked - if indeed they are interested. Although is even £4.7m too much seeing as surely they also have to buy a midfielder in January?

My guess is that Glazer will spend big in the summer (at least £20m), but I'd be surprised if January spending isnt capped at around the £5m mark.

blastman

The Muppet wrote:

I wouldn't think that to be the case either. They have made some changes behind the scenes but considering the concerns of United Fans (me included) before the take over I dont think we have much to complain about so far.

Yes, they've fired a couple of dozen backroom staff. Not a sign of someone preparing to spend a lot of money on the club, in my opinion. I would say most concerns are still valid, all they're doing is waiting for the dust to settle.

The Rooster

blastman wrote:

· £265m of senior debt provided by a syndicate of banks, led by America's JP Morgan.

· £275m in pay-in-kind debt (Piks) provided by three New York hedge funds, Perry Capital, Citadel Horizon and Ochs-Ziff. This attracts interest charges of up to 20% a year.

Wow - that'll be £50m a year in interest charges on the Piks and another £10m - £20m interest per annum on the bank loans.

And then the capital repayments on top of that.

PHB

The Guardian hates United.

· The Manchester United takeover cost Glazer £790m, along with £34m in banking and legal fees.

This was met with:

· £265m of senior debt provided by a syndicate of banks, led by America's JP Morgan.

· £275m in pay-in-kind debt (Piks) provided by three New York hedge funds, Perry Capital, Citadel Horizon and Ochs-Ziff. This attracts interest charges of up to 20% a year.

Some of this is true. The key figure is up to 20%. The actual figure is not known, and is guessed. The figure is based on the repayment scheduales and penalties and such. 20% happens if Glazier does not pay off at certain times.

The Glazer business plan assumes:

· United always make it into the Champions League knockout stage and are in the Premiership's top four.

Could somebody show me where exactly they got this info from? Did they talk with Glazier?
No, they guessed.
There is no doubt Man Utd lost money because of not qualifying for the CL, but to suggest it was the basis of their business plan entirly is silly. Also, there is no doubt in mind my whatsoever that we will get 4th place for the next 5 years for one reason alone, my signature - Rooney Rossi Ronaldo
Also our defense has got another 5 years in it too. So even if we have a midfield of Smith and Fletcher and Miller for the next 5 years, we'll still be fine.


Furthermore:
· Club revenues rise by 52% from £161m to £246m within five years. Glazer expects to meet this by raising matchday turnover by 61%, media rights by 13% and a 76% increase in additional commercial turnover.

Matchday turnover: 61%
7500 extra seats
Increase in prices

Will reach this target without a doubt, and is well on his way to doing so.

Media Rights: 13%
Has had some trouble with this, but has made progress in it, and 13% isn't an unrealistic target over 5 years at all.

Commericial Turnover: 76%

This is the big one, the big big big big big big big big one.
This will decide whether or not Glazier succeeds.
It is based upon deeper expansion into Asia and the gold mine for all clubs, the American market. Expect Adu to be bought in the future

The simple fact of the matter is that the only way commerical revenue increases is with increased success, and Glazier knows this. You think he is stupid?
To bring success, money has to be spent. It is the basis of all business

blastman

PHB wrote:

The Guardian hates United.

Whether or not that's true, they would hardly get away with making this up off the top of some sub-editor's head

PHB wrote:

Some of this is true. The key figure is up to 20%. The actual figure is not known, and is guessed. The figure is based on the repayment scheduales and penalties and such. 20% happens if Glazier does not pay off at certain times.

Could somebody show me where exactly they got this info from? Did they talk with Glazier?
No, they guessed.

No, they didn't. The Times must hate United, too.

PHB wrote:

There is no doubt Man Utd lost money because of not qualifying for the CL, but to suggest it was the basis of their business plan entirly is silly. Also, there is no doubt in mind my whatsoever that we will get 4th place for the next 5 years for one reason alone, my signature - Rooney Rossi Ronaldo
Also our defense has got another 5 years in it too. So even if we have a midfield of Smith and Fletcher and Miller for the next 5 years, we'll still be fine.

No-one suggested it was the entire basis of their plan. It's a part of it, though, and it's gone from this year's balance sheet, which can't help.

PHB wrote:

Furthermore:
· Club revenues rise by 52% from £161m to £246m within five years. Glazer expects to meet this by raising matchday turnover by 61%, media rights by 13% and a 76% increase in additional commercial turnover.

Matchday turnover: 61%
7500 extra seats
Increase in prices

Will reach this target without a doubt, and is well on his way to doing so.

Again, there aren't any guarantees. No-one likes constantly increasing prices. It's easier to get tickets for games at OT this year than it has been for a long time.

PHB wrote:

Media Rights: 13%
Has had some trouble with this, but has made progress in it, and 13% isn't an unrealistic target over 5 years at all.

Only if Utd can break away and negotiate their own TV deal. This needs the approval of 13 other premiership clubs. I can't see West Brom agreeing to that any time soon.

PHB wrote:

Commericial Turnover: 76%

This is the big one, the big big big big big big big big one.
This will decide whether or not Glazier succeeds.
It is based upon deeper expansion into Asia and the gold mine for all clubs, the American market. Expect Adu to be bought in the future
]

You've got that right, at least. How many failed attempts have there been to crack the American market now?

PHB wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is that the only way commerical revenue increases is with increased success, and Glazier knows this. You think he is stupid?
To bring success, money has to be spent. It is the basis of all business

It's not just a business though, even though that's all he sees it as. At least Abramovic didn't hock the club to the hilt and beyond, and he does seem to have an interest in football.

PHB

Whether or not that's true, they would hardly get away with making this up off the top of some sub-editor's head

Of course not, but they can put a spin on it, and make extrapolations.

No, they didn't. The Times must hate United, too.

I was talking about the 18-20% interest rate, which they made up/exagerated. The actual figure is unknown as shown above.

Again, there aren't any guarantees. No-one likes constantly increasing prices. It's easier to get tickets for games at OT this year than it has been for a long time.

Yep, just like you can't be sure that Arsenal will pack out a new stadium.
But you can make educated guesses, and I figure these figures will give you an idea of where they made their educated guesses.

02/03 : 67,600
03/04 : 67,700
04/05 : 67,700
So far this year, every premiership game has been attended over 67,000.
I'd say they are going to be ok

It's easier to get tickets this year because of price increases which has pushed some people away, but they have been happily filled up.

Only if Utd can break away and negotiate their own TV deal. This needs the approval of 13 other premiership clubs. I can't see West Brom agreeing to that any time soon.

Just a flat out lie.
You assume the only way to make more money is by breaking away, which is not at all true.
Collective rights are in a dodgy legal situation, and even though they were upheld by the EU court, they are not on the strongest of legal ground, and could be effectivly challenged. West Brom et al don't want this to happen, and a restructured deal will give Utd more money in order to stop them totalling ****ing it up, which would not be good for the premiership as a whole, as United know.

Furthermore, the removal of the Sky monopoly will increase the amount of money that United will recieve, as it will be more based on what is shown, rather than a sum figure.
This 13% is the easiest of all of them to achieve.

You've got that right, at least. How many failed attempts have there been to crack the American market now?

By United? Not many, the focus has been on Asia, America hasn't been really attempted much.
This is the risk of it.

It's not just a business though, even though that's all he sees it as.

Please explain to me how this is different from any other privatly owned club, like say Arsenal or Liverpool? You might say that its cause their owners love their club, well i'd imagine the millionaires also like their money aswell, and aren't going to wildly invest it with no possible return. No, they work just like Glazier does, invest in order to make profits in the future, and to suggest otherwise is silly.

---

At least Abramovic didn't hock the club to the hilt and beyond, and he does seem to have an interest in football.

An interest in enjoying it for 5 years, until he totally messes up the transfer market and wage structures and causes a massive collapse of not only Chelsea as a football club, but the entire current structure of football. People splashing out wildly to get their club to the top is terrible for football.
The best thing for football is for people to be able to do exactly, exactly, what Man Utd did, which is through proper planning and organisation to achieve the success United did without a multi-billionaire philantrophist behind them. But that is a whole other debate.

blastman

PHB wrote:

Of course not, but they can put a spin on it, and make extrapolations.

Of course, as can the Man Utd press office, Glazer's publicist, etc. No-one's flat-out denied the figures, though.

"Competitors have now had some time to do the math on the Glazer deal structure. Attention has focused on pounds 275m borrowed from three hedge funds, most of it at 20pc interest, and some at 14pc. And rightly so. This adds up to an annualised cost of more than £50m and that is before the family seek to pay off their non-hedge fund loans."

-- From the Daily Telegraph, November 22nd, 2005

You really think all these sources are making this up and printing it without attracting litigation from a man who sued his sisters? You really are Bryan Glazer, aren't you? Admit it.

PHB wrote:

I was talking about the 18-20% interest rate, which they made up/exagerated. The actual figure is unknown as shown above.

OK, if sticking your fingers in your ears helps, go ahead.

PHB wrote:

Yep, just like you can't be sure that Arsenal will pack out a new stadium.
But you can make educated guesses, and I figure these figures will give you an idea of where they made their educated guesses.

02/03 : 67,600
03/04 : 67,700
04/05 : 67,700
So far this year, every premiership game has been attended over 67,000.
I'd say they are going to be ok

It's easier to get tickets this year because of price increases which has pushed some people away, but they have been happily filled up.

And you can be sure that the increases planned for the next five years will still have people "happily" replacing those who can't afford pay any more? Can I borrow your crystal ball?

PHB wrote:

Just a flat out lie.
You assume the only way to make more money is by breaking away, which is not at all true.
Collective rights are in a dodgy legal situation, and even though they were upheld by the EU court, they are not on the strongest of legal ground, and could be effectivly challenged. West Brom et al don't want this to happen, and a restructured deal will give Utd more money in order to stop them totalling ****ing it up, which would not be good for the premiership as a whole, as United know.

Furthermore, the removal of the Sky monopoly will increase the amount of money that United will recieve, as it will be more based on what is shown, rather than a sum figure.
This 13% is the easiest of all of them to achieve.

A legal challenge to collective rights deal could take years, that's time the Glazer's bankers aren't giving them.

PHB wrote:

By United? Not many, the focus has been on Asia, America hasn't been really attempted much.
This is the risk of it.

Could it be that America hasn't "been attempted much" because the NASL failed? Because the league established on the back of the 1994 World Cup has failed to pull in any substantial television audience? Because Americans prefer to watch other sports? You're right, this is the risk of it.

PHB wrote:

Please explain to me how this is different from any other privatly owned club, like say Arsenal or Liverpool? You might say that its cause their owners love their club, well i'd imagine the millionaires also like their money aswell, and aren't going to wildly invest it with no possible return. No, they work just like Glazier does, invest in order to make profits in the future, and to suggest otherwise is silly.

Yes, millionaires like their money as well. Glazer just likes his money.

PHB wrote:

An interest in enjoying it for 5 years, until he totally messes up the transfer market and wage structures and causes a massive collapse of not only Chelsea as a football club, but the entire current structure of football. People splashing out wildly to get their club to the top is terrible for football.
The best thing for football is for people to be able to do exactly, exactly, what Man Utd did, which is through proper planning and organisation to achieve the success United did without a multi-billionaire philantrophist behind them. But that is a whole other debate.

I agree, I just don't think people should be too thrilled about someone borrowing an insane amount of money to buy a football club so that you or I can pay back their loan for them, either.

jank

So far this year, every premiership game has been attended over 67,000.
I'd say they are going to be ok

It's easier to get tickets this year because of price increases which has pushed some people away, but they have been happily filled up.

If I remember correctly they only had about 60,000 at the Lille game and something similar at the Benifca game. Also the CL qualifer was half empty or half full as you would say

Soccer in America is a no-no. They just dont like it. To prove my point the
4th biggest sport over there at the mo is UFC after NFL, MLB, NBA. It has over taken the NHL this year but they have their own poblems.

Utd havent tried to crack the US Market???? Whats with all those american tours they do each summer and that NY Yankee deal they did a few years back.

The money is in Asia everybody knows that. Arsenal have a thai and chinese version of their websites.

PHB

Vidic:

So who is this guy?
Has anyone actually seen him play?
He looks set to join Man Utd from the comments coming out of the club:

"The English Premiership is strong and their clubs have lots of money so the English option is better than the Italian," Shavlo told Sovetsky Sport.

"The first round of negotiations hasn't finished yet but negotiations [with United] are constructive.

"It's possible that Vidic's future will be known during this week.

"It's really hard to stop a player that has decided to leave a club.

"The chances of Vidic staying in Spartak are low.

"We will try to finish Vidic's negotiations as soon as possible because we need a decision."

"They say that Manchester will pay €16 million, but I think that Spartak is cunning because they want to make more interest on Vidic," he said.

"I don't think anybody will know if such club like United decides to buy a player for such money.

"Vidic is really happy in Russia but he wants to grow and would like to play in Italy.

"But if Manchester's interest is real he will go there of course.

"He would obviously play in the first team squad of Manchester United if they will buy him for €16 million."

I heard they were asking 16 million, but United were only willing to pay 12, I'd say we'll get him for 13 million euros at the end of it.

But he must be a pretty impressive defender if we are willing to pay that much for him. Shocking that we are not buying a midfielder though I wonder is he a left back, or is he a center back?
I'm hoping he is a left back, and Fergie intends to push Heinze into the center when he gets back.

I really hope this means that United are still planning on buying a midfielder, and this is just giving us another world class CB to partner Ferdinand, although I don't think we need it.

Vokes

PHB wrote:

Has anyone actually seen him play?

He's mainly a centre back but I have seen him, on Eurosport, play at right back a couple of times for Serbia, who he nearly 4 years of international experience with.

dcarroll

PHB wrote:

Vidic:

another world class CB

Who is the first world class one?

PHB

Ferdinand