Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread - Mod Note in OP, 25/08

The Moldy Gowl

The Pontiac wrote: »

Are you serious?

Yes.

Are you seriously disagreeing?

twam2008

MagicMarker wrote: »

That works both ways, people being "underwhelmed" are as bad as those at the other end of the spectrum.

With the exception that we're admitting not knowing about him. Hope the lad steps up to the challenge.

The Pontiac

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Yes.

Are you seriously disagreeing?

Yes.

redbaron_99

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Which is also money we never would of had. But that's just oppurtunity cost of that money.

But the loan was created by the bank, the bank had that money in deposits, so that money gets transferred to United/whoever.

What happens to that money? Someone owned that money right?
Yes. But the bank knows someone isn't going to come in and withdraw all their money. People withdraw 20 quid every few days, we can agree on that right?

And the bank knows for sure, all their depositors aren't going to come in one day and withdraw all their money. Banks only hold a % of their deposits. The rest is tied up in loans and investments.


So yes, the money never really existed in physical terms.

The bank could have said no but that money would still have gone from the bank to a johnny or Mary buying their car.

The only risk is if United did a Leeds and went broke.


I understand the perception people have of the loan but it's wrong.

Debt can be easily managed when you make **** loads of money and banks want to do business with you.

Hundreds of millions was taken out if the club to pay for their debt. It was invisible money until we had to start payin real earnings to pay it off.

The Moldy Gowl

The Pontiac wrote: »

Yes.

Why?

He was one of the best defenders until about 3/4 years ago.

redbaron_99

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Yes. There is a cost.

But would that money be there if it wasn't for the glazers?

I think there is another poster in here who understands economics or finance so he might clear it up better than I have.

I haven't studied loan creation in a few years so I'm probably not being as clear as I can.

But in my opinion, it was a sound business move and has proved to be, even withstanding the recession. That's how sound it was.

You need to go back and learn a good bit more.

onemorechance

Blatter wrote: »

I saw a post a few days ago from a Sporting Lisbon fan on Red Cafe where he gave a detailed analysis of Rojo. The gyst of it was that he is often a standout defender (in a good way) but is liable to do stupid things.

Just like Rafael! Will be fun if nothing else to have those two playing out wide! :pac:

Headshot

redbaron_99 wrote: »

Hundreds of millions was taken out if the club to pay for their debt. It was invisible money until we had to start payin real earnings to pay it off.

If I remember right, they have cost the club a billion since they took over

redbaron_99

Headshot wrote: »

If I remember right, they have cost the club a billion since they took over

I think it's a billion US dollars.

This guy gives a vague explanation of fractional reserve banking and puts it across as justifying their gamble and heaping debt onto the club.
And also attributing our success in recent years to the glazers.

The mind boggles at times

The Pontiac

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Why?

He was one of the best defenders until about 3/4 years ago.

I wouldn't say he was ever the best in the world.

He's no Maldini or Nesta. SKY Sports might have liked us to believe he was though.

Zico

Giving Rojo the No.5 suggests there won't another more experienced defender signed in this window.

The thought of Jonny Evans leading the defence isn't exactly filling me with confidence.

I hope Rojo is bloody amazing.

redbaron_99

Rvp fit for Sunderland.

Adamocovic

Zico wrote: »

Giving Rojo the No.5 suggests there won't another more experienced defender signed in this window.

The thought of Jonny Evans leading the defence isn't exactly filling me with confidence.

I hope Rojo is bloody amazing.

To be fair to Jonny he seems very vocal when he plays and other players have said he's good and keeping the players on top of their tasks.

I reckon if he has an injury free season he could finally step up to the plate as a leader of the team.

The Moldy Gowl

redbaron_99 wrote: »

I think it's a billion US dollars.

This guy gives a vague explanation of fractional reserve banking and puts it across as justifying their gamble and heaping debt onto the club.
And also attributing our success in recent years to the glazers.

The mind boggles at times

Well my original point was that it wasn't a gamble.


If I went and bought Madrid would that be a gamble? No.

I could still bring in players and future income if I had the right team of staff. Which United do/did

RobbingBandit

redbaron_99 wrote: »

Rvp fit for Sunderland.

We're back baby.

brinty

Zico wrote: »

Giving Rojo the No.5 suggests there won't another more experienced defender signed in this window.

The thought of Jonny Evans leading the defence isn't exactly filling me with confidence.

I hope Rojo is bloody amazing.

It was Daley Blind's number at the World Cup
Guess he's not coming now
Damn it to hell...
Or maybe he just got the first available number????

kryogen

The Pontiac wrote: »

Are you serious?

As serious as a heart attack one would wager

The Moldy Gowl

The Pontiac wrote: »

I wouldn't say he was ever the best in the world.

He's no Maldini or Nesta. SKY Sports might have liked us to believe he was though.

Yeah I was thinking that as well. There was a handful of players in the 00's who would appear better and rightfully so but on his day Ferdinand could be top of then every so often

Pro. F

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

No.

I asked a question?

Are you gonna answer it?


I don't think we would be where we are now if not for the glazers.

Realistically, it wasn't such a huge risk as some think. United were one of the most successful clubs in the world.
They weren't going to go bust.

I do understand the hate but it's because people don't understand the business behind it or the finance.

They didn't skimp on anything, everything has been expanded and improved.
If you want to blame then for transfers, then you are wrong.

There might not have been as much of a risk as people initially feared, but there was still a significant risk.

Even with the best manager in the history of the game (an old man, who could have retired or fallen ill at any moment) churning out an incredible return on investment for money paid into the football side of the operation - football success being the only asset on which all of the marketability rests - they still had to resort to selling 10% of the club to cover their finances.

redbaron_99

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Well my original point was that it wasn't a gamble.


If I went and bought Madrid would that be a gamble? No.

I could still bring in players and future income if I had the right team of staff. Which United do/did

It doesn't matter. You could but Madrid with borrowed money and keep the wheels on the track.
But another guy could buy them with his own money and the club would not have to pay back on any borrowings. Get it?

Sebastian Dangerfield

Headshot wrote: »

If I remember right, they have cost the club a billion since they took over

But at what actual cost to the club? Its not like the club had a billion quid stuck in a bank account somewhere that the Glazers have come in and pilfered. Debt has been repaid through earnings that they, and the commercial team they put together and whose salaries they pay, have generated.

Money has been made available to every manager who has asked for it - despite the horror stories that fans and journos like to spin at times like this. They still own the ground, and have not renamed it. The club is doing commercially better than it ever did, despite a downturn in performance on the pitch. Record breaking contracts have been given to players when they have needed to be. Training facilities have never been better.

Did they take a chance based on their view of the commercial ability of the Manchester United brand? Of course. Was the club in jeopardy if they were wrong? Most likely. Have they proven to be right? Without a doubt - the club will soon be debt free with all of its major assets still in place.

The concepts of debt in a business or of owners taking profits are not new, but when it comes to football people seem to think a different set of rules apply. They don't.

kryogen

The Pontiac wrote: »

I wouldn't say he was ever the best in the world.

He's no Maldini or Nesta. SKY Sports might have liked us to believe he was though.

And isn't it great that you are entitled to your opinion as much as the next guy?

Adamocovic

Rojo quoted saying:
"I have worked really hard for this opportunity. Now I am at the biggest club in the world and I want to win trophies."

That's what I want to hear!

redbaron_99

RobbingBandit wrote: »

We're back baby.

We are sooooo back!

homerjay2005

The Pontiac wrote: »

Are you serious?

named in the world team of the year in 2008 despite England not even making the Euros that year.

Rio was a smashing player, its amazing how quickly people forget players like Rio once they leave. in my opinion, he is the best defender of our generation for the club and that surely makes him up there with one of our best ever defenders.

he was an incredible player for us.

RobbingBandit

Will Rojo make his debut on Sunday?

pablo128

redbaron_99 wrote: »

I think it's a billion US dollars.

This guy gives a vague explanation of fractional reserve banking and puts it across as justifying their gamble and heaping debt onto the club.
And also attributing our success in recent years to the glazers.

The mind boggles at times

I could get a mortgage for a house, using a deposit I borrowed from a credit union, and rent the house out for 15 years until it's fully paid for. The house will be worth more then too. I could do it without spending a penny of my own money.
The Glazers it appears, have done exactly that with Man Utd.

homerjay2005

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Will Rojo make his debut on Sunday?

yep, he surely will as long as he is in good shape. he will be left back i would imagine.

The Moldy Gowl

Pro. F wrote: »

There might not have been as much of a risk as people initially feared, but there was still a significant risk.

Even with the best manager in the history of the game (an old man, who could have retired or fallen ill at any moment) churning out an incredible return on investment for money paid into the football side of the operation - football success being the only asset on which all of the marketability rests - they still had to resort to selling 10% of the club to cover their finances.

I suppose hindsight is great in these cases.

Anything could have happened, you're right.

But I would like to trust the guys who did the deal. I don't have a reason not to.

That was their job

Rayne Wooney

When you factor in Nani's wages, about 4.8 million a year, it looks like the total outlay for Rojo will be over £20 million, I didn't think he was great at the World Cup but that's only a few games and I'll give him a fair go, if LVG has bought him he must have something about him

I think Vidal wants to move and United want to buy him, I wouldn't pay much attention to what Juve say as I think they are waiting for Vidal to say he wants to leave so they don't look like the bad guys in this. Although if he is back fit now and we don't move for him this week I don't think it will happen

The Moldy Gowl

redbaron_99 wrote: »

It doesn't matter. You could but Madrid with borrowed money and keep the wheels on the track.
But another guy could buy them with his own money and the club would not have to pay back on any borrowings. Get it?

He would look for money back on his investment???

Similar to interest?

Pro. F

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Which is also money we never would of had. But that's just oppurtunity cost of that money.

But the loan was created by the bank, the bank had that money in deposits, so that money gets transferred to United/whoever.

What happens to that money? Someone owned that money right?
Yes. But the bank knows someone isn't going to come in and withdraw all their money. People withdraw 20 quid every few days, we can agree on that right?

And the bank knows for sure, all their depositors aren't going to come in one day and withdraw all their money. Banks only hold a % of their deposits. The rest is tied up in loans and investments.


So yes, the money never really existed in physical terms.

The bank could have said no but that money would still have gone from the bank to a johnny or Mary buying their car.

The only risk is if United did a Leeds and went broke.


I understand the perception people have of the loan but it's wrong.

Debt can be easily managed when you make **** loads of money and banks want to do business with you.

Big and successful businesses go bust all the time because of failed bets leverage against their assets by financiers who take on little to no personal risk in the venture.

MagicMarker

Has Rojo had any kind of pre-season?

RayCun

Sarai Brief Thriller wrote: »

On the Glazers - I find it difficult to see a difference in the pattern of spending before and after they arrived. There's been plenty of money spent since they took over, unfortunately a huge amount of it has been completely misdirected.

net spend in the years before they took over

04/05 21m (including Rooney)
03/04 13m
02/03 27m
01/02 29m
00/01 -8m
99/00 16m

average 16m a year

In the years after they took over

05/06 1m
06/07 4m
07/08 26m
08/09 33m
09/10 -64m
10/11 13m
11/12 38m

average just over 7m a year

and then consider inflation, and look at what the competition was spending in the same period...

redbaron_99

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

He would look for money back on his investment???

Similar to interest?

he may see the club as an asset, one that isn't risked by investing in bonds. Why do you think wealthy people buy art...?
Or he could draw down money from earnings, but certainly not to the extent that Glazers have with united.

It's been a golden goose for them from day one.

You're very naive if you think they've been good for the club.

RobbingBandit

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

When you factor in Nani's wages, about 4.8 million a year, it looks like the total outlay for Rojo will be over £20 million, I didn't think he was great at the World Cup but that's only a few games and I'll give him a fair go, if LVG has bought him he must have something about him

I think Vidal wants to move and United want to buy him, I wouldn't pay much attention to what Juve say as I think they are waiting for Vidal to say he wants to leave so they don't look like the bad guys in this. Although if he is back fit now and we don't move for him this week I don't think it will happen

If Nani gets match fit and sparks up an interest again the money is well spent versus him being a fringe player sitting on the bench and still getting the same payment.

redbaron_99

RayCun wrote: »

net spend in the years before they took over

04/05 21m (including Rooney)
03/04 13m
02/03 27m
01/02 29m
00/01 -8m
99/00 16m

average 16m a year

In the years after they took over

05/06 1m
06/07 4m
07/08 26m
08/09 33m
09/10 -64m
10/11 13m
11/12 38m

average just over 7m a year

and then consider inflation, and look at what the competition was spending in the same period...

Thanks for posting this. It's a very clear indicator that disproves this insane theory that they've backed the club more than the previous owners, or any possible owner that might have taken us on.

homerjay2005

redbaron_99 wrote: »

Rvp fit for Sunderland.

if we put out the same team as last week, i dont think we will win. with RVP in and Rojo at LB, it improves us. go a flat back 4 with adnan and young on wings and id fancy us to win.

the sad thing now is that Fletcher or Cleverly will probably start in midfield..

The Moldy Gowl

redbaron_99 wrote: »

he may see the club as an asset, one that isn't risked by investing in bonds. Why do you think wealthy people buy art...?
Or he could draw down money from earnings, but certainly not to the extent that Glazers have with united.

It's been a golden goose for them from day one.

You're very naive if you think they've been good for the club.

Ffs comparing art to spending hundreds of millions of euro buying a football club.

Yes, the glazers want money. I'm not going to begrudge them with the success we have had over the years. They are entitled to it.

Who knows, we might have had the same if not more without them. Hard to tell and we can only look at what we have now and going by it they have done a fantastic job.

Obviously if it was the other way around, I wouldn't feel the same way about them.

thelad95

This isn't a big issue but what's with the large font on the jerseys? It means that Ander Herrera and now Marcos Rojo name's kind of arch awkwardly to fit in all the letters and it looks pretty amateurish to be honest.

MagicMarker

thelad95 wrote: »

.... kind of arch awkwardly to fit in all the letters and it looks pretty amateurish to be honest.

Jesus, the club just can't do anything right can they?

redbaron_99

homerjay2005 wrote: »

if we put out the same team as last week, i dont think we will win. with RVP in and Rojo at LB, it improves us. go a flat back 4 with adnan and young on wings and id fancy us to win.

the sad thing now is that Fletcher or Cleverly will probably start in midfield..

De Gea

Rafeal--Jones--Smalling--Evans--Rojo

Herrera--Fletcher

Mata
Rooney--Rvp

That team should beat Sunderland every time. Still lacking in midfield though.

RayCun

you could argue that the Glazers improved the commercial side of the club, and they are the reason why the club is making so much money from sponsorship now. But the reason they put energy into the commercial side is that they needed to take money out of the club to repay the money they borrowed to buy it. And that money they took out caused higher ticket prices, and was money that wasn't available for transfers.
the club has come through it, but at the cost of several years of losing ground on the opposition. And if the club hadn't come through it - if Ferguson had retired, or Ronaldo broken his leg at 18 and never played again, or other things had gone wrong - the Glazers would have been able to sell up and get their money back while United could have done a Leeds.

The Moldy Gowl

RayCun wrote: »

net spend in the years before they took over

04/05 21m (including Rooney)
03/04 13m
02/03 27m
01/02 29m
00/01 -8m
99/00 16m

average 16m a year

In the years after they took over

05/06 1m
06/07 4m
07/08 26m
08/09 33m
09/10 -64m
10/11 13m
11/12 38m

average just over 7m a year

and then consider inflation, and look at what the competition was spending in the same period...

Throw up a gross spend there.


I could paint a picture saying since the glazers have come in we have been getting more money for selling our players. Aren't they great.

But you went for the opposite.

Put up a gross spend and stop twisting stats to suit yourself.

Pro. F

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

I suppose hindsight is great in these cases.

Anything could have happened, you're right.

But I would like to trust the guys who did the deal. I don't have a reason not to.

That was their job

No, their job was to make money for themselves, not to ensure the financial security of this particular football club.

redbaron_99

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Ffs comparing art to spending hundreds of millions of euro buying a football club.

Yes, the glazers want money. I'm not going to begrudge them with the success we have had over the years. They are entitled to it.

Who knows, we might have had the same if not more without them. Hard to tell and we can only look at what we have now and going by it they have done a fantastic job.

Obviously if it was the other way around, I wouldn't feel the same way about them.

Works of art can cost hundreds of millions.
Explain this success they have had, please. Just do me that one small favour.

They way I see it, they borrowed heavily to buy a solid, successful football club. Heaped debt onto that club. The hard work of many at the club, and the genius that is Sir Alex achieved the success. They sat back and sucked the blood from the club. Our success was stunted because of them. We were the top club in Europe a few years ago, and we were spending like Newcastle.

The Moldy Gowl

Pro. F wrote: »

No, there job was to make money for themselves, not to ensure financial security for this particular football club.

Ya. I agree with that. They did it for money, of course.

But also made us successful.


They did both.

I'm not a big fan of oil money being poured in, but the glazers worked hard, rather than throwing money

Rayne Wooney

Why couldn't they just put Rojo on the jersey? He's hardly going to be mixed up with another one at the club

Pro. F

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Ffs comparing art to spending hundreds of millions of euro buying a football club.

Yes, the glazers want money. I'm not going to begrudge them with the success we have had over the years. They are entitled to it.

Who knows, we might have had the same if not more without them. Hard to tell and we can only look at what we have now and going by it they have done a fantastic job.

Obviously if it was the other way around, I wouldn't feel the same way about them.

Judging risk retrospectively based on results does not work.

KH25

So...any rumours at all on any other signings?