Manchester United Teamtalk/Transfer/Gossip 23/24 - [New Thread Available]

MrMusician18

dave_o_brien wrote: »

I've read all of what you've said with interest, but on the above specifically...

How are they not clubs?

A club has a specific type of ownership and control structure, generally member owned electing a board at an AGM. Of the 12 involved in the ESL only Barca and Real are close to what could be considered clubs. If MUFC was still an actual club we most likely wouldn't be having this conversation today.

Almost all professional football clubs in England are in fact incorporated limited companies, private or public. Most started out as member owned clubs and then later incorporated.

PhlegmyMoses

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Why, why do football businesses deserve protection from leveraged buyouts more than anyone else? Why should someone be limited in their freedom to sell their asset?

How would you like it if when you were trying to sell your house that you were not allowed to sell to anyone that was taking out a mortgage?

Just reading this. Holy ****

PhlegmyMoses

fullstop wrote: »

It’s a completely relevant metric. How would it not be?

Because a club doing financially well and winning things should not be selling their top players to fund more purchases. Doubly so if your revenue is good. It is also subject to crazy variance based off unusual, non reliable income streams. When United sold Ronaldo their net spend was incredible for years. But functionally, United shouldn't be selling a player like Ronaldo regularly.

A better metric is transfer fees to revenue or turnover when looking at the top clubs. And when we look at that, the Wayne Rooney transfer was a much bigger ratio in that regard than even the Paul Pogba one in 2016. United spend under the Glazers relative to what they earn is absolutely appalling. Add in the fact that you're competing with Oil clubs that funnel money in and its almost cute that fans still talk about net spend at all tbh. Its like they don't know what game is being played at the top anymore.

howiya

Is there a reason why there isnt an organised attempt to buy up shares in United by supporters or supporters clubs?

A share in United costs roughly 13 pounds.

Put pressure on from within if enough supporters were acting together

Hotblack Desiato

Because of the way the shares are structured, Glazers hold all the cards in relation to voting shares

dave_o_brien

MrMusician18 wrote: »

A club has a specific type of ownership and control structure, generally member owned electing a board at an AGM. Of the 12 involved in the ESL only Barca and Real are close to what could be considered clubs. If MUFC was still an actual club we most likely wouldn't be having this conversation today.

Almost all professional football clubs in England are in fact incorporated limited companies, private or public. Most started out as member owned clubs and then later incorporated.

That's as clear as you likr, thanks. Elsewhere you said:

"If the endgame here is a more egalitarian ownership structure for English football, well then the easiest way for that to be achieved is for consumers to abandon the businesses selling it now."

I think this is the endgame and while I think you're right about it being the most efficient way of achieving it, I disagree with it being easy. Most fans are fans because they've invested emotionally in the team. Abandoning something one cares about is not easy.

billyhead

Folks. Apart from the Saudis who could realistically and potentially buy the club for 4 billion?

jacool

billyhead wrote: »

Folks. Apart from the Saudis who could realistically and potentially buy the club for 4 billion?

I just checked Forbes and the 200th richest person in the world has $11b.
Loads of contenders there.

billyhead

jacool wrote: »

I just checked Forbes and the 200th richest person in the world has $11b.
Loads of contenders there.

True but who would want to buy us i.e have an interest apart from the Saudis?

Loafing Oaf

Any word on when the match is going to be played?

pjohnson

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Any word on when the match is going to be played?

Wouldnt hold my breath.

Tight enough schedule as it is. And with Euros this summer I doubt it'll be allowed to be scheduled for after the designated final round of fixtures.

paulbok

MD1990 wrote: »

I agree with most pf what you say.
But Man Utd have spent much more than Chelsea in net spend

Nett spend!!!

Thats because one of Chelseas main income sources is buying cheap young talent, loaning them for a year or 2 then selling for a tidy profit. Those sales then also count againt nett spend

DM_7

paulbok wrote: »

Nett spend!!!

Thats because one of Chelseas main income sources is buying cheap young talent, loaning them for a year or 2 then selling for a tidy profit. Those sales then also count againt nett spend

I wonder how a table of money out to owners and debt payments compared to money put in by owners would look?

Even FSG at Liverpool loaned the club money to improve the stadium. They will take the money back at some point but at least the money went into investing in club structures and not just throwing money at new players or managers without throught and direction.

Loafing Oaf

pjohnson wrote: »

Wouldnt hold my breath.

Tight enough schedule as it is. And with Euros this summer I doubt it'll be allowed to be scheduled for after the designated final round of fixtures.

So award Liverpool a walkover?

billyhead

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So award Liverpool a walkover?

Can they not play it the FA cup weekend?

Drumpot

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Regulatory environments almost always exist to protect health welfare environment and the common good. I cannot for the life of me see how billion pound entertainment companies fit into that.

While I agree that companies can't be above the law, there is no reason why companies can't be a personal plaything. If I own a company, I run it as I see fit. No one else should have the right to tell me how, and certainly not the mob.

If the endgame here is a more egalitarian ownership structure for English football, well then the easiest way for that to be achieved is for consumers to abandon the businesses selling it now.

Not having a go at you as I believe many share these sentiments but I dislike that self absorbed, quite insular attitude that quite often goes hand in hand with a dogmatically pro capitalist mantra. We’ve replaced kings (the feudal system) with rich people who can do what they want and pretend it’s not really the same. Maybe one day , we will live in a society that looks back mournfully at these times as a very shallow period where humans allowed themselves to become mindless consumerist pigs , who revere money above all else and retain no meaningful values. But I digress

We are where we are. Football sold its soul for money, the sport is rotten from the top down, there’s no disputing that. But why is that accepted as the norm but a few fans trying to challenge it by running onto a pitch is seen as sacrilegious? There is a chronic double standard of society, where the rules of engagement are only acceptable when it’s money and power influencing in the background . Legitimately Corrupt owners using clubs for whatever they want, but fans fighting back are “the problem”. Money is power, how do you expect fans to fight back when the fight is rigged agaisnt them? Most people accept now that the rich will PR the crap out of this to make the fans look as bad as possible, all’s fair in love and war once it looks ok on the surface.

Why would you have an issue with fans who actually care about the club/sport and defend people who are only interested in what they can take from it? It might be just entertainment to you but it’s not just that to a lot of people. The sport allowing itself to be billionaires play things is a different element of the topic. There is this very misguided argument that pops up a lot in discussions, as if people should accept hostile threats because it’s been legitimised.

I’m going to caveat this by saying I’m not sure an awful lot is going to change. I’m just enjoying watching the status quo cartel (owners, uefa , sky etc) squirming in their troughs. Does anybody really think these institutions being unsettled is a bad thing?

Cookiemunster

billyhead wrote: »

Can they not play it the FA cup weekend?

Liverpool are already playing that weekend. There is no free date. We'll have to play 4 times in a week to get the fixture in.

Drumpot

billyhead wrote: »

Can they not play it the FA cup weekend?

Pool have a game that weekend. I was surprised they didn’t try and play it tonight. They’ve done that before with games postponed.

Lucas Hood

pjohnson wrote: »

Wouldnt hold my breath.

Tight enough schedule as it is. And with Euros this summer I doubt it'll be allowed to be scheduled for after the designated final round of fixtures.

Can't see sky letting a fixture that pulls in so many viewers not played.
Unless they're compensated.

billyhead

billyhead wrote: »

True but who would want to buy us i.e have an interest apart from the Saudis?

Jacqueline Mars, there ya go Billy, she even posts in here from time to time.

Drumpot

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Can't see sky letting a fixture that pulls in so many viewers not played.
Unless they're compensated.

Also surely it has to be before the final day of season. Imagine pool playing to finish in top 4 spot, would be unfair advantage to them.

paulbok

DM_7 wrote: »

I wonder how a table of money out to owners and debt payments compared to money put in by owners would look?

Even FSG at Liverpool loaned the club money to improve the stadium. They will take the money back at some point but at least the money went into investing in club structures and not just throwing money at new players or managers without throught and direction.

You would wonder why the Glazers are running the business so badly? Yes, they are raking in the cash, and that I suppose is all they care about, for now.
But letting their biggest assest, the stadium fall apart - it will have to be addressed sooner rather than later, madness.

By letting their CEO spend huge sums on players without and structure to it, resulting in little success for years, is eventually going to erode the fanbase and more importantly big sponsors, can you imagine the likes of a niche company like Teamviewer getting on the shirt of Barca or Madrid, or indeed United during the Fergie years? Madness

By not clearing the debt over 15 years, it's now increasing again after finally reducing. That in turn would have freed up more cash for transfers/ dividends / kitchens, whatever. Madness

If the club/business was ran properly, we would have had some additional success in the last few years , not Fergie levels, those days are gone,
continued to grow the fan base and attracting the biggest sponsors,
have a stadium fit for a club that's supposed to be the biggest in the world,
And have little or no debt thus increasing the value of the club/business.
All without having spent any more than they already have, perhaps even less would have been needed.

If they hadn't Fergie pulling rabbits out of a hat for years and Woodward (for all his faults) bringing in record income streams, God knows where the club would be know.

abff

Drumpot wrote: »

I was surprised they didn’t try and play it tonight. They’ve done that before with games postponed.

I’m also surprised. Looking at the fixture list for the rest of this season, I don’t see any viable alternative, apart from tomorrow night. I know that would be only 48 hours before the Europa League SF second leg, but with a 6-2 lead it might be possible with some squad rotation.

kowloonkev

Drumpot wrote: »

Also surely it has to be before the final day of season. Imagine pool playing to finish in top 4 spot, would be unfair advantage to them.

We played a game after the last day just a few seasons ago. It could happen. Any chance they could play it on the quiet today? Or at very short notice to give no time for the troops to mobilize.

I wonder if the lack of a rescheduled date so far is a sign that the FA are still mulling over what to do about yesterday.

In the last 2 weeks alone, we said that we're starting a rogue super league, then our fans got a league game postponed.

I agree with the protests, but I'm also wondering what we actually have to do to get punished by the FA.

abff

kowloonkev wrote: »

We played a game after the last day just a few seasons ago. It could happen. Any chance they could play it on the quiet today? Or at very short notice to give no time for the troops to mobilize.

Actually, as it’s a bank holiday, no reason not to have an afternoon kick off. And this would avoid a clash with tonight’s other televised matches.

Lucas Hood

kowloonkev wrote: »

We played a game after the last day just a few seasons ago. It could happen. Any chance they could play it on the quiet today? Or at very short notice to give no time for the troops to mobilize.

Liverpool went home yesterday evening. Not happening today.
Sky also have 2 other games being shown today so that's probably a reason why it can't be played today. United playing Thursday again. Even if they weren't playing Thursday they would have probably had to show it at 6pm before on Tuesday or Wednesday with the Champions league semi finals on.

Drumpot

abff wrote: »

I’m also surprised. Looking at the fixture list for the rest of this season, I don’t see any viable alternative, apart from tomorrow night. I know that would be only 48 hours before the Europa League SF second leg, but with a 6-2 lead it might be possible with some squad rotation.

kowloonkev wrote: »

We played a game after the last day just a few seasons ago. It could happen. Any chance they could play it on the quiet today? Or at very short notice to give no time for the troops to mobilize.

Yeh , I wonder if we might get a flash game , with authorities discussing right now how they can squeeze it in today. Even at 10pm?

Wasn’t some la Liga game played really late once? Maybe I’m not right on that but I’m surprised they aren’t beavering away in background to get the game going ASAP.

davemckenna25

Play it the bank FA cup weekend and moves liverpools fixture from that weekend to a different mid week as they don't have European midweek matches.

abff

If Liverpool weren’t in such a precarious position in terms of CL qualification, I think the points would be awarded to them because of what happened yesterday. But that would be unfair to the other teams fighting for a top 4 finish and might even be open to a legal challenge by one or more of those teams.

abff

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Liverpool went home yesterday evening. Not happening today.

I don’t think the fact that Liverpool went home yesterday will factor into any decision about whether or not it would be feasible to play the match today. Liverpool is not exactly on the other side of the planet from Manchester.

Loafing Oaf

Drumpot wrote: »

Yeh , I wonder if we might get a flash game , with authorities discussing right now how they can squeeze it in today. Even at 10pm?

Surely some word would have leaked out if that was a live possibility?

Damien360

abff wrote: »

If Liverpool weren’t in such a precarious position in terms of CL qualification, I think the points would be awarded to them because of what happened yesterday. But that would be unfair to the other teams fighting for a top 4 finish and might even be open to a legal challenge by one or more of those teams.

That’s a very fair point. It needs to be scheduled at some point but if it’s too close to a European game for Utd, they won’t have a leg to stand on when complaining of fixture congestion. As for consequences, I can’t see anything other than a fine. Considering Utd’s wealth, that is not worth worrying about at all.

Drumpot

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Surely some word would have leaked out if that was a live possibility?

Yeh, I actually thought if that after posting, you are prob right and somebody said pool players have gone back to Liverpool.

I was thinking moreso because it’s been such a weird 16 months where football has had to adapt to the virus , that maybe the authorities would be more comfortable making calls outside the norm.

Loafing Oaf

abff wrote: »

Liverpool is not exactly on the other side of the planet from Manchester.

Travel between the two pretty simple matter since 1830:P

titan18

billyhead wrote: »

Folks. Apart from the Saudis who could realistically and potentially buy the club for 4 billion?

Radcliffe (Ineos guy)
Saudis
Consortium of people (likely Americans with maybe someone like Beckham involved I'd guess for marketing reasons)
Some rich Chinese or Indian guy or group

py2006

Has there been any indication as to when the game will be played? I don't see it anywhere

fullstop

davemckenna25 wrote: »

Play it the bank FA cup weekend and moves liverpools fixture from that weekend to a different mid week as they don't have European midweek matches.

Why should they have to inconvenience themselves moving other fixtures around? It was a failing by security at Man Utd that had the game called off, nothing to do with Liverpool.

S.M.B.

Is there precedent of moving another fixture at short notice? If Chelsea and Leicester had to move their games because of the FA Cup final then I wonder can the same be asked of the Liverpool and West Brom game? I really don't see too many other options beyond playing it tonight or after the final day of the season.

davemckenna25

fullstop wrote: »

Why should they have to inconvenience themselves moving other fixtures around? It was a failing by security at Man Utd that had the game called off, nothing to do with Liverpool.

Because its the only way to fit in the match.
Or do you have a reasonable other way of fitting it in?

Also it falls under a failing by the local police force, not Man Utd security.

secman

fullstop wrote: »

Why should they have to inconvenience themselves moving other fixtures around? It was a failing by security at Man Utd that had the game called off, nothing to do with Liverpool.

Police authorities, The Council, PL had 2 weeks notice of the protest. The council and the Police are well accustomed to policing 75,000 fans on normal match day, dont think there were 1,000 people there yesterday. Do you seriously think the match couldnt have gone ahead if they wanted it to. The decision to call it off involved the parties alluded to above and both clubs.
Who exactly is at fault ?
All Pool/ United kick off times are called by Police Authorities , they have final say.

fullstop

davemckenna25 wrote: »

Because its the only way to fit in the match.
Or do you have a reasonable other way of fitting it in?

Also it falls under a failing by the local police force, not Man Utd security.

There’s a good chance they can’t fit the match in, which would likely mean points awarded to Liverpool. Of course it was a failure by the club. How were a couple of hundred ‘fans’ able to break into the stadium and get a game called off and no blame be placed on the club? Surely it’s up to them to request the relevant policing (like happens here, and the event organiser covers the cost of overtime)?
If you start moving Liverpool fixtures around to accommodate this, what’s to stop other fans doing similar to try to stymie rival clubs by getting games called off to make fixture congestion worse at the end of the season?

martingriff

kowloonkev wrote: »

We played a game after the last day just a few seasons ago. It could happen. Any chance they could play it on the quiet today? Or at very short notice to give no time for the troops to mobilize.

I was just thinking the same. Would not be surprised if I hear tonight at 6 or so it was played. Would be difficult to ferry the players to old trafford without anyone noticing unless its played elsewhere. With no fans capacity is not a problem

davemckenna25

fullstop wrote: »

There’s a good chance they can’t fit the match in, which would likely mean points awarded to Liverpool. Of course it was a failure by the club. How were a couple of hundred ‘fans’ able to break into the stadium and get a game called off and no blame be placed on the club? Surely it’s up to them to request the relevant policing (like happens here, and the event organiser covers the cost of overtime)?
If you start moving Liverpool fixtures around to accommodate this, what’s to stop other fans doing similar to try to stymie rival clubs by getting games called off to make fixture congestion worse at the end of the season?

The game will be played, of course it will.
Plus they can fit the match in, I just explained how!
Games are moved around to accommodate other games all the time, fa cup semi finals, etc.
Do you think the police didn't know about the protest, up to them to decide the level of policing required for it, not Man Utd.
I don't know how the fans broke in or if the gates were opened to stop the people at the front of the pile being crushed....so I can't comment on it.

Drumpot

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12293614/man-utd-vs-liverpool-when-can-the-rearranged-game-be-played

Looking at dates above and presuming it’s not happening this week , you are looking at either one club playing 2 games over 2 days or both playing 2 games over 2 days. These are ones that stick out for me

Monday 10th - United play 2 days in a row - Villa, then pool, a strong possibility , could be a nice opening game for the main event of Fulham v Burnley on Monday night football.

Friday 14th United play 2 days after Leicester game , Liverpool have West Brom game 2 days after.

Friday 21st, both teams play games weds, Friday and Sunday that week.

Agreement to move Liverpool v West Brom is the most practical solution for everybody. West Brom may not agree to this with their survival hopes all but gone.

Good luck to the EPL trying to get this sorted

pjohnson

Drumpot wrote: »

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12293614/man-utd-vs-liverpool-when-can-the-rearranged-game-be-played

Looking at dates above and presuming it’s not happening this week , you are looking at either one club playing 2 games over 2 days or both playing 2 games over 2 days. These are ones that stick out for me

Monday 10th - United play 2 days in a row - Villa, then pool, a strong possibility , could be a nice opening game for the main event of Fulham v Burnley on Monday night football.

Friday 14th United play 2 days after Leicester game , Liverpool have West Brom game 2 days after.

Friday 21st, both teams play games weds, Friday and Sunday that week.

Agreement to move Liverpool v West Brom is the most practical solution for everybody. West Brom may not agree to this with their survival hopes all but gone.

Good luck to the EPL trying to get this sorted

And this all assumes that any planned OT game can actually get played this season.

The Big Easy

MD1990 wrote: »

I agree with most pf what you say.
But Man Utd have spent much more than Chelsea in net spend

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Why are you talking about net spend? Its an archaic way to look at football finances. No club at the top is reliant on sales to buy. In fact if a club with revenues like United and Liverpool are reliant on it, then that even makes my point more for me.

fullstop wrote: »

It’s a completely relevant metric. How would it not be?

Net spend tells you something, it doesn't tell you everything however. It's now bandied about as if it's the only thing that matters, it's not.

The biggest clubs spend the most money - gross expenditure on transfers and wages is the biggest indicator of a club's willingness to spend. How that money is generated is secondary. Net spend is subject to anomalies over shorter time periods such as selling one player for a huge amount.

Bigger clubs tend not to sell their best players when they are at their maximum values for obvious enough reasons and lots of times have to sell players below market value because of higher wages.

As Drumpot was saying earlier it's a completely different story for the Glazers with and post-Fergie. They underspent because they could with Fergie as boss.

From 05-13 United were 9th highest spenders in Europe and just the fifth highest spenders in England. Fifth highest spender but unquestionably the best team - that was purely down to Ferguson.

Since his retirement more and more has been spent, but not enough, to try and compete. From 13-21 United are the 5th highest spenders in Europe and 3rd highest in England.

It can be argued that enough money has been spend in this period to be competitive. The fact that the cub hasn't been is down to mismanagement at all levels of the club and this down to the owners. They are ultimately responsible for all the management structures within the club.

The neglect of the stadium is pretty criminal in my view. As for the poster trying to wind up fans by saying it's no different to the WWE or whatever nonsense they were spouting :rolleyes:

It's been made abundantly clear the past couple of weeks just how important it is to the people in these communities and hopefully this is the start of it being more formally recognised as such and some long-needed safeguards can be put in place.

Someone mentioned listed status for these clubs and that is something that could be done imo. These are culturally significant institutions that have to be protected from naked barefaced greed.

The Big Easy

paulbok wrote: »

You would wonder why the Glazers are running the business so badly? Yes, they are raking in the cash, and that I suppose is all they care about, for now.
But letting their biggest assest, the stadium fall apart - it will have to be addressed sooner rather than later, madness.

By letting their CEO spend huge sums on players without and structure to it, resulting in little success for years, is eventually going to erode the fanbase and more importantly big sponsors, can you imagine the likes of a niche company like Teamviewer getting on the shirt of Barca or Madrid, or indeed United during the Fergie years? Madness

By not clearing the debt over 15 years, it's now increasing again after finally reducing. That in turn would have freed up more cash for transfers/ dividends / kitchens, whatever. Madness

If the club/business was ran properly, we would have had some additional success in the last few years , not Fergie levels, those days are gone,
continued to grow the fan base and attracting the biggest sponsors,
have a stadium fit for a club that's supposed to be the biggest in the world,
And have little or no debt thus increasing the value of the club/business.
All without having spent any more than they already have, perhaps even less would have been needed.

If they hadn't Fergie pulling rabbits out of a hat for years and Woodward (for all his faults) bringing in record income streams, God knows where the club would be know.

I think the club could've genuinely went under (administration) if it wasn't for Ferguson.

FatherTed

Drumpot wrote: »

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12293614/man-utd-vs-liverpool-when-can-the-rearranged-game-be-played

Looking at dates above and presuming it’s not happening this week , you are looking at either one club playing 2 games over 2 days or both playing 2 games over 2 days. These are ones that stick out for me

Monday 10th - United play 2 days in a row - Villa, then pool, a strong possibility , could be a nice opening game for the main event of Fulham v Burnley on Monday night football.

Friday 14th United play 2 days after Leicester game , Liverpool have West Brom game 2 days after.

Friday 21st, both teams play games weds, Friday and Sunday that week.

Agreement to move Liverpool v West Brom is the most practical solution for everybody. West Brom may not agree to this with their survival hopes all but gone.

Good luck to the EPL trying to get this sorted

https://twitter.com/theutdjournal/status/1389174978940006402?s=20

billyhead

FatherTed wrote: »

https://twitter.com/theutdjournal/status/1389174978940006402?s=20

Seems the most logical date.