Time to apogize to Malcolm Glazer

[ShiftyPowers]

For real bro, the money has been there. How much money is tied up in Berbatov and Nani/Young?

 

[Pogba4Now]

For real bro, the money has been there.

http://www.soccergaming.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173626

How much money is tied up in Berbatov and Nani/Young?

Part of that money came from Ronaldo.

 

[Jaboldinho]

Still, that's not the reason you failed this season.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

http://www.soccergaming.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173626

Are you ****ting me? You're 8th in the world! Your revenue is less than Real and Barca, Bayern spends far less on transfers, so can afford higher wages, City and Chelsea are underwritten by a sugar daddy, and Inter and Milan are as well. I don't get what you're trying to say, that you should be spending more than you make? That kind of seems like what you want.

 

[Pogba4Now]

Still, that's not the reason you failed this season.

When did I say that? I was replying to what he said "the money has been there". The money has been there for transfers but the reason why we can't go for big name players is because we can't afford the wages on the long term. The main reason why the Sneijder deal could never materialize was his wages. Just an example.

Are you ****ting me? You're 8th in the world! Your revenue is less than Real and Barca,

11th not 8th. I don't see why Barca's or Real's revenue would be more than United. United is still the most supported team in the world and Old Trafford tickets are always sold out. We were also in the UCL final in 3 of the last 4 years which must have brought a ****load of revenue. Not to mention the titles won. I couldn't be arsed to find statistics but I'm pretty sure the revenue of these 3 teams are similar.

Bayern spends far less on transfers, so can afford higher wages,

Hah you've got your statistics wrong. Sorry buddy. Bayern spent a net transfer of £95.1 millions in the past 5 years compared to about 50 millions spent by United.

City and Chelsea are underwritten by a sugar daddy, and Inter and Milan are as well.

Fair enough

I don't get what you're trying to say, that you should be spending more than you make?

As I mentioned above, we might have the money to spend on transfers (which is just roughly 10 millions a season by the way) but we have to settle for less established players because of wage issues. These are the consequences of the Glazer takeover.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

11th not 8th.

If we're including the Lakers, Yankees, and Phillies, then sure.

I don't see why Barca's or Real's revenue would be more than United. United is still the most supported team in the world and Old Trafford tickets are always sold out. We were also in the UCL final in 3 of the last 4 years which must have brought a ****load of revenue. Not to mention the titles won. I couldn't be arsed to find statistics but I'm pretty sure the revenue of these 3 teams are similar.

Because they negotiate their own TV deals. They are. It isn't close either. And keep deceiving yourself that you're the most supported club in the world. It's a lie. Real and Barca are far better supported.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46311882/Top_Soccer_Teams_in_Europe_by_Revenue

Hah you've got your statistics wrong. Sorry buddy. Bayern spent a net transfer of £95.1 millions in the past 5 years compared to about 50 millions spent by United.

I get what you're trying to say, but net transfer isn't a great measure of how much has been invested in refreshing the squad when you sell a single player for 85 million pounds. But fine, you should be spending more in wages than Bayern perhaps, of course your team is mostly young players who haven't made it as global superstars while Bayern has a much more aging 25 which explains higher wages. I'd gladly swap van Buyten for Smalling, but DvB likely makes double or triple what Smalling does.

As I mentioned above, we might have the money to spend on transfers (which is just roughly 10 millions a season by the way) but we have to settle for less established players because of wage issues. These are the consequences of the Glazer takeover.

I don't think that's true. The difference in wages between a Rooney and a Ashley Young is like 4m a year. Considering the gap in talent, that isn't much. I'd say if anything your problem is paying guys like Young and Jones more than they're worth. Another symptom of this fetishization of English players over superior players from abroad. Who would you rather have, Chicharito or Berbatov? By every metic, you'd rather have Chicharito, obviously, and guys like that are available, but you decide to spend exorbitantly on a redundant player from Tottenham.

 

[Help?]

I don't get what you're trying to say, that you should be spending more than you make? That kind of seems like what you want.

But see, the problem is we don't make a lot because we pay the Glazers family about $60 mil a year for just gracing us with their presence during games and about the same if not more in interest payments.

Without Glazers, that money would be part of our earnings and available to us for tranfers...

 

[Pogba4Now]

If we're including the Lakers, Yankees, and Phillies, then sure.

Didn't realize Lakers, Yankees and Phillies were there. My bad.

Because they negotiate their own TV deals. They are. It isn't close either. And keep deceiving yourself that you're the most supported club in the world. It's a lie. Real and Barca are far better supported.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46311882/Top_Soccer_Teams_in_Europe_by_Revenue

Ok fair enough. I am quite surprised. I think probably one of the reasons we are seeing Real and Barca emerging as top revenue earners is because they have Ronaldo and Messi. United have over the years lost stars like Beckham and Ronaldo who played a very important part in marketing of the club.

That being said, United are still the richest club in the world, in part due to pass success and revenue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes'_list_of_the_most_valuable_football_clubs

I get what you're trying to say, but net transfer isn't a great measure of how much has been invested in refreshing the squad when you sell a single player for 85 million pounds.

Well, if the money was really easily available, we would have a worldclass midfielder by now. Ferguson isn't that stupid is he? He knows that the midfield is bad. Just take Liverpool as an example. They sold Torres for 50 millions and immediately bought Carroll and Suarez. And what did we do when Ronaldo left? Bought Valencia for 16 millions only in the hope that we can make profit out of the sale.

You mention that Young's salary is high which I agree with. The money spent on him could've spent otherwise but at that time, there were not many options except Sneijder who has very high wages. We were linked with Nasri too but again, it was hard to attract him when C*ty was offering twice the money he was getting at Arsenal.

 

[yoyo913]

Wah my team doesn't spend the most on players, wah we don't win every competition every year and reached only 2nd place. Wah my team is only 8th richest in the world. Wah we only bought players for 50 million, I want 100 million.

 

[rony31]

http://newsmanc.co.uk/2012/05/08/sp...players-in-order-to-help-them-win-the-league/

 

[rony31]

In conclusion, Arabs > Americans.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Ok fair enough. I am quite surprised. I think probably one of the reasons we are seeing Real and Barca emerging as top revenue earners is because they have Ronaldo and Messi. United have over the years lost stars like Beckham and Ronaldo who played a very important part in marketing of the club.

I think that has something to do with it, but it's more about success.

That being said, United are still the richest club in the world, in part due to pass success and revenue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes'_list_of_the_most_valuable_football_clubs

You are not the richest, you are the "most valuable". As in, what would the club cost for someone to buy.

Well, if the money was really easily available, we would have a worldclass midfielder by now. Ferguson isn't that stupid is he? He knows that the midfield is bad.

I mean... I go on transfermarkt and I see 50m Pounds spend on Jones, Young, and De Gea last year, all arguably superfluous. I also see Paul Pogba, hailed as one of the most talented midfielders to ever come out of United, getting so frustrated by his lack of playing time that he's going to move to Italy. So I don't know what to think as a neutral

Just take Liverpool as an example. They sold Torres for 50 millions and immediately bought Carroll and Suarez. And what did we do when Ronaldo left? Bought Valencia for 16 millions only in the hope that we can make profit out of the sale.

Okay... but your way was better.

You mention that Young's salary is high which I agree with. The money spent on him could've spent otherwise but at that time, there were not many options except Sneijder who has very high wages.

Nuri Sahin. Or is he not a big enough star for you?

We were linked with Nasri too but again, it was hard to attract him when C*ty was offering twice the money he was getting at Arsenal.

That would have been even worse. And the fact that you're willing to go for Nasri kind of blows holes in your theory that you won't pay stars wages.

 

[CarlosDanger]

This thread hasn't been bumped in a while.

 

[Sir Didier Drogba]

I wonder if there will be a "Time to apologize to David Moyes" thread?

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Manchester United won yet another Premier League title under the savvy guidance and steady hand of Malcolm Glazer.

 

[Sir Didier Drogba]

A better yank than Hicks and Gillet, anyway.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Better than Kroenke too.

 

[Pogba4Now]

I wonder if there will be a "Time to apologize to David Moyes" thread?

I hope there will.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Me too. It will prove that Glazer made yet another brilliant decision.

 

[Pogba4Now]

It will also mean that United will keep winning.