Manchester United Superthread 2014 mod warning #8081

dahat

Actually fed up of the transfer window already even if it isn't actually even open.
Hard to figure out the genuine links as there is so many.

Vic Vinegar

Robson99 wrote: »

What is his best position??

I think he's best as an AM but can also play LM/RM very well.

TheDoc

Pro. F wrote: »

Your post was not ambiguous and you have since posted a lot of words trying to argue how the Glazer take over was good for the club. Despite protesting that you have no opinion on the takeover you clearly do.

Seriously like, your just trying to drag me into your narrative of being a pro Glazer supporter for some strange reason for which I don't know why.

My only opinion on this matter is that I never bought into the anti-glazer protests.

I've discussed some facts, that you seem to feel arn't merited, or even real?

• Massive increase in revenue generation
• Sustained success
• Our most successful period in modern history
• Increased debt, that is perfectly manageable
• Absolutely no realisation of the doomsday prophets.

That doesn't equate to me being a supporter or fan. I don't know why you are painting me the target here. Even earlier you tried to spin that I said the success was because of the Glazers.

You can draw any conclusions you want from it, I'm not, nor have I even indicated as such.

The only conclusion I can take from it, is that the proclamation that the club would be financially in tatters because of the takeover, was a total crock of ****.

kippy

dahat wrote: »

Actually fed up of the transfer window already even if it isn't actually even open.
Hard to figure out the genuine links as there is so many.

Same crap, different year.

Mitch Connor

TheDoc wrote: »

Seriously like, your just trying to drag me into your narrative of being a pro Glazer supporter for some strange reason for which I don't know why.

My only opinion on this matter is that I never bought into the anti-glazer protests.

I've discussed some facts, that you seem to feel arn't merited, or even real?


[*]Our most successful period in modern history


That doesn't equate to me being a supporter or

Really?

Compare the 9 years before and after the takeover and repeat that assertion.

Pro. F

TheDoc wrote: »

Seriously like, your just trying to drag me into your narrative of being a pro Glazer supporter for some strange reason for which I don't know why.

My only opinion on this matter is that I never bought into the anti-glazer protests.

I've discussed some facts, that you seem to feel arn't merited, or even real?

• Massive increase in revenue generation
• Sustained success
• Our most successful period in modern history
• Increased debt, that is perfectly manageable
• Absolutely no realisation of the doomsday prophets.

That doesn't equate to me being a supporter or fan. I don't know why you are painting me the target here. Even earlier you tried to spin that I said the success was because of the Glazers.

You can draw any conclusions you want from it, I'm not, nor have I even indicated as such.

The only conclusion I can take from it, is that the proclamation that the club would be financially in tatters because of the takeover, was a total crock of ****.

You started off with this:
"Helped forge the club into a behomoth of international recognition and still provided the manager resources.
The payoff from the clever risks and expansion will be reaped for decades. "

And since then you have argued as to why the risk caused by the debts on the club is not a problem, or was worth having. Nobody is painting you as doing anything other than what you are doing, which is defending the Glazer takeover as a good thing for the club.

v3ttel

Bombleswizzum wrote: »

I think he's best as an AM but can also play LM/RM very well.

By AM, do you mean #10? Or, CM that is effective going forward?

RichFTW

TheDoc wrote: »

Most clubs carry financial debt. This debt is organised in a vary of ways and methods of replayments.

Yes they do but the difference is that the debt is from investing in players or improving facilities, not paying for a takeover of the club itself.

TheDoc wrote: »

Banks and creditors mostly recognise a football club as an organisation that will be around for the longterm, and can service it's debt. Some clubs even gain extensions or increased levels of loans in order to expand or invest, which a bank will happily sign off. It will hopefully increase the clubs income, enable them to service their debt, and continue repayments.

Not true. Clubs go into administration all the time and lots of clubs make substantial losses. Extensions (restructuring of debt) are granted when a club continuously makes losses and can't afford the repayment schedule originally agreed.

TheDoc wrote: »

Remember banks and creditors make their money from the interest paid on loans, so they are more then happy to extend out a loan to large organisation, therefore increasing their return from the interest.

Creditors make their money from the goods/service they sell. More interest is good for the bank, bad for United as they have to pay more interest. Of course they are going to be happy to extend it!

TheDoc wrote: »

The repayments are structured in a way that it services the banks requirement while also providing cashflow to the club in order to run the day ot day, but also make those investments.

Yes it is structured so that everything is fine once things go according to the budget forecasted. If revenues had not increased like the Glaziers predicted or we lost CL football, no investments would have been made. The Glaziers got lucky that SAF was the greatest manager of all time.

TheDoc wrote: »

Our club for example made 331m in 2011, while out debt was reportedly 500m or so. Yet we were able to continue making signings, and then go onto install a multi-million euro upgrade to Carrington.

331m is revenue, not profit. The club didn't make 331m in 2011.

TheDoc wrote: »

There is a fixed repayment to the banks for our loans, for any loan. The club can opt to make a bulk payment to clear the debt total down, but the repayments continues as fixed. The purpose of which is to ensure the club can operate.

Generally banks don't let you make bulk payments as they make more money off you by having the debt build up more interest.

TheDoc wrote: »

So no, it's not as simply as "cash buys players". Plenty of clubs are able to invest and improve their squads, while managing a serviceable debt.

Yes it is. Cash refers to the cashflow situation, not the literal interpretation of the word cash. All the revenue growth in the world won't help if you are making a loss as you eat into your cash reserves. This was in relation to your question "Why the focus on profit? Revenue is what matters". Revenue most certainly does not buy players.

Again no other club had debts of £790m from a takeover. £790m of a debt from buying players & upgrading facilities and United would have had an unbeatable dream team and a gold plated Carrington!

TheDoc wrote: »

Your insinuating a situation where the club is consistently outspending it's income. Your talking about a Leeds or a Portsmouth, who completely outjumped their revenue streams with injections of short term investment, and when the risk didn't pay off, and they didn't open up those streams from success, they started hemoragging money and went into administration.

No I'm not. Never even mentioned those clubs. By "outspending it's income", I presume you mean make a loss. Leeds and Portsmouth overspent and started making losses that they couldn't cover (Mr. cashflow issue again). The banks said hold on, you are making losses and we want our money back so the club was forced into administration.

If Leeds had made it into the CL consistently and not got relegated, the banks would have left them off. If United had missed out on CL qualification after the take over and missed revenue targets, the bank would have done the same thing and forced United into administration. This was the risk that the club was put under by the Glaziers, i.e. if the club didn't meet targets, we were screwed.

TheDoc wrote: »

Having debt, and your operational expenditure are two ENTIRELY different things. You can more then happily manage a large debt, continue to invest, aslong as you have the revenue streams to cope. Which in this case, us, we do.

What are you talking about. Your post made less sense the more I went down but I see you saved the best for last!

A large debt (relatively speaking) is fine when it is invested into the business and so is working for the business, e.g. players. A £790m debt from a takeover adds nothing to the club and only puts it under pressure to meet targets. Yes United coped as revenue increased but it also spent £700 on a debt that was the direct result of a takeover.

Another CEO could have achieved a similar revenue increase, we could have £700m to spend on players and wouldn't have a massive debt. In summary!, the Glazier takeover was not good for the club.

This reply got way out of hand but I was pot committed half way down and you had so much more points left to discuss.

Vic Vinegar

v3ttel wrote: »

By AM, do you mean #10? Or, CM that is effective going forward?

No.10, but could do a very good job as a forward thinking CM imo.

TheDoc

RichFTW wrote: »

This reply got way out of hand but I was pot committed half way down and you had so much more points left to discuss.

Totally fine to be honest. I'm not steadfast in my ways and am totally open to change. I've taken in some good points from the various posts by yourself and Prof and others, I'm open to having my opinion or view challenged.

And I'm not for a second pretending to know the exact workings or specifics, or some know it all knowledge of how this was structured.

I just remember the doomsday prophecies that very much didn't come to pass, and I guess with the death of what was the main figure in that takeover, it made me question a) why was there so much negativity and b) where are the negative impacts that were supposed to cause the club to implode.

And at this point I very much accept the debt is a bad thing, I don't think I ever said it was good( I just appreciate its easily serviced) and I accept that, and somewhat realign my views, that the way the takeover was taken, I fully appreicate why there was uproar, and that it was a substantial risk.

I guess just because it goes on, pretty much all the time in the corporate world, doesn't make it perfectly fine.
I think Mitch made a fairly good point( might have been someone else) about what would have happened if Fergie left earlier.

Granted there is no immediate signs we are in trouble now after Moyes, for all intensive purposes we could bounce back and win the league next year ( im not high), but I do appreciate that if maybe Fergie left earlier, and we hit a consistent stretch of poor performance on the pitch, things might have been so different.

v3ttel

Bombleswizzum wrote: »

No.10, but could do a very good job as a forward thinking CM imo.

I think he's actually most effective as a forward thinking CM. He has more discipline than a traditional #10, but also with all the attacking qualities of one. I guess he's not too dissimilar to Luka Modric in that respect. Such an incredibly talented and versatile player overall. CM, #10, RM, LM.... I would expect him to take over the roles of either Xavi or Iniesta in the Spanish national team over the next few years.

kryogen

I prefer Koke in the centre of midfield

Whatsisname

Sky Sports Football ‏@SkyFootball 42s
@LukeShaw3 is a doubt for @england's friendly against Peru on Friday, according to manager Roy Hodgson. http://bit.ly/1mvMDB1

A doubt you say...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

EDIT: He's just followed Rio, Jones and Rooney on Twitter.

He's on his ****ing way lads, get the party hats out!!

Vic Vinegar

v3ttel wrote: »

I think he's actually most effective as a forward thinking CM. He has more discipline than a traditional #10, but also with all the attacking qualities of one. I guess he's not too dissimilar to Luka Modric in that respect. Such an incredibly talented and versatile player overall. CM, #10, RM, LM.... I would expect him to take over the roles of either Xavi or Iniesta in the Spanish national team over the next few years.

Shame we won't we buying him. Can't see us spending €60 million on any one player! Would be class though.

bucketybuck

dahat wrote: »

Hard to figure out the genuine links as there is so many.

Actually, its incredibly easy to do. Just stop listening to Twitter users.

Kerrydude1981

dahat wrote: »

Actually fed up of the transfer window already even if it isn't actually even open.
Hard to figure out the genuine links as there is so many.

Wait till the World Cup starts,any player that plays well straight away linked with a move to Utd or the PL

Whatsisname

The team whom shall not be named are close to agreeing a deal for Lambert apparently yet we wait weeks to hear nothing on Shaw.

Lord TSC

Whatsisname wrote: »

The team whom shall not be named are close to agreeing a deal for Lambert apparently yet we wait weeks to hear nothing on Shaw.

Can't imagine they will think there is much potential for Lamberts stock to rise at the WC though.

Wait and month and Shaw could fetch them another 5m

bucketybuck

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Can't imagine they will think there is much potential for Lamberts stock to rise at the WC though.

Wait and month and Shaw could fetch them another 5m

Are we such **** negotiators that a club like Southampton can happily just string us along for a few months like that?

Lord TSC

bucketybuck wrote: »

Are we such **** negotiators that a club like Southampton can happily just string us along for a few months like that?

They have all the cards tbf...

bucketybuck

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

They have all the cards tbf...

Hence the term "negotiation".

There is always leverage, and even if we are desperate for a full back we are a rich and powerful club with many options. So what exactly is the hold up?

Schwiiing

bucketybuck wrote: »

Hence the term "negotiation".

There is always leverage, and even if we are desperate for a full back we are a rich and powerful club with many options. So what exactly is the hold up?

We need a quality left back and need to comply with 'home grown' regs. Southampton know this and also know that a decent world cup showing could bring more big clubs sniffing around and a possible bidding war. They're entitled to get the best price for Shaw if they want to sell.

Lord TSC

Honestly, I think the deal is pretty much done; the majority of reports are saying it's a formality.

But the reality is also I can see why Southampton would want to delay it; the WC will boost his price, and the team shouldn't be dismantled when there is no manager. Southampton should be delaying as much as possible. And if a club are steadfast, there is nothing we could do to speed them along (short of overpaying which, after last summer, we will want to avoid...)

And yeah, that's ignoring the problems on our end as Schwiiing said...

Whatsisname

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Honestly, I think the deal is pretty much done; the majority of reports are saying it's a formality.

But the reality is also I can see why Southampton would want to delay it; the WC will boost his price, and the team shouldn't be dismantled when there is no manager. Southampton should be delaying as much as possible. And if a club are steadfast, there is nothing we could do to speed them along (short of overpaying which, after last summer, we will want to avoid...)

And yeah, that's ignoring the problems on our end as Schwiiing said...

If his price is gonna increase if we don't sign him before the WC (which I think it will) would it not be more logical to over spend now and get it done? Would give Southampton alot more time to start rebuilding and get a replacement (unless they're gonna promote Chambers to a regular starter) cause their squad is surely gonna be dismantled over the summer.

bucketybuck

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Honestly, I think the deal is pretty much done; the majority of reports are saying it's a formality.

But the reality is also I can see why Southampton would want to delay it; the WC will boost his price, and the team shouldn't be dismantled when there is no manager. Southampton should be delaying as much as possible. And if a club are steadfast, there is nothing we could do to speed them along (short of overpaying which, after last summer, we will want to avoid...)

And yeah, that's ignoring the problems on our end as Schwiiing said...

If they are able to delay the deal for as long as they want and then hope to change the price then I'm sorry, but thats very far from a deal being pretty much done.

It always comes back to the same thing. If we are interested in Shaw then this is the type of deal that should have been signed and sealed months ago. We have needed a left back for years and since last season he has been the most promising young candidate around, if we were interested then why the hell have we waited until now? Again, just how **** at negotiation are we?

Lord TSC

Southampton have us over a barrel, like it or not.

Trying to compare it to Pool buying a 32 year old striker to act as cover to possibly the best striker in the league right now is foolish though. It's apples and oranges.

Whatsisname

Two ways of looking at that though, who else are willing to offer nearly 30m for an 18 year old LB?

A liverpool supporting friend said it to me a few minutes ago, the reported 9m for Lambert, a 32 year old, you'd take without a doubt. But 27m for an 18 year old, you'd surely bite the hand off?

bucketybuck

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Southampton have us over a barrel, like it or not.

I certainly hope Woodward doesn't approach clubs with that mentality.

United have many options, I would be interested to know if he is using any of them.

DM_7

Shaw is hardly going to play at the World Cup so I doubt they expect a big increase in his value

Quandary

We should have closed the Shaw deal by now. If paying an extra 2m or 3m gets it over the line before the WC we should be doing it. This Summer is so crucial to the clubs future that we can't afford to faff about or quibble over relatively small change.

Our inability to get deals done efficiently and quickly has been a big problem over the last few years. Now is not the time to make the same mistakes again.

We are less than two weeks before the first game of the WC and we really dont look like getting anything done before then. I know people will say that other premiership clubs have been just as quiet, but IMO no other club competing for top 4 is as badly in need of reinforcements as we are.

The transfer window hasn't officially opened so it's not exactly panic stations yet, but like some other posters here have said, I have very little confidence in whoever is handling our transfer business. Last Summer was an embarrassment, it made a club of our stature look amateurish and it simply cannot be allowed to happen again.