Manchester United Superthread 2014 mod warning #8081

homerjay2005 wrote: »

you are forgetting that this money would have been projected for next season, including added rises in PL and broadcasting revenue.

remember, finishing in the top 3 and 1/4 final of all 3 cups is minimum expectations for our financial goals - we failed to hit them this year and will certainly fail to hit them next year seen as we have no CL football.

we should be close to the £420million projection for 2014 (or at least within £20million) but next year we'd have been expecting to hit way more than this and probably will miss it by £50million and this as i said is where the problem will arise. our profits certainly are going to be down and this then in turn will effect our ability to sign players.

as we always said on here, the Glazer ownership was never a problem until we had a disaster season and now this time has arrived.

I'm not forgettign anything here - it simply wasn't part of the discussion.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'm not forgettign anything here - it simply wasn't part of the discussion.

lets park this discussion then until next seasons finances come out and i think you are missing the point i am trying to make.

Woodward (according to the BBC) claimed the loss in revenue was only going to be £30million but the overall effect on our finances is going to be almost double that along with our profits being hit which is what ogdan is saying

anyway, as i said this will all become clear in 12 months time though of course i am sure the club will have plans for extra friendlies and will look to seal some new deals that werent planned, to make up the revenue gap.

I think the only player we would be able to get from Munich is Shaqiri and I would love to see him at ot.

Lets see how he does in Brasil, maybe then we will go for hi when he cost 10mil more.

brinty wrote: »

Go home you're drunk....

You seem extremly confident on this. Whats your source and how much are you willing to wager on it that we'll sign him.

That man has sources spread out around the globe don't you know?

homerjay2005 wrote: »

lets park this discussion then until next seasons finances come out and i think you are missing the point i am trying to make.

Woodward (according to the BBC) claimed the loss in revenue was only going to be £30million but the overall effect on our finances is going to be almost double that along with our profits being hit which is what ogdan is saying

anyway, as i said this will all become clear in 12 months time though of course i am sure the club will have plans for extra friendlies and will look to seal some new deals that werent planned, to make up the revenue gap.

This is your original comment:

"Mark Ogdan claiming the total cost of the Moyes reign is actually £50.4million and not the partly sum that Woodward tried to depict yesterday on the WS call."

So lets break down the point I was originally discussing, and you claim I was missing (forgetting stuff, seemingly).

Woodward said lost CL income next season would be in the mid 30million range. Ogden said it would be 35million. They agree, Ogden isn't showing Woodward up.

Woodward said that the payoff to moyes was single digit millions. Ogden said it was 7 point something million. They agree, Ogden isn't showing Woodward up.

Woodward commented on the drop in PL prize money. Ogden put it at 8.5million in lost revenue by comparison to targets. They agree, Ogden isn't showing Woodward up.

So, what we paltry sum are you talking about when talking about Woodward in the original comment? The payoff on its own (as I assumed) - the loss of CL revenue or the drop in PL prize money?

All Ogden has done is add the three together, which were all discussed by Woodward in the call. If you weren't talking about the payoff when discussing the paltry figure Woodward seemingly tried to pass off (7million vs 50million) then I really have no clue what you were getting at as the 50million figure comes from what Woodward said on the call. If you were talking about the payoff, then I was correct when saying you were comparing one slice of the pie vs the entire pie, and trying to make out like Woodward was hiding something.

As for talking about projections etc....

We came close enough to targets (finance wise) this season. Semi of the League cup (over achieved target), poor in the FA Cup (under achieved), 7th in the league (3 places off target - 8million seemingly) and quater final of the CL (on target). So financials this year aren't massively off. The projections are what was discussed on the call, the 35million in lost CL revenue next season would have been projected in the accounts, and the earnings targets will need to be adjusted accordingly. I don't know where you are getting you idea that the losses could be double what has been discussed.

MagicMarker wrote: »

I think I'll trust the opinion of the people who hired Woodward to do his job over a few blokes on an internet forum, thanks all the same.

So we should have kept Moyes on indefinitely then? the same people hired him...

homerjay2005 wrote: »

nobody has ever doubted this and i dont know why this keeps coming up.

what people do doubt however is his ability to take over from David Gill, a football man and run manchester united, the football club and not the commercial side of things which he is obviously very good at.

in an ideal world, Woodward would remain at the club as head of revenue but we would have had lined up somebody else to replace Gill.

i am sure every one of us on here has some for of expertise in something, that doesnt mean to say we could take over a new job tomorrow and automatically be excellent in that role.

i know people need time and all this, but unfortunately mistakes are being made that are costly to the club. its the same set up as Giggs - excellent player for us and integral to the club, but perhaps his time as manager will come in the future and not just now, as much and all as it would be good for the sentiment of the club.

anyway, Woodward i am sure is learning and with Van Gaal on board, he will learn even quicker.

one thing to add - its also very strange to see Woodward fans see him as the sole reason the club is milking money - he isnt. we have one of the biggest fan bases in world sport and have up to £100million a year now coming up before the team even kicks a ball due to TV rights. add in a stadium full of 75,000 fans every week. we have added alot of commerical revenue over the last few years but the clubs global stature makes that fairly easy to achieve and revenue/turnover of every top club has rocketed in the last 5 years. in fact, one could argue that we are actually falling behind the other big 3 in terms of growth.

City will turn over more than £300million this year for f8ck sake and they are a much smaller club than ours.

Someone hired to take care of footballing contracts and contacts would be a good situation - a director of football of sorts, but really with just responsbility of executing the transfer wishes of the manager.

Oh, and on City turning over 300million - not a fair comparison, given that a large dose of that is considered illegal by Uefa! If they were turning over on market value rather than what they pay themselves through their sister corporations they wouldn't be earning near 300million, not even close.

Tieing up how Moyes got hired and how Woodward got hired is laughably incorrect.

From the "facts", as in the only confirmation you can get on who was involved in what.

Moyes hiring - Glazers, Charlton, Ferguson
Woodward - Glazers, Board, independant recruitment assessor

The way in which the two were hired couldn't be more different. Moyes it would appear came as a recommendation, and didn't even have to do an interview.

Woodward, while having a good reputation already, had to interview and outline his thoughts and plans on how to advance the clubs finances etc. His selection is subject to ratification by the board.

He wasn't "refered" or wasn't in on a recommendation, and any firm reporting available online indicates he was one of a few candidates.

There is more to a Chief Exec role then transfers and contracts. I appreciate we only concern or care with that end of it, but his role and remit goes far beyond that. And let's not forget he isn't a one man army, he has a team that works with him. He can't be evyerhwere at once.

The intepretation of the third party involvement for the Mata deal is also grossly misunderstood in my view. It would be the case that after the player was identified as wanted by the manager, Woodward and his staff would have created a brief to which was paseed onto the third aprty mediator, including the obvious like the contract etc, but also the remit to which they could negotiate and bend. The job I work in now, was all done through a third party, and I only met my employes the day I started the job. It's not uncommon practice, and it's not a case of the employer not being involved.

They pass a brief and remit to the third party who proceed with the dealings for them. There is credit here in regards to Woodward providing a brief that he was confident enough would land the player, feeling he didn't need to get involved himself.

Don't forget this is a bloke who has a history and experience with working numbers and is doing EXCELLENT work in landing corporate deals and spronsorship. It could well be the case that he is struggling to deal with the crazy world of player negotiations and transfers, and if so that's no major damnation on him. It's not his only criteria for which he was signed.

If this summer shows another set of examples where he is struggling to deal with player negotiations, I wouldn't be suprised to see a "sporting Director" come on board to take this over, potentially a former player, who has intricute understanding of this business. Which will leave Woodward to deal with what he does best.

All that is premature though. It's highly probable that after last summer and january, Woodward could be more relaxed and confident going into this window knowing what he needs to do to get things done.

Big test for him, especially considering it would appear LVG has ratified a target list with the club, and it's now down to him to go sort it out.

Fingers crossed he has learned his lessons and is eager to correct some errors of the past two windows.

While fans and ourselves might subject Woodward to critiscm in regards transfer dealings, I'd be pretty confident in saying that he is providing the sort of percentages and figures that have the board comfortably confident they chose the right man. For all intensive purposes it looks like the ommision of Champions league football is barely going to tickle our revenue streams, which is simply incredible considering it has broken so many clubs down the years when they missed out on just ONE year in the CL.