Manchester United, that didn't last long. Seven up

[david3103]

jumping the gun, scarf sellers?

Click to see full-size image.

Hope they don't sell any.

[pleno1]

Scweinsteiger/Scheinderlin should play every single game.

[TightEnd]

It's not every day a former Man Utd & England footballer rings a phone-in to rant...

 http://bbc.in/1NT1L8D 

[TightEnd]

Glazers' determination to cut wage bill helps explain MUFC's decline

http://www.capx.co/man-utds-woes-are-due-to-failure-to-invest/

[arbboy]

Glazers' determination to cut wage bill helps explain MUFC's decline

http://www.capx.co/man-utds-woes-are-due-to-failure-to-invest/

Something has to give to pay the bank interest bill every year.

[Archer]

Glazers' determination to cut wage bill helps explain MUFC's decline

http://www.capx.co/man-utds-woes-are-due-to-failure-to-invest/

Something has to give to pay the bank interest bill every year.

Not forgetting the $24million annual dividend to the Glazer children

[Tal]

So Arsenal are lauded as savvy businessmen and United are lunatics?

[tikay]

So Arsenal are lauded as savvy businessmen and United are lunatics?

It's a flawed piece of logic, IMO.

Just because Man U earn far more revenue should not mean they have some sort of obligation to spend it on players wages, or any other operating costs or overhead.

It's a business. The owners are entitled to expect an increase in value, profits and dividend.

[POWWWWWWWW]

This is article is bizarre. Is it saying that spending 116% of your revenue is something a club should aspire to do? And that getting rid of Hernandez, Nani, RVP, Di Maria, Rafael, Jonny Evans, James Wilson, Cleverley and Falcao was a bad thing?

[TightEnd]

This is article is bizarre. Is it saying that spending 116% of your revenue is something a club should aspire to do? And that getting rid of Hernandez, Nani, RVP, Di Maria, Rafael, Jonny Evans, James Wilson, Cleverley and Falcao was a bad thing?

not the 116%, but the logic is the debt interest prevents 50% of revenue being 60% of revenue being spent on the squad

not all of your list are good misses. chicarito scores for fun in the bundesliga to give one example.

[tikay]

This is article is bizarre. Is it saying that spending 116% of your revenue is something a club should aspire to do? And that getting rid of Hernandez, Nani, RVP, Di Maria, Rafael, Jonny Evans, James Wilson, Cleverley and Falcao was a bad thing?

I only just read the full article linked to. What a pile of tosh.

The clue was at the foot of the article - the so called "Red Knights".

If that lot ever took control of Man U, it'd be game over for a grand club.

[POWWWWWWWW]

This is article is bizarre. Is it saying that spending 116% of your revenue is something a club should aspire to do? And that getting rid of Hernandez, Nani, RVP, Di Maria, Rafael, Jonny Evans, James Wilson, Cleverley and Falcao was a bad thing?

not the 116%, but the logic is the debt interest prevents 50% of revenue being 60% of revenue being spent on the squad

not all of your list are good misses. chicarito scores for fun in the bundesliga to give one example.

It doesn't need to be. United pay wages and top transfer fees ( or try to), they aren't getting outbid they just don't spend that % because it would be stupid to. If United doubled their revenue next year would they be complaining we aren't paying people 600k a week?
Hernandez was very poor for United and the boys behind him at Bayer are very good.

[Archer]

Click to see full-size image.

Ah, the good old Red Knights. Happy days

The anti-Glazer sentiment is understandable if you consider  United’s profits would have been substantially higher if the club did not have to bear the financing costs of the Glazers’ leveraged buy-out. In fact, over the last seven years they have made total operating profits of £457 million (including £148 million from player sales), which have been totally wiped out by net financing costs of £460 million.

[Archer]

So Arsenal are lauded as savvy businessmen and United are lunatics?

It's a flawed piece of logic, IMO.

Just because Man U earn far more revenue should not mean they have some sort of obligation to spend it on players wages, or any other operating costs or overhead.

It's a business. The owners are entitled to expect an increase in value, profits and dividend.

Tikay, in general terms I agree with the bolded part but not necessarily for a football club.

What is United's  business - is it playing football or selling noodles? If it's playing football then being successful at that is a pre-requisite.

 Since Sir AF retired United have struggled. We all assume it is a blip but it can be argued it is  a complete failure of  core infrastructure and succession policy. For over 20 years, United  had a successful system but relied on just one person to implement that system without making any serious attempt to replicate the processes that made it successful and guide a successor to be able to maintain it.

If I was a United fan I woud be worried and anti-Glazer.

[david3103]

Deloitte figures for 2013/14

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/premier-league-clubs-revenue-boom-to-33billion-eclipses-rest-of-europe-10295701.html

50% of £433MM = £216.5MM
60% of £348.3MM = £209MM

That's Man City in second place in the revenue table and their spend on wages is marginally less than that at United.

What's the issue here?