StevoRobbo Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 this report is from July 18, 2006, over 3 years old.. imagine what the interest payments are now then considering the economic climate. Unless the glazers managed to somehow cap the interest from going up which would be a smart move Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaupunkt Posted December 13, 2009 Author Share Posted December 13, 2009 i can imagine lots of things, but i dont know which it right or wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
baker.simon Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 imagine what the interest payments are now then considering the economic climate. Unless the glazers managed to somehow cap the interest from going up which would be a smart move Debts are generally at fixed interest rates, agreed when the loans are taken out. It doesn't usually change. Whats happened is that the lenders have assessed Man Utd (or any football club) as risky and have charged the Glazers accordingly. I believe the interest rate is somewhere near 15%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
baker.simon Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 every club in the world is working to some sort of "financial constraint" depending on their budget, league, what country they are in etc well every club apart from Real Madrid who are seemingly backed by the national bank noone is saying Man UTD's loan is no massive or there is a huge amount of interest to be paid off each year alone, but UTD are a global brand which alone will bring in a massive amount of money then look how successful they have been over the last 3 years,then you have sponsorship deals etc. Yes but all the prize money just goes on servicing the interest of the loan, all the bits that are left (player wages, staff wages and all other costs) have to be paid out of the merchandising money. Real problems could arise when they have to restructure this debt. The financial market isn't as good as it was when the Glazers took over and they may well struggle to pay back that 1st lump sum. They have only had domestic success in the last 3 years due to Chelsea taking their eye off the ball and Liverpool bottling it last season, which made it a lot easier for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
santy001 Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I like how some are saying because Ferguson comes out saying the club doesn't have any financial concerns and suddenly its gospel. Hate to say it, but no club comes out and says "We're fecked, the debt is too much we had to sell to cover it" until its all going or gone down the pan, like at Leeds for example. I've started a game with Chelsea, and it has dawned upon me not how hard it is to manage these clubs, but how hard it is to balance the books. I'm used to taking on smaller sides, who whilst usually operate at debt a bit of success makes substantial enough profits not to worry about it. Despite several deals where the money goes out over 48 months at Chelsea, and sales of 30m with another 14m or so in installments the club still sits in 26m of debt. Lampard, Ballack, Anelka and Obi Mikel - all who were/are fringe players in my squad, taking up almost 500k a week in wages. If I can't pull it back into the black, and keep running at a 2/3m a month deficit, I can see my chairman selling players relatively cheaply under my feet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
baker.simon Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I like how some are saying because Ferguson comes out saying the club doesn't have any financial concerns and suddenly its gospel. Hate to say it, but no club comes out and says "We're fecked, the debt is too much we had to sell to cover it" until its all going or gone down the pan, like at Leeds for example.I've started a game with Chelsea, and it has dawned upon me not how hard it is to manage these clubs, but how hard it is to balance the books. I'm used to taking on smaller sides, who whilst usually operate at debt a bit of success makes substantial enough profits not to worry about it. Despite several deals where the money goes out over 48 months at Chelsea, and sales of 30m with another 14m or so in installments the club still sits in 26m of debt. Lampard, Ballack, Anelka and Obi Mikel - all who were/are fringe players in my squad, taking up almost 500k a week in wages. If I can't pull it back into the black, and keep running at a 2/3m a month deficit, I can see my chairman selling players relatively cheaply under my feet. Chelsea is different, wouldn't Abramovich just pump more money in? Even if he didn't, its the club that owes him money rather than the club owing a bank, banks which are generally less forgiving if payments are missed/late/short. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blab Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Chelsea is different, wouldn't Abramovich just pump more money in? Even if he didn't, its the club that owes him money rather than the club owing a bank, banks which are generally less forgiving if payments are missed/late/short. Isn't Man United in the same/similar situation? I mean, Glazers took out the loan, they are in debt, not Man Utd, and if they (Glazers) wont be able to pay the debt, Man Utd will just change owners? According to wiki, if Glazers will be unable to pay the debt, Man Utd will pass on to three New York hedge funds, but there is no quoted reference so it could be bogus information. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltaroad Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Not sure how it's harder to balance the book at Chelsea then say a L2 side. As long as you win trophies and get to semi finals of competitions you shouldn't need to worry too much. If you look at my finances it drops significantly throughout the season then goes straight into the black zone and it more then breaks even. I haven't had any sales sold without my consent and I am constantly being bombarded with offers for my youth players by such clubs such as Juventus, Madrid. When Lampard, Ballack reach 30's and their stats start declining it's better to get rid of them. What I did with Vidic, Evra. I don't think my wage structure is that bad considering they are playing for Man Utd infact they are probably being paid twiced as cheap as players at United would normally get. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie543 Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Isn't Man United in the same/similar situation? I mean, Glazers took out the loan, they are in debt, not Man Utd, and if they (Glazers) wont be able to pay the debt, Man Utd will just change owners?According to wiki, if Glazers will be unable to pay the debt, Man Utd will pass on to three New York hedge funds, but there is no quoted reference so it could be bogus information. The Glazers put the debt on the club thus if a payment is missed the club would be punshied Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaupunkt Posted December 13, 2009 Author Share Posted December 13, 2009 I like how some are saying because Ferguson comes out saying the club doesn't have any financial concerns and suddenly its gospel. and you cannot prove it is not true, you are basing every thing on your own opinion which is as valid as mine or anyone elses. because i am getting bored of all the man utd are going bust, they dont make enough money etc and people seemingly using there opinions as some sort of factual proof have done a very quick search and found the following. now as far as i am aware pre tax profit is what's left after all the out goings have been taken out, such as wages, loans etc. this was in 2008 but still >>Reuters uk<< Pre-tax profit in the 12 months to June 30 rose to 59.6 million pounds from 30.8 million pounds in the year-earlier period, the club said on Friday. The 2006-2007 Premiership winning club, owned by U.S. billionaire Malcolm Glazer, said annual revenue surged 27 percent to 210 million pounds from 165 million pounds. and another site but im not sure how good it is shows a small table of there turnover and pre tax profit. >>clickme<< Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
baker.simon Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 and you cannot prove it is not true, you are basing every thing on your own opinion which is as valid as mine or anyone elses.because i am getting bored of all the man utd are going bust, they dont make enough money etc and people seemingly using there opinions as some sort of factual proof have done a very quick search and found the following. now as far as i am aware pre tax profit is what's left after all the out goings have been taken out, such as wages, loans etc. this was in 2008 but still >>Reuters uk<< Pre-tax profit in the 12 months to June 30 rose to 59.6 million pounds from 30.8 million pounds in the year-earlier period, the club said on Friday. The 2006-2007 Premiership winning club, owned by U.S. billionaire Malcolm Glazer, said annual revenue surged 27 percent to 210 million pounds from 165 million pounds. and another site but im not sure how good it is shows a small table of there turnover and pre tax profit. >>clickme<< Nobody is really saying they will go bust :confused:. Its more the fact that the debt the club carries is huge and needs a lot of servicing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaupunkt Posted December 13, 2009 Author Share Posted December 13, 2009 ok maybe bust was not quite what people where saying, but i am just trying to show that "maybe" they make more money then people think and while the debt and loan is huge they are not quite as bad off as some people might be trying to imply, for example they are going the same way as leeds utd did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
baker.simon Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 ok maybe bust was not quite what people where saying, but i am just trying to show that "maybe" they make more money then people think and while the debt and loan is huge they are not quite as bad off as some people might be trying to imply, for example they are going the same way as leeds utd did. Obviously not , i doubt very much they would "do a leeds". I do think that teams heavily in debt such as Man Utd and Liverpool would seriously struggle if they didnt make the top 4 and qualify for the champions league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis_D Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Yeah, but that debt didn't stop them to spend close to £100M in 07/08 and close to £160M in the last three seasons (and that is without the January 2010 transfer window). Fact is that Man Utd is run by a bunch of successful businessmen who will keep the club as long as it is generating profit for them or at least as long as there will be a profit in the long run, and sell it as soon as things start to look bad 'cos no one likes to lose £1 billion, no matter how rich they are. According to wiki, Glazers net worth is $2.2 billion and the first portion of the debt is due 2013 (I think) and Man Utd isn't the only thing that earns money for them.That really isn't a valid argument 'cos you can put it another way: if they did have money problems, why would they spend so much on a winger from Wigan? And why would they spend tons of money on Ribery or Silva when (according to FM database) both play on the position that is well covered (Giggs and Nani)? Also, didn't Bayern make it very clear that Ribery is not for sale? Giggs is too slow for the wing now, and rarely plays there for Utd. He is still a brilliant player, but plays most of his games in central midfielder. Plus he probably only has this season and one or two more left in him. Also Nani is very average and comes nowhere near the level of either Ronaldo, Ribery or Silva. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis_D Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 If that's true then Man Utd are in trouble. I think I owe Ellis an apology. No apologies necessary mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis_D Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Chelsea is different, wouldn't Abramovich just pump more money in? Even if he didn't, its the club that owes him money rather than the club owing a bank, banks which are generally less forgiving if payments are missed/late/short. Abramovich clears all debts and pumps in money for transfers every season, in real-life and on the game. Chelsea will have a major, major problem though if Abramovich leaves anytime soon without finding another investor willing to blow hundreds of millions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer89 Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 No apologies necessary mate No mate, I jumped the gun, I think there is, so I apologise Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis_D Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 No mate, I jumped the gun, I think there is, so I apologise Okay, well I accept Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
santy001 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I don't know if Abramovich wipes it out at the end of the season or not, but on mine he has watched me run up some substantial debts without any input. All the top 4 have rather substantial debts on their plates to deal with, as they do irl. I don't like balancing the books revolving around needing to be successful. Which is why I find it easier to get a club breaking even or making a profit in the lower levels than at say the top 10/12 premiership sides. Chelsea start off with some pretty poor players, on big wages who you can't really shift properly because of the transfer embargo. On my save I had lampard replaced with a player on just 12k a week and the replacement was just as effective so I was able to sell him onto Inter. If Chelsea are profitable for a month, then they have to pay £2.3m towards the loan back to Abramovich. If you are making a profit each month, then you are racking up an extra £26/27m of outgoing money. Having trimmed the wage bill a bit already, Chelsea still operate at a monthly loss of about £4m which is almost £50m going out of the club each season. For me at the lower levels, if things begin to look a bit bleak, there is usually the option of cashing in on a decent prospect for as little as £100k and it puts your team back into the black and gives them a fair bit of sustenance or even a single profitable cup tie. It's never that easy at the top to balance it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackripper Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Obertan cost around £10m, he cost £3million Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulo1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Being a Man Utd fan i find this all very interesting. The facts are that the glaziers did take the loans out but secured them against all that man utd own which includes Old trafford and the assets on the playing staff. If the repayments are not made then they would start to effect how the player transfers were managed. So far this has not been the case as the income and revenue that the club generates is more than enough to cover the finance against the club and could do even if we win nothing for a few seasons anything beyond that would start to cause problems for the club and this would be when you would start to see the effects on transfer dealings only in the extreme would there be any problems with OT being at risk or the current players being effected. You all have to remember that Man Utd are still one of the most profitable and valueable clubs in the world. The ronaldo money has not even been nearly touched yet and The official word from Sir Alex is that he does not see value in the market at present. Ronaldo was a law unto his self and that transfer was a freak occurrence for Man utd. It coupled a player that had previously stated that it was his dream to play for Madrid and a transfer fee that for any player in the world be hard to turn down regardless of the team that is doing the selling. Take Kaka for example he was Milan through and through and they had stated that they wanted him to stay for life only to sell him to the highest bidder when the transfer fees reached a certain amount. As for the replacements in the united squad i think Fergie knows what he is doing how many people thought that Ronaldo would be the player that he would become when he turned up at United for £12 million a spotty teenager who according to many had too many tricks and no end product. £3 million for Obertan may well turn out to be a master stroke in the long run. If not he will be found out on one of the biggest stages in the world and soon be replaced with another youngster ready to try and take his chance but is that not the risk that every club takes when making a transfer. The fact of the football world is that players come and go regardless of how good or bad they may be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer89 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 he cost £3million Yes I know now, I've apologised, I got given the wrong information. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandy Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Being a Man Utd fan i find this all very interesting.The facts are that the glaziers did take the loans out but secured them against all that man utd own which includes Old trafford and the assets on the playing staff. If the repay ments are not made then they would start to effect how the player transfers were managed. So far this has not been the case as the income and revenue that the club generates is more than enough to cover the finance against the club and could do even if we win nothing for 1-2 seasons anything beyond that would start to cause problems for the club and this would be the point at which it would have to be sold or assets start to be stripped from them. The ronaldo money has not even been nearly touched yet and The official word from Sir Alex is that he does not see value in the market at present. Ronaldo was a law unto his self and that transfer was a freak occurrence for Man utd. It coupled a player that had previously stated that it was his dream to play for Madrid and a transfer fee that for any player in the world be hard to turn down regardless of the team that is doing the selling. Take Kaka for example he was Milan through and through and they had stated that they wanted him to stay for life only to sell him to the highest bidder when the transfer fees reached a certain amount. As for the replacements in the united squad i think Fergie knows what he is doing how many people thought that Ronaldo would be the player that he would become when he turned up at United for £12 million a spotty teenager who according to many had too many tricks and no end product. £3 million for Obertan may well turn out to be a master stroke in the long run. The Kaka/Milan transfer was different, AC Milan are in financial trouble. I also believe that Man City were interested, but either Kaka or Milan knocked it back. I'm not 100%. (But save the scolding, I may be wrong.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulo1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 The Kaka/Milan transfer was different, AC Milan are in financial trouble. I also believe that Man City were interested, but either Kaka or Milan knocked it back. I'm not 100%.(But save the scolding, I may be wrong.) I think it was Kaka, He wants to play at the highest level and he did not believe that a move to City at the time would provide it in the short term as at present they are to much of a work in progress to be a safe bet for him! From Wikipiedia According to The Football Money League published by consultants Deloitte, in the 2005–06 season, Milan was the fifth highest earning football club in the world with an estimated revenue of €233.7 million.[44] Currently, the club are also ranked as the 6th richest football club in the world by Forbes magazine, making them the richest in Italian football.[45] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misodoctakleidist Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 There is a lit of misinformed nonsense in this thread. According to both Mike Phelan and Ljajic himself, United pulled out of the deal because they couldn't get a work permit for him. There is no reason to suppose United are in any sort of financial difficulty considering that the Glazers' debt repayments remain the same as they have been for the last five years, and United's profitability increases every year. I think this is just wishful thinking from some over-excited ABUs fuelled by newspaper gossip. To address the OP's point, there is no way David Gill would over-rule the manager in order to sell Anderson for a paltry £18m. He cost almost as much and is one of the most promising young players in world football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misodoctakleidist Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Paulo1985, Revenue is not the same thing as profit. Milan are strapped for cash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandy Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I think it was Kaka, He wants to play at the highest level and he did not believe that a move to City at the time would provide it in the short term as at present they are to much of a work in progress to be a safe bet for him!From Wikipiedia According to The Football Money League published by consultants Deloitte, in the 2005–06 season, Milan was the fifth highest earning football club in the world with an estimated revenue of €233.7 million.[44] Currently, the club are also ranked as the 6th richest football club in the world by Forbes magazine, making them the richest in Italian football.[45] Yeah, I'd probably have to agree, living in Australia, we don't get much football news. I am still pretty sure that Milan are in financial strife, but eh, probably misinformed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathSpawn Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Man utd are in huge debt, could have been made worse by you, and therefore needs to sell players to keep making profits? my game says the opposite, i made 5 seasons and they're spending an average 80M on transfers each year... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulo1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Abramovich clears all debts and pumps in money for transfers every season, in real-life and on the game.Chelsea will have a major, major problem though if Abramo leaves anytime soon without finding another investor willing to blow hundreds of millions. The problem with Chelsea debt is that Abramovich does not just give the money willing to lose it. I have read in numerous articles that the money that he puts in is an interest free loan to the club and if fact forms part of the debt owed by Chelsea although the likely hood of him asking for it all now is remote there may come a point in the future that he wants all or the most part of it back and then there will be a lot of trouble down at the bridge as they cannot even begin to find that sort of money! Quote "Covering the year to June 30 2007, Chelsea's accounts show that the club's largest creditor was the owner himself, Roman Abramovich, who had poured £578m into the club, not as a donation but as an interest-free loan. As stated by the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, in February, Chelsea did not owe "external debt" to any bank If the owner's enthusiasm were ever to wane, and Abramovich decided he did want his loan back, the accounts show that Chelsea would have 18 months to find the money" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoRobbo Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 is there a vendetta against anderson in general in this game. My assistant always tells me to accept offers for him when they come in despite him having great potential and in the first team. Is this something that is being looked at? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackripper Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Yes I know now, I've apologised, I got given the wrong information. ahh ok cool i wasnt being funny with you if it sounded like that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackripper Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 is there a vendetta against anderson in general in this game. My assistant always tells me to accept offers for him when they come in despite him having great potential and in the first team. Is this something that is being looked at? not sure tbh, I never sell him and think hes a fantastic player IRL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer89 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 ahh ok cool i wasnt being funny with you if it sounded like that Ahh no worries mate, we're all friends here lol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandy Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Ahh no worries mate, we're all friends here lol. Except for you Wolves fans. *safety wink* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer89 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Except for you Wolves fans.*safety wink* Lol, well hidden, didn't see that at first, sneaky.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandy Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Lol, well hidden, didn't see that at first, sneaky.. Haha I picked it off someone else's post, so not my idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSL Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Bale should never cost more than 30m and my net spend with Utd was usually 10m a season lol was all I could afford but chairman never intervened because I always kept the balance positive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow1112 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Glad that on my save the chairman did not force me to sell my player (: Still got 600M of debt to pay off... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James07? Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 There is no reason to suppose United are in any sort of financial difficulty considering that the Glazers' debt repayments remain the same as they have been for the last five years, and United's profitability increases every year. I think this is just wishful thinking from some over-excited ABUs fuelled by newspaper gossip. That's simply wrong. The debt is split into a number of different parcels, owed to different people, secured in different ways with different repayment terms and interest rates. It's the $125m or so at 12.4% which would be the main concern. United also have a lump sum payment of over $50 due in the summer...there's no doubt the Glazer's have been in talks to refinance at least parts of the debt but in the current climate are finding it difficult. There are also factors beyond United associated with the Glazer's wider financial situation which could impact on United. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James07? Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 that's $50m, reckon I'd be able to lend them $50 if that was all that was needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiaoken777 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 That is TERRIBLE business sense! When you pay over 48 months, the clubs ask you for more than they would if you pay it all upfront. You should only pay it over 48 months if you can't pay it all at once. If you had bought Bale upfront he would probably have only cost you £20 - £25M! That is actually wrong. I conducted an experiment to verify this. I used 3rd party scouting programs to view the Sale Value of De Rossi and Ribery (both around 50m), then offered one time bids of varying sums of 30-50m to ascertain the limit of the AI. Indeed the AI would only accept bids of 50m as indicated by the 3rd party scouting program. I reloaded, and this time offered the same sum spread over 48 months. The AI accepted as well. It makes no difference, meaning you would not be able to get a player cheaper by paying one lump sum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.