Manchester United Banter Archive August 04 2012

04 Aug 2012 23:02:43
Mail on Sunday (I know it's a crap paper) are reporting that deal for Lucas Moura has been agreed and that he'll be having a medical tomorrow. They also say that Van Persie will be signed by the end of the week. I'm taking it with a pinch of salt but this would be great if true!

Matt

04 Aug 2012 21:25:28
strong tour squad.....

De Gea, Lindegaard; Evra, Ferdinand, Jones, M Keane, Vidic; Anderson, Carrick, Nani, Powell, Lingard, Scholes, Valencia, Young; Berbatov, Hernandez, Kagawa, Macheda, Rooney, Welbeck

little disappointed not to see Tunnicliffe & Petrucci

oXRED

Petrucci and Tunners will run the midfield against Posh. That's a good test for them.

Sydney!

Glad to see Lindgard again. He will breakthrough in the Capitol One Cup or whatever the hell it's called.

Agreed Oxred; Tunners, Petrucci and Lingard are the 3 I most wanted to see integrate with the 1st team but perhaps Syd is right about the 2 of them - is that a reserve game v the Posh? Ta

Due to his defensive nature (we have a shortage of that) I think Tunnicliffe could become a valuable asset to our squad by the start of next season

Gav

I dont think it would have done them any good... They will get more game time back home against peterbrough... and im not sure as to why he is taking Keane and Lingaard, fair enough they are getting a great experience but they are not going to feature much because this leg of the tour is all about the first team

fearny

04 Aug 2012 20:23:52
Like the reports are suggesting about Llorente and Lewandowski next summer. IF and it's a big IF, we were to get one or both, would or frontline be strong enough to play Rooney in the playmaker role in midfield like he did last season for 4 games.

Front line would be Welbeck/Hernandez/Lewandowski (OR/BOTH)Llorente,Keane

fearny

I wouldn't hold your breath over Llorente. He has Barcelona written all over him.

Sydney!

I remember Llorente from the world cup, he was class then, he consistently has good seasons with Bilboa so if Barca was to purchase him he would be a Barca player now. (ideal replacement for when ibra left or villa got injured)

I think(hope) he is bound for the prem league.

Cban

I'd say Rooney would be wasted in that position. When you weigh him up against a Xavi, Schweinsteiger or even Modric he's not as nimble and not as comfortable passing the ball over and over and over with great accuracy and creativity. He's best when in sight of goal for me, whether it be scoring or creating - so I wouldn't play him any deeper than the 'no.10 role'

Gav

I think Llorente would have a tough time getting in to that striker position. Think there is a little stepping stone called Lionel Messi who has that position

fearny

I am sorry but Rooney is not a number 10 'role' player, he hasnt got that burst of pace or that many tricks in his locker to beat players and although his passing can be sublime, it is not consistent enough to be deemed his best attribute.

his best position is a striker.

Cban

04 Aug 2012 20:04:28
Just posting what I've read here of caughtoffside but make it or break it talks are due with Sao Paulo in the next few days and a contract signing when Brazil come to old Trafford for the quarter final, don't shoot the messenger
U.T.I.D

Except their quarter final was in Newcastle and it was today...

fearny

Sorry, I meant semi mate
U.T.I.D

04 Aug 2012 19:50:49
agree for lucas moura ,disagree for javi martinez

04 Aug 2012 17:40:35
inter milan preparing a 24 million bid for valencia

mitch

Would rather we sold Valencia than Nani - but at the same time doubt the club would accept. That said - if we sold Valencia and brought in Lucas and Muniain I'd be happy!

T0MB0Z

We would reject that in a heart beat and I like to think Valencia would too.
ShaunMUFC

Now if nani is worth 30 milliOn Valencia is worth at least 40-50 million then.

MUFC1990

In all honesty i would take £25million for Valencia and then put Nani back on the right and sign James Rodriguez for the left it would be insane imo

He's just been awarded the cherished number 7 shirt for all his determination and consistently top class performances and you think were going to sell him, behave!

Best winger at the club by a mile. We will never sell him

Parkie mufc

I would take it in a heart beat. I would rather keep nani.

Millz

I cant remember can someone please tell me how much we paid for Antonia?

I think we paid £16m for Valencia from memory. Gilly

About 15mil in total I think.
I'd sell Nani all day long, great on his day, but that is once in a blue moon. And we don't need any more blue moons thank you.

Whistler.

That was not me OP, we won't sell Toni he's been our best player.
Mitch. {Ed007's Note - Was that not you Mitch? If you leave a tag in the e-mail field when you post that verifies it is really you, sorry about that. If it is an imposter he will be blocked from the sites.}

Keep nani with his poor performances and inconsistency and sell one of the best if not the best out and out winger In the prem.


I can't think of many ATM who are better than Valencia as a winger, he defends which nani doesn't do. He's faster than nani, better crossing and passing
Than nani. And other than the odd screamer what can nani do that Valencia can't?

He's class and is our best player

MUFC1990

04 Aug 2012 14:36:21
Frankly speaking,we are heading for doom if sir Alex and Co fail to buy a quality and natural CM which is our biggest problem.We lost to our noisy neighbour because they control the mid-field.Lucas Moura is not our problem.Nani does what Sir Alex wants from Lucas.He needs to be motivated by increasing his pay.Bebe is improving,who knows the magic he will offer to Man United in EPL this season.we should not allow Luca Modric pass through our bedroom to the same people we are laying ambush for.

What do you know no name you should not get motivated only if you get a pay increase. IMO you only get the big money if you earn it and Nani although occasionally brilliant he is not consistent enough to play week in week out and SAF will do wht he thinks is best for the team
ARB

What do you class as doom that we are heading for no name?

GDS

04 Aug 2012 13:43:55
Assistant manager Mike Phelan will take charge of United in Norway, with Sir Alex Ferguson on other club business. The boss will rejoin the squad for the match against Barcelona in Gothenburg.

Sorry for cut n paste

but could this mean something ED? {Ed002's Note - They are sending out secret messages.}

New signings .

Seems like Ed002 has finally given up hope on the stupid common men like us and chosen sarcasm as a path to attain inner peace.

REDFAITH

04 Aug 2012 13:03:43
I would like to say something about an issue that gets people here so excited, the rapid increase in the valuation of the club.

I noticed someone trying to compare the cumulative revenue increase under the glazers and the amount they have spent on debt related payments, but how is such a comparison relevant? Has the cost of operation remained constant under the glazers? Course not! A more relevant figure would be the cumulative increase in cash generated from operations. A simpler estimate being EBITDA. Exactly how much of this increase in operating cashflow is down to the glazers is anyone's guess, but least the comparison would have abit of relevance.
Anyways, back to the valuation, i noticed united has forecast a netspend of £25m. Obviously this is an average, which means we could spend £50m in one window and spend 0m ibm the next. The implication of this planned net spend for the future is that it will be used in the valuation of the club,that is assuming a freecashflow technique is used. Thus, the only way the new investors will recover there investment is by sticking to this netspend, which means if any serious investor, especially institutional investors buys the club, the transfer policy is not going to get better, infact it could become worse. How worse it gets depends on how high the valuation is. A higher valuation simply means more pressure to deliver the much higher promised returns to investors.
In short, if United's value increase even more before institutional investors or any other serious investors buy in, we should kiss the prospect of any top players coming in in future. So i ask again, why should a fan be excited about the increase in value of the club?

Millz

Millz
i agreewith a lot of that you make some good points also when trying to compare revenue increase to amount spent on debt you also have to remember that only 33% of our revenue comes from the commercial side.
the further 67% comes from broadcasting and match day
jred

Are you saying we'll be best off if the Glazer's stick around?

Gav

Gav

what i was trying to highlight was the fact that this doubling or tripling of united's value that people constantly praise the glazers for can not be good for the club or fans in the long-term.

Jred

I think people here deliberately use revenue to present a better picture of the glazers governance.

Millz

Millz

I did understand your point. You could argue that for any business though really. I can't see good performance being a negative in general terms. Your post did seem to suggest though that on current terms, we would be best keeping the Glazer's rather than getting new owners. Which I'm not sure is what you set out to do

Gav

04 Aug 2012 11:49:17
Anyone else who thinks this will be SAF's last season? All this news about players like Lewandowski, Llorente having deals done now for next season is a sign. I think Fergie will try and get all the players he can so the next manager has a good crop of players to work with. Maybe Pep Guardiola as next manager?

I would agree i think this could well be hislast one
jred

Wouldn't the new manager want to pick a team?

1redarmy

No chance 2 or 3 seasons left he's not ready to retire yet, it doesn't make sense building a team for the next manager surely he'll want to do that himself!
Tony loz

He clearly is building for the future but by no means does that mean retirement.

04 Aug 2012 11:10:42
Anyone else think its a massive risk taking vidic on tour? I know it will be good for morale etc and to ease him back into things, but i just think its too early for him. There is no way we can afford for him to get another setback.

Fagan

No offence to you but i think sir alex and the coaching staff know whether hes ready or not.

phil

He has to start some where medics must think his ready
jred

But think of all those times fergie and the medical team thought hargreaves was ready.. I'm just dreading something happening between now and the start of the season

Fagan

Wiseup

04 Aug 2012 10:51:58
Copy and paste, Barcelona newspaper Sport believes United are trying to land Fernando Llorente from Athletic Club - on a free transfer in 2013. The Spain centre-forward was outstanding in last term's Europa League ties and has refused to sign fresh terms in Bilbao. Consequently, he could agree a pre-contract in January with a Barclays Premier League club and move for nothing in the summer.

Cant see that happening the club would just sell him now if that was the case. There are plenty of clubs who would snap him up for £15m easy.

1redarmy

Fair enough if he wanted to leave next year on a free, the club would want to sell him, but he could just say no to any offers. Gilly

04 Aug 2012 10:39:44
sahin wanyama oviedo and lucas are the 4 names last few days people have talked about
but i think a few would have to go out the door
nani berbatov and fletcher possible retiring
how many of 4 would be likely

How good would it be if we could get all 4?

I still don't think Nani will leave though.

1redarmy

I hope he doesnt fella but id take sahin over carrick and andersson and feel wanyama
could be a good addition if fletcher is forced to retire giving tunnicliffe a chance to develop maybe out on loan .
being a welshman only watched oviedo play against wales so not seen enough to comment he is just a name being put about

04 Aug 2012 10:30:51
my preferred signings would be: 1 from Izaguirre or Oviedo. Oviedo i think has the advantage of being cheaper and more potential but Izaguirre wouldn't need to settle or adapt so much. 2 one from Dembele or Wanyama. Actually i'd go for both of these if the funds were there, if that meant moving others out then good. Use Dembele as a box to box as he has the energy and workrate and Wanyama as a holding player. Throw go Carrick, Cleverley, Scholes and the younger players and its a good mix of options. 3 lucas moura. I think we have to get this guy we can't miss out here. 4 Angelo Henriquez i'd set the deal up for January before other clubs realise how good he is. If anyone's watched the Copa Lib or the Milk Cup you know what i mean. Nearly all of those represent value for money. Mort

Yeah they're the players we have been heavily linked with as well...so i'd say all of them are possibilities. I'd personally prefer Baines, Sahin and Moura with Nani and Berbatov out.

De Gea
Rafael Vidic Ferdinand Baines
Sahin Carrick
Valencia Kagawa Moura
Rooney

With the likes of Anderson, Cleverly, Young, Scholes, Giggs, Smalling, Welbeck and Hernandez as options for rotations we could really have a top class team that could easily compete in Europe.

Andy

Good shouts IMO. I only think we need one from Wanyama/Dembele though and with what we'd save I'd get Baines for LB. Moura and Henriquez would leave us sorted for the attacking positions (with Henriquez used as 4th choice ST)

Gav

I'd prefer Izaguirre Dembele Gaitan and Henriquez.

Shappy

I'd prefer Oveido, Sahin, Rodriguez and Lewandowski.

RedDevil19

Izaguire, witsel, henriquez.

There are some quality players available, but I would prefer Sahin. I just think he would link really well with Kagawa and Rooney. Then I would prefer Martinez as he would be class for us and we would be awesome on the ball. And lastly I would want either Lewandowski or Van Persie. That would cost loads though and we have almost no chance for Martinez. Therefore I would prefer a young player who could improve. Gilly

04 Aug 2012 09:32:54
A friend of mine who is involved in sports promotions in Spain says Man United looking at making a bid for mounain according to his agent. Eds is there any truth to this? {Ed002's Note - Try the search function after figuring out who you are referring to.}

I could see united targetting muniain as a back up option if lucas deal doesnt happen

04 Aug 2012 09:22:18
People have queried my "agenda". My agenda remains the same. I want Manchester United run for the glory of Manchester United, not to make money for owners who do not care about it. I want the money United makes to be ploughed back into the club, invested in players, stadium and cheaper tickets, not wasted on financing costs. I want debts taken on only to expand the facilities of the club. This is not a pipe dream. It is how almost every European football club is managed, for the glory of the club. It is how the other financial titans; Barca, Real and Bayern are run.

In the video presentation they confirm that the club's transfer budget in the future will usually be a net £20-25m, the average spend over the last fifteen years. That is a choice being made by the Glazers, more concerned with maximising profits. A debt free United run like a normal football club could afford to compete with biggest clubs in Europe, we aren't even trying.Andy green

couldn't agree more

jred

"In the video presentation they confirm that the club's transfer budget in the future will usually be a net £20-25m, the average spend over the last fifteen years."

I think this ends one argument. According to Andy Green above we have averaged a £20m-£25m net spend over 10-15 years.

Sydney!

Syd
from the figures you gave me on that spread sheet andy has the glazers net spend between 05-10 as 53.394 which works out as a net spend of 10.67mill per season which is very close to 9mil

from 00-10 which works out as 11 years he has our net spend 163.301 which gives a net spend of 14.8 mill

however if you take the amount spent on player purchases only over the last 15 years it comes to 26 mill
is there any chance this is what he mean by "the average spend over the last 15 year"
jred

Jred, if you do not know the difference between a "net spend" and a "gross spend", then what's the point in debating with you?

The average gross spends are above £40m per a season.

Sydney!

Syd
lol like red man has pointed out in the past you have tried to deflect the fact that the figures you have stated dont add up .
nice try
jred

Syd - If I recall average net is around £8m/season thanks to the sale of Ronaldo.

Jred - Unfortunately we will never be run 'for the glory of Manchester United' again. Even if we were completely re-floated the new chairmans primary obligation would be to the shareholders and ensuring their dividends/investments were not jeopardised.

T0MB0Z

Jred, I thought you would be man enough to admit you were wrong, but never mind. I guess myself, Andy Green and the club's accounts are wrong.

Sydney!

Tomboz
yep i think your right
jred

Syd
just read your post further down the page and you make some good points to be fair but the numbers still dont add up however i think the spreadsheet you put is a bit of a red hearing as it is out of date and may of coursed some confusing.
jred

04 Aug 2012 15:08:33
The actual figures from the United accounts are below in a spreadsheet courtesy of Andy green himself, it's excluding 2011's net spend figures of £47.9m. These are from the actual club accounts which are released at Companies House. The club's net spend under the Glazers is £16m a year which has been confirmed by Andy Green (a financial adviser for MUST). Peeps need to remember a) Transferleague.co.uk will not have the accurate figures on every transfer, unlike the club accounts, b) they will not include other costs like agent fees, signing on fees etc, unlike the club's accounts.

I do not want to carry this on any further as it's getting very tedious and boring. If the club's accounts isn't good enough evidence to prove our net spend under the Glazers is £16m per a season then nothing is good enough. It's very easy maths with very easy results.

http://tinyurl.com/cujam2z

Sydney!

To be fair I sent the above post some time ago, I think it's all sorted now.

Sydney!

Sydney. You've posted these figures before and they're absolute rubbish. I don't care where you say they're from and there's nothing simple about the maths as all of the numbers are wrong...

Please explain how our net spend in the 2010-2011 season was £30.44m. The 'cash recouped' figure seems about right - but Smalling, Hernandez, Bebe and Lindegaard DID NOT cost £44.27m. The net spend figure was closer to £15m.

The season before that we spent £55.22m? We signed Valencia, Obertan, Diouf and Owen on a free. The figure was closer to £25m.

I could go on... but I can't be bothered as the premise for this argument is ridiculous. Why compare our net spend over 15 years when we're talking about the amount the Glazers allow for transfers?

In the 7 years after the Glazers came in our net spend has been around the £57m mark which works out at around £8.14m/season. In the 7 years before the Glazers came in our net spend was around £126m which works out at around £18m/season (still massively short of this magical £25m figure).

If you want to take a 15 year period the net spend's been around £10.4m/season.

T0MB0Z

Syd
i agree the accounts show that!

a/i agree, the figures on your link read as follow 05-10 net spend 53.394, dived by 5 that gives you a net spend of 10.67, however if you add 2011 net spend that gets it up to 16 mill.

what i dont get is what this has to do with "andy green saying we have averaged 20/25 mill a season " as 16 mill is a bit of 20/25.

also on your link it shows that over the 11 year period we have a net spend 163.301 mill this works out as 14.8 mill a year net spend .
now if you add on 2011 figures that gives you about 18mill over 12 years which is close to the 20 mill but still 7 mill a year of the 25 figure.

in short im sure andy is right our spend will be 20/25 over 10/15 after all he knows his stuff but the figures from the link dont show that.

also the fact that our net spending under the glazers is 16mill (which again i agree with) has very little to do with your op

"I think this ends one argument. According to Andy Green above we have averaged a £20m-£25m net spend over 10-15 years."

Sydney!

I have explained my issue as best I can but it really isnt that big a deal pal.
jred

Syd
fair enought i also sent a post before i read that
jred

T0MB0Z, the £20m-£25m is referring to the Bolingbroke story yesterday. I completely agree it's nowhere near the £25m, it's closer to the £20m. The £16m net spend under the Glazer era was a separate debate. The figures are genuine and I can post you the PDF's for all of the accounts if you want to look through them? I know they do not look right, especially 2009's figures, but they are directly from the United accounts mate.

Sydney!

TOMBOZ
I got the similar figures as you but it would appear andy green thinks different.

i posted further down the page the 2009 result doesnt look right and the 2000 result for transfer spend was 20 mill when we never even bought a player.
jred

Remember lads, in the United accounts the year ending is 31th June. So transfers before then will be for one year, the transfers that happen afterwards will be for the following year.

Sydney! {Ed002's Note - The 31th of June Syd? Maybe this is why you cannot reconcile the figures?}

LOL, typo. Meant 30th of Junember.

Sydney!

Sydney

The MEN gives the Glazer net spend as £80m over 7 years.

Why are you bigging up their net spend?

Red Man

04 Aug 2012 01:41:17
If we had interest in Robin Van Persie and it has in fact cooled down then hopefully Robert Lewandowski is a viable option to bring in for around £20million and a smaller wage than RVP would expect.. He would give us something different up top as he is a target man and has great feet aswell.... He reminds me of Ruud Van Nistelrooy in a way.

04 Aug 2012 00:45:24
Is it just me who can't see why Lucas Moura would prefer inter over united, worse league, worse team, worse european competition, worse manager
what's more, he'd have rafael to help him settle in at united {Ed007's Note - Is it 'worse' money.............

Think of it this way, not everyone in the world thinks the epl is the best league in the world. There are people who prefer the Spanish la liga , bundasliga, or Italian league over the English league. Whats more, there people who prefer madrid, barca , bayern ,juve, inter, ac milan .........etc over united, shocking right? How dare they!...... But seriously pal, don't be so narrow minded, learn to see other peopl's perspectives as well

Millz

04 Aug 2012 00:18:23
Bolingbroke

syd

Bolingbroke told investors that while United believe their average net spend of between £20m and £25m per year over the last 10 to 15 years
Now we both know our net spend (players bought-sold ) is not 25 mill it about 9

thats my op
you replied
Jred you are wrong again, under the Glazers our net spend has been £16m per a season.
sydney

the glazers have been here 7 years not 15. so our "net " under the glazers doesn't come in to it.
also 16m still isnt 20/25 mill so that means nothing either.
to be honest im sick of arguing not just about this but on the site in general but if you want to question the above feel free.

on a slightly different note i was looking at the spreadsheet from ag and i have a couple of genuine questions .
in 2000 he has our cash spent as 20 mill but i dont think we bought anyone that year
and also in 2009 we only bought valencia and he has our cash spent as 55mill.
whys that
jred

Jred

I have the financial stats from the last few years but am feeling bait lazy to look through them rite now. But none the less, there are a couple of possibilities that i cab think of rite now:

1. Since the funited's financial year end is 30th june,, any transfers made after 30th June 2008 would have been included in the 2009 financials, e.g berbatov.
2. United tend to settle transfer fees over a number of years at times. The payments maybe related to Nani Anderson .....etc.
I would guess its a combination ofthe above 2factors. {Ed002's Note -Rules have now change over the settlement of transfer fees to avoid another Portsmouth type situation.}

Forgot to sign off on the last post .

Millz

Sydney appears to be wrong at £16m

Net spend under the Glazers has been thoroughly listed in the Manchester Evening News at averaging £11.5m a season.


Red Man

Red Man, you mean Andersred is wrong? It's his figures.

Sydney!

Millz
i thought the same myself but
1. if the issue was with it being after 30 june that would of made the previous year very low as the only player we bought was berb and the previous year shows a 45 mill spend.


syd
from the figures you gave me on that spread sheet andy has the glazers net spend between 05-10 as 53.394 which works out as a net spend of 10.67mill per season which is very close to 9mil
from 00-10 which works out as 11 years he has our net spend 163.301 which gives a net spend of 14.8 mill
jred

Jred, that's the point in the last seven years under the Glazers we have net spent £16m on average which is lower than the previous eight years. The previous eight years bumps it up above £20m. Like I said over the past 10-15 years the club have net spent £20m-£25m on average.

What you have to remember is "Transfer League" or in Red Man's case "MEN" will use just the transfer fees, not agent fees, signing on fees etc. The United accounts are far more accurate than Transferleague.com. These are the figures Bolingbroke, Swiss Ramble and Andy Green will use.

For example Liverpool will receive just 400k euros for Aquilani and the Liverpool accounts will show as much, but Transferleague.com will show that Liverpool will receive 7.7m euro for him. The media net spend is different to the clubs accounts net spends because they do not factor-in other costs like Ed002 has explained thoroughly on this page, signing on fees, agent fees etc.

Sydney!

Ed002

How have the rules changed? Is it that the entire transfer fee has to be settled upfront or that it has to be split into installments?

Millz {Ed002's Note - It varies depending on the league that the clubs are playing in. Within the FA remit, the rules are there to stop clubs buying players thay cannot afford to pay for within one year.}

"syd
from the figures you gave me on that spread sheet andy has the glazers net spend between 05-10 as 53.394 which works out as a net spend of 10.67mill per season which is very close to 9mil
from 00-10 which works out as 11 years he has our net spend 163.301 which gives a net spend of 14.8 mill
jred"

Yes correct, then if you add the £47m spent last summer to the £53m to make it £100m, then divide it by six, it will equal £16m. Just like Andy Green says it is.

You say 11 years it's 163.3m (I haven't checked), if you add £47.9m from last year and the £40m (net) Bolingbroke said we will spend this summer and divide it by 13 you will get just under £20m. But I assume 1997/1998/1999's figures bumps it up above £20m. Like I said yesterday I do not have those figures. But Andy hasn't disputed the £20m-£25m net spend over 15 years so why should we? He would have been the first person to say it's wrong. But they are correct my friend.

Sydney!

Syd

the glazers took over in may 2005
so 2005,06,07,08,09,10,11 so it should be dived by 7 which gives you about 14 mill.
but even the 16 is still some way short of 20/25mill


if you add the 160 and 47 it still only gives you 17 mill.I dont think we should add the 40mill from this year as it hasn't been spent yet.
also 1997 net spend was about 0.5 mill
1998 +2.5mill
1999 26mill
so if any thing that would bring the number down.

i suppose it all comes down to opinion in a way but for me the numbers dont add up pal , but i think we have ventured off the op by some way
jred

The Glazers arrived 2005, but the figures are for the season ending 2005. IE 2004/05 season when the Glazers were not in charge. You do not count 2005. Only 2006/07/08/09/10/11. So divide it by six.

Also the £16m per a season is just for the Glazer era, the previous eight seasons according to Bolingbroke and Andy Green bumps it above £20m per a season. Lets just drop it anyway, you are never going to get your head around it.

Sydney!

I have got my head round it.
my issues is that the figures you have giving the ones you say ag and bolingbroke used dont add up to what bolingbroke said.
if ag and bolingbroke say our spend over 10/15 years is 20/ 25 mill then fine but the figures you gave work out as

" net spend between 05-10 as 53.394 which works out as a net spend of 10.67mill per season which is very close to 9mil

from 00-10 which works out as 11 years he has our net spend 163.301 which gives a net spend of 14.8 mill "

which is no were near 20/25 mill.

but we are going round in circles.

on a different point it was interesting to see the true transfer costs including fees etc .
on the downside this also shows that the 40 mill net isn't as much as it looks at first and is actual 8m less than was spent last year
jred

Jred, very true about the net spend being less than last years, but we never sold many last summer, I think Nani may go this summer along with others so the gross spend would be more.

Remember the figures are 2006-2011 so must divide by six, not seven.

Sydney!

Should of also added even with the 48mill they still dont add up as i have pointed out above

jred

That's because we don't have the correct figures for 1997, 1998 & 1999, and I do not mean the figures from Transferleague.co.uk. But AG does and so does Bolingbroke so the fact remains that we have net spent £20m-£25m over the 15 years. And we have net spent £16m minimum per a season under the Glazers. But you are correct about £40m (net) not going as far as people think. It's a valid point that Ed002 has been making since yesterday.

Sydney!

03 Aug 2012 23:58:22
Is it only me that knows Glazers are quite clearly not persons? People act as though they’re r*****s or something.

They know exactly how the majority of fans feel. They knew how they felt when they first took over and they know how they feel now, and they really couldn't care less. After all, these guys are businessmen, not Manchester United fans and care only about their wealth. People need to get over the fact that the Glazers won't change or leave and just get behind the team.

The only way you can hurt the Glazers is if you hurt their pockets, and the fans have almost no chance of doing that. Even if 10,000 decided not to get new season tickets, most of those season tickets will be sold and those that aren't will be snapped up as single game tickets.

Green & Gold achieved what last time exactly? Nothing. And even if the 'Red Knights', or whatever they styled themselves as, stumped up the cash to buy the club, they'd have had to pay way over the odds to even get them to think about selling.

Ultimately, campaigning against the Glazers will surely only be detrimental to the team in the long run, whilst achieving nothing whatsoever.

And no, I'm not a Glazer "fan/lover/supporter/". I hate them as much as the next guy, but I know a lost cause when I see one.

They've purchased a club with minimal investment, increased turnover by 94% and doubled the clubs value whilst systematically taking out large amounts of money to line their own pockets - all the time remaining within the confines of the law.

They seem pretty smart to me...

T0MB0Z

The Glazers got a good deal with us but take a look at their US business and see how that is doing.

To the OP if 10,000 season ticket holders dropped out they would struggle to replace them as they struggle to sell them all now.

Frankly the Glazers have nearly ruined the club financially for the pursuit of their own long term gain.

Red Man