Eden Hazard (continued)

[Rammyblues]

Why what are you doing ?

Fuck all by the sounds of it. :-)

 

[Red_fan]

You do realise their "worth" has fuck all bearing on their ability to buy anything don't you?

Its because they choose not to buy, and we should take full advantage of that. I know we all have the blue tinted glasses on but like it or not the swamp rags are one of the biggest sporting teams in the world. And if im not mistaken they have had the biggest profits turned over last quarter.

This hazard signing should be our statement that we are the team to beat.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/17/manchester-united-debt-glazers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... bt-glazers</a>

Manchester United's net debt up by £26m as income falls nearly 6%

• Glazers spend £71m on buyback of bonds and on interest
• United's cash reserves drop from £113m to £25.6m

And @dctid, they won't be able to further borrow against their assumed net worth, it is nothing like a mortgage with a fixed asset cost. They are already mortgaged to the fucking hilt. Sure, I think they spend this summer and be able to afford to but their is no limitless stream of affordable credit for Utd anymore. That's why they hid how the paid off the PIK loans, had to issue expensive (8%) bonds and looked to partially float an IPO on the Asian stock market (something they were unable to do thanks to a lack of interest).

read this very informative blog by anders red (football finance expert and a rag to boot so you know it is not anti-rag bias)

<a class="postlink" href="http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/manchester-united-q3-2012-results.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05 ... sults.html</a>

It's a great well informed read and finishes:

If United are to strengthen, money will be needed and that means no more bond buybacks. It probably means lower profitability, in at least the short-term, with negative implications for the valuation achievable at any IPO. The alternative may well be under investment and the club going further backwards relative to its main competitors.

The Glazers know their structure hampers the club. There was heavy briefing of journalists in the run up to the aborted IPO process last year, suggesting debt would be paid down from the IPO proceeds to make United more "competitive". If the IPO can't be delivered however, the club is stuck with its debt and the owners will have to accept lower profits or further relative decline. Can they square this circle?

Well first of all the Guardian article is VERY misleading because the cash reserves are always at a low in that point of the season. They will have risen from that £25m to circa £80m (through reasonable estimations) now.

Secondly, you have to understand that Andersred (while makes good points a lot of the time) has an extreme anti Glazer bias and is known to exaggerate to view them in the worst possible light and overlooks the good things they have brought to the table (doubled revenue and almost doubled the wage bill) at the same time.

I'm under no illusions about the Glazers, I know the club would obviously be better off without them as ultimately money wouldn't be leaking but the amount of scaremongering that goes on over them is hilarious. You would swear we are run on a shoe string budget and haven't been competitive since thy took over way back in 2005. The fact is we are currently in a far healthier state financially now in comparison to when they first took over and the club is still being run in a viable manner whilst remaining competitive.

 

[Heart.net]

If we sign hazard, then great. But if we don't, its not the end of the world. I can't really understand the scum though, trying to sign a player simply to avoid him playing for us, do they not realize that even if you take out one of our targets, we'll still have others ala sanchez & nasri. They simply just do not have the financial muscle in comparison to us, and you can take this as an arrogant post, i don't care, its just the truth.

 

[champi19ns]

United can afford loads if they choose but until they get in a viera or a Keane their midfield will be an open gateway which any strong team will be able to stroll through. Their defence will be older and slower next year . I suspect they have a lot of money as surely they would not spend their money on something that is not their main need. We will finish above them next year unless they sign a truly world class central box to box midfielder good enough to go toe to toe with yaya

i'm not really sure baconface would want a holding midfield in their squad. they haven't used one since keane left. I'm guessing he wants more of a barca style football where they would bombard opposition with crosses and precise passing, hence they are both gunning for the japanese bloke and hazard in their midfield.

If you could remember at the very start of last season the rags were playing with Tom "Zidane" Cleverley and that idiot anderson and they were getting it done and piling on the wins. I'm guessing baconface would want to replicate that

 

[SWP's back]

Well first of all the Guardian article is VERY misleading because the cash reserves are always at a low in that point of the season. They will have risen from that £25m to circa £80m (through reasonable estimations) now.

Secondly, you have to understand that Andersred (while makes good points a lot of the time) has an extreme anti Glazer bias and is known to exaggerate to view them in the worst possible light and overlooks the good things they have brought to the table (doubled revenue and almost doubled the wage bill) at the same time.

I'm under no illusions about the Glazers, I know the club would obviously be better off without them as ultimately money wouldn't be leaking but the amount of scaremongering that goes on over them is hilarious. You would swear we are run on a shoe string budget and haven't been competitive since thy took over way back in 2005. The fact is we are currently in a far healthier state financially now in comparison to when they first took over and the club is still being run in a viable manner whilst remaining competitive.

It's not THAT misleading when you consider that you had circa £100m at the same point last season (before all your SC money came in!)

Secondly, you are still in good shape, I shall admit that but your model is only sustainable so long as you are competitive every season. Fergusons force of will allowed you to finish second last season, your make of break will be the next 3 or 4 as City strengthen, Fergie rebuilds and then retires. If you fall away dring that period then shit will be hitting fans.

 

[champi19ns]

If we sign hazard, then great. But if we don't, its not the end of the world. I can't really understand the scum though, trying to sign a player simply to avoid him playing for us, do they not realize that even if you take out one of our targets, we'll still have others ala sanchez & nasri. They simply just do not have the financial muscle in comparison to us, and you can take this as an arrogant post, i don't care, its just the truth.

problem is. who is there that we could still buy in this transfer season. Im doubt that gotze would be leaving dortmund after the japanese bloke leaves. the only player at the top of my head as of the moment that can be rotated with silva or nasri would be modric.

 

[mad zab]

United can sign all the wingers and attackers they want but they will be beatable and not the best still. Simply their weakness is in central midfield where they lack pace, strength, height, quality and dominance. They want to win the league they address that they don't they won't. If they sign hazard then either they have 100m to spend, they are selling Rooney or fergie is losing his ability as manager

If If they land Hazard and that Dortmund bloke and with Vidic coming back next season they will be much much stronger

Rags are valued well in excess of 1 Billion with debts of 600 Million - why the fook this stupid persistent crap that the rags are skint and cant buy persists i dont know

We beat them with the narrowest of margins and they WILL be stronger than last season and we must also strengthen.

The debt isn't even 600m anymore. The gross debt is down to 423m, net debt around 330m. Our revenue for this season should be around 330-340m.

A float is meant to take place this Summer that the Glazers are hoping to raise around 600m from.

United are far from skint and it's hilarious that people keep peddling that BS.

The only BS on here is from you you filthy stinking RAG!!!

If it was up to me your filth would never be allowed on this board!!

Stop infecting it with your scummy thoughts!!

 

[avoidconfusion]

Your GROSS revenue might be 330-340m, although I very much doubt that considering that you have won pretty much nothing this season and did not even make it out of the CL group.

See also here:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/9272484/Manchester-United-sponsorship-increase-eases-revenue-drop-from-failed-Champions-League-campaign.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... paign.html</a>

Fact is while you might have a nice amount of gross revenue, that does not factor in your outgoings and the payments you have to make to pay off your debts.

 

[Rammyblues]

Strokes chin, why are we talking about the rags debt in the transfer forum on a thread dedicated to the possible signing of a player. :-)

 

[i8rags]

Every time I come on this thread I have to trail through post after post of red shite talking shite.
Please fuck off back to own shite site. Your ruining mine.