Spurs-The bitterness is reaching dipperlike proportions

[Metal Biker]

"Record profits of 100 milliion"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/13/manchester-united-financial-figures

That's commerical revenue of £100m not profits.

I think we're wasting our time with this one.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

"Record profits of 100 milliion"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/13/manchester-united-financial-figures

That's commerical revenue of £100m not profits.

I think we're wasting our time with this one.

Think I'm wasting my time trying to spell commercial as well!

Thought he was reasonably bright until that. Here's what David Conn said a few days ago:

Across Manchester, United made £286m turnover, more than any other club if Arsenal's property income is discounted – yet the costs and interest on the debts the owners, the Glazer family, have loaded on to the club, pushed United into a losing £79m.

 

[Metal Biker]

That's commerical revenue of £100m not profits.

I think we're wasting our time with this one.

Think I'm wasting my time trying to spell commercial as well!

Thought he was reasonably bright until that.

Hey it's a simple typo, nothing wrong with that ;)

I agree, he fights his corner well, but he appears to only see what he wants to see.

 

[Sugarloaf]

Forbes value the club at 1.8bn. The Glazers owe 477m. That's a tidy profit for them if they sell OR they could put it back on the stock market. And the 2 billion that you say Qatar holdings would need, it really is a small punt for them. The holding company alone has assets of 40bn. That doesn't include the wealth of the Qatar royal family. And they bought Harrods for 1.5bn. How long will it take them to re-coup that money?

 

[Metal Biker]

That's commerical revenue of £100m not profits.

I think we're wasting our time with this one.

Think I'm wasting my time trying to spell commercial as well!

Thought he was reasonably bright until that. Here's what David Conn said a few days ago:

Across Manchester, United made £286m turnover, more than any other club if Arsenal's property income is discounted – yet the costs and interest on the debts the owners, the Glazer family, have loaded on to the club, pushed United into a losing £79m.

How does a club that makes close to £290m make a loss of £80m??

It beggars belief.<br /><br />-- Sat May 21, 2011 11:49 pm --<br /><br />

Forbes value the club at 1.8bn. The Glazers owe 477m. That's a tidy profit for them if they sell OR they could put it back on the stock market. And the 2 billion that you say Qatar holdings would need, it really is a small punt for them. The holding company alone has assets of 40bn. That doesn't include the wealth of the Qatar royal family. And they bought Harrods for 1.5bn. How long will it take them to re-coup that money?

Sheikh Mansour was reported to have some doubts about a club who, at the time, only made £80m yet was only worth £120m.

And this is a man worth £19bn (well was, he's now about £22bn) I know you think all these "Arabs" are more money than sense types but they really aren not. They are careful and intelligent investors and if i had that sort of money i wouldn't be prepared to invest 10% of MY fortune in a club where i'd only get my return after 20 years?

City are low cost, low risk in comparison, but have already raised the profile of HH Sheikh Mansour and the UAE considerably.

 

[Sugarloaf]

"Record profits of 100 milliion"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/13/manchester-united-financial-figures

That's commerical revenue of £100m not profits.

I think we're wasting our time with this one.

Okay, that's the wrong story I had in mind. I read in the press this week that for winning the Premier league they will get 52 million. For getting to the final of the champions league 65 million. Add to this shirt sales and match day revenue and the profits are substantial. This makes the club self sufficient and able to live within their means. Which was the actual point I was making to our Chelsea friend.

 

[Metal Biker]

That's commerical revenue of £100m not profits.

I think we're wasting our time with this one.

Okay, that's the wrong story I had in mind. I read in the press this week that for winning the Premier league they will get 52 million. For getting to the final of the champions league 65 million. Add to this shirt sales and match day revenue and the profits are substantial. This makes the club self sufficient and able to live within their means. Which was the actual point I was making to our Chelsea friend.

For winning the Premier League AND the Champions League you'll get £52m.

Premier League isn't much more than £20m.

UCL winners get 9million Euros. From Start to finish a club can earn around 18million Euros. That would push you to around 65m.

 

[Castiel]

Forbes value the club at 1.8bn. The Glazers owe 477m. That's a tidy profit for them if they sell OR they could put it back on the stock market. And the 2 billion that you say Qatar holdings would need, it really is a small punt for them. The holding company alone has assets of 40bn. That doesn't include the wealth of the Qatar royal family. And they bought Harrods for 1.5bn. How long will it take them to re-coup that money?

I'm not contesting that this will end well for the Glazers, because it will. All their previous liquidations have. But the business they ended up liquidating didn't.

It doesn't matter if they have combined assets of 40bn. 2 billion out of 40 is still 5% of their combined assets! Why take that risk? There is no logic behind it at all. Not to mention you're citing the combined assets of an entire oil empire and royal dynasty. That is WAY above the personal wealth funding Man City or Chelsea.

If we really want to get technical, the EU economic regulations would prevent the UAE oil family from purchasing Man United because of conflict of interest. So that's one bunch of billionaires rules out already. There are only a hand full of them in the world.

Harrods is irrelevant because that business turns over a profit, Man United operates at a £80m loss as it is.

From here I'm going to stop arguing. This thread has gone completely out of control and I was originally refuting claims of Spurs being a superior club to Chelsea or Man City. Or a bigger club, whatever. Now we're talking about Arab billionaires and Man United's debt which is the biggest tangent I've ever seen. I also feel like we're rehashing the same points over and over in different words. So thread officially hijacked - nice debating you Sugarloaf but I'm tapping out.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I think we're wasting our time with this one.

Okay, that's the wrong story I had in mind. I read in the press this week that for winning the Premier league they will get 52 million. For getting to the final of the champions league 65 million. Add to this shirt sales and match day revenue and the profits are substantial. This makes the club self sufficient and able to live within their means. Which was the actual point I was making to our Chelsea friend.

For winning the Premier League AND the Champions League you'll get £52m.

Premier League isn't much more than £20m.

£16m last season.

 

[Metal Biker]

Okay, that's the wrong story I had in mind. I read in the press this week that for winning the Premier league they will get 52 million. For getting to the final of the champions league 65 million. Add to this shirt sales and match day revenue and the profits are substantial. This makes the club self sufficient and able to live within their means. Which was the actual point I was making to our Chelsea friend.

For winning the Premier League AND the Champions League you'll get £52m.

Premier League isn't much more than £20m.

£16m last season.

I must have been reading in Euros. ;)

You're right.