The old Man Utd Thread

[NeoGeo]

Also doing the rounds this morning is that we're set to sign De Gae for £15m. Sorry don't have a link at the moment but it's all over Twitter from journo's. Interesting if true, looked good whenever I've seen him and he's only 20 years of age.

http://holafootball.blogspot.com/2010/09/ferguson-eying-spanish-keeper-de-gae.html

http://www.premiershipnews.org/626-626 (this link from September so looks like Fergie may be following up on initial interest)

[bowser123]

I do think we have money to spend yes. £150-£160m in the bank according to the finance reports and Fergie and Gill both saying that money is there should they need it for new players. I don't know how much money we have to spend, granted but I imagine its a decent enough sum. Even if Glazers all of a sudden take out their carve out of £70m and their yearly £25m 'dividend' (something which they haven't done since being at the club) it still leaves a nice little amount in the bank to strengthen the team where needed.

Wasn't that carve out a feature of the bonds which have only been in place a year or so? It's hardly the same to say they haven't taken it in five years. But, yeah, they've taken no money out bar all those millions in interest payments so they can own an asset they haven't paid for. Not to mention the ACS, splintering of the fans etc etc etc.

You see yesterdays Red Football Limited results? (RFL are the "company" that owns Utd). In particular the wages section. Wages rose near 15%, to go with the 7% the year before. This doesn't include Rooneys money, or the money that Evra and O'Shea will see.

Given RFL's revenue was 63M for the quarter (excluding sales) and wages where 33M for the quarter, aren't they already at the wage limit? Gill said the club won't pay more than 50% of turnover on wages. I don't see how they can afford to buy the new players we want unless they're young and inexperienced, or we sell. Getting Scholes, Giggs, VDS and Neville off the books would make room obviously and will happen at the end of this season or next, but that's one massive hole to plug.

Is that the reason why is was better value to buy Bebe over VDV, or totally ignore Sneijder?

[Trigg]

Wasn't that carve out a feature of the bonds which have only been in place a year or so? It's hardly the same to say they haven't taken it in five years. But, yeah, they've taken no money out bar all those millions in interest payments so they can own an asset they haven't paid for. Not to mention the ACS, splintering of the fans etc etc etc.

True, the carve out feature is a new option for them but it was claimed that it would be taken to pay off the PIK's. I know it still might happen, but thus far it hasn't. The ACS is a scam and I'm with on that one, its the reason why I won't get a Season Ticket.

You see yesterdays Red Football Limited results? (RFL are the "company" that owns Utd). In particular the wages section. Wages rose near 15%, to go with the 7% the year before. This doesn't include Rooneys money, or the money that Evra and O'Shea will see.

Given RFL's revenue was 63M for the quarter (excluding sales) and wages where 33M for the quarter, aren't they already at the wage limit? Gill said the club won't pay more than 50% of turnover on wages. I don't see how they can afford to buy the new players we want unless they're young and inexperienced, or we sell. Getting Scholes, Giggs, VDS and Neville off the books would make room obviously and will happen at the end of this season or next, but that's one massive hole to plug.

Is that the reason why is was better value to buy Bebe over VDV, or totally ignore Sneijder?

Thats for the first quarter though, that might change over the course of a financial year as some income might not be accounted for or received yet? The thing is the Glazers seem to understand that its in their best interest for the team to be competing at the top of the game be it for commercial and sponsorship deals or for prize money and I think for that reason money will be available should Fergie need it (he does).

[MojoChin]

Is that the reason why is was better value to buy Bebe over VDV, or totally ignore Sneijder?

Oh c'mon, we didn't buy Bebe over VDV. Noone knew the VDV deal was gonna go through, especially at that price. If there was a hint that he was available there would have much bigger clubs than Spurs interested.

The Sneijder sale was also a little undercover, but yeah Sneijder should have at least been discussed in the Ronaldo deal.

[bowser123]

True, the carve out feature is a new option for them but it was claimed that it would be taken to pay off the PIK's. I know it still might happen, but thus far it hasn't. The ACS is a scam and I'm with on that one, its the reason why I won't get a Season Ticket.

But if it is another loan like we all think, whose to say they won't take the money? You must admit it's a little odd to insert a clause that lets them take 100M in one go and 29M every season if they don't intend to do it?

No season ticket? Shouldn't even be going to any games...

Thats for the first quarter though, that might change over the course of a financial year as some income might not be accounted for or received yet?

The results are flat though, aren't they? Practically the same as Utds full report issued in October. It's all much of a muchness and I think it'll steadily grow until we get the new Nike deal, then it'll increase significantly. Obviously factors like new TV deals, selling Rooney and match boycotts would markedly skew the figures.

Either way I can't see the club splashing big without sales and the retirement of key players if they want to keep to the 50% rule. I think the squad needs improving with VDS, Giggs, Neville and Scholes in it, without them then it needs even more.

Oh c'mon, we didn't buy Bebe over VDV. Noone knew the VDV deal was gonna go through, especially at that price. If there was a hint that he was available there would have much bigger clubs than Spurs interested.

The Sneijder sale was also a little undercover, but yeah Sneijder should have at least been discussed in the Ronaldo deal.

I was being facetious, sorry.

I know the club didn't buy Bebe over VdV. The comparison is unfair to Bebe, it's just I know who I'd of preferred. Maybe I'll be proven wrong in time.

It's just that all you hear is VALUE VALUE VALUE, and then pay more for the young lad than a proven star and performer and seemingly show no interest in another guy who cost just over 10.

Doesn't add up to me. Maybe the manager didn't rate Sneijder, maybe Spuds swooped in and caught everyone unaware. It's just that bullshit line about value in a market than we inflated that gets me.

[Trigg]

But if it is another loan like we all think, whose to say they won't take the money? You must admit it's a little odd to insert a clause that lets them take 100M in one go and 29M every season if they don't intend to do it?

No season ticket? Shouldn't even be going to any games...

The results are flat though, aren't they? Practically the same as Utds full report issued in October. It's all much of a muchness and I think it'll steadily grow until we get the new Nike deal, then it'll increase significantly. Obviously factors like new TV deals, selling Rooney and match boycotts would markedly skew the figures.

Either way I can't see the club splashing big without sales and the retirement of key players if they want to keep to the 50% rule. I think the squad needs improving with VDS, Giggs, Neville and Scholes in it, without them then it needs even more.

I was being facetious, sorry.

I know the club didn't buy Bebe over VdV. The comparison is unfair to Bebe, it's just I know who I'd of preferred. Maybe I'll be proven wrong in time.

It's just that all you hear is VALUE VALUE VALUE, and then pay more for the young lad than a proven star and performer and seemingly show no interest in another guy who cost just over 10.

Doesn't add up to me. Maybe the manager didn't rate Sneijder, maybe Spuds swooped in and caught everyone unaware. It's just that bullshit line about value in a market than we inflated that gets me.

Oh, I'm sure they'll take the money when their get the chance as it would be pretty silly for them not to as business men. I don't think they'll take money if the club needs it though. Which is probably why they haven't taken anything as yet apart from £10m I believe. It's not ideal and I'd rather the Glazers weren't there, I just don't think it's as bad as some people believe.

I'm not sure the results are flat? I've read that the operating money will go down before going back up due to costs incurred at certain times and also sponsorship/commercial and prize money coming in at different time. Sorry if I've read that incorrect.

I'll always go to games, because I support Manchester United. I'm not one of those people who think boycotting the club is the right thing to do.

[stephen129]

Great defending by Naan Bread against ol' Ronnie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaX8NTtkllw&feature=player_embedded

Ronaldo looked to have put Portugal ahead with a superb effort in the first half, after cleverly turning inside Gerard Piqué before scooping his shot over Iker Casillas.

The stunning effort was dropping into the net but Nani raced in from an offside position to head the ball in from point-blank range, leading to the goal being disallowed.

[bowser123]

Oh, I'm sure they'll take the money when their get the chance as it would be pretty silly for them not to as business men. I don't think they'll take money if the club needs it though. Which is probably why they haven't taken anything as yet apart from £10m I believe. It's not ideal and I'd rather the Glazers weren't there, I just don't think it's as bad as some people believe.

They've not taken anything bar 10M? Eh? What about the 230 million and counting to "buy" the club that they've taken out of the club.

I'm not sure the results are flat? I've read that the operating money will go down before going back up due to costs incurred at certain times and also sponsorship/commercial and prize money coming in at different time. Sorry if I've read that incorrect.

Na, you're correct, it's not flat. I was being lazy using that term. I meant swings and roundabouts, it's steady. Some stuff has increased, some gone down, the end result being the results will be much of a muchness and that last years full report issued in October will be broadly the same next year.

For example the big increase is in commercial activity, but lots of that came from the Aon deal, which is money they took upfront. It looks nice on the report but they obviously can't take that money twice.

The main point was until we renew the Nike deal/ sell Rooney/ boycotts happen/ negotiate our own TV deal the turnover will be broadly the same and as such the club can't afford to take on more 100-150K a week players, if they want to maintain the 50% turnover thing.

Who knows what Rooney is on, but it's accepted he's gone from 100K to 150-200K, yeah? Add in another 50K or so from Evra and O'Shea and that's 2 full signings worth in wages if you get what I mean. These 3 deals aren't included in the latest reports.

I'll always go to games, because I support Manchester United. I'm not one of those people who think boycotting the club is the right thing to do.

Fair enough. Did you go to the Spuds game? Did you participate in the march from Trafford Bar to the cricket ground to the club?

[oli]

Great defending by Naan Bread against ol' Ronnie.

He wasn't offside though?

[phresh]

Who knows what Rooney is on, but it's accepted he's gone from 100K to 150-200K, yeah? Add in another 50K or so from Evra and O'Shea and that's 2 full signings worth in wages if you get what I mean. These 3 deals aren't included in the latest reports.

If and when we bring in new players some will leave so I expect that would offset at least half the wage costs of a new player and possibly more than that. The 25 man squad limits mean if you are bringing in experienced players, as Fergie has said is likely, then it pretty much has to work like that.

They've not taken anything bar 10M? Eh? What about the 230 million and counting to "buy" the club that they've taken out of the club.

Even as a PLC the club must have been paying out £20+ million a season to shareholders so while any money leaving the club for non-football purposes is bad it's not like we would have had that £230 million to spend under the old regime.

I can't see the Glazers worrying too much about using the money (or at least £100 million of it ) from the club to pay off whatever finance they have taken out to cover the PIK's. You would assume that their end game is to sell the club when the bonds mature in 5 years time (or is it 7?) for a healthy profit and paying off the loans might not necessarily work out better value in that time period.

[Trigg]

They've not taken anything bar 10M? Eh? What about the 230 million and counting to "buy" the club that they've taken out of the club.

You knew what I meant. The £230m would have been better in the club of course but the club might not have had that had it not been for the Glazers. Turnover as gone up massively since the Glazers took over. It would be interesting to know how much money would have gone out had the Glazers not bought Man Utd carried on being a PLC. Although I think someone else would have come along ad bought us.

Na, you're correct, it's not flat. I was being lazy using that term. I meant swings and roundabouts, it's steady. Some stuff has increased, some gone down, the end result being the results will be much of a muchness and that last years full report issued in October will be broadly the same next year.

For example the big increase is in commercial activity, but lots of that came from the Aon deal, which is money they took upfront. It looks nice on the report but they obviously can't take that money twice.

The main point was until we renew the Nike deal/ sell Rooney/ boycotts happen/ negotiate our own TV deal the turnover will be broadly the same and as such the club can't afford to take on more 100-150K a week players, if they want to maintain the 50% turnover thing.

Who knows what Rooney is on, but it's accepted he's gone from 100K to 150-200K, yeah? Add in another 50K or so from Evra and O'Shea and that's 2 full signings worth in wages if you get what I mean. These 3 deals aren't included in the latest reports.

Oh, I see. The turnover has gone up year on year I believe and while the scope to improve isn't as big now it still might. We was told that we wouldn't better the AIG sponsorship deal but we did with Aon. We may not like the Glazers but they do seem to know what they're doing with Man Utd on the whole.

Anyway, I was speculating on the idea of new signings by what I've read form different sources and forums and thats all I can do really. I guess we'll just have play the waiting game and hope that when and if Fergie gets some money he uses it wisely!

Fair enough. Did you go to the Spuds game? Did you participate in the march from Trafford Bar to the cricket ground to the club?

I wasn't at the Spurs game, no. I was on holiday in the Maldives so watched it there 8)

Had I been there I'd have participated in the march though, as despite my posting and maybe coming across as a fan of the Glazers. I'd rather them be gone along with their debt.

[Trigg]

I can't see the Glazers worrying too much about using the money (or at least £100 million of it ) from the club to pay off whatever finance they have taken out to cover the PIK's. You would assume that their end game is to sell the club when the bonds mature in 5 years time (or is it 7?) for a healthy profit and paying off the loans might not necessarily work out better value in that time period.

I'll reckon they'll be here past 2017 when the bonds mature. I suspect a refinance will be order and they'll carry on.

If they can somehow manage to get the debt lower or all together make it disappear then Manchester United FC would be a nice little earner for them. They'd have an asset worth £1.5b plus and be able to take a dividend every year if the club carriers on as per the last 5 years. They won't rush into a sale I don't think.

[bowser123]

Rooneys got to be back this weekend, surely? He won't be match fit but better well be fit in every other sense given that's what the US was about. Start him or bring him off the bench then? You've got to think that Wigan at home at 3PM Saturday, when they'll be players down, is the ideal game to get him going. I'd start him personally, though who'd he partner I don't know. Did Chico travel with Mexico? Berba has retired, so he should be fine... I'd like Chico and Rooney, but I don't think it'll go that way.

I dunno I get the feeling Nani might be rested, as will Rio if he did take a knock last night. Did Rafael travel with Brazil?

You look at the games coming up and there's a very good chance we'll be top at Christmas and maybe by a few points.

Saturday, 20 November 2010

Barclays Premier League

Man Utd v Wigan, 15:00

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

Uefa Champions League

Rangers v Man Utd, GpC, 19:45

Saturday, 27 November 2010

Barclays Premier League

Man Utd v Blackburn, 15:00

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

Carling Cup

West Ham v Man Utd, QF, 19:45

Saturday, 4 December 2010

Barclays Premier League

Blackpool v Man Utd, 17:30

Tuesday, 7 December 2010

Uefa Champions League

Man Utd v Valencia, GpC, 19:45

Monday, 13 December 2010

Barclays Premier League

Man Utd v Arsenal, 20:00

Sunday, 19 December 2010

Barclays Premier League

Chelsea v Man Utd, 16:00

Sunday, 26 December 2010

Barclays Premier League

Man Utd v Sunderland, 15:00

Obviously Chelsea having no centre backs is massive, but looking at us we should win every game up until those two big ones at Xmas. Naturally, it doesn't mean it'll go that way. For Blackpool away read Burnley last year, especially as it's one of those shit not afternoon and not night games. Hate half fives. Likewise for Blackburn at home read WBA this year.

The Champions League has fell well, we should have qualified by the time it's Valencia, and Rangers falls between two home games, both of which are 3PM's. For Valenica it's handy that's a Tuesday and it's nearly a week until Arsenal, plus you'd think it was a shadow team that play Valencia anyway.

Hopefully Rooney will hit the ground running and earn his cash, if he does we may just be set up nicely. In seasons gone by I'd be supremely confident we'd win every game until Arse; this season I'm not so sure.

[phresh]

Depends how much the club is worth I suppose, even on dividends of around £25 million a year it would take well over 10 years to get the same money they could if they sold it for in excess of £1 billion.

[phresh]

Assuming both Alex and Terry's injuries are as bad has been said so far they could be in a trouble, especially with Lampard's recurring injuries.

God knows how well we will do in the coming weeks, hopefully a rejuvenated Rooney will reignite the frontline and we can get Giggs and Anderson back in the fold. At least the defense is a bit more settled this year!

[bowser123]

Even as a PLC the club must have been paying out £20+ million a season to shareholders so while any money leaving the club for non-football purposes is bad it's not like we would have had that £230 million to spend under the old regime.

Right, here's where I'm in over my head. Here's a very quick google. Tell me where it goes wrong, if it does:

This article from MUFC says there are (where, it's no longer a PLC) 262,187,628 shares in Utd.

This site lists the dividend price paid by the club. Most years it lists final and interim payments, with some years having a special. So Share holders got paid twice in 2004, 1.25p in May and 1.4p in November. Some years there's a third payout, presumably for hitting targets.

Sound alright so far? Let's do 2004 then

The sum is 262 187 628 * 1.4= 367 062 679. Is that £3,670,626.79?

The second sum is 262 187 628 * 1.25 = 327 734 535. Again, have I decimalised it right and that's £3,277,345.35.

So basically a payout of 7M for 2004. I get the feeling I have the maths wrong. But if I haven't? That's a massive difference between PLC and loan. 45M versus 7M.

Oh, yeah, and it's closer to 300M they've taken out. There's 45M a year in interest times five years, plus another 40 odd million for the cost of introducing the bond.

Turnover as gone up massively since the Glazers took over. It would be interesting to know how much money would have gone out had the Glazers not bought Man Utd carried on being a PLC. Although I think someone else would have come along ad bought us.

Turnover has definitely gone up post Glazer, 100% agree. How much of that is down to them?

Matchday turnover is up. That's down to a bigger ground (where the Stretford End/ East quadrants a PLC or Glazer thing?), a 50-70% increase in ticket price and the ACS. A bigger ground is obviously good. Ticket prices and ACS? Hardly the work of a genius to rip the customer off, is it? I could have thought that one up.

Commercial. That's the biggest increase, obviously. AON deal, a million new sponsors and deals abroad. Thing is how much of it is Glazer and how much of it is Gill? Fuck knows. I do know that Ferguson called Gill brilliant for his work in increasing revenue.

Media. That's massive and has nothing to do with Glazer. The club is the biggest draw and on TV the most because of Busby and Ferguson, a history and heritage of exciting football and an enormous historical fanbase.

I don't think the Goons are idiots, they're running this club very well from a business sense. I think of every club in the country only Arsenal wouldn't swap their books for ours. That said I think two areas have nothing to do with their input (matchday and media) and commercially where does Gills work start and Glazers end.

I wasn't at the Spurs game, no. I was on holiday in the Maldives so watched it there 8)

Had I been there I'd have participated in the march though, as despite my posting and maybe coming across as a fan of the Glazers. I'd rather them be gone along with their debt.

Hope you enjoyed it!

But, yeah, the point of marching around Stretford and then into the ground is? They've got your money and that's all they care about. Nasty words and fans feeling mean nothing to them. They won't go anywhere unless they're deprived of cash.

I don't think you're pro Glazer at all BTW. Being from and living in Manchester I know loads of lads that still go that despise the owners. It's just that as fucking brilliant as this is:

THEY'RE STILL THERE.

Edit- but that's the other thing, the fans fragmentation. There must be about 6 different camps of thought. Tell me if I've missed any:

1. The fucking lunatics that smash things up, wreck race meetings and storm the Megastore. Though I feel a little bad in calling them lunatics as some of their shit is funny, though turning up mob handed to Rooneys house isn't amongst that.

2. The boycotters that won't step foot in OT, be it down to being priced out, hate of the Glazer and unwillingness to pay off their mortgage, atmosphere or a combination of the three.

3. Those that attend OT but protest, and seriously consider not going for reasons similar to 2. Probably have given up their season ticket but go every game anyway.

4. Hold a ST, will always go and though they wear G+G it's often over their replica shirt and megastore bag. This lot write into the MEN talking shite.

5. Day trippers that attend a few times a season that seemingly have no interest in the game and sit taking photos and waving to ITV's camera.

6. Head in the sand folk that think all is fine. Do these exist? They can't surely, outside of people on forums on a wind up. Nobody outside of paid employees think the Glazers are positive, do they?

Edit- 7. People like 3, that don't go but would if they could. Have reservations about ownership but would attend if they lived nearer or had the cash or time.

Fucking hell, forgot about 7 and they're probably the most numerous by far.

It's just one more thing that's come about due to the owners.

[BigShimmeryWall]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/18/manchester-united-signing-anders-lindegaard?CMP=twt_gu

Manchester United on verge of signing £3.5m goalkeeper Anders Lindegaard

Manchester United are close to announcing the signing of the Denmark international goalkeeper Anders Lindegaard after provisionally agreeing terms for the man Sir Alex Ferguson believes can take over from Edwin van der Sar.

Lindegaard will cost around £3.5m from the Norwegian club Aalesunds FK, with the deal expected to be confirmed in the next 48 hours. The chief executive, Henrik Hoff, and the chairman, Bjarne Haagensen, are understood to be in England today and talks are described as at an advanced stage. Jim Solbakken, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer's agent, has been mediating between the two clubs, with Lindegaard due to join in the January transfer window.

If everything goes to according to plan, United now hope they have found a suitable replacement for Van der Sar, who is now 40 and considering retiring at the end of the season.

The Guardian first reported United's interest in Lindegaard on 4 October after the club's goalkeeping coach, Eric Steele, travelled to Norway to watch him for the fifth time. Steele has reported back to Sir Alex Ferguson that the 26-year-old would be a reliable successor for Van der Sar, particularly commanding in the air at 6ft 4ins.

Ferguson and Steele have decided that it is worth the gamble despite Lindegaard barely being on their radar during six years at his previous club Odense. Lindegaard was largely a reserve in that time and was forced to look for new employers after the club signed the former United goalkeeper Roy Carroll.

It was when Lindegaard moved to Aalesunds last year, initially on loan, that his career took off. He was so impressive he was offered a three-year deal and has since taken over from Thomas Sorensen as the Danish No1, winning four caps.

United's need for a new goalkeeper has been a priority at Old Trafford all year, with Ben Foster sold to Birmingham City in the summer and Sir Alex Ferguson having misgivings about Tomasz Kuszczak. The club have high hopes for the 20-year-old Ben Amos but believe he is far from ready for a run in the first team.

David De Gea, the Spain under-21 international, has also come to the attention of United after his performances for Atlético Madrid in La Liga.

Ferguson took Steele on a spying mission earlier this season to watch De Gea play against Valencia, United's Champions League opponents, and it cannot be ruled out that they will try to bring him in as well. De Gea, however, would be far more expensive than Lindegaard, whose low valuation will appeal to United's owners.

[phresh]

Right, here's where I'm in over my head. Here's a very quick google. Tell me where it goes wrong, if it does:

Me too! I was going from memory on the dividends so it may well be lower although i'm sure it must have been more than £3 million as Ferguson often spoke of the constraints (not just financial mind) that being a PLC imposed and I can't see how an amount that small would fit in with that. It doesn't really matter either way, we both know and agree that far more money is going out of the club than necessary.

[Trigg]

Right, here's where I'm in over my head. Here's a very quick google. Tell me where it goes wrong, if it does:

This article from MUFC says there are (where, it's no longer a PLC) 262,187,628 shares in Utd.

This site lists the dividend price paid by the club. Most years it lists final and interim payments, with some years having a special. So Share holders got paid twice in 2004, 1.25p in May and 1.4p in November. Some years there's a third payout, presumably for hitting targets.

Sound alright so far? Let's do 2004 then

The sum is 262 187 628 * 1.4= 367 062 679. Is that £3,670,626.79?

The second sum is 262 187 628 * 1.25 = 327 734 535. Again, have I decimalised it right and that's £3,277,345.35.

So basically a payout of 7M for 2004. I get the feeling I have the maths wrong. But if I haven't? That's a massive difference between PLC and loan. 45M versus 7M.

Oh, yeah, and it's closer to 300M they've taken out. There's 45M a year in interest times five years, plus another 40 odd million for the cost of introducing the bond.

I've no idea how the dividend worked pre Glazers. But I seem to remember something on another forum where someone had worked it and it was a lot closer (some thing were speculative, granted) but that might have been incorrect.

Turnover has definitely gone up post Glazer, 100% agree. How much of that is down to them?

Matchday turnover is up. That's down to a bigger ground (where the Stretford End/ East quadrants a PLC or Glazer thing?), a 50-70% increase in ticket price and the ACS. A bigger ground is obviously good. Ticket prices and ACS? Hardly the work of a genius to rip the customer off, is it? I could have thought that one up.

Commercial. That's the biggest increase, obviously. AON deal, a million new sponsors and deals abroad. Thing is how much of it is Glazer and how much of it is Gill? Fuck knows. I do know that Ferguson called Gill brilliant for his work in increasing revenue.

Media. That's massive and has nothing to do with Glazer. The club is the biggest draw and on TV the most because of Busby and Ferguson, a history and heritage of exciting football and an enormous historical fanbase.

I don't think the Goons are idiots, they're running this club very well from a business sense. I think of every club in the country only Arsenal wouldn't swap their books for ours. That said I think two areas have nothing to do with their input (matchday and media) and commercially where does Gills work start and Glazers end.

I think it is down to them as well as other factors including David Gill and obviously the brand that is Manchester United. I've read that on the commercial side of things they've set up dedicated office in London to get the best deals they can get. They've divided the world in territories to maximize income from sponsorships and partners etc etc. We'll never know if we'd have done that regardless but I think you've got to give them credit that they have done that.

Hope you enjoyed it!

But, yeah, the point of marching around Stretford and then into the ground is? They've got your money and that's all they care about. Nasty words and fans feeling mean nothing to them. They won't go anywhere unless they're deprived of cash.

I don't think you're pro Glazer at all BTW. Being from and living in Manchester I know loads of lads that still go that despise the owners. It's just that as fucking brilliant as this is:

THEY'RE STILL THERE.

Edit- but that's the other thing, the fans fragmentation. There must be about 6 different camps of thought. Tell me if I've missed any:

1. The fucking lunatics that smash things up, wreck race meetings and storm the Megastore. Though I feel a little bad in calling them lunatics as some of their shit is funny, though turning up mob handed to Rooneys house isn't amongst that.

2. The boycotters that won't step foot in OT, be it down to being priced out, hate of the Glazer and unwillingness to pay off their mortgage, atmosphere or a combination of the three.

3. Those that attend OT but protest, and seriously consider not going for reasons similar to 2. Probably have given up their season ticket but go every game anyway.

4. Hold a ST, will always go and though they wear G+G it's often over their replica shirt and megastore bag. This lot write into the MEN talking shite.

5. Day trippers that attend a few times a season that seemingly have no interest in the game and sit taking photos and waving to ITV's camera.

6. Head in the sand folk that think all is fine. Do these exist? They can't surely, outside of people on forums on a wind up. Nobody outside of paid employees think the Glazers are positive, do they?

Edit- 7. People like 3, that don't go but would if they could. Have reservations about ownership but would attend if they lived nearer or had the cash or time.

Fucking hell, forgot about 7 and they're probably the most numerous by far.

It's just one more thing that's come about due to the owners.

The reason I'd march would be because I would want to show that I oppose the Glazers but I'm still here supporting my team. That might be a conflict of interests seeing as they have my money (I usually buy from season ticket holders when they can't make it, however) but I still think I'm showing I want the Glazer removed. I don't want the club to suffer any more by fans boycotting.

Each to their own I guess.

[Guest]

I'm probably a mix between 2 and 3. I still go to watch the team when I can, but I still don't like the idea that my money is going to the Glazers, with obviously no return for my loyal support.

A lot of people I know have given up their season tickets because of their apparent lack of providing funds to progress the team and most are worried they're just running it into the ground, like their shopping malls. I think that's probably a little sensationalist, but I can't say I'm happy about the way they're running the club.

[bowser123]

I think it is down to them as well as other factors including David Gill and obviously the brand that is Manchester United. I've read that on the commercial side of things they've set up dedicated office in London to get the best deals they can get. They've divided the world in territories to maximize income from sponsorships and partners etc etc. We'll never know if we'd have done that regardless but I think you've got to give them credit that they have done that.

Yeah, I think I may have done somebody a disservice somewhere along the line.

Forbessays this:

Type of Revenue 	2002 (£mil) 	2001 (£mil)
Ticket Receipts 	£56.3 	        £51.8
Media 	                51.9 	        31.2
Commercial 	        26.5 	        27.4
Merchandising 	        11.4 	        19.2
Total 	                146.1 	        129.6 

Whereas Utd's report from October 2010 said:

Like I said I'm not giving them any credit for matchday increases, that's come about by being scumbag owners. Likewise they can't take any credit for media, though it's interesting the club gets more from the media in 2010 than the entire turnover in post treble winning seasons.

I must hold my hands up though in regard to sponsorship. I knew Aon was epic, that they'd made great strides but I genuinely didn't realise they'd made it so that it's close to the entire turn over for 2002.

Makes you wonder what will happen with Nike. The deal, in 2001, was 300M for 13 years. We're close to that ending and I think they'll offer silly money if it keeps in line with the other commercial activity.

Sorry if only I find this interesting, off to find the PLC's last ever reports.

[phresh]

Like I said I'm not giving them any credit for matchday increases, that's come about by being scumbag owners.

I think that is probably a bit harsh, short of the club being fan owned and keeping ticket prices low any buyer would have raised prices as that is what the market supports (only just mind as tickets are going on general sale).

[bowser123]

I think that is probably a bit harsh, short of the club being fan owned and keeping ticket prices low any buyer would have raised prices as that is what the market supports (only just mind as tickets are going on general sale).

But they increased it by 50% for most and 70% for some. That's way too much when compared to City and Liverpool. Sure they compare us to Arsenal and Chelsea ticket prices as they're team rivals, but Manchester don't earn London wages does it?

Thrown in the ACS and they're horrible and the actions unjustifiable, they've forced so many out.

The PLC's last reports, as found on United site:

                        11 months ended   12 months ended
                              30 June 2005      31 July 2004
Match day                     66,268            61,206
Media                         48,416            62,544
Commercial                    42,487            45,330
                              157,171           169,080

[phresh]

I'm not saying it's right but if the market is willing pay that much for tickets then that is the price they will set them too, as would any owner (outside of the fans).

[Naysonymous]

If Manchester United fans want to protest at the Glazers through the medium of buying increasingly expensive match tickets then they cant expect things to change very quickly. If the club can find 76,000 people every week who are prepared to pay £40 for a ticket then you cant blame them for charging that. You cant blame them for seeing if those 76,000 people will pay £45 next season either, its the basic rules of supply and demand.

All the green and yellow scarves are doing is making a few quid for the guys on the market stalls outside Old Trafford. Vote with your wallets, its the only way to get people who are in it for the money to listen.

[BigShimmeryWall]

Bebe grabs a couple of goals for the reserves

[Guest]

Bebe grabs a couple of goals for the reserves

His second is a cracker!

[stephen129]

Bebe grabs a couple of goals for the reserves

Showing some good technique there. The second one reminded me of Berbatov for some reason.

[Gabzy]

Carrick (aka Mr. sideways/backwards pass) is so frustrating to watch at the moment. Just a waste of space in that midfield, my window has more creativity.

[exwhyzed]

Wigan will have a player sent off here.