Manchester United

[catcherintherye]

Jealousy more likely, leads to the laziest area to target.

Like you target Uniteds debt. There is little wrong with debt, as long as a club can service it. But the actual target should be the Merican franchise model/cash cow operation. Its fine when things go well, but dodgy when the inevitable change in fortune occurs.

A quick peek at North London for example.

I don't massively like debt in companies, but as you say it's not really one of the key things I'd really look at. If the company can grow it's invested capital at a faster rate than the debt repayments, it's actually good to be in debt. Over a prolonged period Manchester United have always shown their ability to do that. Their debt to equity ratio is about 1:1 which is fine too.

Id have a concern about the cash situation. They are burning through cash reserves. That would be a big worry I would have.

As you say though, people look at the negatives, but look at United's turnover, revenues etc when the Glaziers arrived. They have grown the club massively in that time, delivered titles, European cups etc. They take a portion out for doing so and people get fixated on it. I always think in life, you're best off not getting too taken up in details like that. Are they delivering for you. Forget what they take, if they are delivering for you, are you happy with that? If you're not fine, but I'd always judged an ownership on the criteria of what they did for a business.

 

[catcherintherye]

But St Virgil of the slightly sore knee is missing in action and that explains them losing all their home games

Yes I mean CB VVD would have been the key link in the chaina s to why Salah, Jota, Mane and Firmino played in a team that scored 0 goals in open olay in 6 matches.

 

[Brisan123]

It’s swings and roundabouts. The European Cup only had champions in it so it’s much harder to get in, but once in you maybe only face two or three really top sides, and while the Champions League is much easier to get in, you face at least three top sides (could also be put in a difficult group, there’s always one). Basically, they balance each other out.

Harking back to compare is silly anyway. Look at four of our five opponents in the CWC win: UCD, Inter Bratislava, Fortuna Sittard and Rapid Vienna. Would any of them survive in the championship? I know this example is from the CWC and not the EC where the champions played but the point is the same, it’s swings and roundabouts.

????????????????????????????

 

[Brisan123]

I think the biggest issue was the European ban as it took a few years for English teams to be competitive in the EC again. When you stop playing against the best, your standards fall, and five years out of Europe set English teams back a lot. As well as not playing against the best, so many top English players left for the continent: Gazza, Waddle, Hoddle, Lineker, Platt, (Des) Walker. English domestic football went backwards.

United losing to Galatasaray and even Gothenburg gave you the runaround, so it wasn’t just Barca that rinsed Pallister, Bruce and co. Didn’t you lose your unbeaten home record to Ferencvaros (sp?). If I remember correctly I think you did. Not even the top sides were beating United in the Champions League. It took a good seven or eight years before English football was able to compete at the top table again, culminating with “And Solskjær has won it”.

AND who caused that
Your lot

 

[Yarrgh]

????????????????????????????

Boom. Always funny when the mask slips.

 

[number4.]

Just a quick question on this mate. But Manchester City's owners have managed to turn City into both a profit making entity and have radically enhanced the value of their club, far beyond what Liverpool have done. So if we were to use that criteria then they too must have been successful?

I personally don't agree with the "poison" analogy, although it tends to bemore United and Liverpool (albeit to their previous owners) who would band about words like that. I don't think they are poison. You may not agree with their investing strategy, or their decision making approach, but clearly they arenot poison trying to destroy something. Why would they? It's in the Glaziers and FSG's interests to run a profitable business.

Every club is ran as a business, but there are different values that underpin it. Clearly some companies have management who are willing to sacrifice shorter term profitability for longer term growth. I'll be honest it's not my school of thinking in business, but it's legitimate school of thinking which many businesses adopt. Have a look at Tesla's price currently, worth about 10 x that of Ferrari, GM, Ford etc yet people are cuing up to buy them, and big investors are predicted the price increase anywhere from 2-5 x over the coming years. Yet it has no cash, no profits etc. People feel in 5 years time it will be a world leading company. Thats fair enough too, it's their money as shareholders to do with what they please.

To answer your first question, for me you cant be a profit making business when a huge % of your revenue comes from sponsoring yourself.

I appreciate the city group have managed to successfully steer the ship away from the brand Abu dhabi into more commercial waters in recent years and while, yes for sure their balance sheet suggest a sustainable model, there still remains alot of questions when an entity is effectively sponsoring itself through various channels & there continues to be suggestions of the amount of their wage bill being on the books Vs off it via image rights deals.

@PaulPowersTash; I appreciate you feel the need to run to the defence and the discussion of "Man City Bingo" is fair, but for me I am really uncomfortable with sportswashing & have never hid that here. You can dress it up what ever way you want, but for me, that remains the case at city. The primary role is not commercial or creating wealth, it is soley about portraying an image of a state through a football club. Off course bring success on and off the pitch is all part of the branding exercise. Likewise, I would love to watch Joshua V Fury, but when that ends up in Saudi, I certainly wont be supporting it.

 

[number4.]

It's not state ownership. It's a private investment by a highly successful businessman.
You can scoff at that all you like but that just happens to be an inconvenient fact that
you and others cannot accept.
Let's look at it from a different perspective:
If American / British / European owners had come in and done what the 'arabs' had done at City
does anyone actually think it would be criticised anywhere near as much?
Lets cover the 'human rights' and 'sportswashing' topic before you tick that one off your bingo card:
America has probably the worst human rights record in the history of the world. Only just short of Germany in the 1930's. This is a country where still, even today, they strap people into a chair and electrocute them. If that's not bad enough they then strap people down and inject them with a lethal cocktail of drugs to kill them whilst people sit there and watch. Hey, that's cool... America is the most overtly racist country in the world (I know I lived in North Carolina for almost a year) and has no plans to stop being so anytime soon. That much is very clear. Yeah, lets talk about human rights shall we...
American owners come into the game and start to milk it. They start to drain it dry. They come up with ideas like 'Project Big Picture' just so they can screw even more money out if whilst ruining the game we know. But, that's OK as well? However, all of that is accepted and actually embraced! However, a bunch of 'arabs' come in with a serious investment plan and execute it to perfection, but that's unacceptable, wrong, immoral, sportswashing etc etc.
Have a think about it roydo. It just doesn't add up does it? and as I say, I think we know why...

This is exactly why Sportswashing is dangerous, it manages to create a situation where people will deny what is clear as day in front of them to understandably defend their club. Sportswashing viciously leverages the blind loyalty we all have in football and that is why it is so powerful.

We see it way more alarmingly with the barcodes coming out in their droves to defend SA & their role in the Khashoggi murder. Football fans 1000's of miles away defending the role of a ME state in murder. That's bananas.

While the ownership status at CIty is way more trivial than that & while I accept City might technically be under the ticketed ownership of one individual, it is clear that when that individual is a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family, a key head of state with various roles including management of the state investment fund, the state clearly plays a role in the ownership.

 

[number4.]

It's not state ownership. It's a private investment by a highly successful businessman.
You can scoff at that all you like but that just happens to be an inconvenient fact that
you and others cannot accept.
Let's look at it from a different perspective:
If American / British / European owners had come in and done what the 'arabs' had done at City
does anyone actually think it would be criticised anywhere near as much?
Lets cover the 'human rights' and 'sportswashing' topic before you tick that one off your bingo card:
America has probably the worst human rights record in the history of the world. Only just short of Germany in the 1930's. This is a country where still, even today, they strap people into a chair and electrocute them. If that's not bad enough they then strap people down and inject them with a lethal cocktail of drugs to kill them whilst people sit there and watch. Hey, that's cool... America is the most overtly racist country in the world (I know I lived in North Carolina for almost a year) and has no plans to stop being so anytime soon. That much is very clear. Yeah, lets talk about human rights shall we...
American owners come into the game and start to milk it. They start to drain it dry. They come up with ideas like 'Project Big Picture' just so they can screw even more money out if whilst ruining the game we know. But, that's OK as well? However, all of that is accepted and actually embraced! However, a bunch of 'arabs' come in with a serious investment plan and execute it to perfection, but that's unacceptable, wrong, immoral, sportswashing etc etc.
Have a think about it roydo. It just doesn't add up does it? and as I say, I think we know why...

This is exactly why Sportswashing is dangerous, it manages to create a situation where people will deny what is clear as day in front of them to understandably defend their club. Sportswashing viciously leverages the blind loyalty we all have in football and that is why it is so powerful.

We see it way more alarmingly with the barcodes coming out in their droves to defend SA & their role in the Khashoggi murder. Football fans 1000's of miles away defending the role of a ME state in murder. That's bananas.

While the ownership status at CIty is way more trivial than that & while I accept City might technically be under the ticketed ownership of one individual, it is clear that when that individual is a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family, a key head of state with various roles including management of the state investment fund, the state clearly plays a role in the ownership.

 

[catcherintherye]

To answer your first question, for me you cant be a profit making business when a huge % of your revenue comes from sponsoring yourself.

I appreciate the city group have managed to successfully steer the ship away from the brand Abu dhabi into more commercial waters in recent years and while, yes for sure their balance sheet suggest a sustainable model, there still remains alot of questions when an entity is effectively sponsoring itself through various channels & there continues to be suggestions of the amount of their wage bill being on the books Vs off it via image rights deals.

@PaulPowersTash; I appreciate you feel the need to run to the defence and the discussion of "Man City Bingo" is fair, but for me I am really uncomfortable with sportswashing & have never hid that here. You can dress it up what ever way you want, but for me, that remains the case at city. The primary role is not commercial or creating wealth, it is soley about portraying an image of a state through a football club. Off course bring success on and off the pitch is all part of the branding exercise. Likewise, I would love to watch Joshua V Fury, but when that ends up in Saudi, I certainly wont be supporting it.

Why can't you sponsor yourself (or use people in your wider mileu or business circle) to do so? I mean thats not the basis of what profit is it?

As for Sportswashing, yes to some degree there is probably some of that going on. However, is it not Sportswashing when you present a Jersey of the team you own to Donald Trump? What is that if not to try to deligitmise an illigeitimate figure who tried to overturn democracy?

Thats the point in all of this. If we are going to throw labels about, lets at least do it consistently.

 

[number4.]

Why can't you sponsor yourself (or use people in your wider mileu or business circle) to do so? I mean thats not the basis of what profit is it?

As for Sportswashing, yes to some degree there is probably some of that going on. However, is it not Sportswashing when you present a Jersey of the team you own to Donald Trump? What is that if not to try to deligitmise an illigeitimate figure who tried to overturn democracy?

Thats the point in all of this. If we are going to throw labels about, lets at least do it consistently.

Firstly - I've not moral objection to Man city sponsoring themselves, it's no different to USM or even Abramovich writing a cheque to cover losses. It;s just a mechanic to bypass the ridiculous FFP

Yeah you are right - I think there are lines within lines here and ideally there should be no relationship between sport and politics, but that is not the world we live in. FSG clearly in bed in US republicanism and Trump, but it is a stretch to suggest they were playing a role in his (trumps) attempts to overturn democracy, his (henry's) newspaper certainly denounced the attempted coup.

Where I think there is a further line is Sportswashing (in my view) is it is states trying to rebrand their dictatorships to the rest of the world. In another post I mentioned the extremes of Newcastle fans defending SA over Khassoggi & that for me is why it should never be allowed, although I fully accept money talks and it is here to stay.

 

[catcherintherye]

Firstly - I've not moral objection to Man city sponsoring themselves, it's no different to USM or even Abramovich writing a cheque to cover losses. It;s just a mechanic to bypass the ridiculous FFP

Yeah you are right - I think there are lines within lines here and ideally there should be no relationship between sport and politics, but that is not the world we live in. FSG clearly in bed in US republicanism and Trump, but it is a stretch to suggest they were playing a role in his (trumps) attempts to overturn democracy, his (henry's) newspaper certainly denounced the attempted coup.

Where I think there is a further line is Sportswashing (in my view) is it is states trying to rebrand their dictatorships to the rest of the world. In another post I mentioned the extremes of Newcastle fans defending SA over Khassoggi & that for me is why it should never be allowed, although I fully accept money talks and it is here to stay.

I suppose my point is, if we are building a morality set on where we draw said lines I personally think it's flawed. Like this bit of sports washing is bad, but this ones ok because his newspaper might condemn action A but posing for him with action B.

I agree with you, I wouldn't have any sports washing at all, and fans would own the clubs. But if we are going to denounce things, I'll denounce things consistently. Posing for pictures with Donald Trump at the white house is every bit as damaging as sponsoring a football club or whatever.

And no, they didn't play a role in directly supporting his coup, but I doubt the owners of Manchester City directly get involved with lots of things either. The point is, with Henry such actions act to normalise someone like Trump to the public, it makes him appear respectable and gives him the confidence and space to carry out such outrageous acts.

If we are going to use the defence of what a newspaper he owns says (and bare in mind, he owns a newspaper in a heavily left wing, democrat leaning City, so he is not going to take any other stance as the aim is to sell papers) then thats fair enough, but you can't have a pop at other clubs or owners with connections to despotic rulers, on the basis that it may or may not be further along some line. It's either wrong or it's not.

 

[number4.]

I suppose my point is, if we are building a morality set on where we draw said lines I personally think it's flawed. Like this bit of sports washing is bad, but this ones ok because his newspaper might condemn action A but posing for him with action B.

I agree with you, I wouldn't have any sports washing at all, and fans would own the clubs. But if we are going to denounce things, I'll denounce things consistently. Posing for pictures with Donald Trump at the white house is every bit as damaging as sponsoring a football club or whatever.

And no, they didn't play a role in directly supporting his coup, but I doubt the owners of Manchester City directly get involved with lots of things either. The point is, with Henry such actions act to normalise someone like Trump to the public, it makes him appear respectable and gives him the confidence and space to carry out such outrageous acts.

If we are going to use the defence of what a newspaper he owns says (and bare in mind, he owns a newspaper in a heavily left wing, democrat leaning City, so he is not going to take any other stance as the aim is to sell papers) then thats fair enough, but you can't have a pop at other clubs or owners with connections to despotic rulers, on the basis that it may or may not be further along some line. It's either wrong or it's not.

Yeah again you are really right to ask that question. I guess my line is state's using the good intentions and blind loyalty of sports fans to wash away the crimes of their dictatorships. I appreciate SA is a very different place to Abu Dhabi, but there is a reason football clubs are being used by these states. It's an effective rebranding tool.

But that's my morality line, when it comes to ownership, for me it is less about the morals of owners, but instead the manipulated actions of fans to defend these states that concerns me. I dont think anyone questions if USM or Abramovich are squeaky clean, but USM and Abramovich are not manipulating fans to create an army of twitter warriors to defend them & that troubles me.

Even @PaulPowersTash, who is clearly a smart rationale fella, arguing that Man City is "owned by a successful business man" shows how people will ignore what's clear as day to everyone else, in order to defend their club, which let's be honest, we all do to an extent

 

[Seathestars]

????????????????????????????

Well spotted, they can’t help themselves

 

[PaulPowersTash]

Good debate going on here. Interesting stuff.
Let me throw another curved ball in...
West Ham United:
Everyone knows that the provenence of the money which bought the club came from the porn industry.
The sexual exploitation of women. Not a raised eyebrow about that anywhere. Not a question. Not a subject
for discussion - no need. Nothing to see here. Move along...
How can that be acceptable but money made from a natural resource is not?
As for state owned / state aid - Real Madrid & Barcelona have recently been found guilty in a court of
law for receiving state aid for over 20 years and have been told they have to pay it back. When was the last
time you saw that in the press or discussed in the media? When was the last time you was told that all of the
trophies that they have won during this time are tarnished and worthless?

 

[roydo]

Real Madrid & Barcelona have recently been found guilty in a court of
law for receiving state aid for over 20 years

You got a source for that? Passed me by totally.