It's all about money today. As I've already mentioned whenever the subject comes up I'm no economist so...
Even sat here trying to decide what to include is a problem. Figures make my head spin... The crux of the matter seems to be that we made lots of money last year but then it was all eaten up by debt. It's further confused by all the different companies that seem to be involved. And then different papers focus on different things so what's actually important? Here's a summary from The Mirror:
The Mirror is sure of one thing though:Manchester United have posted the most spectacular profits for any British football club - while at the same time being part of its biggest debt.
Accounts to June 2008 reveal turnover at the club has risen an incredible 22% to £256.2million, underpinning a 7.5% increase in profits to £80.4million.
However, Red Football - the umbrella for United and its various offshoots - confirmed a loss of £44.8million, taking their overall debt to an eye-watering £649.4million.
On the debt The Guardian (and I didn't see some of this reported in the other papers) says this:What cannot be argued is that as a club, United remain a worldwide phenomenon.
In the week when dire warnings have been issued about the future of former Premier League rival Southampton and top flight clubs are slashing prices to try and fill embarrassingly large spaces in their stadiums, chief executive David Gill is leading one of the most in-demand sporting organisations on the planet.
What the difference between debt secured on the club and debt secured on the Glazer's shares is I'm not really sure (and when I reread that sentence it makes less sense - debt secured on club = £511; but then "the majority of the remainder" isn't secured against the clubs assets? Meaning some of it is?)In a year in which United won the Premier League and Champions League, received increased TV income and boosted takings at Old Trafford thanks to price rises and new corporate boxes, turnover was boosted by 22% to a record £256m, driving an increase in operating profits to £80.4m. The debt secured against the football club remains at £511m.
The majority of the remainder of the parent company's total borrowings of £699m are not secured against the club's assets but against the Glazers' own shareholding
I've had enough of the debt/money thing. On the Glazer's there's an article by Henry Winter in The Telegraph which is kind of hard to argue with:
Can't really disagree, whatever all the figures mean...The Glazers own one of the greatest sporting institutions in the world but never seem to enjoy it.
Sad people. The Glazers will never appreciate the sight of watching Wayne Rooney volley another gem against Newcastle United, of Cristiano Ronaldo humiliating a full-back or Edwin van der Sar stretching out a glove to make another stunning save. The Glazers are business people, not football people. They should be pitied really.
And now they have even got the business part wrong. All those fears that the burdening of United with debt when the Glazers pulled their takeover stunt have been realised by the club's latest accounts.
Ferguson keeps driving the team into credit, developing players and lifting trophies but all his good work, all his profit-making, effectively funds the Glazers's debt repayment programme.
United's debt stands at £699 million. Will Ronaldo be sold to Real Madrid to keep the Glazers's banks happy? Will season ticket prices rise? What a mess.
United are a magnificent club who were profitably run before a family of Florida carpetbaggers swanned into town, brushing genuine people aside.
Elsewhere there's an interview with CNN by Sir Alex which is reported in all the papers. He comments on Ronaldo:
"I think that he's had temptations and I think there have been periods when you've seen the effect [on the pitch]. He's lucky in the sense that people here can tell him the truth and be straight with him and he appreciates that, and he has responded to that."And also comments on success in Europe:"If it stays with him and changes him as a person then you have a problem. Fortunately Ronaldo has good human qualities. He's a good guy. He knows when he's gone too far and he draws back in after that."
"If there was one challenge, I'd love the club to win more European trophies than they have done," he said.Despite that last sentence, elsewhere he is quoted as saying his health will dictate his retirement, not "specific trophies":"There have been years when we've been unlucky and years we've been disappointed, and there have been years when we've thrown games away, and that sort of gives a kaleidoscope of what football's like really in a way. So therefore if we could win a couple more European trophies I then would definitely quit."
The Sun report that we're "closing in on" the signing of Douglas Costa:"I am 67 now," he said. "At the moment I am still healthy and enjoying my job. If that was different I would quit immediately.
"But winning a specific trophy does not come into it.
"I would love this club to win more European trophies. We definitely should have at least a couple more.
"But just by being in so many semi-finals and quarter-finals, it shows you how hard it is to win."
MANCHESTER UNITED are closing in on Brazilian whizkid Douglas Costa.The Gremio midfielder, 18, is attracting attention across Europe.
He has been hailed as the new Ronaldinho and his club have just turned down an £8million bid from Villarreal for his services.
United have been monitoring Costa through their South American scout — former centre-back Jaap Stam.
Inter Milan, Real Madrid and Liverpool are also tracking the rookie, who is due to talk to interested clubs at the end of the month.
Costa would not need a work permit to move to England because he has a Portuguese passport.
Chris Nathaniel, Costa’s advisor, said: “The boy is special and loves the Premier League. He has a lot of offers to consider.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment