|
News -
FFUC
|
|
Friday, 11 January 2008 00:00 |
Another day, another chance for the suits to say everything is rosy at United. Only this time, it's the 'big one' – a profits statement.
And true to form, David Gill hasn't missed the chance to turn bad news into what some will take as good.
Profits are up, we're told, to £59.6m, an increase of 93% on the £30.8m figure for 2006.
Unfortunately that'll be as far as some go in analysing the figures, contenting themselves that all must be fine.
Here's why it isn't;
2006's figures represented a poor time on the pitch for United. No league title, and not even getting beyond the group stages of the champions league knocked United's money figures badly. The increase in reported profits therefore compares a very good year – Premiership Champions, FA cup finalists, and Champions league semi-finalists – with an unusually poor one. Under those set of circumstances, United couldn't really fail to post dramatically improved headline results, which are nothing to do with Glazer business acumen.
And behind the headline lies the true problem. After tax, United made £42.8m last year. The holding company, Red Football, has to pay £42m a year in debt interest. As an entity therefore, Manchester United profits have all gone in debt interest payments , a situation grimly forecast before the takeover.
Given that, it's a bloody good job United did do well on the pitch last year. We've already witnessed a unprecedented low level of net transfer spending under Glazer, where would league runners up and Champions League group stage elimination have left things?
Desperate to put a shine on the figures, Gill insists that the summer signings of Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves, and Tevez " would have been unimaginable if we had still been a plc,". This despite the plc having spent more than the combined transfer fees of the above players in 2001, on Veron and Van Nistelrooy, without having also sold £20m worth of players in the same window. Oh, and without 8000 extra seats and vastly increased prices in the ground. Not unimaginable at all then, really.
Gill also believes the Glazers should be given credit for, believe it or not, not seeking credit for the part he insists they have played in United's recent success. Getting beyond the obvious 'not seeking credit' faux pas – United are £700m in debt, have re-financed once, and couldn't get the terms they wanted to refinance again – quite what credit the Glazers could wish to expect is a mystery, given that in the new way of things, Alex Ferguson regularly praises the Glazers for leaving the club to run itself.
Even the internal wrangles at Chelsea and Liverpool are somehow meant to be proof of the Glazers intentions. So, because these two clubs have apparently meddling owners, the Glazers must be excellent for doing, well, nothing, as the vast majority of club owners do. It may be because they know nothing about running a football club of course, but that wouldn't make a good sound bite.
Despite efforts at convincing us otherwise, net transfer spend has been negligible, the match day atmosphere diluted beyond anything Sky could achieve on their own through the pricing out and alienation of United's traditional fan base, and even the trumpeted increase in turnover is largely thanks to including the Nike money that wasn't included before. What exactly should we give credit to the Glazers for then David?
Worryingly, Gill remains of the opinion that tickets are still 'undervalued', citing the prices at some London clubs in comparison. Not only does that ignore the fact that everything from a pie to a house costs more in London, as reflected in many employers paying a special extra salary for workers within the M25, it also reveals the shift away from caring about the make up of United's support to the size of their wallets.
All in all then, 2 and half years into the Glazer ownership leaves United as dependent on constant success on the pitch as was feared by many, including Gill, prior to the takeover, with ticket prices in excess of what had been forecast, a declining atmosphere, and a despised compulsory ACS fiasco.
Not so rosy after all is it David?
|
|
Who's Online
We have 14 guests online
|
Â