Glazer accounts reveal Manchester United suffered £60m loss.

[YemiBrazil]

The Glazer 5 year plan was not based on Utd winning the EPL/ECL. It was based on maintaining a decent standing in the league and reaching the quarter finals of the CL once every 3 years. Now Utd has won the league twice with a chance for third and won the CL always appearing in the quarters, now you do the math. Before Glazer, Utd could afford 30m on players so there's nothing new as per that and last summer Berba was the only player bought despite the fact that we got 83m (50m EPL, 33m CL) from prize money alone.

As per wages, you may be surprised that the difference in total wages between Assanal and Man Utd is actually not that much. Despite our depth and number of English players.

Manchester Utd - £92.3m (£85.4m)
Arsenal - £89.7m (£82.9m)
The numbers in brackets are for the 06/07 season. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7423254.stm

And which old players are you talking about? Is it Scholes that canned Barca enroute to the CL final or Giggsy that destroyed Mourinho and Inter? Another misnomer here is that a player's transfer valuation is only based on onfield output. You guys like to talk like everybody else is a complete angel* except Wenger. A 17yr old Wayne Rooney at 27m is a better deal than 28yr old Arshavin at 16m (Vidic 7m + Evra 5.5 + Van der Sar 2m). Lets see how many EPL and CL titles he'll deliver. Time will soon tell whether Nasri at 14m is a better deal than Ronaldo at 12.5m. Not many Utd first team players are worth less than 15m to 20m.

One thing I'd also like to point out is that the personal guarantee of a borrower is more valuable. Glazer debt does not necessarily translate to Man Utd debt. Now I'm not saying Utd has no debt but unless the bankers are idiots, they won't be excited about changing loans borrowed against all of Glazer's financial interest to just Manchester United. This is what baffles me about the reasoning in here. If you're a big enough company and Utd is part of your portfolio, 60m in losses in this climate is not overthetop. How many billions has Roman lost? Even if we check ourselves, what percentage of our investments have vanished within the last 8 months? When you guys realize that the fountain of financial wisdom does not begin and end at Wenger's feet, perhaps you'd have some repreive. You're ready to say anything about other clubs but will quickly shout long term when Assanal finances are discussed.

ok oh! if you are very convinced that accumulating debts and operating losses like this is actually sustainable, then, we will just have to wait and have this discussion in a not too distant future. Even Chelsea have learnt to slow down a bit. I'm a faithful follower of Arsene and his policy of not spending more than you can generate (actually, not spending unless it is really necessary). We have enough examples to show us that merely spending for the sake of spending do not automatically translate to success (look at Spurs & Liverpool). And by the way, Arsenal's investment in real estate will come good unless you think the current recession is a permanent problem.

Not many clubs can get away with what Manchester United is doing but then we are Manchester United and that's the real deal Credit to Wenger for building a youthful squad spending less but a 30m plus midfield that includes Andrei and Nasri is not necessarily chicken change. Club A can spend $20 and make $5 profit while Club B can spend 10$ and make $3 profit. Looking at the quality and value of the Utd squad along with their achievement it's apparent that we don't spend for the sake of it. There's a lot of money to be made with success on the pitch. Couple that with the amount we pay them and you'd see we have a good deal. Vidic today is worth atleast 20m. The official CL final jersey comes at a premium if you want it moreso when you actually won. Such is the marketability of the likes of Wayne Rooney that while he was still on his first contract of 50k/week, he was listed in the top 4 earners amongst football players. I can go on and on....
You said....

And by the way, Arsenal's investment in real estate will come good unless you think the current recession is a permanent problem

So where does all this reasoning go when it comes to other clubs?

Kaddamn!!!
No be Papa's fault jo, old age is inevitable for everybody! - those in charge of Man Utd are not emotional internet analysts, if they can attain the kind of success that they are getting on the field (TROPHIES YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER!) then we can trust them to handle the business side of the global franchise and I know they are doing just that! UNITED FOREVER - CHAMPIONS OF THE WORLD!!!!!

[felarey]

Arses on rampage!

I like your signature. We've stumbled, played less games, at times refused to take advantage of our rivals fumbling, we've been to the far east, we lost games back to back, had players out due to suspension and injuries etc. But we're still top of the table with a game in hand Nevermind the fact that we're just trying to win the league for the third time in a row Feels like we can win it till we're tired. Indeed, teams like Chelsea, Loserpool and Assanal are VERY USELESS!

MANCHESTER UNITED FOR LIFE!!!

[MI5]

Cheii Manure dey lose money like this.. yeye club...

[felarey]

Cheii Manure dey lose money like this.. yeye club...

The community money that Barren is spending, I'd see how many members of the community will contribute this Summer. When are you building your own exclusive stadium? Meanwhile you still dey fear to play Messi for second leg or they should just scrap it to avoid the impending embarrassment? You guys just chopped 4 kondo like that, chei!! Honestly, for your sake, I couldn't believe it

[Waffiman]

Pay here pay there. So them borrow players take dey win EPL and champs league. Then they have the mouth to critisize Chelsea when we pay cash for our players and this reflects on our balance sheet. Whereas i dont think they even take this remaining payments into consideration in their balance sheet.

na so oh! they are effectively cheating. Which is why Platini was looking for a way to throw out clubs that are carrying too much debt out of Champions league. There must be a rule against the kind of mago-mago business Manure has been doing with 'their' players

Papak, I'm sure you can't be that ignorant, my guess is you live within some cash based economy or are really that rich. If no be sey you be the original JJ shriner, I for yab you well well.

haba fela:
this one no suppose cause fight now. Yes, I enjoy some amount of credit even here in Nigeria where interest rate is as ridiculous as 20%-30%. Nonetheless, you just have to wonder for how long will Manure be buying players for 32m, teenagers, for 17m all on the assumption that they will win EPL and ECL. Asuming the cash was there like at Roman's chelsea, may be one can say the acquisitions make sense. But in an attempt to match Chelsea's spending power, Manure have now started accumulating debts even with player purchases, and silly wages to old players that should have retired. It is inevitable, there may be short-term gains, but in a not too distant future, Manure will just have to pay for this financial recklessness. I hope you dont go the way of Leeds.

The Glazer 5 year plan was not based on Utd winning the EPL/ECL. It was based on maintaining a decent standing in the league and reaching the quarter finals of the CL once every 3 years. Now Utd has won the league twice with a chance for third and won the CL always appearing in the quarters, now you do the math. Before Glazer, Utd could afford 30m on players so there's nothing new as per that and last summer Berba was the only player bought despite the fact that we got 83m (50m EPL, 33m CL) from prize money alone.

As per wages, you may be surprised that the difference in total wages between Assanal and Man Utd is actually not that much. Despite our depth and number of English players.

Manchester Utd - £92.3m (£85.4m)
Arsenal - £89.7m (£82.9m)
The numbers in brackets are for the 06/07 season. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7423254.stm

Perhaps Fergie deserves some credit for having a deep squad on reasonable wages? And which old players are you talking about? Is it Scholes that canned Barca enroute to the CL final or Giggsy that destroyed Mourinho and Inter? Another misnomer here is that a player's transfer valuation is only based on onfield output. You guys like to talk like everybody else is a complete angel* except Wenger. A 17yr old Wayne Rooney at 27m is a better deal than 28yr old Arshavin at 16m (Vidic 7m + Evra 5.5 + Van der Sar 2m). Lets see how many EPL and CL titles he'll deliver. Time will soon tell whether Nasri at 14m is a better deal than Ronaldo at 12.5m. Not many Utd first team players are worth less than 15m to 20m.

One thing I'd also like to point out is that the personal guarantee of a borrower is more valuable. Glazer debt does not necessarily translate to Man Utd debt. Now I'm not saying Utd has no debt but unless the bankers are idiots, they won't be excited about changing loans borrowed against all of Glazer's financial interest to just Manchester United. This is what baffles me about the reasoning in here. Smartbrother's question regarding the balance sheet is on point. If you're a big enough company and Utd is part of your portfolio, 60m in losses in this climate is not overthetop. How many billions has Roman lost? Even if we check ourselves, what percentage of our investments have vanished within the last 8 months? When you guys realize that the fountain of financial wisdom does not begin and end at Wenger's feet, perhaps you'd have some repreive. You're ready to say anything about other clubs but will quickly shout long term when Assanal finances are discussed.

Before you get carried away, Arsenal wages figures include image rights, but Manure, Chelski etc. do not include image rights as part of wages, because they want to present a better wages to revenue ratio. Manure hide images rights payments in other parts of their account.

[smartbrother]

Before you get carried away, Arsenal wages figures include image rights, but Manure, Chelski etc. do not include image rights as part of wages, because they want to present a better wages to revenue ratio. Manure hide images rights payments in other parts of their account.

Bros you're talking as if their accounts are some kind of inscrutable maze of numbers where people can hide & bury information as they please. There's probably strict accounting guidelines governing treatment of these payments (so i doubt they've been treated any differently to Arsenal) and as far as I know there's only 2 ways to handle such transactions anyway- expensed through their income statements or capitalized as intangible assets in their balance sheet. Either way the payments will be apparent for all to see especially if they are material. You guys need to lay off all this market woman-type commentary, blind-allegiances notwithstanding.

[Waffiman]

Before you get carried away, Arsenal wages figures include image rights, but Manure, Chelski etc. do not include image rights as part of wages, because they want to present a better wages to revenue ratio. Manure hide images rights payments in other parts of their account.

Bros you're talking as if their accounts are some kind of inscrutable maze of numbers where people can hide & bury information as they please. There's probably strict accounting guidelines governing treatment of these payments (so i doubt they've been treated any differently to Arsenal) and as far as I know there's only 2 ways to handle such transactions anyway- expensed through their income statements or capitalized as intangible assets in their balance sheet. Either way the payments will be apparent for all to see especially if they are material. You guys need to lay off all this market woman-type commentary, blind-allegiances notwithstanding.

Hmmmmmm......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009 ... fer-window

Wenger lays down law on wages as agent says Arshavin will move
• Arsenal manager will not break club's wage structure
• Zenit claim player wants €2.5m to cover fee for breaking contract

Arsène Wenger has told Andrei Arshavin that he will not break Arsenal's wage ­structure to bring him to the club. The Zenit St Petersburg playmaker's proposed transfer has been one of the sagas of this window and the most recent ­suggestion from the Russian club is that his personal terms are proving the ­stumbling block.

Wenger insisted yesterday that he had "not spoken about wages with the player", a claim supported by Arshavin's agent, Dennis Lachter, who is furious with Zenit over their conduct but believes the ­transfer will go through.

Lachter denied Zenit's claim that the move had stalled over Arshavin's demand for an extra €2.5m (£2.3m) from Arsenal to make up for a payment that the player may be obliged to make to them, should he break his current contract, which is worth close to £100,000 a week.

Zenit refuse to subtract that from the transfer fee, which they say has been agreed at £15m, something that Wenger denies, and the Russians believe that Arshavin will ask Arsenal to reflect it in his wage package. "He said playing in England is his dream and now it only depends on money for him," said the Zenit general manager Maxim Mitrofanov, who was hoping last night to persuade the player to move to Arsenal.

The situation is quickly degenerating into a slanging match between parties, with Mitrofanov claiming Lachter was ill informed about details of his player's contract. "I don't want to comment on Lachter as he is not involved in negotiations, this is why he is wrong. Zenit is ready to make an agreement with Arsenal over Arshavin. If he doesn't want to be a Zenit player, no problem. The only problem is the part of the contract that rewards him for playing at the club for four years. Lachter is only his representative since summer 2008, Arshavin signed his contract in 2006 – that's why Lachter does not know about this.

"I can understand Arshavin's issue with the fee – I'm sure if I had a big fee like this I would not like to give it up. The future is in the players hands. But I don't see why Arsenal should pay this money, it was not a signing-on fee. It was for him to play for Zenit for four years. Arsenal have been simple and straightforward to work with."

Mitrofanov also flagged another potential sticking point in the transfer, citing the red tape needed to allow the Russian international to play in England. "Another problem is Arshavin will need special papers to work in England. And these papers can take two days, so everything may have to happen by 2pm [today] to give them time as the transfer window closes on Monday and for sure it will not be possible to do this at the weekend."

Wenger, who said he was focused only on his team's Premier League visit to ­Everton tonight, has been resolute in his stance over Arshavin and said that he had worries about bringing in a player on a massive wage. ­Arsenal's top earner at present is the former captain William Gallas on £80,000 a week and, although Wenger has gone through the £100,000-a-week barrier in the past for Patrick Vieira and Thierry Henry, those players earned their rises after seasons of sustained excellence at the club.

"The players who come in here are all on a wage structure or they do not come in," said Wenger. "It's as simple as that. Nobody will come in above the highest level we have here."

As if to reinforce the message to Arshavin, Wenger again sought to paint a picture of financial restraint at Arsenal. The club might have trumpeted at their AGM the statistic that they had the second-highest wage bill in the Premier League but Wenger took issue with that, nodding, with some mischief, towards creative accounting elsewhere.

"Do you really believe that?" he said. "Believe me, that is not true. Because many clubs hide their wages. But at our club, every single wage is structured in a very simple way. For example, if a player [at another club] has a 25% image [rights] contract, which is allowed in England, it is not in the wages. If you multiply that by 10, that divides the wage bill by 25%."

Asked whether Arsenal's relatively frugal nature allowed him to be paid handsomely, Wenger said: "I am on a very good contract. I am one of the few managers who makes money for my club every year. That is the most important. I tell you something, if I would not make money for the club, I would not be on a very good contract."

Wenger added that none of his current squad had image-rights clauses in their contracts but that may be about to change. He said that the club had entered negotiations with Theo Walcott and it is understood that image rights will feature prominently in the discussions. The forward, who has only 18 months remaining on his existing deal, is the lowest paid England regular by some distance and he will seek a rise to reflect not only his status but his marketability. "We are not against granting players image rights," said Wenger. "Theo wants to stay, we want him to stay so we should find an agreement." Walcott is out until the end of next month with a shoulder injury.

[Molue Conductor]

oya!

[Waffiman]

oya!

I read accounts because I love it and it is my job.

The one part of final accounts all football clubs look to manipulate is wages cost. Clubs try all they can to hide their true wage cost because of other implications. There are serious implications for PAYE and National Insurance but there is no law against tax avoidance. In January 2009, the HMRC sent a memo saying it was going to crack down hard on image rights payments to players. They know clubs do not treat it as salary to avoid tax payments.

I will give you an example of tax avoidance, Arsenal and football clubs exploited a loophole by paying part of wages via off-shore accounting by claming it was not salaries. But, Ray Parlour's messy divorce blew this open. Ray Parlour's ex-wife's lawyers worked for football clubs, so they knew all the tricks the clubs and players used to avoid tax. They got Arsenal to disclose all Ray Parlour's renumerations and the Inland Revenue watched with keen interest.

After that case, the loophole was closed and all the football clubs were forced to refund back taxes and NI. It cost Arsenal £10m, their disclosure in the next accounts revealed, however Arsenal wisely kept the money in contigency incase of such an eventuality. Manure meanwhile reached an argeement with the inland revenue to pay off the back taxes in installments.