A company, not a football club.

[MRRF 10]

Manchester United plc's pre-tax profits have increased by 22 per cent to £39.3 million for the 12-month period to July 31 2003.

The Red Devils' latest financial results show once again that eight-times Premiership champions have bucked the general downturn in football's finances, with most English clubs running at a loss.

The group turnover is also up 18 per cent to £173 million with earnings per share up 20 per cent to 11.5p.

United's results were boosted by their various sponsorship deals and by Old Trafford hosting last May's European Champions League final.

The Red Devils will be looking to maintain their good results despite the £25 million sale of David Beckham to Real Madrid and the departure of chief executive Peter Kenyon.

Kenyon's replacement as United chief excutive, David Gill, said: "These results reflect the significant success that Manchester United has achieved both on and off the field.

"We have continued to leverage our global brand through our partnerships with Nike, Vodafone and our Platinum sponsors and to grow our knowledge of our fan base.

"Looking ahead, we will maintain our focus on achieving playing success while delivering continued strong performances from our commercial operations."

United remain by far the most successful English club in terms of merchandising.

 

[Seagull over NZ]

Dunno about that - you can't say that the financial side has ever really got in the way of the footballing side - Ferguson has always had money when he needs it.

I dislike Man Utd as much as the next man but you can't fault them in many ways.

 

[fatbadger]

Under (stupid) league rules, all clubs have to be run as (potentially) profit-making businesses. BHAFC is a business, too.

Just look at it from this point of view - ManUre plc are a very successful business; they own ManUre FC, which is (through gritted teeth) a very successful football club.

If what you are saying is that the FC is run entirely for the benefit of the plc, you may well be right, but profit alone is not evidence enough.

 

[Wilts]

Its a complete farce how the market is allowed to operate like this. The Premiership and Sky (scum) have allowed the market to become competition between just 20 teams, rather than the 92 as it was before. Albeit, within that 92, there were 4 leagues, but a team going up from one league could have no problem in the next one up.

Nowadays, you have to spend away like a madman to get anywhere. Look how much Wolves and Pompey have spent this summer. Its a facking madness to get down payments to Premiership clubs of £14m. That is more than the entire turnover of most Division One clubs (West Ham, Reading, West Brom excepted at the moment as having over £14m). Clubs like West Brom can spend nothing, get relegated, don't care, and then suddenly have about £10m to spend in Division One! When everyone else has about £500,000 each to spend for the season.

The profits of £39.3m are more than the entire profits of Divisions 1, 2 and 3 added together. Most clubs make a loss, and it is at the sake of clubs like Man Utd, who are a monopoly in the market. 25% market share? No... but if the profits are at the expense of other businesses (other clubs in the entire league), then it is all down to Sky, and also to whoever pays money for those who get to the Champions League.

Corporatism at its worst. I would love to call on the fans of each and every one of the clubs below the Premiership to make a stand... but organising anything would be a massive thing. Stability in this market is what Sky want, so they can build big clubs nowadays... hence why West Ham are big in Division One, and Sunderland. I have no doubt that if most of the clubs in Division One had the financial treatment that the Premiership clubs have had, then we'd all have damn high attendances too, and be regarded as a big club.

But in the meantime, its stability that the FA and Sky want, and its a f***ing disgrace. Can't believe that no-one protests about these sort of things more. English Football died in the late 80s. More money, more big clubs, more foreign players attracted by money, better looking football, shit national team. Rant over.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Its a complete farce how the market is allowed to operate like this. The Premiership and Sky (scum) have allowed the market to become competition between just 20 teams, rather than the 92 as it was before. Albeit, within that 92, there were 4 leagues, but a team going up from one league could have no problem in the next one up.

Nowadays, you have to spend away like a madman to get anywhere. Look how much Wolves and Pompey have spent this summer. Its a facking madness to get down payments to Premiership clubs of £14m. That is more than the entire turnover of most Division One clubs (West Ham, Reading, West Brom excepted at the moment as having over £14m). Clubs like West Brom can spend nothing, get relegated, don't care, and then suddenly have about £10m to spend in Division One! When everyone else has about £500,000 each to spend for the season.

The profits of £39.3m are more than the entire profits of Divisions 1, 2 and 3 added together. Most clubs make a loss, and it is at the sake of clubs like Man Utd, who are a monopoly in the market. 25% market share? No... but if the profits are at the expense of other businesses (other clubs in the entire league), then it is all down to Sky, and also to whoever pays money for those who get to the Champions League.

Corporatism at its worst. I would love to call on the fans of each and every one of the clubs below the Premiership to make a stand... but organising anything would be a massive thing. Stability in this market is what Sky want, so they can build big clubs nowadays... hence why West Ham are big in Division One, and Sunderland. I have no doubt that if most of the clubs in Division One had the financial treatment that the Premiership clubs have had, then we'd all have damn high attendances too, and be regarded as a big club.

But in the meantime, its stability that the FA and Sky want, and its a f***ing disgrace. Can't believe that no-one protests about these sort of things more. English Football died in the late 80s. More money, more big clubs, more foreign players attracted by money, better looking football, shit national team. Rant over.

Indeed.

As a crap economist (c at a level!) i would say that there are now massive barriers to entry for 'companies' wishing to start making money in the big leagues across the world. They HAVE to spend a shit load of money to be able to compete with Premiership clubs otherwise they have absolutley no chance of being able to stay in the market (the premiership). Its ridiculous but this situation has been coming for years and there was no way of stopping it. Football is big business and wherever there is money to be made somebody is going to get f***ed over.

 

[Wilts]

And then its only clubs like Portsmouth, Wolves (well, not at the moment!), Reading, Wigan, Cardiff, Hull, etc that could compete up there with massive financial backing from a rich Chairman. In fact, I'd probably go as far to say that Mr Madejski will not spend that much, and that we'd struggle rather than get that mid-table place that he wants. By being sensible with his cash, we'll probably get relegated if we get there.

Clubs like Oldham, Notts County, etc will try to spend wisely, but then it all falls flat on its face, and they struggle to find £2m otherwise they face liquidation, whereas some clubs have up to £70m worth of debt, and are yet still in business despite even higher debt-equity ratios! And Oldham and Notts County were in the first ever Premiership too, were they not?

Business nowadays is focused upon competitive advantage from within the firm's boundaries, such as continuous improvement, staff and organisation culture and the like. Football is miles behind this sort of business, and represents an archaic industry in terms of modern business. It is disgusting, to be frank... and I can't see a way out unless the whole of the Nationwide and its fans stood up to it.

 

[Storer68]

Are we saying that clubs SHOULD be un-profitable.

That's just madness,

I can't help thinking that all us non ManUre fans are just wildly jealous because they've cracked it and we haven't.

Good luck to them I say.

 

[Braders]

i still hate man u btw

 

[fatbadger]

Are we saying that clubs SHOULD be un-profitable.

the opposite of profitmaking is nonprofitmaking, not unprofitable.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The picture is not as bleak as painted above.

In terms of being able to compete at the highest level, I seem to recall Bayer Leverkusen making it to the Champions League Final when their ground held only c. £22,000.

Also, look at how many different English clubs have played in Europe over the last few seasons, giving them the opportunity to better themselves (Southampton, Fulham, Ipswich, Man City, Leicester to name but a few).

Personally, I favour a breakaway Phoenix League of 20-22 teams that could act as a buffer between the Premiership and the Nationwide whilst acting as a mechanism to get in teams from outside England such as Celtic and Rangers.

 

[Wilts]

Are we saying that clubs SHOULD be un-profitable.

That's just madness,

I can't help thinking that all us non ManUre fans are just wildly jealous because they've cracked it and we haven't.

Good luck to them I say.

It would help if we had the same benefits as them... then everyone can be profitable. There wasn't a problem before the Premiership started, so why now?

They use the "crowds have gone up because of the Premiership" card all the time and its bollocks. Crowds started going up about 1990, and have not stopped. Premiership started in 1992.

Man Utd get £14m from Sky per year, and several £m for doing well in the Champions League. Then money for coming near the top of the league! What is the point? Surely of all teams that need money, the top teams are the least likely to need it!!!

Just makes the big even bigger, and the small even smaller. It is exploitation.

 

[Storer68]

it would be exploitation if say leicester were continually running away with the league.........but they're not.

they sell out at 67,000 all seater every game and we sell out at 6700 all eater stadium every time. Assuming they avareage £20 a seat, their gate recepit PER GAME will be around £1.34 million - ours woud be £134,000 per gane

do you really expect them to donate their hard easrned cash to keep us afloat?

 

[Wilts]

it would be exploitation if say leicester were continually running away with the league.........but they're not.

they sell out at 67,000 all seater every game and we sell out at 6700 all eater stadium every time. Assuming they avareage £20 a seat, their gate recepit PER GAME will be around £1.34 million - ours woud be £134,000 per gane

do you really expect them to donate their hard easrned cash to keep us afloat?

Yes, but the sheer fact is that they are enabled to get this big because of the financial input. Better products = more customers.

Its like having a market for Computers, with say - 92 companies, and then the UK government coming along and making the top few a bit richer by giving them money to make better computers at the same price.

You and I know that our respective clubs could be far bigger, and attract crowds of 30,000+, but the implanting of cash into Premiership clubs will always make them "fashionable" and us lot less so. It is the media's fault, and they love every minute of it.

 

[Storer68]

But they are the 20 best clubs in the country, and the Premiership is (through very effective promotion) the one competeition that every clubb wants to be a part of and that every fan wants their club to be in....................


Before the premiership, the clubs in the old Division 4 were bailed out by the money that the Division 1 clubs generated but had to give away because of the League rules. that's why they broke away and formed the Premier League - so they could control the revemue they generated and use it to their advantage - and not have to give it to basket case clubs who couldn't run a whelk stall on a seafront

and ManUre earn this money - they don't get it for being a crap club with a team that doesn't win anything - that would make them Spurs.

The fact is that they are the market leaders and they have achieved it through winning the title more than anyone elese, building a stadium that can cope with the demand for tickets (which are markedly cheaper than elsewhere in the premiership) and decent management unlike just about every other club whose solution has been to throw the banks money at the problem and expect instant success.


Look at nistelrooy - they didn;t pay a fortune for him they made sure , when he was injured that they kept him interested in the club, and he's now the best player in the league. and when the time comes to cash in their assetts then they do so - they got £28m for Beckham for not being sentimental about him in a transfer market widely regarded to have imploded.

 

[bigc]

the whole sky situation is the price we had to pay i fear
if it wasnt for them i dont know what would have happened to the game(after all, the declining popularity in the '80s and stuff).
i'm gutted its become like this, but sometimes i think its the only way football could have survived

 

[Easy 10]

I think its just so tedious when a clubs annual turnover makes headline news. For fucks sake, who gives a toss how much shareholders pockets are being lined, other than the shareholders ? Money, money, money - thats all they go on about. Piss off, I'm just not interested in how many millions Man U made last year. Every time someone gets knocked out or fails to qualify for the Champions League, the first thing the media go on about is "how much money that will cost the club". Its a bloody obsession.

Even down to Worthing FC tonight, the commentator there (Andy Hart ?) was going on and on about the £3,500 Worthing will make for winning this FA Cup tie - making it to the next round seemed very much secondary in his thoughts, just "look at the money they'll make for winning tonight".

Can't we ignore the bank manager and just enjoy the football ?

 

[fatbadger]

They use the "crowds have gone up because of the Premiership" card all the time and its bollocks. Crowds started going up about 1990, and have not stopped. Premiership started in 1992.

Presumably they even try to claim that the Premiership is the reason behind the increases in gates at Nationwide matches too, eh?