Quote from: peter w on February 24, 2015, 06:07:54 PMQuote from: paul_e on February 24, 2015, 05:56:33 PMWhat else do people expect though? Should Lerner have just carried on writing off £50m a year to please you?We had to do this, how bad things have been is more down to the fact that the people trusted to oversee it have been poor and there's been little by way of underlying philosophy behind it. If you want to bitch about Lerner focus on the lack of footballing experience on the board or the choice of managers, moaning that he didn't want to carry on underwriting losses of £50m a year is plain wrong.In terms of the actual accounts this ties in perfectly with What Russell said last year which was that we were pretty much on track now.Wwe may have needed to do it but not at the speed in which it has been done. look at the league table.Was it that quick though? If we'd spent as much as we have but spent it well and, over the 3 managers, following a single plan, would we have suffered so much?This is the point, everything from the end of mon's last season has been bad management but it has been underfunded to the extent that many suggest.
Quote from: paul_e on February 24, 2015, 05:56:33 PMWhat else do people expect though? Should Lerner have just carried on writing off £50m a year to please you?We had to do this, how bad things have been is more down to the fact that the people trusted to oversee it have been poor and there's been little by way of underlying philosophy behind it. If you want to bitch about Lerner focus on the lack of footballing experience on the board or the choice of managers, moaning that he didn't want to carry on underwriting losses of £50m a year is plain wrong.In terms of the actual accounts this ties in perfectly with What Russell said last year which was that we were pretty much on track now.Wwe may have needed to do it but not at the speed in which it has been done. look at the league table.
What else do people expect though? Should Lerner have just carried on writing off £50m a year to please you?We had to do this, how bad things have been is more down to the fact that the people trusted to oversee it have been poor and there's been little by way of underlying philosophy behind it. If you want to bitch about Lerner focus on the lack of footballing experience on the board or the choice of managers, moaning that he didn't want to carry on underwriting losses of £50m a year is plain wrong.In terms of the actual accounts this ties in perfectly with What Russell said last year which was that we were pretty much on track now.
Quote from: paul_e on February 24, 2015, 06:12:32 PMQuote from: peter w on February 24, 2015, 06:07:54 PMQuote from: paul_e on February 24, 2015, 05:56:33 PMWhat else do people expect though? Should Lerner have just carried on writing off £50m a year to please you?We had to do this, how bad things have been is more down to the fact that the people trusted to oversee it have been poor and there's been little by way of underlying philosophy behind it. If you want to bitch about Lerner focus on the lack of footballing experience on the board or the choice of managers, moaning that he didn't want to carry on underwriting losses of £50m a year is plain wrong.In terms of the actual accounts this ties in perfectly with What Russell said last year which was that we were pretty much on track now.Wwe may have needed to do it but not at the speed in which it has been done. look at the league table.Was it that quick though? If we'd spent as much as we have but spent it well and, over the 3 managers, following a single plan, would we have suffered so much?This is the point, everything from the end of mon's last season has been bad management but it has been underfunded to the extent that many suggest.The bad management started with MON appointment - it was he, let we forget, who triggered most of the financial debt we had to then excrutiatingly untangle
Cut the losses, great.. hope it was worth it.
Landmark case going to the courts which would scupper Financial Fair Play rules. So we break our necks to comply with rules that may not be enforceable at an unbelievable speed, and get relegated in the process. Our board are visionaries I tell you, visionaries.
I'm just saying sometimes you need to look at the WIDER picture. Sure trim the costs, reduce the overheads. Not slash them.
What I do not understand is how it was allowed to get to £40 million losses per year in the name of getting into the Champions League? Even if we had progressed I do not think it would cover that annual deficit ?
Isn't a champions league place (in the groups) worth about £50m, I'm sure that's the figure (or near enough) that was going around when it became clear Man U weren't going to qualify last year.
Quote from: paul_e on February 26, 2015, 01:33:23 PMIsn't a champions league place (in the groups) worth about £50m, I'm sure that's the figure (or near enough) that was going around when it became clear Man U weren't going to qualify last year.Not even close -The 32 clubs featuring in the 2014/15 UEFA Champions League group stage can anticipate a minimum €8.6m. The side that eventually wins the UEFA Champions League title this term could collect €37.4m, not counting the market pool share.Each of the 32 teams involved in the group stage will collect a base fee of €8.6m. Performance bonuses will also see €1m paid for a win and €500,000 for a draw in the group phase. The sides competing in the round of 16 can also expect to receive €3.5m each, the eight quarter-finalists €3.9m and the four semi-finalists €4.9m. The UEFA Champions League winners will pick up €10.5m and the runners-up €6.5m.
Quote from: villadelph on February 25, 2015, 05:58:32 PMCut the losses, great.. hope it was worth it.Well it ensures you'll still have a club to support in the future.
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.
Author
Topic: Accounts Show Reduced Loss (Read 21019 times)
