Man Utd Thread:

[ludermor]

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/united-reach-60m-in-premier-league-cash-2656292.html
By Martyn Ziegler


Tuesday May 24 2011

Manchester United have become the first club to top the £60m mark in earnings from Premier League prize money and TV cash.

United earned £60.4m as the new record overseas TV deals saw top-flight clubs bring in up to £7m more than last season.

Blackpool were the lowest earners of the Premier League but still saw £39.1m go into their coffers, while Chelsea earned £57.7m, Manchester City £55.5m and Arsenal £56.2m.

The figures released by the Premier League also show that it has the smallest difference in earnings between the champions and the bottom club in terms of ratio of any major league in Europe.

England's top club earned 1.54 times as much as the bottom in TV money - down from 1.66 last season. In Spain, where TV rights are negotiated on a club-by-club basis, Real Madrid and Barcelona earn 12.5 times more than the smallest clubs in La Liga.Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore said: "We believe that our income distribution mechanism, the most equitable of Europe's major football leagues, rewards sporting success while also guaranteeing a significant amount to each club in order that they can plan from one season to the next.

"Many have commented on the competitive nature of this season's Barclays Premier League.

"The clubs deserve huge credit for putting on a fantastic competition. We believe the way we distribute broadcast income plays a part in allowing each club to compete at the highest level."

The Premier League distributes TV rights money based partly on performance, partly via equal shares of TV income, and partly on the number of times a club's matches are screened live on domestic television.

This season, each club received £13.8m as the equal share of domestic TV rights and £17.9m as the equal share of overseas TV rights.

On top of that, every place in the Premier League table is worth £756,000 - West Ham received that amount and Manchester United £15.1m.

Facility fees of £582,000 are paid to a club every time they play in a live TV match - with a minimum income of £5.82m even if a club has been involved in fewer than 10 live games.

The Premier League also pay out £15m each in parachute payments to previously relegated clubs Hull, Burnley, Portsmouth and Middlesbrough. The three relegated clubs this season will receive the same amount.

- Martyn Ziegler



That is some difference in income in the Spanish League!!!

[deiseach]

People forget that the point behind the first Sky deal back in 1992 was that it would be more equitable than the alternative. ITV wanted to give most of the money to the Big Five - Liverpool, Everton, Man Utd, Arsenal and Spurs, who were the only teams ITV ever broadcast - while Sky were happy to show Wimbledon v Ipswich Town which was meant to be of interest to no one.

[EC Unique]

Michael Owen has signed a new 1 year deal with Man Utd and Berbatov says he is also going no where. IMO barring injury or suspension (I suppose both will happen) neither will feature much but good squad members.

[ballinaman]

Michael Owen has signed a new 1 year deal with Man Utd and Berbatov says he is also going no where. IMO barring injury or suspension (I suppose both will happen) neither will feature much but good squad members.

Read that alright on red cafe there. Can't see Welbeck and Macheda coming back now, something will have to give, can't have 5 strikers all wanting 1st team football. Any word on Cleverly, he still injured?

[NAG1]

Cant see Wellbeck or Macheda being longterm first teamers.

Also IMO Berba is just saying the party line to make sure that he is getting the best deal to leave. Serious investment required nonetheless, even after a cracking season.

[Bingo]

Lads, now that the dust has settled after weekend - a serious question?

Has Fergie under-achieved in the CL? 2 wins in all those years and with all the great squads he had. It could also be argued that both wins had an element of good fortune about them (which if course is always needed to win these ones).

But when you look back and see some of them teams that have won (including the great LFC team of 2005  ), its clear that United should have won more.

The question is why they haven't?

[Hoof Hearted]

Lads, now that the dust has settled after weekend - a serious question?

Has Fergie under-achieved in the CL? 2 wins in all those years and with all the great squads he had. It could also be argued that both wins had an element of good fortune about them (which if course is always needed to win these ones).

But when you look back and see some of them teams that have won (including the great LFC team of 2005  ), its clear that United should have won more.

The question is why they haven't?

cause they are an over-rated shower of hoors

[EC Unique]

Lads, now that the dust has settled after weekend - a serious question?

Has Fergie under-achieved in the CL? 2 wins in all those years and with all the great squads he had. It could also be argued that both wins had an element of good fortune about them (which if course is always needed to win these ones).

But when you look back and see some of them teams that have won (including the great LFC team of 2005  ), its clear that United should have won more.

The question is why they haven't?

Only because of coming up against the best ever team that as ever existed (IMO) Utd would have won 2 more. You have a point though. The team that won in 99 was his best and should have won more.

[brokencrossbar1]

Fergie is the master of winning the "British" style of game, the up and at 'em, high tempo pressure game that will generally win the those difficult games away to lesser teams in England as they will play a similar style to United without the same quality players.  They don't pass teams off the pitch the way the likes of Arsenal do but the Gunners don't have the cut to really push it through.  What you have in Barca is a team who can match United's workrate, but also pass teams off the pitch.  United can win EPL games with 45% possession in a game because they are a stronger unit than their English counterparts, they can't do it in Europe as the teams generally will punish you if you allow them that amount of ball.  1998 - 2002 was a time when they had the players to match their workrate and really should have had at least 1 and maybe 2 more.  The MF of Beckham, Keane, Scholes and Gigss was the best in the world  and they had a solid defence.  This was the team that should have won more.

[deiseach]

Lads, now that the dust has settled after weekend - a serious question?

Has Fergie under-achieved in the CL? 2 wins in all those years and with all the great squads he had. It could also be argued that both wins had an element of good fortune about them (which if course is always needed to win these ones).

But when you look back and see some of them teams that have won (including the great LFC team of 2005  ), its clear that United should have won more.

The question is why they haven't?

It's a cup competition and strange things happen. Chelsea have been one of the top teams in Europe for the best part of a decade and they can't win it. Since 1993, when Ferguson first got a crack at it, only Milan, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Man Utd have won it more than once. So I don't think it is clear that they should have won it more often

[seafoid]

Man U pay a fortune in interest
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/832e0bfa-8888-11e0-afe1-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1O24fhmQG

Other revenue streams are less flexible. United will make £60m from its cut of English and European TV rights deals but these are in the negotiating hands of others. Gate receipts are not immune from recession – the strategy is to hold what it has. 
Mr Green acknowledges that the commercial revenues are "very useful" – "but it doesn't change the fact that you have £40m-odd walking out the door just to pay the interest".United's cash position is heading towards £150m, from which the club should have £60m to disperse as it sees fit.

[Norf Tyrone]

Lads, now that the dust has settled after weekend - a serious question?

Has Fergie under-achieved in the CL? 2 wins in all those years and with all the great squads he had. It could also be argued that both wins had an element of good fortune about them (which if course is always needed to win these ones).

But when you look back and see some of them teams that have won (including the great LFC team of 2005  ), its clear that United should have won more.

The question is why they haven't?

It's a cup competition and strange things happen. Chelsea have been one of the top teams in Europe for the best part of a decade and they can't win it. Since 1993, when Ferguson first got a crack at it, only Milan, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Man Utd have won it more than once. So I don't think it is clear that they should have won it more often

What he says! Luck plays a part in the CL. Look at some of the teams to win it, Porto, Liverpool, even Inter in 10, none could claim to be the top team in Europe at the time.

[Bingo]

Lads, now that the dust has settled after weekend - a serious question?

Has Fergie under-achieved in the CL? 2 wins in all those years and with all the great squads he had. It could also be argued that both wins had an element of good fortune about them (which if course is always needed to win these ones).

But when you look back and see some of them teams that have won (including the great LFC team of 2005  ), its clear that United should have won more.

The question is why they haven't?

It's a cup competition and strange things happen. Chelsea have been one of the top teams in Europe for the best part of a decade and they can't win it. Since 1993, when Ferguson first got a crack at it, only Milan, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Man Utd have won it more than once. So I don't think it is clear that they should have won it more often

What he says! Luck plays a part in the CL. Look at some of the teams to win it, Porto, Liverpool, even Inter in 10, none could claim to be the top team in Europe at the time.

I don't think Chelsea have been close to been one of the top teams in Europe, in England yes, but in Europe they've been consistently average.

[Mike Tyson]

Lads, now that the dust has settled after weekend - a serious question?

Has Fergie under-achieved in the CL? 2 wins in all those years and with all the great squads he had. It could also be argued that both wins had an element of good fortune about them (which if course is always needed to win these ones).

But when you look back and see some of them teams that have won (including the great LFC team of 2005  ), its clear that United should have won more.

The question is why they haven't?

It's a cup competition and strange things happen. Chelsea have been one of the top teams in Europe for the best part of a decade and they can't win it. Since 1993, when Ferguson first got a crack at it, only Milan, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Man Utd have won it more than once. So I don't think it is clear that they should have won it more often

What he says! Luck plays a part in the CL. Look at some of the teams to win it, Porto, Liverpool, even Inter in 10, none could claim to be the top team in Europe at the time.

I don't think Chelsea have been close to been one of the top teams in Europe, in England yes, but in Europe they've been consistently average.

In 2009 with a decent ref they would have beaten Barca convincingly. I'd say that's a lot more than average

[deiseach]

I don't think Chelsea have been close to been one of the top teams in Europe, in England yes, but in Europe they've been consistently average.

Chelsea have been as far as the CL semi-final in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. If that's average, what's above average?