Source: Daily_Mail
We don't need to spend it like City, says Manchester United chief Gill
Some 80,000 South Koreans will watch Manchester United tonight in Seoul's World Cup Stadium. Many millions more in Asia will watch the game on TV, their latest flat screens paid for on United credit cards.
At times, it is very easy to believe the Barclays Premier League champions' claim that they are the biggest club in the world.
Not any more, though, are United the richest. Not even in England. Certainly, they are not the most lavish spenders.
The Argentine striker Carlos Tevez - a squad player at Old Trafford last season - recently left for Manchester City, where he will be paid more. Meanwhile Chelsea are considering whether to increase the salary of captain John Terry to stop him leaving for City, too.
Terry's prospective salary at Eastlands? A cool £250,000-a-week.
Over the past five or six years, the financial landscape of English football has certainly changed. Foreign ownership in the shape of figures such as Malcolm Glazer [United], Roman Abramovich [Chelsea] and Sheikh Mansour Bin Zayed al Nahyan [City] has been largely responsible for that.
Money has bought the League title twice already this decade - Chelsea lifted the trophy in both 2005 and 2006 - and now City are attempting to do the same. At Old Trafford, there is a sense of intrigue about what is happening across town. Not to mention a little scepticism.
Asked if he thought the amount of money being spent by some clubs in Europe has been obscene, United chief executive David Gill said yesterday: 'I don't know about obscene, but it has certainly gone to very high levels.
'If people have paid it, then they obviously don't think it's obscene. We have our own models and targets and we are operating within those. That's because we are operating for the medium and long term.
'We are not at the whim of someone [an owner] pulling out and losing interest. You'd have to speak to those clubs about their plans for the medium term and long term.
'You read about how Mr Abramovich is feeling, when he is up there or down there financially.
'I haven't spoken to him about it, but they say that they have to now bring in money before they do transfers.'
Ferdinand during his time as chief executive. In many ways, clubs such as United and Liverpool have historically set the tone.
Thanks to the Glazer takeover, United are also almost £700m in debt.
There is, however, a difference.
If the Glazers sold United tomorrow, they would do so at a huge profit. Equally, the club is self-funding. Whatever happens, wages will still be paid. At clubs like City and Chelsea this is not the case.
'It's highly unlikely that we would want to go to those levels,' added Gill when asked about the recent activity of City and Real Madrid.
'We don't think it's necessary because we are looking to the medium and long term. "I just feel that United has been around since 1878 and our job is to make sure it is still around for many more years in a sensible fashion.
'That is by generating our own income. There will be ups and downs but, overall, we think that what we are doing is having a sustainable business model for the long-term.
'We have always been clear that our target for total wages is 50 per cent of our revenue. With that, we have the right sort of balance because, with the sheer volume of our turnover, we can then attract the best players and retain our current players and pay them very good salaries.
'We are not the top payers, when you look at what Cristiano Ronaldo has gone to Real Madrid for and what City are paying Tevez.
'But we still think, in the current climate, we pay very good salaries and we have a lot of assets at Manchester United.'
Watching City attempt to win the Premier League over the next few seasons will certainly be fascinating and their approach this summer has been clear.
While they continue to pursue their landmark signing, Terry, they have already spent heavily on other players, some of whom (Craig Bellamy, Gareth Barry and Roque Santa Cruz, for example) will have little or no sell-on value when their time at City ends in the coming years.
Again, this would appear to put them at odds with their neighbours. Speaking at the team hotel here yesterday, Gill said:
"We are not in the market for 27, 28 or 29-year-olds for loads of money.
'It doesn't make sense. We are not interested. Last year we did it for Berbatov but that was an exception because that was the one slot that Alex [Ferguson] felt had to be filled. But generally that is not a road we are interested in going down.
'If you wind the clock back we put a lot of money [£30m] in to buying Nani and Anderson and also [Owen] Hargreaves and [Michael] Carrick.
'You have to ask yourself what you will be left with at the end of it. Is it worth it, economically?
'As you can imagine, when Cristiano left, I was inundated with agents offering us this player and that player.
'But are they motivated at 28 or 29? Are they United players? We are about young players and giving youth a chance and giving our own young players a chance. That's what we want to do.'
Travelling round Asia with United for the third time this week, it has become very clear that United's popularity continues to grow in the Far East. As such, it is tempting to wonder how the likes of City and Chelsea can hope to claim a significant share of this particular market.
Perhaps they don't need to.
Chelsea have already benefited hugely from Abramovich's money and City would appear to be on the cusp. Sources close to Abramovich have indicated that he is not looking to sell while Sheikh Mansour's ongoing faith in manager Mark Hughes would appear to suggest he does have a pragmatic view of his new favourite sport.
It is also hard to blame these clubs for their approach. Such has been United's dominance of the Premier League since its birth 16 years ago that it was always going to take something different to provide genuine competition.
If City win win the title in the next three years, they will have been vindicated. As long as the Sheikh sticks around.
