Again, I'm not going to disagree with you (some of what you say is subjective though) but you're talking like an accountant for the Glazers and not a Utd fan.
Surely as a Utd fan you object to the fact that Utd have gone from a debt free club which made masses of money (all of which ploughed back into the club), to a club which although is more profitable than before, spends all it's profit on servicing the debt and costs associated with the Glazers takeover.
edit: There's an interesting point made in an article on the BBC; Liverpool have been valued at 8.5 times it's operating profit, if you done the same with Utd they've be valued at around about £850m, which is maybe why the Red Knights never made that £1bn bid let alone the £1.5bn the Glazers are rumoured to want. If the 8.5 times operating profit is a fair valuation of Utd's value, it's not a great deal more than the total group debt (close to £750m now).
The problem is Liverpool are considered to be valued at 8.5times the operating profit, winnings makes a significant impact on that. Utd are genuine contenders(or have been) for many seasons for the league and champs league, winning both vs coming second in both competitions swings profit vs loss a HUGE amount. I think 2nd in the champs league makes a pretty big difference aswell.
So while Utd could get an extra 40-50mil in winnings spread over a few years, Liverpool won't.
Likewise Liverpool have a far far smaller stadium which for the club to expand will mean a MASSIVE investment, and that plays on Liverpools overall value aswell. UTD have already made that investment.
IE call Liverpool worth £600mil or whatever 8,5x Y amount is(not sure what Y is for Liverpool at the moment), but for future growth you want a £400mil stadium. That means it will cost you £1.2billion or more after interest on the stadium.
UTD already have assets worth immensely more than Liverpool, and the what you would assume is a noticeably higher percentage chance of winning things which = higher income, more fans = more money and winning more things = more fans.
Every club is different with many different factors, just because one club is worth 8.5times their turnover, doesn't mean all are, at all, or even close.
As it seems to have been suggested, a lot of that 80mil loss is one off fee's, of which 20mil is projected to be turned around in a year anyway. Business is business, average losses/profits over 3 or 5 years gives a far more accurate idea of real profitability. I mean Arsenal are hugely profitable, but look at the season the Arsenal Group spent 400mil alone and it won't look pretty, we made an extra 180mil or so this year, thats also not a fair representation.
Within 2 seasons you expect Giggs, Scholes, VDS, Neville to be gone, which will save the club probabl 25-30mil a year in wages. Replace them with very good but 15 year younger players on half the wages and you're still saving a load every year. There will be good and bad times, when you've got a small young cheap squad and times when you have an old expensive huge squad.
UTD frankly can ditch 3-4 defenders and buy a single replacement and be stronger, IE lose o'shea/brown, Neville, Rafael and get one high quality right back in, the team is better and saving 10mil a year. Giggs doesn't play that much and frankly, is ineffective, Nani/Valencia starting with a youth replacement for the future, 7-8 mil saved, Scholes, needs replacing, will still save cash on wages year in year out. Sell Anderson, Carrick who again don't play much and are useless, way out on top.
The utter madness the whole league is experiencing at the moment is wage bills going up 5-8% a year at the top clubs, its insane and completely unsustainable.
I don't think Liverpool really have the same numbers of players as Utd on huge wages, nor the ability to ditch 4 old players on 4-5mil a year each, Gerrard, Torres, Caragher, Cole are the only people I think would really be in that catagory and none are about to retire.
