ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Gambit · 29th May 2010, 08:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCHQ

No mention of the spurious ''£66m loss'' in the Financial Times' article on the latest financial results by the way. Surprise surprise.

And to think the other publications used that figure as the headline for their articles on the results.

That brings me onto an excellent point that I remember Roodboy making not too long ago. And that was, why are so many people so quick to automatically accept the accuracy of negative media articles about the club's finances when they take the exact opposite position by treating with great scepticism the media articles about other aspects of the club and its players?

I don't think he ever got an answer.

The same reason why a load of journalists were chuffed to bits that United lost to Barcelona in Rome. The same reason why our papers love building someone up to rip them down. It's all to do with our culture. We prefer to watch the destruction and pick over the ruins. For journalists they can get more milage out of United doomed they they can by saying it's all ok. We the readers lap it up.

gaffs · 29th May 2010, 08:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allforone

Last summer we put 30 million quid on the table for Benzema, 25 on the table for Tevez and spent 20 million on Valencia and Obertan......it was hardly tight purse strings lets be honest here.

Thats only because we sold Ronaldo.

Gambit · 29th May 2010, 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaffs

Thats only because we sold Ronaldo.

For the love of god......

7even · 29th May 2010, 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCHQ

Ironically there was one very interesting and perhaps relevant point raised in that Guardian article yesterday which I didn't fully appreciate at the time:

Now the interesting thing with this mobile phone content is that unlike pretty much everything else it doesn't fall within the Premier League's collective rights deal. So is the Glazers ultimate plan, when technology has developed sufficiently, to sell United's live match rights to mobile phone users around the world and use telecom companies as partners in the various different territories to achieve that objective? Remember all of these ''sponsorship agreements'' which United have already signed with many telecom companies in different parts of the world. It looks to me like there's a long term plan here and if it works and a reasonable amount of people are willing to watch live games on their mobile phones then the financial benefits could potentially be extraordinary. But would it work? What do people think?

It's no wonder they've been keeping these plans, if true, very quiet though. They would ultimately be devaluing the PL's collective rights deal if they went ahead with this and it would create a shit storm.

Maybe this is the gold at the end of the rainbow?

Right from the beginning of the takeover in 2005 it hit me that there where two things that where undeveloped.

Internet and access via cell-phones.

Internet-access was the obvious one. Subscribe to OneUnited or develop a new service. If there are millions of United supporters out there it's simple maths. Just imagine 30-40m of supporters pay £??/year. That was easy to predict.

Looking at a stream in a cell-phone was, at 2005, not a hit. The picture was blurred and the stream was slow like syrap. Today it's scary what you can see in a cell-phone. All this new phones like Android and iPhone together with 4G is a revolution. HD stream and excellent view, for example HTC Desire or the new SE Experia X10. Just to pick a few. The idea of watching a match in a cell-phone is today reality. I pay for example £60 a month with free access to everything and can see YouTube in a perfect view.

What is going to happened with technology in five more years?

If United can be pioneers in this area we will have an huge advantage. The market is beyond belief.

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walrus

So we werent prepared to pay an extra £5m or so for Benzema, but we "negotiated" our bid for Berbatov up from an alleged £20m to around £32m when pressured by City?

Not that im making this about Berbatov, simply that it seems very inconsistent paying an extra £12m for Berbatov - which apparently represents value, but not being prepared to cough up an extra £5m or so for Benzema. Of course there would be no guarantee he would choose us over Madrid, but if the bid was accepted that would say enough.

The trouble with this argument is that nobody ever describes what exactly happened to United's finances in the period between paying large net amounts of money for players in 2007 and 2008 to then not being in a position to pay large amounts of money for players in 2009. We clearly didn't ''plan'' the sale of Ronaldo as we were desparate for him to stay and if anything the sale of Ronaldo and the fact that profits increased during the 2007-09 period concerned would surely make it more likely that there is a great deal of money to spend on players?

Maybe Fergie and Gill have been telling the truth all along?

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 08:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7even

Right from the beginning of the takeover in 2005 it hit me that there where two things that where undeveloped.

Internet and access via cell-phones.

Internet-access was the obvious one. Subscribe to OneUnited or develop a new service. If there are millions of United supporters out there it's simple maths. Just imagine 30-40m of supporters pay £??/year. That was easy to predict.

Looking at a stream in a cell-phone was, at 2005, not a hit. The picture was blurred and the stream was slow like syrap. Today it's scary what you can see in a cell-phone. All this new phones like Android and iPhone together with 4G is a revolution. HD stream and excellent view, for example HTC Desire or the new SE Experia X10. Just to pick a few. The idea of watching a match in a cell-phone is today reality. I pay for example £60 a month with free access to everything and can see YouTube in a perfect view.

What is going to happened with technology in five more years?

If United can be pioneers in this area we will have an huge advantage. The market is beyond belief.

Great info, cheers. The trouble with the internet is that it is included within the Premier League's collective rights deal. The signifcance of the mobile phone content is that it isn't included in the collective agreement so that's exactly what we should be focussing on.

As you can probably tell I haven't got a clue about the actual technology involved in this. I'm just surprised we haven't seen more information in the media about this potentially very significant opportunity for United in the years to come.

Too busy copying and pasting MUST's press releases I suspect.

Commadus · 29th May 2010, 09:01

So let me sum this up.

GCHQ, Rood, PExbo et al feel the Glazers have run the club well or are making good of a the situation at hand and feel the debt and balance sheet are nothing to get too concerned about because we are increasing revenues.

Whilst Fred, Crerand et al are concerned that the massive debts were put on United for no benefit to the club and that circa £430m has left the club in interest and other financing costs.

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 09:09

The obvious problem for United with this mobile phone content is that you'd expect that a number of Premier League clubs would push for mobile phone rights to be included in the next round of the PL's collective rights sale starting in 2013/14. The genie though would already be out of the bottle so to speak by then and well they do say that possession is nine tenths of the law.

Commadus · 29th May 2010, 09:21

How many subscribers are there of MUTV?

Forget the technology for the moment - the issue is what exclusive content that people will actually want to buy?

Technology is the medium with which United can connect with its supporters but it has to offer something that they want.

After subscribing to MUTV I ditched it - it got boring in the end.

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commadus

So let me sum this up.

GCHQ, Rood, PExbo et al feel the Glazers have run the club well or are making good of a the situation at hand and feel the debt and balance sheet are nothing to get too concerned about because we are increasing revenues.

Whilst Fred, Crerand et al are concerned that the massive debts were put on United for no benefit to the club and that circa £430m has left the club in interest and other financing costs.

Increasing revenues AND cash profits. Yes.

The debt does provide some benefit for the club in so much as the interest payments are tax-deductible so the club saves a great deal on corporation tax as a result. If the PLC was still here and the club was achieving the same profits as we are now then the amount of cash tax would be very significant indeed (£86m saving according to Andersred). And we should also remember that the Glazers have as yet not taken a dividend out of the club as the shareholders took every year when the club was a PLC (£38m saving according to Andersred).

There are also various items within that £430m of interest and other financing costs that I would suggest shouldn't be included.

Firstly, £83m interest accrued on the PIK loan which isn't secured against the club's assets and therefore isn't the responsibility of the club. Clearly it hasn't ''left'' the club, far from it.

The £13m management fees taken out is basically cancelled out by the specific cost savings of not being a PLC any longer.

The £10m loan has left the club but it will be paid back and a competitive interest rate is being charged by the club.

So £86m + £38m + £83m + £13m + £10m = £230m

So you can take that £430m figure of yours down to £200m.

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 09:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commadus

How many subscribers are there of MUTV?

Forget the technology for the moment - the issue is what exclusive content that people will actually want to buy?

Technology is the medium with which United can connect with its supporters but it has to offer something that they want.

After subscribing to MUTV I ditched it - it got boring in the end.

We're talking about LIVE match content here. Something that MUTV obviously can't offer.

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 09:36

I also believe that Andersred has over estimated the cash interest paid for the current year by £15m.

So we're down to £185m now...

Oh and only £12.7m of the interest rate swap loss has been paid and therefore has left the club as of today.

So we're now down to £162.3m...

Commadus · 29th May 2010, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCHQ

Increasing revenues AND cash profits. Yes.

The debt does provide some benefit for the club in so much as the interest payments are tax-deductible so the club saves a great deal on corporation tax as a result. If the PLC was still here and the club was achieving the same profits as we are now then the amount of cash tax would be very significant indeed (£86m saving according to Andersred). And we should also remember that the Glazers have as yet not taken a dividend out of the club as the shareholders took every year when the club was a PLC (£38m saving according to Andersred).

There are also various items within that £430m of interest and other financing costs that I would suggest shouldn't be included.

Firstly, £83m interest accrued on the PIK loan which isn't secured against the club's assets and therefore isn't the responsibility of the club. Clearly it hasn't ''left'' the club, far from it.

The £13m management fees taken out is basically cancelled out by the specific cost savings of not being a PLC any longer.

The £10m loan has left the club but it will be paid back and a competitive interest rate is being charged by the club.

So £86m + £38m + £83m + £13m + £10m = £230m

So you can take that £430m figure of yours down to £200m.

£86m = corporation tax
£38m = dividends
£83m = rolled up PIK - it has not left the club but don't be churlish and suggest that it will never leave the club.
£10m = loan to the Glazers -
£13m = you have evidence to back that one up?

When the Figure was £437m - lol you are trying really hard here and losing objectivity.

Commadus · 29th May 2010, 09:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCHQ

I also believe that Andersred has over estimated the cash interest paid for the current year by £15m.

So we're down to £185m now...

Oh and only £12.7m of the interest rate swap loss has been paid and therefore has left the club as of today.

So we're now down to £162.3m...

lol

So what if it has been paid? The comparison was that against the club in its form prior to the Glazers thus saying it has been paid makes no difference to the amount that was the difference in the first place. Whether its £430m or £200m or any number in between. To start saying we are paying it off does not mean what the difference was at the start being any different.

Jeez.

Spoony Kobayashi · 29th May 2010, 09:56

To be fair, GHGQ's held his ground much better than Roadboy and Cider. The latter two let their hearts rule their heads.

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commadus

£86m = corporation tax
£38m = dividends
£83m = rolled up PIK - it has not left the club but don't be churlish and suggest that it will never leave the club.
£10m = loan to the Glazers -
£13m = you have evidence to back that one up?

I'm not being churlish to suggest it will never leave the club. There is every chance that it will never leave the club! And clearly given the fact that it hasn't actually left the club it should not under any circumstances be classified as money that has left the club!

The PLC cost savings were widely reported at the time of the takeover to be c.£3m pa. I'll try to dig out an article for you.

Commadus · 29th May 2010, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCHQ

I'm not being churlish to suggest it will never leave the club. There is every chance that it will never leave the club! And clearly given the fact that it hasn't actually left the club it should not under any circumstances be classified as money that has left the club!

The PLC cost savings were widely reported at the time of the takeover to be c.£3m pa. I'll try to dig out an article for you.

Ok - what in your estimation are the percentages that the PIK interest payments will not leave the club in the next 5 years?

Pogue Mahone · 29th May 2010, 10:01

From today's Grauniad.

Analysts say Manchester United must sell players to pay debts | Football | The Guardian

Quote:

Manchester United posted a £66.5m loss in the first nine months of their fiscal year as financing costs and one-time items more than offset increasing media, matchday and commercial revenues.

The accounts of Red Football Ltd, United's holding company, released today, show a £40.6m one-off charge linked to closing down an interest rate swap – or protection that companies buy against interest rate increases – that the firm had to pay when it swapped its loan debt with a bond earlier this year. The company posted a £19m non-cash foreign exchange loss due to the increase in the US dollar against sterling, which makes the bonds that United issued in dollars more expensive. The remaining £7m contained other costs including those related to debt issue.

United posted a £9.3m profit on the disposal of players that was far behind last year, when they sold Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid for £80m. "The loss shows that the business model doesn't work unless there are player sales," said Philip Long, partner at PKF accountants and business advisers, who has worked on football deals. "It's an absolute mess – when the full-year interest is accounted in and there are no items like last year's sale of Ronaldo, what's going to happen?"

An awful lot of the finer details of their business model go over my head, which is why I'm always interested to hear from people better qualified than I am to analyse our situation.

This Philip Long bloke should know what he's talking about. Can anyone explain why he has such a different opinion to roodboy and GHCQ?

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 10:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commadus

lol

So what if it has been paid? The comparison was that against the club in its form prior to the Glazers thus saying it has been paid makes no difference to the amount that was the difference in the first place. Whether its £430m or £200m or any number in between. To start saying we are paying it off does not mean what the difference was at the start being any different.

Jeez.

You said the £437m figure specfically related to the amount of money that had left the club. So I quite reasonably stated that the amount of the swap termination loss that had been paid and left the club as of today was £12.7m. The rest of the swap termination costs will be paid off over the next six years.

So we're down to £162.7m that has left the club from the original figure of £437m.

But I mean what's £275m between friends, right?

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 10:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commadus

Ok - what in your estimation are the percentages that the PIK interest payments will not leave the club in the next 5 years?

That's an impossible estimation to make, as you well know, because we simply have little to no idea how the Glazers plan to ''manage'' the PIK loan.

You have an estimate I presume?

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 10:10

Oh I see where you've gone wrong. Andersred estimated the interest rate swap loss to be £35m of that £437m figure and you thought the £12.7m that I said had been paid represented all of the swap loss and hence their should be no reduction.

The reduction is £22.3m, as I said to start with.

Commadus · 29th May 2010, 10:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCHQ

You said the £437m figure specfically related to the amount of money that had left the club. So I quite reasonably stated that the amount of the swap termination loss that had been paid and left the club as of today was £12.7m. The rest of the swap termination costs will be paid off over the next six years.

So we're down to £162.7m that has left the club from the original figure of £437m.

But I mean what's £275m between friends, right?

Hey?

Let me make it clear.

So if we operated as a PLC we would have paid
£86m in tax, £38m dividends = £124m

Under the Glazers
£216m interest
£80m professional fees
£13m consultancy fees
£35m loss interest rate swap
£344m

The difference is £220m.

Now if we include the PIK interest which I contend will leave the club then we add another £83m to bring it up to £303m

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

From today's Grauniad.

Analysts say Manchester United must sell players to pay debts | Football | The Guardian

An awful lot of the finer details of their business model go over my head, which is why I'm always interested to hear from people better qualified than I am to analyse our situation.

This Philip Long bloke should know what he's talking about. Can anyone explain why he has such a different opinion to roodboy and GHCQ?

You would think he should know, wouldn't you? I'm afraid he really doesn't though.

Andersred himself doesn't agree with anything that bloke said I can assure you.

Sultan · 29th May 2010, 10:31

All these future revenue streams are best case scenarios. This will not be the case if United fall of their successful pedestal. We need to remain ahead of the pack to even think about coming close to extracting these future revenues. With the tightening of the transfer budgets - imminent retirement of SAF, Giggs, Scholes and Neville we might not be as successful in the coming years.

A glimpse at Nottingham Forest once champions of Europe, Leeds, Liverpool and many others suggest it's easier to fall than remain at the top, and keep fans interested. You've got to be pretty mad to watch a second rate team not fighting for any trophies on a small screen void of any atmosphere. I don't even dare think what would happen to matchday revenues.

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commadus

Hey?

Let me make it clear.

So if we operated as a PLC we would have paid
£86m in tax, £38m dividends = £124m

Under the Glazers
£216m interest
£80m professional fees
£13m consultancy fees
£35m loss interest rate swap
£344m

The difference is £220m.

Now if we include the PIK interest which I contend will leave the club then we add another £83m to bring it up to £303m

Well firstly, read what I just said in my other post.

Once again, the PIK interest has not left the club and quite possibly never will.

So you've got the £124m figure.

Add back the £83m PIK interest.
Add back the £10m loan.
Add back the £13m management fees (I explained why)
Add back the £22.3m of the swap loss that hasn't actually been paid yet and therefore hasn't left the club.
Add back £17m of interest to allow for Andersred's over estimation of what the cash interest paid will be for the year ending June 30 2010.

So £269.3m to take off that £437m figure.

ciderman9000000 · 29th May 2010, 10:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoony Youngblood

To be fair, GHGQ's held his ground much better than Roadboy and Cider. The latter two let their hearts rule their heads.

True, but it still seems that we were right all along, and we no longer have to suffer being the ridiculed minority. Six months ago we got laughed at and labeled as crazy Glazer-loving kooks when we tried to point out that MUST and the papers were going way over the top with their hate-campaigning propaganda, but now it seems to be generally accepted; bar for a few permanently blinded extremists, most posters have seen that accepting as truth the things that MUST or the papers tell you will leave you with a greatly distorted and feeble grip on the actual realities of the Glazer ownership.

Commadus · 29th May 2010, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCHQ

Well firstly, read what I just said in my other post.

Once again, the PIK interest has not left the club and quite possibly never will.

So you've got the £124m figure.

Add back the £83m PIK interest.
Add back the £10m loan.
Add back the £13m management fees (I explained why)
Add back the £22.3m of the swap loss that hasn't actually been paid yet and therefore hasn't left the club.
Add back £17m of interest to allow for Andersred's over estimation of what the cash interest paid will be for the year ending June 30 2010.

So £269.3m to take off that £437m figure.

Again I am talking about the total not what has left the club or are you saying the £22.3m will not be paid? Would that have existed under the old structure - no.

As to your contention of Andres over-estimation do you have some figures to back it up?

Lance Uppercut · 29th May 2010, 10:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walrus

So we werent prepared to pay an extra £5m or so for Benzema, but we "negotiated" our bid for Berbatov up from an alleged £20m to around £32m when pressured by City?

Not that im making this about Berbatov, simply that it seems very inconsistent paying an extra £12m for Berbatov - which apparently represents value, but not being prepared to cough up an extra £5m or so for Benzema. Of course there would be no guarantee he would choose us over Madrid, but if the bid was accepted that would say enough.

Berbatov wanted to join us. Benzema did not. I (and the club obviously) don't see the point in matching someone's bid just for the sake of it.

Commadus · 29th May 2010, 10:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sultan

All these future revenue streams are best case scenarios. This will not be the case if United fall of their successful pedestal. We need to remain ahead of the pack to even think about coming close to extracting these future revenues. With the tightening of the transfer budgets - imminent retirement of SAF, Giggs, Scholes and Neville we might not be as successful in the coming years.

A glimpse at Nottingham Forest once champions of Europe, Leeds, Liverpool and many others suggest it's easier to fall than remain at the top, and keep fans interested. You've got to be pretty mad to watch a second rate team not fighting for any trophies on a small screen void of any atmosphere. I don't even dare think what would happen to matchday revenues.

Looking at the numbers in total abstraction and you can interpret them in any light. However it is success off the pitch that drives success off it. Would our commercial and ticket revenues be as high if we didn't win the EPL 3 times and reahc to CL finals?

SAF and the squad have done fantastically well and when SAF leaves and he will then what will happen if we go into a period of less success. How will that hit our finances? Who wants to associate with also rans?

Spoony Kobayashi · 29th May 2010, 10:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sultan

All these future revenue streams are best case scenarios. This will not be the case if United fall of their successful pedestal. We need to remain ahead of the pack to even think about coming close to extracting these future revenues. With the tightening of the transfer budgets - imminent retirement of SAF, Giggs, Scholes and Neville we might not be as successful in the coming years.

A glimpse at Nottingham Forest once champions of Europe, Leeds, Liverpool and many others suggest it's easier to fall than remain at the top, and keep fans interested. You've got to be pretty mad to watch a second rate team not fighting for any trophies on a small screen void of any atmosphere. I don't even dare think what would happen to matchday revenues.

Arsenal are probably the best example. They're paying off their stadium and this has affected their spending power. We've got bigger debts and the Glazers' net spending has been close to zero. But yeah, I think on pitch is a a worry, and it's a bit scary that we're asking the likes of Scholes, Giggs and Gary Neville to extend their careers. All are over 35. Similarly Arsenal have bought back the likes of Sol Campbell. . .when he's clearly had his day. But it's going to be a close run thing next season and like Liverpool they may find themselves out of the top four. For all the stick Wenger's got, I think he's done a fantastic job in the circumstances. Fergie likewise.

Commadus · 29th May 2010, 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoony Youngblood

Arsenal are probably the best example. They're paying off their stadium and this has affected their spending power. We've got bigger debts and the Glazers' net spending has been close to zero. But yeah, I think on pitch is a bit off a worry, and it's a bit scary that we're asking the likes of Scholes, Giggs and Gary Neville to extend their careers. All are over 35. Similarly Arsenal have bought back the likes of Sol Campbell. . .when he's clearly had his day. But it's going to be a close run thing next season and like Liverpool they may find themselves out of the top four. For all the stick Wenger's got, I think he's done a fantastic job in the circumstances. Fergie likewise.

SAF has been a phenomenon in the circumstances as have Giggs et al still able to perform when it matters.

Lance Uppercut · 29th May 2010, 10:53

Quote:

Manchester United's vociferous anti-Glazer faction are refusing to believe the club's controversial owners do not want to sell.

The Glazer family confirmed they had no interest in doing a deal to offload the Old Trafford outfit, even if the offer price shoots beyond £1billion.

Their statement seemed to end any hope of the Red Knights consortium taking control, even though they are intent on making a bid for United and trying to reduce the huge debts incurred by the Glazer family takeover in 2005.

However, the Manchester United Supporters Trust, who launched the green and gold campaign at the start of the year, are refusing to buckle, insisting they will carry on their fight.

"The last time Manchester United was 'Not For Sale' was back in 2005 and what happened next - the Glazer family bought it," said MUST chairman Duncan Drasdo.

"It is clear from the reactions on the Manchester United message boards that supporters are not buying into the spin coming out through the Glazers' Page Ranking machine.

"If the club really isn't for sale why would they need to say anything at all? Why are they so concerned about telling everyone they don't want to sell? If they don't want to sell they can simply reject any offer. It sounds like the gentleman doth protest too much."

Should a Red Knights bid be turned down, as now appears certain, MUST are expected to call for a boycott of season tickets and other merchandise in an effort to hit the Glazers' various income streams.

Yet United have appeared increasingly bullish about the effect such a call would have, with chief executive David Gill recently claiming the sale of season tickets was virtually in line with expectations and not giving any hint of a potential problem.

Certainly there appears little that is going to shake the Glazers from their position, having reported a reduction in the overall debt to £520million and growth in all areas, with the exception of a relatively minor £1million decline in matchday income.

"The board noted recent press speculation regarding a possible bid for Manchester United," the statement read.

"The owners remain fully committed to their long-term ownership of the club.

"Manchester United is not for sale and the owners will not entertain any offers."

Football365

RedPhil1957 · 29th May 2010, 11:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCHQ

Ironically there was one very interesting and perhaps relevant point raised in that Guardian article yesterday which I didn't fully appreciate at the time:

Now the interesting thing with this mobile phone content is that unlike pretty much everything else it doesn't fall within the Premier League's collective rights deal. So is the Glazers ultimate plan, when technology has developed sufficiently, to sell United's live match rights to mobile phone users around the world and use telecom companies as partners in the various different territories to achieve that objective? Remember all of these ''sponsorship agreements'' which United have already signed with many telecom companies in different parts of the world. It looks to me like there's a long term plan here and if it works and a reasonable amount of people are willing to watch live games on their mobile phones then the financial benefits could potentially be extraordinary. But would it work? What do people think?

It's no wonder they've been keeping these plans, if true, very quiet though. They would ultimately be devaluing the PL's collective rights deal if they went ahead with this and it would create a shit storm.

Maybe this is the gold at the end of the rainbow?

I pointed out a long time ago that the Glazer's plan was obviously centred on future growth in mobile phone technology. I also said that people who thought they would grap the first chance of a quick buck profit and sell up were seriously deluded. If people really want to understand Glazer don't look at supporter blogs but study his history in business, bitter fights are not new to him and he is quite prepared to wait long term to get what he wants. If its purely money (I am not convined it is) then they are obviously convinced that they can continuously increase revenues to cover all debt interest comfortably in the future offering the vision of a $ cash cow for the family.

The only comfort I can see for fans in the near future is gate receipts will become a less important part of overall income and therefore ticket price rises might be less likely and to ensure continued growth in overseas earnings future team success is esential.

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commadus

Again I am talking about the total not what has left the club or are you saying the £22.3m will not be paid? Would that have existed under the old structure - no.

As to your contention of Andres over-estimation do you have some figures to back it up?

Well this is what you said to start with before now deciding to change your mind:

Quote:

Whilst Fred, Crerand et al are concerned that the massive debts were put on United for no benefit to the club and that circa £430m has left the club in interest and other financing costs.

So you'll forgive me for actually looking at what money has left the club based on your original spurious statement.

If you want to talk about the total amount then why haven't you also included the bond interest that will be paid for the years to come?

You see if you start changing your story like you have everything you say tends to start unravelling pretty quickly.

My contention for Andersred's over-estimation of the cash interest paid is that he quite clearly has included a half yearly bond interest cash payment in his figure of £45m for the year ending June 30 2010 when in fact the first cash bond interest payment is to be made on August 01 2010, after the June 30 2010 year end date.

The JP Morgan research note of the bond issue also supports that conclusion. They state a figure of £28m net cash interest paid.

I would actually suggest that the correct figure will be c.£20m net cash interest paid for the year ending June 30 2010 based on the latest accounts for the end of March 2010.

In which case we would be up to a figure of £277.3m that needs to be taken off your spurious £437m figure.

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut

Football365

Does the man have no shame?

ciderman9000000 · 29th May 2010, 11:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

What part of £700 million in debt so he can own the club needs explaining?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeUpNorth

All the issues regarding United's ability to service that debt, whether this is likely, the scale and changing nature of the debt structure, the timescales involved in paying it off or maintaining it, the cashflow situation going forward, the Glazer's business plan and what impact this will have in the future, the different scenarios that could occur depending on future success... there really is a lot to look at and consider.

Shouting 'the Glazers are bad, they put us in massive debt' is true and something we all agree on, but it's not exactly much help in trying to understand what's going to happen in the future and the specifics of the financial situation the club is in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1Dan

But arguing "that side of the argument" over fine details can only play into the hands of the Glazers.

I would much rather that the reasons we want the Glazers out were a little overstated than that people drift away thinking "well, it's OK, I read people on the internet saying that everything's fine after all".

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

But the point is, you say people agree the Glazers are bad.

They wont believe that if you get hte likes of Roodboy and his cronies all making out that everything is fine, so theres nothing to worry about.

Any supporters from other clubs will be looking at this thread and thinking "this is so called rejection of the Glazers.. I'd call it more of an invitation to pop round for dinner"

Two quotes from A1dan and Fred yesterday, in response to Mike giving his reasons why if thought the financial situation should be looked into and properly explained. They were overlooked at the time but i think they highlight perfectly the attitude of some posters, and certainly of MUST, that above all else, above finding the truth and reality of the situation, hating the Glazers and spreading hatred of the Glazers should be the most important factor in our minds, our words and our actions; those delving into the truth are nothing but troublesome do-gooders, getting in the way of everything and spoiling a very well thought out hate-campaign!

Commadus · 29th May 2010, 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCHQ

Well this is what you said to start with before now deciding to change your mind:

So you'll forgive me for actually looking at what money has left the club based on your original spurious statement.

If you want to talk about the total amount then why haven't you also included the bond interest that will be paid for the years to come?

You see if you start changing your story like you have everything you say tends to start unravelling pretty quickly.

My contention for Andersred's over-estimation of the cash interest paid is that he quite clearly has included a half yearly bond interest cash payment in his figure of £45m for the year ending June 30 2010 when in fact the first cash bond interest payment is to be made on August 01 2010, after the June 30 2010 year end date.

The JP Morgan research note of the bond issue also supports that conclusion. They state a figure of £28m net cash interest paid.

I would actually suggest that the correct figure will be c.£20m net cash interest paid for the year ending June 30 2010 based on the latest accounts for the end of March 2010.

In which case we would be up to a figure of £277.3m that needs to be taken off your spurious £437m figure.

Lol

You make me laugh. You take the figures as United Corporate Tax and Dividend payments (are not required to be paid - United could have decided not to pay them) as given assumptions and then start knocking the others. Suits your argument.

Also I quoted Anders so it was not spurrious.

If we are going to include future interest payments then for sure we will be paying more in interest than we would have been in corporation tax going into the future. So lets look at the costs up until 2017

The interest rate swaps that still remain to be paid remain on our balance sheet as a liability.

Considering the cash amounts is looking at it from your narrow perspective to back your argument but if we take it on 2017 when our interest on the bonds will be higher than what we were paying under the loans well I know which of the two forms of ownership would have lower costs of operation.

Quite frankly · 29th May 2010, 12:44

Anyone know why net assets have increased by approx £400m? According to the latest released accounts the Current Assets on one side of the Balance Sheet and the Shareholders Funds on the other side have increased by this amount and it seems to have happened over the past 3 month period.. can only think it is somehow related to this bond issue but why would it affect shareholders equity unless monies have been transferred through to the parent company to pay off some of the PIK loans and has somehow been capitalised.. but how / why then would this loan be a Current Asset?

http://www.mufplc.com/pdf/Q3%202010%20Report.pdf

check out the last page..

Sultan · 29th May 2010, 13:04

I'm not sure why the PLC business model is being discussed.

The fact is non payment of dividend to shareholders does not put the future of the club in jeopardy. Corporation tax is only paid when profits are made.

Unable to fulfill obligations of interest payments is a different scenario.

GCHQ · 29th May 2010, 13:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quite frankly

Anyone know why net assets have increased by approx £400m? According to the latest released accounts the Current Assets on one side of the Balance Sheet and the Shareholders Funds on the other side have increased by this amount and it seems to have happened over the past 3 month period.. can only think it is somehow related to this bond issue but why would it affect shareholders equity unless monies have been transferred through to the parent company to pay off some of the PIK loans and has somehow been capitalised.. but how / why then would this loan be a Current Asset?

http://www.mufplc.com/pdf/Q3%202010%20Report.pdf

check out the last page..

It was the £400m capital contribution designed to give the Glazers the option of channeling cash up to RFJV Limited.

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

29th May 2010, 09:01	#2047 (permalink)
Commadus First Team Sub Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 8,785	So let me sum this up. GCHQ, Rood, PExbo et al feel the Glazers have run the club well or are making good of a the situation at hand and feel the debt and balance sheet are nothing to get too concerned about because we are increasing revenues. Whilst Fred, Crerand et al are concerned that the massive debts were put on United for no benefit to the club and that circa £430m has left the club in interest and other financing costs.

29th May 2010, 09:09	#2048 (permalink)
GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen..... they can't all be wrong! Posts: 4,028	The obvious problem for United with this mobile phone content is that you'd expect that a number of Premier League clubs would push for mobile phone rights to be included in the next round of the PL's collective rights sale starting in 2013/14. The genie though would already be out of the bottle so to speak by then and well they do say that possession is nine tenths of the law.

29th May 2010, 09:21	#2049 (permalink)
Commadus First Team Sub Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 8,785	How many subscribers are there of MUTV? Forget the technology for the moment - the issue is what exclusive content that people will actually want to buy? Technology is the medium with which United can connect with its supporters but it has to offer something that they want. After subscribing to MUTV I ditched it - it got boring in the end.

29th May 2010, 09:36	#2052 (permalink)
GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen..... they can't all be wrong! Posts: 4,028	I also believe that Andersred has over estimated the cash interest paid for the current year by £15m. So we're down to £185m now... Oh and only £12.7m of the interest rate swap loss has been paid and therefore has left the club as of today. So we're now down to £162.3m...

29th May 2010, 09:56	#2055 (permalink)
Spoony Kobayashi Has no power Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Existential Crisis. Posts: 45,817	To be fair, GHGQ's held his ground much better than Roadboy and Cider. The latter two let their hearts rule their heads.

29th May 2010, 10:10	#2061 (permalink)
GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen..... they can't all be wrong! Posts: 4,028	Oh I see where you've gone wrong. Andersred estimated the interest rate swap loss to be £35m of that £437m figure and you thought the £12.7m that I said had been paid represented all of the swap loss and hence their should be no reduction. The reduction is £22.3m, as I said to start with.

29th May 2010, 10:31	#2064 (permalink)
Sultan السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: It is better for a leader to make a mistake in forgiving than to make a mistake in punishing Posts: 34,247	All these future revenue streams are best case scenarios. This will not be the case if United fall of their successful pedestal. We need to remain ahead of the pack to even think about coming close to extracting these future revenues. With the tightening of the transfer budgets - imminent retirement of SAF, Giggs, Scholes and Neville we might not be as successful in the coming years. A glimpse at Nottingham Forest once champions of Europe, Leeds, Liverpool and many others suggest it's easier to fall than remain at the top, and keep fans interested. You've got to be pretty mad to watch a second rate team not fighting for any trophies on a small screen void of any atmosphere. I don't even dare think what would happen to matchday revenues.

29th May 2010, 12:44	#2078 (permalink)
Quite frankly Youth Team Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: the here and now Posts: 188	Anyone know why net assets have increased by approx £400m? According to the latest released accounts the Current Assets on one side of the Balance Sheet and the Shareholders Funds on the other side have increased by this amount and it seems to have happened over the past 3 month period.. can only think it is somehow related to this bond issue but why would it affect shareholders equity unless monies have been transferred through to the parent company to pay off some of the PIK loans and has somehow been capitalised.. but how / why then would this loan be a Current Asset? http://www.mufplc.com/pdf/Q3%202010%20Report.pdf check out the last page..

29th May 2010, 13:04	#2079 (permalink)
Sultan السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: It is better for a leader to make a mistake in forgiving than to make a mistake in punishing Posts: 34,247	I'm not sure why the PLC business model is being discussed. The fact is non payment of dividend to shareholders does not put the future of the club in jeopardy. Corporation tax is only paid when profits are made. Unable to fulfill obligations of interest payments is a different scenario.