ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by sammsky1, Jan 2, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. May 29, 2010

    Commadus Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,405
    £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.
  2. May 29, 2010

    Commadus Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,405
    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.
  3. May 29, 2010

    Spoony The People's President

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2001
    Messages:
    48,150
    Location:
    Vote RNilsson for best poster!
    To be fair, GHGQ's held his ground much better than Roadboy and Cider. The latter two let their hearts rule their heads.
  4. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    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.
  5. May 29, 2010

    Commadus Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,405
    Ok - what in your estimation are the percentages that the PIK interest payments will not leave the club in the next 5 years?
  6. May 29, 2010

    Pogue Mahone Poster of the year 2008

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    71,208
    Location:
    "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
    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?
  7. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    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?
  8. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    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?
  9. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    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.
  10. May 29, 2010

    Commadus Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,405
    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
  11. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    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.
  12. May 29, 2010

    Sultan السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Messages:
    37,330
    Location:
    Pulpit of Pearls
    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.
  13. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    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.
  14. May 29, 2010

    ciderman9000000 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Messages:
    29,644
    Location:
    The General
    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.
  15. May 29, 2010

    Commadus Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,405
    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?
  16. May 29, 2010

    Lance Uppercut Loves turn based games

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    23,461
    Location:
    The Granulating Dark Satanic Mills
    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.
  17. May 29, 2010

    Commadus Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,405
    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?
  18. May 29, 2010

    Spoony The People's President

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2001
    Messages:
    48,150
    Location:
    Vote RNilsson for best poster!
    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.
  19. May 29, 2010

    Commadus Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,405
    SAF has been a phenomenon in the circumstances as have Giggs et al still able to perform when it matters.
  20. May 29, 2010

    Lance Uppercut Loves turn based games

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    23,461
    Location:
    The Granulating Dark Satanic Mills
    Football365


    :lol:
  21. May 29, 2010

    RedPhil1957 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,471
    Location:
    lincs.


    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.
  22. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    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.
  23. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    :lol:

    Does the man have no shame?
  24. May 29, 2010

    ciderman9000000 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Messages:
    29,644
    Location:
    The General
    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!
  25. May 29, 2010

    Commadus Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,405
    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.
  26. May 29, 2010

    Quite frankly Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    188
    Location:
    the here and now
    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 2010 Report.pdf

    check out the last page..
  27. May 29, 2010

    Sultan السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Messages:
    37,330
    Location:
    Pulpit of Pearls
    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.
  28. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    It was the £400m capital contribution designed to give the Glazers the option of channeling cash up to RFJV Limited.
  29. May 29, 2010

    KingMinger22 City >>> United. Moaning twat

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Messages:
    4,344
    Location:
    NYC
    Its crazy that some people can defend the Glazer's business model.


    We are showered in crippling debt and have had to refinance at in credible costs - 25% more than any player has every been bought for in the Premier League.

    We struggle with interest payments let alone actually paying off debt.

    Its absolutely heart breaking.
  30. May 29, 2010

    KingMinger22 City >>> United. Moaning twat

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Messages:
    4,344
    Location:
    NYC

    This.


    fecking hilarious that a couple of you are convinced that mobile streams are going to be such a significant cash cow.

    TV is 85 million ish. Mobiles wouldn't ever be a quarter of that.
  31. May 29, 2010

    RedPhil1957 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,471
    Location:
    lincs.



    I noticed that --- £300 million of that comes from a big rise in other assets but how and why I have no idea. I suppose it is possible that a re-valuation of existing assets was done with the bond issue in mind.
  32. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    Here's the explanation from the bond issue prospectus:

    So it's treated as a current asset because it's essentially an interest free loan owed by RFJV to the club.
  33. May 29, 2010

    RedPhil1957 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,471
    Location:
    lincs.



    They will exceed the earnings United get from TV, in the not to distant future, as long as the TV revenues continue to be pooled between all clubs.
  34. May 29, 2010

    Quite frankly Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    188
    Location:
    the here and now
    I see so they lend themselves £400m (interest free I presume?) so they can funnel it back via an 'equity' contribution - some kind of capital reserve account so they can legally pay themselves dividends if they want in the future? How would this constiture a Current Asset on the BS as the chances of this being repaid within a year are approaching zero.. thanks for you answer btw..
  35. May 29, 2010

    RedPhil1957 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,471
    Location:
    lincs.



    So basically its moving money / assets around the group --- accountancy cosmetics?
  36. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    Yup, all above board of course and it simply affords the Glazers the flexibility of being able to channel cash up to RFJV if needs be.
  37. May 29, 2010

    Crerand Legend Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    7,821
    Get brave did we when I was offline? Already told you I have severe doubts about the Rks if you would take the time to read instead of posting like Glazer obsessed madman. Now post all the spin and high finance bollocks you like but isnt it strange that according to reports the only player we are seriously interested in is Joe Cole for free, I predicted that. That answers all the questions in a simple manner, we cant spend money. You whizz kids may be happy that the balance sheet looks good no matter what you have to do to achieve that but some of us are more interested what happens on the playing field and the Glazers debt is going to affect that
  38. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    Exactly.

    As for your point about it being a current asset, I agree with you, especially as it specifically states in the bond prospectus that the loan will remain outstanding. :confused:
  39. May 29, 2010

    Lance Uppercut Loves turn based games

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    23,461
    Location:
    The Granulating Dark Satanic Mills
    :lol:

    Are you for real?
  40. May 29, 2010

    GCHQ Glazer Crevice Headquarters

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Location:
    Sir Alex Ferguson, Ben Foster, Hayley McQueen.....
    That post you were replying to didn't acknowledge that it would be LIVE match content that they would be selling to mobile phone users.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page