That 333m figure is one floated by the club is it not? Ridiculous sounding figure. I read 60m somewhere a few years ago and that still seems to be a better estimate IMO.
All change of ownership and Red Knights related posts here please
- Thread starter Gunnar
- Start date
At the moment, we are paying off interest on our loans, paying off interest on the Glazers "personal" loans, and they are still taking money from the club as management fees etc. We can afford one or the other, but not both.
Clubs don't negotiate their TV deal the premier league do as a collective.
The loans are not personal. They are owed by the club and secured on the shares of Red Football Ltd. It was the covenants attached to the prior senior bank loans that wouldn't let them clear them from club funds which made them sort of personal.
It won't be a few. Hopefully 25% will the broad mass of fans. What will largely be gone (substantially reduced) are the interest payments (including deferred payments) which currently amount to over 70m a year. On top of that are the fees paid to the Glazers for doing nothing as well as their myriad of advisers.
Perhaps MUST should now be approaching the reported 125 000 they have on their books as to who's prepared to put in what.
Well that's bollocks. The management fees were around £20mil over a five year period, that's feck all. Effectively, the entire Glazer family collectively paid themselves about half of what Rio Ferdinand recieved in the same time period. fecking Pompey could afford that shit.
The one thing with interest is when the loans are paid the interest stops not so with dividends to share holders this never stops and has profits increase so to do dividends. Within in the next few years if one takes into account how United's turnover has jumped by over 100 million pound within a five year period since the Glazers took over they will be able to service there debts comfortable. Obviously what has got many United fans up in arms is that we are basically buying the club for the Glazers they are using our money to fund there acquisition. Thats what happens when you become a PLC you gain the benefits of getting ready avaiable cash but open yourself up to a hostile takeover.
As I showed earlier the increase in turnover represents a 10% pa growth which is modest to say the least for any business. Increasing operating costs nullify the growth in turnover. Many here assume the Glazers will be able to pay off their debts and are basing that largely on increased revenue expectations as well as using cash in the bank to reduce their most expensive debt. So far they have barely managed to service their debt which has increased from 559m in 2005 to the present 716m. They have had to re-fiance twice just to keep the whole thing afloat. Does anyone know what the costs were of that re-financing ?
Someone's always going to be using our money for their own personal gain, that's a fact of life, it's not just a football thing. You earn money through working, and then you swap it with other people who, in return, grant you the necessities and luxuries that you want in life; it's nothing to get all angry about.
The Glazers know that there are sitting on an asset if the figures are to be believed the Red Knights are prepared to pay up to 1.2 billion pound for the club resulting in a tidy profit for the owners. Companies are refinancing all the time this is not a bad thing and does not necessary mean they cant service the debt, it just mean they like any business man are looking for better interest rates on loans freeing up more money. Taking into consideration operating expenses are up but the bottom line net profit has doubled in 5 years. Lets assume that they can double this again in the next five years then those debts are payable.
Why on earth would anyone 'assume' that?
No way will that happen. The scope for increasing profits is far, far lower than five years ago.
Domestic TV, Sponsorship and match day revenue's are not going to grow in the coming five years. Domestic revenue is our biggest income by far.
International TV and sponsorship will grow probably but not any where near enough to double our profits in five years. Not even remotely in that ball park.
Why do you assume that?
How the feck do you know what the international growth potential of the club is? China alone is thirty times as populous as the UK, and support there is growing exponentially.
Really? That's not a complete hyperbole?
Even if there are 1 gazillion United fans, I would appreciate your working out how (given the per capita income) that translates into significant revenues for the club.
United will have to continue to be successful on pitch to exploit any potential customers(no doubt how they'll be seen). Which means investment in the first team. . .and non of this zero net spending bollocks undertaking by the Glazer regime. The next manager won't be as good as Fergie nor will he have the likes of Giggs and Scholes. I fear the first team will need huge injection of funds next year. Weren't they borrowing another £75m for transfers?
But you're love of the Glazers is cringeworthy.
My love of the Glazers is a figment in the imaginations of those who disagree with me.
Fair enough and I didn't accuse you of that.
But please work out how much exactly the China market is growing and how that impacts on club revenues. Thanks.
But please work out how much exactly the China market is growing and how that impacts on club revenues. Thanks.
It's obviously not within my capabilities to work that out, you tool. I'm just pointing out that it's not within anyone else's on here either, so i'm not going to be taken-in by anyone telling me that there's no more room for growth. When someone on here spends a few £millions on South East Asian market-research i'll start listening, but when some gimp just pipes-up and tells me that...
...I'll have fecking massive pinch of salt, please.
So basically you have no well-constructed opinion and are ready to believe in fairy-tales unless you have millions to spend on research. And people wonder why the global economy is in the shape it is.
Er, no one else posting here has millions to go and research things on their own.
I was wasting my time clearly. You have nothing sensible to say. I'm not knocking your cynicism about the RK, that is a useful approach, but you're clearly not ready to come up with something well-thought out and sensible (for fear that you have SFA to back it up, possibly?). Sorry I wasted my time indulgin your fantasises.
Er, no one else posting here has millions to go and research things on their own.
I was wasting my time clearly. You have nothing sensible to say. I'm not knocking your cynicism about the RK, that is a useful approach, but you're clearly not ready to come up with something well-thought out and sensible (for fear that you have SFA to back it up, possibly?). Sorry I wasted my time indulgin your fantasises.
I've never claimed to have any expertise in any of this, and i certainly don't believe in any fairy-tales. All i see is that, every man and his dog has suddenly started to believe himself as to having an intimate knowledge of United's business-model, whereas in reality they know sweet feck-all. Quite the opposite from believing in fairy-tales i think.
All i did was tell KingMinger22 that his post was hypocritical; he accused SAred of making assumptions, then went on to make massive assumptions of his own in the exact same post...
SARed was making assumptions - and if you read above, I have posted on why his theory doesn't hold up. Now I'm not saying that the RK are the end-all and be-all, but significantly, if they manage a takeover (simply based on the structure of ownership) then their costs of ownership will not be transferred to the club - if any of the super-rich plump up whatever millions and they need to borrow in order to do so, that will not reflect in the club's accounts.
The ever-expanding revenue stream line of thought is a fairy tale, Even Moore's Law is finite. If you look at the reasons why the global economy is in as big a mess as it is and Warren Buffet's fortune still keeps increasing, you'll see that.
The ever-expanding revenue stream line of thought is a fairy tale, Even Moore's Law is finite. If you look at the reasons why the global economy is in as big a mess as it is and Warren Buffet's fortune still keeps increasing, you'll see that.
Shut-up now, you minkle, the match is on.
Ciderman your glazer love is plain for all to see, how dare you question the consortium of Millionare Business men who are using an Investment Bank to guide them in their saving of United whilst giving the fans everything they ever dreamed off thanks to a few press clippings of them saying so. Seriously why don't you and Glazer get a room.
Alright, you 'non-minkle', 3-0 is the score. Now do you actually have anything to say, or are you just hiding behind vague nonsense?
Of all the posters here who disagree with you, I have possibly given you the widest berth and invested more belief that you actually have something worthwhile to say.
Now convince me that it's worth engaging with you - and please if you think name-calling makes your point, whatever that may be, I;m just gonna have to conclude again that you are a giant waste of time, possibly even a complete moron, and simply ignore your posts as I do the drunk up my street.
[EDIT: I see you've edited your quoting of SARed and taken him out of your last post, so maybe you're starting to see some sense]
OK, I see you're still logged in, but haven't replied yet. Maybe you simply have nothing worthwhile to say, Your Off-Rockerness?
Pity, I thought you had a dissenting opinion because you're intelligent. Clearly I was wrong. My fault entirely.
Pity, I thought you had a dissenting opinion because you're intelligent. Clearly I was wrong. My fault entirely.
OK, I see you're still logged in, but haven't replied yet. Maybe you simply have nothing worthwhile to say, Your Off-Rockerness?
Pity, I thought you had a dissenting opinion because you're intelligent. Clearly I was wrong. My fault entirely.
Wind your neck in ffs, i haven't got a clue what you're banging-on about. I took the SAred quote out because it was there by mistake when i pressed the wrong multiquote button, and though i'm logged-on, it doesn't mean i'm sat at my computer; i'm logged-on whenever the machine's switched-on.
Stop foaming at the mouth and ask me a question if it's answers that you want; what the feck are you expecting me to say until you do?!
At this point, I give up and will defer to the wisdom of the vast majority of the posters who think you're simply a WUM.
P.S. If you actually want to answer questions, you'll just read above and avoid this evasive shit and not make me repeat myself.
But then again if you have really nothing say but be a general sceptic and look to be a sensational sceptic while you're at it, carry on. Impy is not the biggest RK advocate but his posts are reasoned and worth responding to. I simply made the mistake of taking you seriously. Forgive me dear sir.
Yes, you're making yourself look even more clever than before...
Is this an oxymoron, ironic or just a fallacy?
No Derren Brown proved it worked. He got the lottery numbers from it.
In this solitary case, having tried (er, struggled?) to get something out of Cider more than just his usual putaways, it actually is none of the above.
It's simply a facHt. (no wait, that;s ironic again
)Its power also turned the world from a flat plane to a perfect sphere.
Wait, my Derren would never say perfect sphere (he would know it's an oblate spheroid. Which term I will never forget because a mate of mine when I was growing up said was his favourite shape because it reminded him of 'omelette' - his favourite way to have eggs. Alright, he was well overweight, what's your point already? That the overweight do not deserve to be heard?)
I have absolutely no idea how to respond to you. You clearly got out of the wrong side of the bed and are taking it out on me. I've done nothing here to show any great intelligence nor lack of it - i made a rather innocuous response to a comment from KingMinger22, and you've been ranting and raving about my intellect ever since. If you doubt my intelligence so much, then perhaps we could arrange a game of chess?
Actually, the Earth is a bit wider than it is 'high'. The shape is often called a geoid (Earth-like) or an ellipsoid. The rotation of the Earth causes a slight bulge toward the equator. The circumference of the Earth at the equator (24,901.55) is about 41 miles greater than the circumference through the poles (24,859.82 miles. If you were standing on the moon, looking at the Earth, it would be virtually impossible to see the bulge and the Earth would appear to be a perfect sphere.
The mathematical name for the shape of the earth is an 'Oblate spheroid'.
feck off, radd.
Arsehole!
Arsehole!
I'd stick to making sensible posts on this forum.
Very debatable. Who says it's a sphere.
Look, i'm not here so you can 'get something out of' me. I've been baffled as to what it is that you're supposedly asking me, and i've told you as much. If you want my opinion on something then all you have to do is ask, but you seem to be skipping that bit in favour of complaining about my lack of psychic ability.
In keeping with the above I don't know if you're being ironic... or... or...
But I'm an arsehole
And all this for trying to see if Cider has any sensible point to make...
I give up.
If Spoony has spoken, who can possibly measure up to the number of Romeo y Juilets he has in his possession? (Or avatars?)