All change of ownership and Red Knights related posts here please

[Rood]

I don't think you can ever write off some form of fan ownership. And the pressure for it will be greater so long as the Glazers are in charge due to their immense unpopularity amongst the fans. The "Red Knights" aren't and were never a single group - they were a loose-knit and quite fluid body of wealthy United fans who were not happy with the direction the club were going in and want to give the fans the opportunity to own the club. There are a couple of big names at the top who have been driving it but there's new people coming in (and drifting out) all the time.

So what you are saying is that the RKs basically dont exist at all - well not in any coherent type of structure anyway.

There will always be some fans who complain about this, but they are in the minority I reckon. The biggest drive towards commercialisation of football came in the early 1990s - that didn't see tens of thousands of fans wearing green and gold did it?

No because most fans didnt realise what was going on and what ramifications it would have going forward.

Are you suggesting that groups like MUST haven't done this? There's no point in talking to the FA because they're powerless. But UEFA have been lobbied through Supporters Direct influencing a number of changes (e.g. Financial Fair Play, and the new requirement for clubs to employ a fan liaison officer) and there is currently a debate going on in Parliament about fan ownership and debt. How do you think that came about?

I'm saying that should be the focus of what they do rather than encouraging people not to renew or misleading people with half arsed ideas of forcing out the current owners and replacing them with mythical knights.

 

[ralphie88]

Nope - I'm suggesting that the MEN and other papers just basically reprint MUST press releases.

Anyway you know what I think about that issue so lets not waste time going over old ground.

We've not gone over this ground at all. I can't think of a single MUST press release that has gone out in the press without the club being approached for comment. However the same courtesy is not provided the other way. I can also think of a number of MUST stories that have been pulled from first editions at the last minute and replaced with fairly trivial inside gossip from the United dressing room. Which makes sense, the papers have to keep United on board because that's one of the ways they sell papers.

 

[ralphie88]

So what you are saying is that the RKs basically dont exist at all - well not in any coherent type of structure anyway.

Well it depends what your view of them was. If you thought they were an established group sitting round atable in their shiny armour then you'll be disappointed. They never called themselves the Red Knights - that was a media term placed on them following an interview by Keith Harris (not a 'Red Knight') on Football Focus. However if you viewed them as a fluid group of wealthy United fans interested in (a) buying the club and (b) helping the fans gain control, then of course they exist.

No because most fans didnt realise what was going on and what ramifications it would have going forward.

I disagree. The fans saw the Stretford End being demolished. They saw the flotation of the club. And they saw ticket prices rise to pay for players wages (remember the £2 rise blamed on Keano?). Some fans didn't like it and there were some protests (I remember the stand-in after the final game on the old Stretty) but nothing on the scale of what we saw last season.

I'm saying that should be the focus of what they do rather than encouraging people not to renew or misleading people with half arsed ideas of forcing out the current owners and replacing them with mythical knights.

Well personally I thought MUST made a mistake in getting involved in the whole renewal lark. That was always a big red herring.

But to suggest that a Supporters Trust shouldn't be involved in trying to pressurise owners such as the Glazers, negotiating with potential buyers, increasing membership or looking for ways to increase the Trust fund is to miss the point of a Supporters Trust entirely.

Lobbying the Government should really be left to Supporters Direct, not individual Trusts.

 

[sincher]

We've not gone over this ground at all. I can't think of a single MUST press release that has gone out in the press without the club being approached for comment. However the same courtesy is not provided the other way.

Since most MUST Pee Ar is about United, and most United Pee Ar isn't about MUST, that isn't a matter of courtesy.

 

[ralphie88]

Since most MUST Pee Ar is about United, and most United Pee Ar isn't about MUST, that isn't a matter of courtesy.

I agree. So to suggest that MUST benefit from the same type of media treatment isn't correct.

And why does this site not allow you to type PR by the way?

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

The £1billion figure was used merely to show how ridiculous people are who constantly bang on about how much is going OUT of the club - how much is coming IN must always be taken into account.

Well duh, of course it does.
What happens to the money coming in tends to be the most important bit though.

Not one of us really knows for certain just how lucrative these media deals might become.

If I had said to you 15-20 years ago that by 2010 most people would be buying their music through a "special" phone line and playing it on a device no bigger than a matchbox and that their entire record collection could be stored within that matchbox, you'd probably have been telling me to go and feed my pink elephant then, too.

Because we're still largely talking about future technology, I cannot say for certain how it will be done but I can see a point in the future where fans all over the world will be able to buy something like an "E-Season Ticket" for £x per year and that will give them the ability to watch all United games, all reserve and academy games, exclusive interviews with the players and manager (like MUTV but with live coverage of first-team games).

Can you really? Apart from that being a break from the collective agreement, that most clubs would vote against and that has crippled competition in La Liga, you're almost right. Except you're wrong.

It will be on a reliable stream (not these dodgy, hit and miss ones people endure at the moment) and the commentary will be available in a choice of languages.

What it's pushed out on doesn't matter. If you're on a poor connection, you won't get a decent stream running.

If the estimates that we have between 70-330m fans (or followers) are anywhere near correct then even if only 1% of those buy this E-ST @ (say) £120/year (£10 a month) then that could be anywhere between £84m and £396m per annum.

So of our 330m fans, how many do you actually think can afford £10 a month? 1% is a fanciful figure.

You might scoff at this now but I don't think this is exactly "pink elephant" stuff. I think this has been very much part of the Glazers' plan all along but it has required technology to catch up with it (we're still not there yet, either).

Has it? Have you got proof or is this more stuff that you've made up to try and look more intelligent?

I'm not sure how all this would only benefit the Glazers - something along these lines sounds brilliant for ALL fans, to me.

You never know, it might even be so brilliant that demand for REAL STs drops and the Glazers might have to lower the real ST price which will benefit the hardcore fans who want to be there watching live - not watching on a TV or computer screen.

There won't be legal live streaming of games in the e-ST world without breaking the collective agreement. While it may become legal on phone tech, the resolution serving phones will be tiny and I'd not Traveller my eyes.

The suggestion that none of this money will benefit United is frankly nonsense as far as I am concerned. This has the potential to put us on a completely different planet to most of the other clubs in the world.

The Glazers may well see United as "the brand" or "the product" but if that is the case then the best thing you can do, as a business owner who wants to maximise revenues, is make your product the best it can be.

You don't do that by taking all the money out of it and using it to stuff your mattress. You take what you need and keep the rest in there in order to continue to feed it and grow it. Unless they have something better to spend the money on when they take it out then there would be very little point in doing so.

It's always be nonsense to you, any notion that the Glazers are solely in it for themselves, isn't it? They've not frozen ticket prices to be nice, it's a P.R. exercise that is hiding the fact that ticket sales were going to plummet.

The most vulnerable time for Glazer has just passed barring some unexpected shake-down. Man Utd is going to get more valuable, less indebted and harder to buy.

Really? Let's see what happens to the PIKs first, especially if there's a double dip recession as some are predicting.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

I agree. So to suggest that MUST benefit from the same type of media treatment isn't correct.

And why does this site not allow you to type Page Ranking by the way?

I think you're coming towards the same conclusion from different ends.
While the press quite rightly don't care about MUST's opinion on the latest match result, they may be interested in MUST's opinion on certain stories. That said, they probably know what stories MUST will be providing an opinion on anyway so don't need to ask.

 

[Sir A1ex]

We've been over this. Why do i have to keep telling you? You're isolating quotes from their context. Put them in context...
...and you see that when he says, "no matter where you are..." it should be interpreted as "no matter where you are [overseas]..." He quite clearly makes the distinction between fans who're able to get to the stadium and those who cannot, and so the entire article is in reference specifically to those who cannot; fans in Asia and America; if you are unable to see that then you're an idiot, and it's no wonder that you hate United so much if by routine you manage to read such negative nonsense as "proof, if it were ever needed, that the people running the club do not give one shit about match-going fans" from irrelevant articles such as this. I wont be going over this with you a fourth time.

Thank you for re-posting the full section of the interview, and thus totally disproving you own point.
Only a moron or somebody depserately trying to push a bullshit agenda can fail to see that he is quite explicitly talking about both overseas and match-going fans, and then goes on to say that "wherever you are" it's easier to watch the club - ie for both the afformentionsed sets of fans.

C'mon, I know you're not that thick, so why keep peddling such a stupid argument?

 

[Sir A1ex]

So what time frame do you put on it before you write it off as a possibility?

It's really funny how desperate you and your "allies" are to try and bury the Red Knights once and for all, and, in your eyes, the whole issue along with them.

You just don't get it, do you?

It's not about the specific people you may or may not think of as Red Knights, or about Duncan Drasdo or any other individuals, and it isn't going to go away.

 

[ralphie88]

I think you're coming towards the same conclusion from different ends. While the press quite rightly don't care about MUST's opinion on the latest match result, they may be interested in MUST's opinion on certain stories.

And for stories on debt, ownership and even generic fan issues MUST are sometimes approached. But not always, even when the club P.R. (such as the MEN one above) focuses specifically on issues of debt and provides a very one-sided view of it. In contrast, you are not going to find newspapers printing MUST P.R. about issues of debt/ownership without going to United for a comment (and rightly so in my opinion).

That said, they probably know what stories MUST will be providing an opinion on anyway so don't need to ask.

But that's not how good journalism should work.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

And for stories on debt, ownership and even generic fan issues MUST are sometimes approached. But not always, even when the club P.R. (such as the MEN one above) focuses specifically on issues of debt and provides a very one-sided view of it. In contrast, you are not going to find newspapers printing MUST P.R. about issues of debt/ownership without going to United for a comment (and rightly so in my opinion).

But that's not how good journalism should work.

Sounds like MUST need a chat with the MEN then about what stories they'd like to be asked about. Perhaps United hold greater sway over MEN and they would give the paper less access to the club if they saw the MEN turning to MUST for comment every time a story was run.

Some stories break in the morning and they may not have time to get a response from MUST.

 

[ralphie88]

Perhaps United hold greater sway over MEN and they would give the paper less access to the club if they saw the MEN turning to MUST for comment every time a story was run.

Exactly. This is the harsh reality of how the media works, and not just in football either.

Flat Earth News by Nick Davies is a cracking read on the subject. The stats on the amount of the news taken up by cut-and-paste P.R. (such as that above) with no criticial comment/response, and blatent 'churnalism' are scary.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

Exactly. This is the harsh reality of how the media works, and not just in football either.

Flat Earth News by Nick Davies is a cracking read on the subject. The stats on the amount of the news taken up by cut-and-paste P.R. (such as that above) with no criticial comment/response, and blatent 'churnalism' are scary.

Probably a result of the current cost-cutting climate where they're having to keep headcounts low at the expense of quality. Shame really because they don't seem to get that people actually enjoy a good factual read and we're not all white van man who get to page 1, page 3 and the back page only.

 

[ciderman9000000]

And for stories on debt, ownership and even generic fan issues MUST are sometimes approached. But not always, even when the club P.R. (such as the MEN one above) focuses specifically on issues of debt and provides a very one-sided view of it. In contrast, you are not going to find newspapers printing MUST P.R. about issues of debt/ownership without going to United for a comment (and rightly so in my opinion).



But that's not how good journalism should work.

But the article above has feck all to do with debt, it's about overseas commercial deals to broadcast MUTV; what's that got to do with MUST? What could MUST possibly have to contribute to the article?

Your problem is that the press have seemingly gotten bored with MUST and stories about debt just as the general public have seemingly gotten bored with MUST and stories about debt; whilst back in January MUST were the press' darlings, with their sensationalit doom-mongering making great copy at the time, you were getting coverage all over the place and you lapped it up. You can't now start whinging that the press are less interested; it was MUST who decided to go down the route of high-impact sensationalism, you now have to face the consequences of your scary-bullshit machine's actions; sensationalism is a very short-lived thing, and so, just like the multitude of other sensationalist stories that the press latched onto like parasites before it, it will soon all be forgotten.

You played the game, feck all happened; game over.

 

[GCHQ]

It's really funny how desperate you and your "allies" are to try and bury the Red Knights once and for all, and, in your eyes, the whole issue along with them.

You just don't get it, do you?

It's not about the specific people you may or may not think of as Red Knights, or about Duncan Drasdo or any other individuals, and it isn't going to go away.

Oh but it will go away A1Dan. It's gone away before and it will go away again. To quote Duncan Drasdo: “For five years we were trudging through a dark tunnel.”

That's what happened to the anti-glazer movement from 2006 until the bond issue earlier this year. They went away. Sure there were still a few nutters chatting bollocks on the internet but effectively they became completely irrelevant. There was no anti-Glazer movement to speak of.

The G&G campaign has visibly already run out of steam this season and if we have a good season on the pitch then by this time next year everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.

You're just deluding yourself I'm afraid A1Dan. Those Red Knights haven't come riding over the hill and they're never going to. That's the reality.

 

[sincher]

And why does this site not allow you to type Page Ranking by the way?

I've no idea. Suspect it's a default autocorrect by vbulletin that Niall could probably switch off somewhere.

 

[GCHQ]

But the article above has feck all to do with debt, it's about overseas commercial deals to broadcast MUTV; what's that got to do with MUST? What could MUST possibly have to contribute to the article?

Your problem is that the press have seemingly gotten bored with MUST and stories about debt just as the general public have seemingly gotten bored with MUST and stories about debt; whilst back in January MUST were the press' darlings, with their sensationalit doom-mongering making great copy at the time, you were getting coverage all over the place and you lapped it up. You can't now start whinging that the press are less interested; it was MUST who decided to go down the route of high-impact sensationalism, you now have to face the consequences of your scary-bullshit machine's actions; sensationalism is a very short-lived thing, and so, just like the multitude of other sensationalist stories that the press latched onto like parasites before it, it will soon all be forgotten.

You played the game, feck all happened; game over.

Exactly.

And as for people asking for figures, we have 8 or 9 of these club owned media rights deals in place with telecom companies around the world and they're reported to average c.£2m pa each. The profit margin is very high, c.95%, and given that there are clearly many more territories to target this revenue source is going to become more and more valuable to the club.

This is all part of the Glazers vision for United and why they bought the club in the first place.

Power of Manchester United brand + Globalisation + new technologies = loads of money.

 

[ralphie88]

But the article above has feck all to do with debt, it's about overseas commercial deals to broadcast MUTV; what's that got to do with MUST? What could MUST possibly have to contribute to the article?

The article talks about the Glazers 'master plan'. There's the relevance.

However you have missed the point. I was responding to Rood's claim that the press printed MUST P.R. in the same way that they print MUFC P.R. - i.e. uncritically. That's simply not the case, and with the MEN it never has been.

As for the rest of your MUST-obsessed drivel... 2010 was penny-dropping time for those who didn't realise what would happen back in 2005. The protests (which weren't started by MUST despite your paranoia) were because the fans could see what was happening to the club with the Glazers. Green-and-Gold, LUHG... Pandora's box has been opened and there's no going back. There'll be no more easy ride for the owners. And the likes of MUST and IMUSA will be around long after the Glazers are gone, you can be sure of that.

 

[ralphie88]

Exactly.

And as for people asking for figures, we have 8 or 9 of these club owned media rights deals in place with telecom companies around the world and they're reported to average c.£2m pa each. The profit margin is very high, c.95%, and given that there are clearly many more territories to target this revenue source is going to become more and more valuable to the club.

This is all part of the Glazers vision for United and why they bought the club in the first place.

Power of Manchester United brand + Globalisation + new technologies = loads of money.

So about £17m 'new' revenue this year. It's old news, it was announced last season. If everything is so rosy in the garden it makes you wonder why the debt is still increasing doesn't it?

 

[ralphie88]

You played the game, feck all happened; game over.

By "you", you mean match-going United fans. It's sad you feel so disassociated from them.

And by the game being over, care to explain what's happening here?

Player

The game's only just started.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Oh but it will go away A1Dan. It's gone away before and it will go away again. To quote Duncan Drasdo: “For five years we were trudging through a dark tunnel.”

That's what happened to the anti-glazer movement from 2006 until the bond issue earlier this year. They went away. Sure there were still a few nutters chatting bollocks on the internet but effectively they became completely irrelevant. There was no anti-Glazer movement to speak of.

The G&G campaign has visibly already run out of steam this season and if we have a good season on the pitch then by this time next year everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.

You're just deluding yourself I'm afraid A1Dan. Those Red Knights haven't come riding over the hill and they're never going to. That's the reality.

But that's not going away, is it?

It may go through louder more visibsle periods, and quieter periods - it ahs done before as you rightly say. But it hasn't gone away, and it won't in future.

 

[Feedingseagulls]

Thank you for re-posting the full section of the interview, and thus totally disproving you own point.
Only a moron or somebody depserately trying to push a bullshit agenda can fail to see that he is quite explicitly talking about both overseas and match-going fans, and then goes on to say that "wherever you are" it's easier to watch the club - ie for both the afformentionsed sets of fans.

C'mon, I know you're not that thick, so why keep peddling such a stupid argument?

Actually the article as a whole concerns media and the selling of Utd to media outlets & consumers, the various ways of making money by so-doing and the probable/possible increase in revenue.

In THAT context I would suggest that the speaker is talking about 'media related to Utd' when referring to people being able to get the desired amount.

The specific context of the mention of the fans attending regularly is when evaluating how you might measure who is a fan (& therefore a possible consumer of Utd product) and therefore how many of those there are - see the preceding sentences of the report. The speaker points out it is easy to measure regular attendees - but all these 'remote fans' (shall we call them) may also be very passionate about Utd and make major sacrifices to follow us, but their level of commitment & numbers are more difficult to quantify.

I therefore cannot see that this report indicates the disdain for ST holders & the like you thought it did. Too much of 'the agenda reinterpreting the message' at work I'd say.

 

[ciderman9000000]

But that's not going away, is it?

It may go through louder more visibsle periods, and quieter periods - it ahs done before as you rightly say. But it hasn't gone away, and it won't in future.

 

[Crerand Legend]

Exactly.

And as for people asking for figures, we have 8 or 9 of these club owned media rights deals in place with telecom companies around the world and they're reported to average c.£2m pa each. The profit margin is very high, c.95%, and given that there are clearly many more territories to target this revenue source is going to become more and more valuable to the club.

This is all part of the Glazers vision for United and why they bought the club in the first place.

Power of Manchester United brand + Globalisation + new technologies = loads of money.

What planet do you live on? All the money this club makes for the forseeable future will be ate up by the Glazer debt, they need these new deals because the present revenue streams wont be enough to service their debt as it stands. They can't sell our best player every year to make the books look good

 

[Crumpsall Red]

But that's not going away, is it?

It may go through louder more visibsle periods, and quieter periods - it ahs done before as you rightly say. But it hasn't gone away, and it won't in future.

Of course it hasn't gone away, there is more discontent with the Glazers now than in 2006, that's not my measure of something that's 'gone away'.

 

[GCHQ]

So about £17m 'new' revenue this year. It's old news, it was announced last season. If everything is so rosy in the garden it makes you wonder why the debt is still increasing doesn't it?

Most of those deals were announced during last season, yes. But obviously we'll see the full benefit of them financially this year. The Hong Kong deal was only announced a few weeks ago. Three others back in March/April. So clearly these agreements will produce 'new' revenue this year. And of course we're only a few months into this season and I fully expect more to be announced in the months to come.

Manchester United's debt hasn't been increasing Ralphie. It's net debt fell by £110m to £360m last year.

 

[Crerand Legend]

Most of those deals were announced during last season, yes. But obviously we'll see the full benefit of them financially this year. The Hong Kong deal was only announced a few weeks ago. Three others back in March/April. So clearly these agreements will produce 'new' revenue this year. And of course we're only a few months into this season and I fully expect more to be announced in the months to come.

Manchester United's debt hasn't been increasing Ralphie. It's net debt fell by £110m to £360m last year.

We only owe £360m ? You telling porkies? We only made that 110m by selling our best player and an advance from AON, so whats next to make money sell Rooney?

 

[GCHQ]

The article talks about the Glazers 'master plan'. There's the relevance.

However you have missed the point. I was responding to Rood's claim that the press printed MUST P.R. in the same way that they print MUFC P.R. - i.e. uncritically. That's simply not the case, and with the MEN it never has been.

As for the rest of your MUST-obsessed drivel... 2010 was penny-dropping time for those who didn't realise what would happen back in 2005. The protests (which weren't started by MUST despite your paranoia) were because the fans could see what was happening to the club with the Glazers. Green-and-Gold, LUHG... Pandora's box has been opened and there's no going back. There'll be no more easy ride for the owners. And the likes of MUST and IMUSA will be around long after the Glazers are gone, you can be sure of that.

What has happened to the club?

Some cash might be channelled up to RFJV to pay down some of the PIK debt. Big deal. The bond issuance has made the Glazers position as owners of Manchester United even more secure than it previously was. That's the reality.

 

[GCHQ]

We only owe £360m ? You telling porkies? We only made that 110m by selling our best player and an advance from AON, so whats next to make money sell Rooney?

We don't need to further reduce net debt. And no I'm not telling porkies. Net debt was £360m as of June 30 2009.

 

[GCHQ]

But that's not going away, is it?

It may go through louder more visibsle periods, and quieter periods - it ahs done before as you rightly say. But it hasn't gone away, and it won't in future.

It's flared up once in five years because we sold a player for £80m and because we weren't ten points clear in the league at the time a refinancing was done.

 

[GCHQ]

What planet do you live on? All the money this club makes for the forseeable future will be ate up by the Glazer debt, they need these new deals because the present revenue streams wont be enough to service their debt as it stands. They can't sell our best player every year to make the books look good

That's just utter crap Crerand.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

We don't need to further reduce net debt. And no I'm not telling porkies. Net debt was £360m as of June 30 2009.

Can you provide a breakdown of the net debt please?


How much do we owe now and what is it made up of?

How do you expect the PIKs to be paid? That is, what source - their personal wealth, the Bucs, First Allied?

 

[datura]

I'm not going to get involved in the actual discussion as it is pretty clear that some of the pro-Glazers are on the wind-up, but thought this was such gold that it was worth quoting in case he edits it:

Some cash might be channelled up to RFJV to pay down some of the PIK debt. Big deal.

 

[GCHQ]

Can you provide a breakdown of the net debt please?


How much do we owe now and what is it made up of?

How do you expect the PIKs to be paid? That is, what source - their personal wealth, the Bucs, First Allied?

Well the net debt as of June 30 2009 included £510m of borrowings (old bank debt) and £150m of cash.

The club had c.£500m bond debt and about £160m of cash as of June 30 2010.

Cash may well be channelled up to RFJV to pay off some of the PIK debt which would increase the club's net debt but it's not an issue because the club can quite clearly comfortably service its borrowings.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Can you provide a breakdown of the net debt please?


How much do we owe now and what is it made up of?

How do you expect the PIKs to be paid? That is, what source - their personal wealth, the Bucs, First Allied?

It'd likely be senior debt of £520m minus the £160m in the bank or something approximating those figures.

 

[GCHQ]

I'm not going to get involved in the actual discussion as it is pretty clear that some of the pro-Glazers are on the wind-up, but thought this was such gold that it was worth quoting in case he edits it:

It isn't a big deal though. A one off payment of £70m isn't a problem for the club because the cash reserves are so large in the first place.

 

[datura]

It isn't a big deal though. A one off payment of £70m isn't a problem for the club because the cash reserves are so large in the first place.

It may not be a big deal for you, but I would imagine that a large percentage of the fanbase would disagree.

As for you cash reserves figure, that's a pure guess, but as we know you like making up figures when you're bored.

 

[GCHQ]

It may not be a big deal for you, but I would imagine that a large percentage of the fanbase would disagree.

As for you cash reserves figure, that's a pure guess, but as we know you like making up figures when you're bored.

What cash reserves figure do you have an issue with? The £160m as of June 30 2010? Back in March JP Morgan estimated it would be £154m so I hardly think my estimate is anything to get worked up about. Do you think it will be considerably less than that?

A large percentage of the fan base might disagree but then I'd point out that a large percentage of the fan base have been misled by the sensationalist media and MUST about the true state of the club's financials. The £70m can go and the club will just continue operating normally. That's the reality.

 

[ciderman9000000]

As i understand it, we can see how any commercial revenue gained will benefit the club by looking a few simple scenarios:

Assume that the annual interest payment on the senior debt equals exactly £45m for arguments sake. The owners need to achieve twice that amount in EBITDA before they can take a dividend; if that target is achieved then they will be able to (not will, but will be able to) move upto the following sum out of the club...

(EBITDA-£45m)/2

For argument's sake then let's assume then that without these commercial deals our base EBITDA would be £90m, and also that the owners will always take their maximum allowed dividend.

Three scenarios then...

a) No commercial deals
b) £20m extra revenue from commercial deals
c) £50m extra revenue from commercial deals

How much extra cash would the club benefit by in each case?

a) From the EBITDA of £90m the owners take a dividend of £22.5m and then the £45m interest is paid. This would leave the club with £22.5m net-profit.

b) From the EBITDA of £110m the owners take a dividend of £32.5m and then the £45m interest is paid. This would leave the club with £32.5m net-profit.

c) From the EBITDA of £140m the owners take a dividend of £47.5m and then the £45m interest is paid. This would leave the club with £47.5m net-profit.

So obviously we can see that the higher the club's revenue the greater the benefit to the club. The club benefits directly from every commercial deal in place. The above scenarios do not take into account the unlikelihood of the owners taking maximum dividends every year, remember; the actual figures would probably be much more positively geared.

If there are any inaccuracies here then i'd like to know, because as of now the above is how i (admittedly a layman) understand the situation.

 

[Crerand Legend]

We don't need to further reduce net debt. And no I'm not telling porkies. Net debt was £360m as of June 30 2009.

That's just utter crap Crerand.

Not as much crap as we only owe £360m, you need to go back a few dozen pages and study your own figures. I suppose your crap comment means you cant answer the question