ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[Sir A1ex]

But I still think he (and they) created much of the hysteria in the first place. If it wasn't now largely impossible to suggest the business plan hasn't worked I'd bet money that lot will still be pushing the whole 'the sky is falling down' agenda to this day. I'll give them no credit for abandoning fear-mongering once they realised it no longer gained traction. It shouldn't have happened in the first place.

I can understand you relishing a chance to be smug (presumably you've been defending the Glazer's business plan on here from the beginning, but I don't remember your voice being there alongside GCHQ and co).

But the fact that a worst case scenario hasn't occurred is by no means proof that there was no risk. I know lots of people who have got pissed and driven home from the pub without anything bad happening.

The fact is, without one man's genius, we may well not have won 5 league titles and got to 3 champions league finals in the last 7 years, and unless you have access to a parallel dimension, there's no way anybody can say whether the whole thing would have worked out as well without that success. As Andy Green rightly points out, look at the mess Liverpool ended up in... if you think we have some God-given right to avoid anything like that, then you're deluded.

 

[Plugsy]

I can understand you relishing a chance to be smug (presumably you've been defending the Glazer's business plan on here from the beginning, but I don't remember your voice being there alongside GCHQ and co).

But the fact that a worst case scenario hasn't occurred is by no means proof that there was no risk. I know lots of people who have got pissed and driven home from the pub without anything bad happening.

The fact is, without one man's genius, we may well not have won 5 league titles and got to 3 champions league finals in the last 7 years, and unless you have access to a parallel dimension, there's no way anybody can say whether the whole thing would have worked out as well without that success. As Andy Green rightly points out, look at the mess Liverpool ended up in... if you think we have some God-given right to avoid anything like that, then you're deluded.

Well it didn't really come up in the newbies, I don't think, so can't remember if I mentioned it in there.

But I disagree it was down to "one man's genius",at least not specifically the Glazer success. The clubs? Yes, but that's going back 25 years. What made the Glazer plan work was aggressive exploitation of under-ploughed commercial opportunities. Remember they didn't take over a club where things were all rosey. Fergie was getting a lot of stick from moronic section of the fans (whatever happened to those guys huh?) and we weren't that successful. We'd won like a league and FA Cup in three years.

While no club can thrive without being successful I think it's untrue to say that without winning all those trophies we'd be in shit street. The plans were always based on moderate expectations, as they are now. Top 3 and last 16 of the CL. Because the bulk of the income increase came via collective TV deals and commercial partnerships. The value of Manchester United doesn't disappear if we don't win the league for a couple of years. It doesn't dive if we have a couple of awful seasons in Europe.

The difference in income betwee winning the league and finishing third is £5m. That's not going to make that much difference to anyone. The business plan would never succeed or fail on the back of those extra few million. As fans that's what we care about - winning the league, but from a financial perspective even if we hadn't all these years it wouldn't have made much difference. What made the difference in driving up revenue was commercial deals and as I said the commercial value of a club doesn't rise or fall dramatically depending on the last result or last season. We could win naff all for the next four years and, like 2007, still be one of the most commercially attractive clubs on the planet.

 

[ravelston]

Up until the debt was no longer an issue a couple of years ago the Glazer's didn't invest significantly in the playing squad. Of course if you go back decades ago transfer spend will be minute, as the money in Football wasn't as it is now.

When you look at our spend around the treble winning time when money started pouring into the game you'll see an obvious trend. Fergie was spending big money (£20m+) almost every year. Buying Stam and Yorke for instance in one Summer was insane spending, as was Veron/RVN a few years later, with Rio a year after that and Rooney after that.

This kind of spend wasn't possible 2005-2011. If our team began to falter this kind of spend (pro rata) could not have been sanctioned without extra borrowing. To buy the kind of players and spend the kind of money we did 2000-2005 during the 2006-2011 period would have cost us well over £100m more than we actually spend. If you go on the conservative estimate that prices went up 50% over that period you'd be looking at an additional spend of around £115m, which without more debt wouldn't have been possible.

Fortunately Fergie proved that he could not only win the League whilst spending big, he could also win it on a shoestring by basically spending nothing for 5 years. Obviously the £80m for Ronaldo was a big fee, but as AVB is proving this season, even if you reinvest every penny and then some, losing a World Class player isn't easily replaceable. The fact that Fergie only bought Valencia the season that Ronaldo left and we stayed as competitive as we did was truly incredible (although I'm sure Fergie under normal circumstances would have been eager to spend a good chunkof it on a World Class player).

This is rubbish. The easiest way to see the amounts being spent on players is to look at the annual increases in the depreciable base of intangible assets (player contracts). Prior to 2005 the maximum addition in any year was £50.6m (in both 2001 and 2004). Since 2005 we have had additions of £79.0m (2007), £61.8 (2009) and £74.8 (2011). Average spending in the other years from 2000-2005 was £23.2m; from 2006-2011 the average in the other years was £21m. The difference in "net spend" comes from our having a lot of players to sell in the 2005-2008 period - the result of the decision to essentially scrap the 2000-2004 rebuilding and start again from the summer of 2005.

 

[finneh]

This is rubbish. The easiest way to see the amounts being spent on players is to look at the annual increases in the depreciable base of intangible assets (player contracts). Prior to 2005 the maximum addition in any year was £50.6m (in both 2001 and 2004). Since 2005 we have had additions of £79.0m (2007), £61.8 (2009) and £74.8 (2011). Average spending in the other years from 2000-2005 was £23.2m; from 2006-2011 the average in the other years was £21m. The difference in "net spend" comes from our having a lot of players to sell in the 2005-2008 period - the result of the decision to essentially scrap the 2000-2004 rebuilding and start again from the summer of 2005.

I can't' believe it's even a point refute that our spend between 2005 and 2010 was very low. In the 5 years previous we bought in World Class players in the form of Rooney, Ferdinand and Veron, in addition to quality players for big money such as RVN. In the 5 years after that you could argue that the only top class player brought in was Berbatov.

The fact that we sold a lot of player's during that time is immaterial, as we had to buy other players to replace them. The net result of these sales/purchases was an £11m spend over 5 years; a figure that was around 15% of the net spend over the previous 5 years, despite player inflation increasing dramatically (pro-rata I'd say a 10% spend would be a generous estimate). As you will obviously notice in the 3 years from 2011 we have spent nearly £120m, which will no doubt reach around £200m over the same 5 year time frame.

2000-2005 = £17m per season
2005-2011 = £2.5m per season
2011-2013 = £39m per season

Even if you subscribe to the view that Ronaldo's transfer was so large that it distorts the figures (a ridiculous view given his contribution - see Spurs' spending to replace Bale) and book his value at £40m, the figure only increases to £9m per annum.

As I said if you set our spend somewhere between the last 3 years and the 5 years previous over that time, say conservatively £25m per annum, then we would have had to find an additional £135m from somewhere over that period. Something that we would have struggled to do. Fortunately Fergie's genius meant he could keep us at the top not only whilst buying obvious top class player's - the likes of Ferdinand, Van Nistelrooy and Rooney for big money, but also by unearthing gems when we needed to financially, such as Evra, Vidic, VDS, Rafael, Hernandez and even key contributors that didn't tons like Nani and Carrick.

Either way we our now out of the woods. Some people will obviously think that heaping several hundred million pounds of debt did put our club in serious danger, likewise those people will probably thank Fergie more than anyone for keeping our club together during that time. They also probably feel the increase in revenues since 2005 have blown out of the water even the most optimistic of expectations which has contributed hugely to how comfortable we now are and looking at where Liverpool were/are with a bit of bad luck, poor management and most of all high levels of debt is quite eye opening.

Likewise they'll be people who feel the debt was always under control, trusted that the PIK debt was never the clubs responsibility despite it being put onto the club, feel that it was Fergie who decided not to spend during that period and that the results on the pitch prove that he was given the funds he wanted. They will probably feel the Glazer's knew how our finances would spiral and realised that particularly Commercial revenues could be exploited much more aggressively. They would probably accept that there was less room for failure during this period but that it was a safe gamble.

I am obviously part of the former camp, but none of us truly know what would have happened if we slipped to 5th place around that period.

 

[Plugsy]

2000-2005 = £17m per season
2005-2011 = £2.5m per season
2011-2013 = £39m per season

This figure is skewed by two things. Firstly the Ronaldo sale, secondly the Mikel 'sale'. That's the best part of £95m which over the period would account to £19m per year that we'd have to spend each year and every year for five years before we reached the net spend of nought.

It's always fascinated me this net spend argument. It's as if fans genuinely think spending a lot and winning little is preferable. There used to be a time you know when United fans would smile when they remembered how Fergie snatched Cantona from Leeds for barely over a minimum or Schmeichel for not even half that amount.

Today it's ironic in some way that the signings would be used 'against' the club. It's what people who make the netspend argument don't understand. They might say they wouldn't but they're doing the same now. The period you highlighted 2005-2011 included the signings of: VDS, Evra, Vidic, Rafael, Fabio, Smalling, Hernandez - all for by modern standards very modest transfer fees. The net spend argument suggests that because these players were signed for below average transfer fees that they're somehow to be included as a net 'negative' for the club. After all on average they cost just £5m each. Given inflation that's probably not too far off what Cantona cost in 1992.

Only today the signing of those players, if you use the 'net spend' argument, is undoubtedly counted as a negative. As if it could be rememdied had we not signed VDS and sent three times his fee on someone else or didn't sign Vidic for £7m an instead signed someone else for £20m. It's as if the fee itself is the sole justification and defence. On the balance sheet Evra at £5m looks 'bad' where as Veron at £28.1m looks great. So the argument IS that Veron counts as a positive in the net spend argument and Evra as a negative. I'm sorry but that is the argument there's no denying that. I find that attitude extraordinary.

 

[Adebesi]

That's a bit simplistic isnt it? Ive seen the net spend figure used as a positive. When we compare out net spend to Liverpool's, let alone Chelsea's or City's, it accentuates our achievements in recent years. I dont think people are using the net spend figure in the way you suggest on the whole. It has typically been used to argue our owners are taking more out of the club than they are putting in, but that is a different point. Everyone would prefer to spend £10m on a great player than £20m on the same player, that is obvious. The question is, if the club has £70m of Ronaldo money sitting in the bank, or whatever it was, does it make sense to be cobbling together midfields comprising Giggs, Jones or Park, and citing "no value in the market" as an excuse?

 

[finneh]

This figure is skewed by two things. Firstly the Ronaldo sale, secondly the Mikel 'sale'. That's the best part of £95m which over the period would account to £19m per year that we'd have to spend each year and every year for five years before we reached the net spend of nought.

It's always fascinated me this net spend argument. It's as if fans genuinely think spending a lot and winning little is preferable. There used to be a time you know when United fans would smile when they remembered how Fergie snatched Cantona from Leeds for barely over a minimum or Schmeichel for not even half that amount.

Today it's ironic in some way that the signings would be used 'against' the club. It's what people who make the netspend argument don't understand. They might say they wouldn't but they're doing the same now. The period you highlighted 2005-2011 included the signings of: VDS, Evra, Vidic, Rafael, Fabio, Smalling, Hernandez - all for by modern standards very modest transfer fees. The net spend argument suggests that because these players were signed for below average transfer fees that they're somehow to be included as a net 'negative' for the club. After all on average they cost just £5m each. Given inflation that's probably not too far off what Cantona cost in 1992.

Only today the signing of those players, if you use the 'net spend' argument, is undoubtedly counted as a negative. As if it could be rememdied had we not signed VDS and sent three times his fee on someone else or didn't sign Vidic for £7m an instead signed someone else for £20m. It's as if the fee itself is the sole justification and defence. On the balance sheet Evra at £5m looks 'bad' where as Veron at £28.1m looks great. So the argument IS that Veron counts as a positive in the net spend argument and Evra as a negative. I'm sorry but that is the argument there's no denying that. I find that attitude extraordinary.

Who is using signing player's for low fee's as a negative? If you read the post it actually credits Fergie unearthing those gems. I think every fan would be ecstatic if we only ever signed (or promoted) player's for < £5m who would later turn out to be World Class. A low net spend is something to be credited with; it's a positive. The fact is though it is fortunate that over that period of time Fergie could keep the squad competitive with such a low spend. The point is that a low net spend is brilliant, but as any manager would tell you it isn't a constraint that you want to have to work with. I think everyone would agree that a low net spend is great, but having the only option being a low net spend is very bad (see Arsenal for the past 8 years).

Fergie kept us competing for titles during our period of financial belt tightening. Wenger for instance has not been able to do that (although credit for getting them 3rd/4th consistently), and as soon as the belt was loosened he's gone out and bought Ozil, who seems to have given them a big lift.

The only argument is whether Fergie was put under these financial restraints or whether he just decided to be very frugal. I have defended Wenger before when fans were calling for his head, as if he had the money to spend he would have replaced World Class players with other World Class players. Even though Wenger has always maintained that the money is available it obviously wasn't, which I think is the same as the situation at United over that period. Fortunately not investing any money for that period didn't hurt us like it hurt Arsenal, which is a credit to Fergie's genius.

The overall point is that a lot of money did not leave the club over that period, which under normal circumstances would have (over £100m I imagine). Was this money sitting in our bank account? Was it used to improve the youth facilities or stadium? No, the vast majority over that period was used to pay interest, replace the loans with bonds and buy back some of these bonds.

 

[Plugsy]

Who is using signing player's for low fee's as a negative?

You are.

That's what the net spend argument is and what it does it judges players based on how much they cost. You cannot use the net spend argument and deny this. It's what the argument is.

Veron £28m
Evra £5m

- see Glazer's spent £23m less on this player than the PLC did on that player. So the Glazer's need to explain this.

That's what the argument is. Whether you're comparing a bunch of players signed over the years and judging whether it's 'good' or 'bad' or doing it on an individual basis as I've done above. You cannot use the argument that lower net spend is a negative but then deny you count those who didn't cost much in the 'negative' column. If you're doing that mate then I don't think you understand what it is you've been arguing. You've been using the value of players signed to knock the owners. How is that not relevant to the cost of the individual players? They're forming part of what your argument is.

Otherwise what is the argument?

That lower net spend is to be used to criticise the club but the individual transfers within those figures are irrelevant to the argument?

...they ARE the argument.

 

[finneh]

You are.

That's what the net spend argument is and what it does it judges players based on how much they cost. You cannot use the net spend argument and deny this. It's what the argument is.

Veron £28m
Evra £5m

- see Glazer's spent £23m less on this player than the PLC did on that player. So the Glazer's need to explain this.

That's what the argument is. Whether you're comparing a bunch of players signed over the years and judging whether it's 'good' or 'bad' or doing it on an individual basis as I've done above. You cannot use the argument that lower net spend is a negative but then deny you count those who didn't cost much in the 'negative' column. If you're doing that mate then I don't think you understand what it is you've been arguing. You've been using the value of players signed to knock the owners. How is that not relevant to the cost of the individual players? They're forming part of what your argument is.

Otherwise what is the argument?

That lower net spend is to be used to criticise the club but the individual transfers within those figures are irrelevant to the argument?

...they ARE the argument.

The argument is that the aim is to spend as little as possible, but the resources need to be available to spend enough to compete at the top level. I believe that Fergie did incredibly with the money he had, but that he had to be frugal because of the financial situation at the club. As I said before where would that extra £100+m have come from if Fergie required it? Possibly another loan or maybe it wasn't available full stop.

As I said you either believe that the money was available and Fergie decided not to spend it; or the Glazer's tightened the purse strings, which would have potentially damaging consequences to our success. As I also said we are out of the woods now but the Glazer model in my opinion had basically no leeway for managerial failure. You take away the £100m that Fergie could have required to keep us at the top of the League and/or the Champions League revenue that we earned as being at the top and unless we stacked more debt, which is a self destruction cycle, where would the money have come from?

Just to reiterate: a low net spend is great, but not at the cost of a regressing team. Fergie was brilliant enough to keep our success going after 4-5 years of low spend, when not many managers could. However I'm sure every fan would agree our team 2007-2008 was far superior than our team 2012-nowadays, which means that it was arguably at the cost of a slowly regressing team (albeit not to the extent of Arsenal, mainly due to Fergie's brilliance in signing low cost (potentially) World Class players like Vidic, Evra, Rafael etc).

 

[ravelston]

I can't' believe it's even a point refute that our spend between 2005 and 2010 was very low. In the 5 years previous we bought in World Class players in the form of Rooney, Ferdinand and Veron, in addition to quality players for big money such as RVN. In the 5 years after that you could argue that the only top class player brought in was Berbatov.

You're arguing that the "net" spend was very low - a completely different issue. The fact remains that, from a historical perspective, our expenditure on players was high in the period 2005-2011. Whether the source of the funds spent is material is a matter of opinion. You apparently believe it is - I'm not so convinced. I'm not clear why funds raised by selling players no longer in our long term plans should be more relevant than funds generated through other aspects of our business. I'm also less than clear on why expenditures on players contracts are considered to be more of a barometer of investment in the team than expenditures on player salaries - which are substantially larger. Looking at that bigger picture, total expenditures on players (transfers + salaries) was 62% higher in financial years 2006-2011 than it had been in FYs 2000-2005. That really doesn't look like a manager being starved of funds.

 

[Adebesi]

I'm also less than clear on why expenditures on players contracts are considered to be more of a barometer of investment in the team than expenditures on player salaries

This is a really crucial point. There is a much higher correlation between salary levels and success than between net spend in the market and success.

 

[Rood]

FFS Finneh not bloody net spend again

 

[Adebesi]

Net spend is not a meaningless figure though. It is quite limited in what it tells you, and it is obviously great to minimise your net spend where possible. But you cant blame people for looking at the figure when all eyes were on relatively new and highly secretive owners, whose intentions were unclear and highly debated, and a lot of people were very worried about asset stripping. Especially when the club was bought in the manner it was. And there is some correlation between net spend and success: it is great to pick up great players on the cheap but it is relatively difficult to do it. On the whole you get what you pay for, which is why, as a very general rule, the teams that spend most in the market are the most successful on the pitch - even if there are teams that spend much less and do well, or teams like Liverpool, and even if the correlation with wages is higher.

I think, in a nutshell, it is a stat that tells you more about our owners (and/or arguably our former manager) than anything. With so little information out there about them, and the stakes so high, people clutch at what information there is to offer some guidance about what the future might look like. Just because we got by with a relatively modest net spend, some owners might have preferred to make more investments in the team to make it even better. God knows there has been room for improvement in recent years, even if we have been competitive.

 

[Pexbo]

I can't' believe it's even a point refute that our spend between 2005 and 2010 was very low. In the 5 years previous we bought in World Class players in the form of Rooney, Ferdinand and Veron, in addition to quality players for big money such as RVN. In the 5 years after that you could argue that the only top class player brought in was Berbatov.

That's a bit of a moot point though isn't it?


It's clear you are using 2005 because of the Glazers now all your doing is asking to spend for the sake of spending. Why would we want to spend millions and millions when we already have a squad that wins the title every year and got to three consecutive Champions League finals, winning one?

You use Berbatov as the only "top class player" yet since 2005 we bought:

Vidic, Evra, Park, Van Der Sar, Carrick, Hargreaves, Rafael, Fabio, Anderson, Nani, Tevez and Berbatov.


Is it trophies you are interested in or marquee signings? Because the players we bought were the right ones as our trophy cabinet will tell you. Would you rather we spent the hundreds of millions that City have and swap our:

5 League Titles,
1 European Cup (and 2 Runner Up Medals)
3 League Cups

for their:

1 League Title
1 FA Cup?


Our net spend is low because we run the club the right way. It's as simple as that.

 

[finneh]

If you read back the discussion had nothing really to do with net spend. The discussion centered around whether or not the debt ever had a negative impact on the club. My point was largely that it didn't actually have a huge impact (albeit still having some impact), but that it had a potential to have a large impact if not for Fergie. The debt (obviously) limited the amount of money the club could afford to spend if required. My point was only that there was always a possibility of us dropping out of the Champions League places (as there is this season) and if that happened the club for 3-4 years over that period may have had to find an extra c. £100m to invest in the playing squad, whilst also losing out on a similar figure from that revenue (as well as sponsorships).

As it has turned out the club is now in an incredibly healthy position and everything was fine. However no-one can predict what could have happened without Fergie working so well with a smaller budget; as I said:

Some people will obviously think that heaping several hundred million pounds of debt did put our club in serious danger, likewise those people will probably thank Fergie more than anyone for keeping our club together during that time. They also probably feel the increase in revenues since 2005 have blown out of the water even the most optimistic of expectations which has contributed hugely to how comfortable we now are and looking at where Liverpool were/are with a bit of bad luck, poor management and most of all high levels of debt is quite eye opening.

Likewise they'll be people who feel the debt was always under control, trusted that the PIK debt was never the clubs responsibility despite it being put onto the club, feel that it was Fergie who decided not to spend during that period and that the results on the pitch prove that he was given the funds he wanted. They will probably feel the Glazer's knew how our finances would spiral and realised that particularly Commercial revenues could be exploited much more aggressively. They would probably accept that there was less room for failure during this period but that it was a safe gamble.

Fortunately it is no longer a concern for the club and it is in the healthiest state it has ever been. I think we can all agree that is the most positive thing.

 

[finneh]

That's a bit of a moot point though isn't it?


It's clear you are using 2005 because of the Glazers now all your doing is asking to spend for the sake of spending. Why would we want to spend millions and millions when we already have a squad that wins the title every year and got to three consecutive Champions League finals, winning one?

You use Berbatov as the only "top class player" yet since 2005 we bought:

Vidic, Evra, Park, Van Der Sar, Carrick, Hargreaves, Rafael, Fabio, Anderson, Nani, Tevez and Berbatov.


Is it trophies you are interested in or marquee signings? Because the players we bought were the right ones as our trophy cabinet will tell you. Would you rather we spent the hundreds of millions that City have and swap our:

5 League Titles,
1 European Cup (and 2 Runner Up Medals)
3 League Cups

for their:

1 League Title
1 FA Cup?


Our net spend is low because we run the club the right way. It's as simple as that.

If you read my posts I totally agree. I said numerous times: a £5m player like Evra and Vidic that turn out to be brilliant is obviously the best way of running a club (although obviously more difficult to pull off). My only point was that the money needs to be there if you want or need to spend it; fortunately we didn't need to, which is a testament to Fergie's genius.

 

[Pexbo]

If you read my posts I totally agree. I said numerous times: a £5m player like Evra and Vidic that turn out to be brilliant is obviously the best way of running a club (although obviously more difficult to pull off). My only point was that the money needs to be there if you want or need to spend it; fortunately we didn't need to, which is a testament to Fergie's genius.

Apologies, I copied the quote from Ravelston's reply.

 

[Plugsy]

Why is it that net transfer spend is considered important yet net funds overall spend on playing staff considered immaterial?
-

 

[Ryan's Beard]

Why is it that net transfer spend is considered important yet net funds overall spend on playing staff considered immaterial?
-

Probably because if you balance huge signings by selling people you're operating as a sensible business?

And wages are assumed to balance roughly with the value of the player to the team in terms of the revenue. Keeping good players makes you win things and qualify for things and get good attendances so paying them a lot (but less than your turnover) is generally marked down to good practice?

 

[finneh]

Why is it that net transfer spend is considered important yet net funds overall spend on playing staff considered immaterial?
-

In this discussion it is because wages are a fixed, budgeted expenditure; whereas transfer fee's can be reigned in at a moments notice (see Arsenal, Liverpool under H&G and United in my opinion).

In a discussion of correlation to success, wages are much more important than transfer fee's.

 

[Decotron]

Not really the right thread for this but thought it should be posted somewhere.

A property in central Dublin (just at O'Connell St.) sold yesterday for €3.5m. Some might remember this is wheree United opened a mega store about 15 years ago when it was moved out of Arnotts.

It was revealed at the sale that United are still the main tenants and pay over €520,000 a year to the landlords. I think the mega store closed over 10 years ago.

Thats well over 5 million to date. Tidy little earner for the landlord.

 

[Brophs]

I wonder why they didn't sublet it, or sell their interest during the boom? Given that the megastore wasn't a roaring success, it was unlikely to change enough to make reopening it a viable alternative.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Not really the right thread for this but thought it should be posted somewhere.

A property in central Dublin (just at O'Connell St.) sold yesterday for €3.5m. Some might remember this is wheree United opened a mega store about 15 years ago when it was moved out of Arnotts.

It was revealed at the sale that United are still the main tenants and pay over €520,000 a year to the landlords. I think the mega store closed over 10 years ago.

Thats well over 5 million to date. Tidy little earner for the landlord.

I remember reading about this a while back: United made a rotten deal back in the day, agreeing on a 15 year lease - then the shop closed and United were stuck with paying out half a mill per annum in rent for a place they had no use for whatsoever. Crap piece of business - but not as fishy as it may sound.

 

[Brophs]

I remember reading about this a while back: United made a rotten deal back in the day, agreeing on a 15 year lease - then the shop closed and United were stuck with paying out half a mill per annum in rent for a place they had no use for whatsoever. Crap piece of business - but not as fishy as it may sound.

In hindsight, yeah, but they went in assuming it'd be a success so if they'd signed a short term lease the rents would have increased once that expired. It's pretty common for commercial properties like this to be leased on the basis of lengthy leases with fixed rents throughout the term. Had it worked out and they ended up having to renew on less favourable terms, then they'd have been criticised for that too.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

In hindsight, yeah, but they went in assuming it'd be a success so if they'd signed a short term lease the rents would have increased once that expired. It's pretty common for commercial properties like this to be leased on the basis of lengthy leases with fixed rents throughout the term. Had it worked out and they ended up having to renew on less favourable terms, then they'd have been criticised for that too.

True - indeed. I should've said that it turned out to be a rotten deal. Five mill lost over ten years - it's actually quite a bit of money, even considering we're filthy rich.

 

[Decotron]

In hindsight, yeah, but they went in assuming it'd be a success so if they'd signed a short term lease the rents would have increased once that expired. It's pretty common for commercial properties like this to be leased on the basis of lengthy leases with fixed rents throughout the term. Had it worked out and they ended up having to renew on less favourable terms, then they'd have been criticised for that too.

Given the location and foot traffic in that area its a strange one really. Literally every business set up there has gone bust eventually. Id expect the current place (Lafayette) to go the same way soon enough.

The longest running "business" in there is the blood bank!!!!

 

[Plugsy]

Front of the Sunday People say we're in 'crisis' over £80m 'black hole'

...which is unlikely a racist insult at those not capable of replacing Ronaldo

 

[711]

What happened to the twitter thread that twittershite had to be posted in?

 

[LR7]

What happened to the twitter thread that twittershite had to be posted in?

I believe it's a transfer thread.

 

[Antisocial]

God dammit!! I rely on this thread to give me good news

 

[711]

I believe it's a transfer thread.

oh yeah it was. good idea though.

 

[Someone]

Manchester United manager David Moyes sees tenure marked by £220m being wiped off stock market valuation

Manchester United manager David Moyes' failure to chase down Premier League's top four has seen the club's worth tumble by £220m in a month


Manchester United’s struggle to challenge for Champions League qualification has led to £220million being wiped off the club’s stock market valuation in a month.

United, who will be without the injured Wayne Rooney, Robin van Persie and Ashley Young for Sunday’s FA Cup third-round tie against Swansea City at Old Trafford, have seen their share price on the New York Stock Exchange drop by more than 12 per cent from £10.68 to £9.36 since Dec 6 – despite the S&P 500 Index on which the club is listed enjoying a two per cent per cent overall rise in that time.

With the total valuation of the club at £1.75 billion on Dec 6, it had dropped to £1.53 billion during morning trading in New York yesterday.

The drop in the club’s value dates back to early October. Although United’s share price rallied in late November, following the announcement of positive forecasts of annual turnover in quarterly accounts, the loss in value since early December has coincided with the team’s inability to break into the top four.

United announced a 29.1 per cent rise in revenues for the first quarter of the year, but while forecasted revenue for the full year was £420-430 million, that figure was based on the assumption that the team would finish at least third in the Premier League this season and reach the Champions League quarter-finals.

With United drawn to face Greek champions Olympiakos in the Champions League round of 16 next month, Moyes’s team appear to be on course to achieve the target of progression to the last eight.

But with Tottenham Hotspur consigning United to their fourth home league defeat of the season on New Year’s Day, the champions lie seventh, five points adrift of fourth-placed Liverpool.
Failure to qualify for next season’s Champions League would mean United missing out on at least £20 million in prize money and potentially damaging their commercial appeal.

United remain determined to add to their squad this month, however, with the club’s owners, the Glazer family, prepared to sanction moves for players identified by Moyes.

Senior figures at United also remain confident that the club can comfortably survive missing out on the Champions League next season, with sizeable funds in place for summer transfer activity.
Despite the growing gap between United and the top four, Moyes insists his team remain capable of climbing the table and challenging in the FA Cup and Capital One Cup, with a semi-final first leg against Sunderland looming on Tuesday.

“I will still keep plugging away and try to win the league games,” Moyes said. “That’s the job. It’s getting that consistency that’s really important. We have yet to find that really, albeit we won six [consecutive games] and had a defeat. I think we had four Premier League wins before the defeat [against Tottenham], but if you are only judging it on results, fine.

“But if you are judging it on performances then it would’ve been a fifth win after how we played.”
Moyes, meanwhile, confirmed that Rooney would miss the Swansea game after having a scan on a groin injury, with Van Persie still sidelined with an injured thigh.

Young will also miss the Swansea game after suffering a shoulder injury following a challenge by Spurs goalkeeper Hugo Lloris on Wednesday.
Young has had a scan and Moyes is hopeful that the injury is just bad bruising.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...m-being-wiped-off-stock-market-valuation.html

 

[Skywarden]

Am I missing something? The stocks are sitting at 15.35, which would be valued at 2,5B for the lot.

Absolutely pathetic article. Thought the Telegraph was better than that.

 

[Someone]

Am I missing something? The stocks are sitting at 15.35, which would be valued at 2,5B for the lot.

Absolutely pathetic article. Thought the Telegraph was better than that.

It's the lowest it's been in 6 months, there's nothing stopping it from rising again, but it gives the glazers something to think about nonetheless.

 

[Plugsy]

It's only a hypothetical loss though. The club never actually had that money, did it?

 

[hp88]

Am I missing something? The stocks are sitting at 15.35, which would be valued at 2,5B for the lot.

Absolutely pathetic article. Thought the Telegraph was better than that.

That's dollars. Telegraph article is in pounds.

 

[Sir Matt]

Am I missing something? The stocks are sitting at 15.35, which would be valued at 2,5B for the lot.

Absolutely pathetic article. Thought the Telegraph was better than that.

Share prices went from $17.54 to $15.32. That's a drop of about 12% in value, which means the market value dropped from £1.75bn to £1.53bn. Since May 2nd, the club's valuation has gone from £1.91bn to £1.53bn.

What does it mean? Pretty much nothing.

 

[Sir Matt]

It's only a hypothetical loss though. The club never actually had that money, did it?

The Glazers got half of the money from the IPO and the club got half. The valuation doesn't affect what money the club has. Unless they want to release further shares, which isn't really a problem since they classed them so that they are worthless in terms of power. If the club offered an additional set of shares, it would benefit from a higher share price.

 

[Someone]

It's only a hypothetical loss though. The club never actually had that money, did it?

Of course, i'm not an expert but i think it'll only hurt the glazers if it's a long term issue, however, if they intend to sell more shares soon it'll hit them hard.

 

[Skywarden]

I can buy the pounds > dollar thing, and the market value has been fluctuating ever since the floatation, but it doesn't explain WHY there has been a dip the past month - it just states Moyes + United + no top four = dip.

Surely a fairer article would also consider this:

The British soccer team Manchester United has made a poor showing on the field this season. Now the British hedge fund manager Crispin Odey is making a multimillion-dollar bet that the club’s New York-listed shares are destined for a similar trajectory.
Odey Asset Management, Mr. Odey’s fund, has taken a short position of about $5 million against Manchester United shares. Investors take short positions by borrowing a company’s stock and selling it in anticipation of pocketing a profit when they buy the stock back at a lower price.
Mr. Odey’s bet pits him against several investors who remain strong supporters of the team. George Soros has a 5.3 percent stake, and GLG, a division of the world’s biggest hedge fund, Man Group, has a 2.2 percent stake.
But Manchester United’s journey since its initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchangein August 2012 has been a tale of two teams.
On the field, the 135-year-old club has fallen from the top of the English Premier Leaguestandings last season to ninth place this year. The team has endured a series of changes, including the retirement of the club’s longtime manager, Alex Ferguson, and its chief executive, David Gill. During Mr. Ferguson’s 27-year tenure, Manchester United transformed itself from an underdog to a champion, winning 38 trophies along the way. David Moyes, its current manager, is under pressure to push the team back to the top of the league.
In the stock market, the club has experienced steady growth since its debut at $14 a share. The stock closed at $16.98 on Wednesday. With a strong brand and hundreds of millions of fans around the world, the club reported record revenue in 2013. In its latest quarterly results, Manchester United said its sponsorship revenue had risen 63 percent, compared with the period a year earlier.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/11/manchester-uniteds-struggles-attract-a-bear/?_r=0