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. Feb 12, 2014

    Revan Assumptionman

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    38,192
    Location:
    Munich
    Fantastic. The expected revenue for 2014 to be around 420-430m pounds (around 510-525m EUR). Is this right? This is around the level of Real Madrid revenue.

    Edit: Wage bill for this period is 51.6m. Assuming that it will be the same for the entire year, it means that we pay a bit more than 200m on wages. Not bad at all and agan proves that the Glazers aren't near as bad as people have expected them to be.
  2. Feb 12, 2014

    backofthenet Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,743
    Location:
    He's not the messiah... he's a very naughty boy
    Looks that way. Other thing I noted from a very brief review is that the wage to turnover ratio is down to 42.5%... which is very low for a top team.
  3. Feb 12, 2014

    Remix LordoftheStreams

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,774
  4. Feb 12, 2014

    Revan Assumptionman

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    38,192
    Location:
    Munich
    Not really. Madrid has also the wage to revenue ratio around 50%. Also the wages reports are exact while the revenue is still an estimation (likely it includes also the Chevrolet/new TV deal which aren't still on effect. Our revenue last season was around 350m pounds and now the wage bill is a bit more than 200m which will make it around 57% (while with the new estimation it will go at around 49% of revenue). Also it is possible that the estimation includes also money from UCL next season, money that we won't get.
  5. Feb 12, 2014

    Melvyn prostate examiner

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    8,687
    Location:
    Hull
    James Ducker ‏@DuckerTheTimes 3m
    Woodward says #MUFC still in talks with multiple parties over new kit deal - nothing to announce yet
    Woodward says "we are not in the position we want to be" but that there's still time to put it right

    jamie jackson ‏@JamieJackson___ 2m
    Woodward states club will "invest in squad as need to to make sure we compete at the highest level"
  6. Feb 12, 2014

    Bestie07 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,218
    Location:
    He went by the name of Wayne Rooney
    We won't be feeling the effects of this season financially until next year. Provided we get back into the Champions League from the year after next, we should be more than fine long term.
  7. Feb 12, 2014

    backofthenet Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,743
    Location:
    He's not the messiah... he's a very naughty boy
    Ok I understand what you're saying but the wage to turnover ratio is based on the 6 months to date, not the estimated turnover, so it is an exact figure. Us, Arsenal, Madrid and Bayern are pretty much the exception rather than the rule when it comes to the top clubs and wages. Ignoring the bonkers nature of City and PSG (more wages than turnover excluding massaged sponsorships), the last time I heard, Juventus were operating on a wage percentage of around 85-90%, Barca were in the 60 - 65% region, and Liverpool were about the same. Sub-50% is a really good figure.
  8. Feb 12, 2014

    Revan Assumptionman

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    38,192
    Location:
    Munich
    I think that UEFA's recommended ratio is lower than 55%. Those clubs who mentioned are doing it right. Barca is an extreme case, it has by far the highest wage in the world and I don't know for how long they can keep this kind of spending. They put Madrid to shame (considering also the difference on revenue).

    Juve's only way to compete with other giants is by having a higher wage ratio because in Italian football there isn't much money at the moment. Their revenue is around half of ours so surely they wage ratio has to be much higher than ours despite that their wage bill is lower. Add to that, they had a lot of deadwood from previous regime that were still on their payroll. Now I think that their ratio is much lower than the 95% they had a year (or it was a couple of years) ago.
  9. Feb 12, 2014

    KiD MoYeS Good Craig got his c'nuppins

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    27,862
    Location:
    Love is Blind
    So apparently we're spending roughly £500,000 a week to service debt. We've now spent £686 million on the debt, imagine what else could've been done with that money?
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2014
  10. Feb 12, 2014

    Revan Assumptionman

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    38,192
    Location:
    Munich
    Imagine how much lower our revenue would have been without Glazers and then the difference is much lower than the numbers you mentioned. Saying that, is it true that we have spend 686m on debts? I thought that it was around 500m.
  11. Feb 12, 2014

    KiD MoYeS Good Craig got his c'nuppins

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    27,862
    Location:
    Love is Blind
    According to this tweet.
  12. Feb 12, 2014

    backofthenet Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,743
    Location:
    He's not the messiah... he's a very naughty boy
    Yeah, about £25m a year... which is a shit load less than the 60-70m we were paying a year or two ago. Not good, but better than it was.
  13. Feb 12, 2014

    KiD MoYeS Good Craig got his c'nuppins

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    27,862
    Location:
    Love is Blind
    I agree it is improving. Just amazing figures really.
  14. Feb 12, 2014

    backofthenet Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,743
    Location:
    He's not the messiah... he's a very naughty boy
    You won't get any arguments from me on that. That's the wages for two Wayne Rooney's per year (or a Vidal and Gundogan :drool:). It's a crying bloody shame, but there's no way in hell we're getting rid of the blood sucking bastards in the near future so all we can do is hope to minimise the damage.
  15. Feb 12, 2014

    Revan Assumptionman

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    38,192
    Location:
    Munich
    Who is he? And can we know if that info is true. I always thought that they spent around 50m on debt for year which would make it around 450-500m or so. Which is totally fine considering that our revenue has increased much more and hate them or not, they have done an excellent job with those commercial deals which have increased our revenue this much. Even on this time of crisis our commercial deals incoming for example has increased 30% from last season. It is impressing and if they get some money because of their good job on that, so be it. The most important thing is to don't get as much money as to cripple the club, and as of now the club has competed well (both in transfers and especially on wages). We didn't have a sugar dady or Barca/Madrid revenue so we'll likely lose on players those clubs are interested but that is normal.

    Saying that, everybody would prefer a team that has a model like Barca/Madrid/Bayern but with the club evaluated around 2.5-3b it is impossible to happen so we will be under Glazers for some time. I don't see it as a bad thing though, if they continue doing as they have done so far. If they decide to get even more money, then we'll be on trouble but it looks that they fully understand that the best way to make money from United is if United is very competitive.

    Even now, we are paying 500000 per week (26m for year) but the increase on revenue (only from commercial deals) this year seems to be higher than that. Not that bad.
  16. Feb 12, 2014

    KiD MoYeS Good Craig got his c'nuppins

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    27,862
    Location:
    Love is Blind
    He's a writer and columnist for the Guardian on football, money and other stories apparently. I agree it's improving, could it get any worse? Some absolutely staggering figures all the same. The Glazer's are smart and driven men though, they know what they're doing.
  17. Feb 12, 2014

    kundalini Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,345
    He is the best sports journalist in the business. Writes for the Guardian. Does long features on Hillsborough disaster, Leeds' complex ownership, all the stuff that most football journalists wouldn't go near.
  18. Feb 12, 2014

    Revan Assumptionman

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    38,192
    Location:
    Munich
    I think that he is counting also the money that came when they sold some of their shares (was it 10%?) and used those money to pay some of the debt. I don't think that it should be counted cause their were their money that came from their sale of shares, they didn't came directly from the club revenue.

    Agree about the last line. As long as they think that the best way to get money from the club is to make the club as competitive as possible, we'll be fine. However if they decide that getting the fourth place is enough (like Arsenal) then we won't and I would support people who go against them (although considering that I don't leave in England, at the moment the best I can do is to not buy United's merchandise). But I don't see a reason to believe that they have it on mind, so indirectly they have the best interest of the club in their heart (the irony) because they make money on that way.

    Another problem is that if they decide to sell the club it is possible that the new owner(s) will finance the deal (at-least partially) from a debt which will make the situation like it was on 2005. And if they aren't as good as Glazers on the commercial aspect then we'll be in deep trouble. So my ideal scenarios are either the club to be bought by a lot of fans (not financed from debt) which is highly unlikely, or to continue being under Glazers (but to invest a bit more than they have done in the past).
  19. Feb 12, 2014

    KiD MoYeS Good Craig got his c'nuppins

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    27,862
    Location:
    Love is Blind
    The way modern football is going I still think it's a matter of time before we're owned by a disgustingly rich Arab to be honest.
  20. Feb 12, 2014

    Dracula caf plane air-master

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,991
    Jesus mate, id stick to the star wars knowledge if you are trying to be positive about glazers ownership. :-)

    I appreciate this has been done to death but...

    Yes the 680+ figure is accurate, it includes big one of payments to debt on to of interest payments.

    What it doesn't include is the millions of cash each family member took out of the club balance sheet (approx 1m each) to oay off their private debt... Although it pales in comparison.

    Yes, they have made a lot of money for the club, but they have taken out SIGNIFICANTLY more, and you are only assuming other owners, or the plc wouldn't have done the same thing (no, I don't believe they would have been AS profitable, but still...).

    They have yet to show any example of putting in a decent amount of money into transfers for the club in comparison to the plc. We've just broke or record transfer of 37m. 7m more than we did 11 years ago.

    It simply isn't possible to have any argument that the glazer ownership is positive for utd. It has been horrific for this club, but moaning won't help so it's just best to deal with it, nothing will change.

    We can be positive about future, but looking at how they have run the tampa bay buccs...To be optimistic is bordering on naive
  21. Feb 12, 2014

    Revan Assumptionman

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    38,192
    Location:
    Munich
    I don't disaree with this. It would be good if someone can clarify if the 680m number comes entirely from revenue or a part of it (around 150m or so) comes from their sale of stocks which doesn't effect the club revenue. If it is the second, then it is better cause actually it means that they have got from the club only around 530m (which again is very big) and if they have financed the debt (partially) by the sale of their stocks than great. We have less debt and they have less shares here.

    I guess that in this case I am seeing the half full glass. The revenue has significantly increased under them which likely will mean that the difference between the money that went out of the club is a bit lower (still big though). They have never interferred with the manager job (it is easy to say that they didn't need to do that because SAF was great, but the likes of Mourinho, Ancelotti, Del Bosque etc were great but that didn't stop the likes of Roman/Perez to interfere and to sack them). I think that with a Roman type owner, Sir Alex wouldn't have survived those three years without trophies (actually without the league/UCL trophy), years that then lead us to our best ever spell. I also don't see how someone can buy the club without financing the deal (at-least partially) on debt and now that the club costs around 3b, the debt likely will be even bigger than the first time. If the new owners wouldn't be as good in commercial deals as Glazers than it will become worse.

    Of course, I am not naive to think that they are good. They are here for money and they would send this club to Conference if that will make more money to them. But it seems that the best way to get money is if this club wins trophies, which leads to make them invest money here. It could be worse (see Arsenal). Yes, I would replace them yesterday (if I could) and gave the club to the fans who wouldn't get a single penny out of it. I would also be happy with a sugar daddy who wouldn't take money out of the club, would give some money from his own pocket to the club and wouldn't interfere on manager's plans. But I find that possibility highly unlikely.

    Also, despite the myths I don't think that the previous ownership were any better (in fact I think that they were worse). I remember Kenyon saying that if SAF wants to sign new players he should sell first (after SAF complained that other European clubs have two teams while we have only 18 players). I remember seeing in an Italian TV a few years ago Arrigo Sachi saying that SAF asked him to find a strong striker and he proposed Batistuta. When Fergie asked for the price, and Sachi said that it was around 30m, SAF joked and said to him to find a less stronger striker (ie. cheaper). Fergie mentioned in his book that only after Gill came he was paid as much as he was worthy and despite the good relations, under Edwards he was always underpayed. I also think that we did better under Glazers than before depsite that the league was much more competitive.

    I am not happy with them. Not at all. They aren't good and they don't love the club. But I also don't think that it has been as bad as predicted and a lot of people judje them on how we thought the things will go, rather than how they went. They also judge them on only the bad things (debt) but not on good things (the increase on revenue, non interference on manager's plan, comparison to previous owners). And ultimatelly I am here a bit pragmatic and don't see how (at-least in the near future) we can find an owner who will spend 3b and won't expect to get any money from the club. I don't think that it can happen so until then, we can only hope that the Glazers won't cripple the club more (and actually invest more cause Moyes isn't SAF). They look like they know that and we spend 65m in transfers this year, something that we haven't done before. They are also promising that we'll spend even more in summer. Lets see if that happens.
  22. Feb 12, 2014

    Tarrou Full Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Messages:
    13,756
    Location:
    Toronto
    If there is one football writer I trust to get their facts correct, especially when it comes to finances, it's David Conn. That amount does seem slightly difficult to believe though. It's depressing to think about the money wasted.
  23. Feb 12, 2014

    Crashoutcassius Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Messages:
    6,335
    Location:
    playa del carmen
    The interest payments were meant to be under 20m this year so can't see why it would be 500k a week?

    Perhaps that is taking into account the money we save on our tax bill

    Hopefully these interest payments can keep shrinking (somehow)
  24. Feb 12, 2014

    lysglimt Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,385
    The effect of not participating in C.L won't be as bad as some people seem to think- at least not in terms of finances. All United-players have contracts where an amount is based on C.L participation - if we say this amount in average pr player is as low as £30.000 a week - that amount is roughly £1.6 million each month in reduced wages.

    The effect will probably be bigger in terms of attracting new players when we can't offer C.L football - but at the same time money talks
  25. Feb 12, 2014

    Crashoutcassius Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Messages:
    6,335
    Location:
    playa del carmen
    The pro (well just tolerating) glazer and antiglazer arguments are interesting. I think we would be in agreement saying that Glazers have ravaged the club for the last 10 years financially, but from this point forth united are a financially stronger club than they would have been thanks to the glazers? The long term downsides are that our squad is considerably weaker than it should be and that there's a possibility the glazers will start paying large dividends, but other than that, financially, the future looks bright under glazers? People agree with that?
  26. Feb 12, 2014

    Bestie07 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,218
    Location:
    He went by the name of Wayne Rooney
    Well we continue to pay down the debt so the interest payments should go down.
  27. Feb 12, 2014

    Crashoutcassius Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Messages:
    6,335
    Location:
    playa del carmen
    Do you think so? Plenty of firms operate with some manageable level of debt, I always thought the glazers would get interest payments under control and then stop paying it off
  28. Feb 12, 2014

    Bestie07 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,218
    Location:
    He went by the name of Wayne Rooney
    That could be the case as well. The current debt is manageable with interest bill of 20-25m p.a., so let's see what their plans are.
  29. Feb 12, 2014

    Revan Assumptionman

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    38,192
    Location:
    Munich
    It won't change too much IMO. They'll probably start getting dividents from the profit (though 10% of those money will go to other owners and I am not sure that they would like it).
  30. Feb 12, 2014

    Infra-red Full Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7,687
    Location:
    left wing
    Yes I think that's correct. It's inarguable that the takeover has resulted in a colossal amount of the club's money being wasted. However revenues have steadily grown, and the annual cost of servicing the debt has fallen from £72m (including PIKs) or £42m (excluding PIKs) in 2010, to just £20m this year. That means less than 5% of United's revenue now goes on interest payments. We are in a position to compete in the transfer market (financially at least) with any club in the world.

    The question, obviously, is how much of our newfound wealth will actually be made available for improving the squad. During the IPO roadshow the club stated that going forward, net transfer spend was expected to be broadly in line with historical averages (£20-25m per year). That doesn't seem like a lot for a club making cash profits of upwards of £120m. However, judging by the recent briefings United have seemingly been giving the press with regards to our plans this summer, it does appear that significant investment in players will be sanctioned. Looking to the future, I suppose the one big unknown is the size of potential dividend payments.
  31. Feb 12, 2014

    tippex Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,138
    Location:
    Dublin
    the talk over the last while has been that the transfer spend will be roughly 20-30m per year ( depending where you read). The thing is would that spend be based over the period of the players contract ie. mata cost 37m and signing a 4 year deal so would this be 9.25 out of the 20-30m for this year? (Obviously I am not factoring in the recouping of transfers atm)
  32. Feb 12, 2014

    Beachryan More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,503
    Well the share price is down a tiny bit - so it's clear the market at least wasn't too impressed with the results. Normally the market will react in some way to result calls, but it seems pretty steady here.

    I'm not sure we can extrapolate the 51m on wages in the quarter to the whole year. I think the Andersred blog had something about the timing of football wages, and how they're all loaded into several quarters, not spread across the year. 200m would be a massive wage bill increase for us wouldn't it?
  33. Feb 12, 2014

    MDFC Manager Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,202
    I wouldn't pay much attention to the ipo roadshow comment as they would obviously try to convince investors that cash outflow would be minimal, to make it a more attractive investment to them. Agree with rest of your post.
  34. Feb 12, 2014

    backofthenet Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,743
    Location:
    He's not the messiah... he's a very naughty boy
    Absolutely... they mentioned a 12% (I think) increase and I seem to recall we had a 190m wage bill last time around... so based on that we should see circa 210 - 215m this time around.
  35. Feb 12, 2014

    Infra-red Full Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7,687
    Location:
    left wing
    Guardian coverage of the investor conference call with Woodward:

    http://www.theguardian.com/football...r-united-finance-champions-league-ed-woodward


    Summary of what Woodward said:

    • Everyone from the team manager down is conscious of the team's poor performance.
    • Focused on "long-term strategy."
    • "Not concerned" that failure to qualify for the Champions League for a prolonged period would effect commercial and financial strategy.
    • Not afraid to move in the market "in a way we haven't seen in recent years."
    • "Historically we've had roughly three purchases and three sales each year and it's possible that we would do more than that."
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2014
  36. Feb 12, 2014

    Adebesi Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Messages:
    19,159
    Location:
    Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
    Any owner that had sacked SAF in that period would have been a complete imbecile. I vehemently reject the idea that the Glazers deserve credit for this specific thing, yes for staying out of his way and giving him control on the football side, fine, but the idea that they showed patience for sticking with him... its like praising someone for walking down the road without falling over and smashing their face open on the curb: sure there are people who are so uncoordinated that happens, but you hardly deserve special praise for not being such a person.
  37. Feb 12, 2014

    Revan Assumptionman

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    38,192
    Location:
    Munich
    It isn't special praise, but I think that a Roman/Perez type of owner would have sacked Sir Alex. Don't forget that Roman sacked both Mourinho and Ancelotti while Perez sacked Del Bosque and Capello on the year when they won the title. I don't know if you can call them imbecile but there are type of owners like there who usually don't have a plan and can't look more than in the results of that year. I don't think that they would have sticked with SAF if the team wouldn't win the title for three years. Of course this is the minimum you can expect from any owner but there are special types of retards right there who IMO wouldn't hesitate to sack any manager if he doesn't win the league/UCL on 2-3 years.
  38. Feb 12, 2014

    Adebesi Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Messages:
    19,159
    Location:
    Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
    So you are hesitant about calling them imbeciles but are happy to call them special types of retards? OK!

    Maybe you are right, sacking Mourinho shows anything is possible. SAF is a little different because of how long he was there, if an owner had come in and sacked him, even after disappointing seasons, I think there would have been a lot of resistance from the crowd. We can see owners dont care too much about that but still, I wonder if SAF's achievements would have bought him a bit more time - especially as Mourinho was sacked over style, not results (or this was a big part of it, we are told.)

    SAF might have wanted out anyway, if he had a boss who kept pushing players he didnt want on him.

    Anyway, I dont know, it is impossible for either of us to know. But I will never, EVER give Glazer credit as a good owner because he didnt sack SAF.
  39. Feb 12, 2014

    Revan Assumptionman

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    38,192
    Location:
    Munich
    You can call them whatever you want. Neither are imbeciles or retards to be fair but their knowledge in football is lower than the average Caf poster IMO. Or they just simply want to make changes for the sake of it without bothering for consequences.

    I don't know if we should give credit them or not, but there aren't many top clubs who stand by the manager if he doesn't win the league for 3 seasons or so. In the recent years the only ones who have done so are us, Liverpool with Benitez and Arsenal with Wenger. The likes of Madrid, Barca, Bayern, Inter, Juve etc didn't have problem to sack (or to not extend their contracts) managers regardless of their past. So with a type of owner who wants to interfere I think that SAF would have easily sacked. Fans would have cried for a couple of weeks or so, but in the end they would have still watched United.
  40. Feb 12, 2014

    Adebesi Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Messages:
    19,159
    Location:
    Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
    I never remember thinking, shit, we've lost the league again, I wonder if SAF will be sacked. I never felt he was under pressure, it didn't seem to be a question. Was I being naive, was I unaware of this debate happening around me? Maybe I was. We we always up there challenging and the world around us was changing, with the arrival of Abramovich. Maybe if Glazer had pumped loads of money into the club it'd be different, but they didn't while our main competitor did. To sack SAF in that scenario, demanding league success, oligarch style, while loading us up with debt and not spending hundreds of millions beefing up the squad, would be nonsensical. As you say, that doesn't mean it's impossible but I think it's a different scenario with different expectations. The kind of owner who'd have sacked SAF at that time would also have given him more money to compete.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.