Our debt has increased 133% to £474.1 million

Rightnr

Full Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
2,885
We are done at the top level with this ownership. The level of investment needed will never be delivered with the parasites in place.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
28,409
Did anybody expect less? We have no income while the stadium is closed.
 

Eugenius

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
3,384
Location
Behind You
You have to read their accounts to get a proper idea of what's going on - the net debt has gone up because 1) sponsorship payments have been deferred (looks temporary), 2) we've spent more on transfers (which we should be happy about) and 3) we've not had season tickets/prepaid tickets cash in yet (covid).

Debt in the financial world is not an issue if you have the cash flow/cash on hand to pay interest and debt as it falls due, banks are still willing to end and you're profitable enough long term. It's not quite a disaster, and we still spent more on transfers than all the non-oil clubs.
 

gajender

Full Member
Joined
May 7, 2016
Messages
1,166
We wont be making any significant signings with this frightening level of debt. Considering our revenue dropped by just 19%, this is a dire performance.

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/man...p-133revenue-downlosses-of-232m-amid-covid-19
ESPN again doing shoddy job as usual attention grabbing headline with wrong %figures used for debt increase , riling up United fanbase into frenzy our net debt increased by 10 % not by 133%. OP please change the thread title it's based on incorrect article by ESPN.
 

EC689908

Full Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
52
Just to point out that Net debt is the gross debt minus the cash in the bank. United had cash at end of June 2019 of about £300 million to about £50 million at end of June 2020. This is the main reason why the ‘debt’ has gone up as net debt will increase as cash in the bank decreases. The gross debt figure (i.e. The actual amount owed) hasn’t actually changed in many years. The bigger concern (which never gets mentioned) especially in the current climate is cashflow. This is what makes clubs go into serious trouble.

Unfortunately, every single quarterly report gets this same reaction because people, understandably, don’t understand the difference between gross and net debt. Btw this is not a supportive argument for the Glazer ownership just actually pointing out what the accounts actually are saying.
 

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
2,604
Location
Wumming Gym
It’s not really a shock or a sudden new concern. Our debt was double this when we were bought by Glazers. While the debt remains manageable, it’s not really a concern. Glazers ownership is a whole new topic though.
 

Livewire1974

If it moves, report it.
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
6,960
Location
Dublin
ESPN again doing shoddy job as usual attention grabbing headline with wrong %figures used for debt increase , riling up United fanbase into frenzy our net debt increased by 10 % not by 133%. OP please change the thread title it's based on incorrect article by ESPN.
Source ?
 

snowkarl

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
340
Just to point out that Net debt is the gross debt minus the cash in the bank. United had cash at end of June 2019 of about £300 million to about £50 million at end of June 2020. This is the main reason why the ‘debt’ has gone up as net debt will increase as cash in the bank decreases. The gross debt figure (i.e. The actual amount owed) hasn’t actually changed in many years. The bigger concern (which never gets mentioned) especially in the current climate is cashflow. This is what makes clubs go into serious trouble.

Unfortunately, every single quarterly report gets this same reaction because people, understandably, don’t understand the difference between gross and net debt. Btw this is not a supportive argument for the Glazer ownership just actually pointing out what the accounts actually are saying.
While you are obviously correct, a net debt increase of this magnitude will inevitably lead to an even larger increase in gross debt, when loans have to be taken out to solve our liquidity issues.
 

Leftback99

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
6,332
Hardly unexpected. Didn't we pay upfront for Maguire? That's an £80m increase in net debt alone.
 

groovyalbert

it's a mute point
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
4,386
Location
London
Feck me. Does this leave us in a situation where we actually can't afford the Glazers to leave?
 

Castia

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
12,549
Worst part of all this is we have that awful Chevrolet logo going into next season!
 

Wixqaz

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
48
Supports
Celtic
The finances of all football clubs will be much worse this year than any others. I'm not sure what people are expecting? Other than Merchandise and TV rights, what can clubs actually do to make money right now? To be fair Man Utd are still paying match day staff that aren't actually need right now, aren't they? No money from season tickets? Or just ticket sales? Don't you make like 2 million each game normally?

Other than the normal dividends payments that the Glazers take (that shouldn't be happening right now in my opinion), I don't think theres anything actually bad in these results?
 

Gandalf

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
928
The finances of all football clubs will be much worse this year than any others. I'm not sure what people are expecting? Other than Merchandise and TV rights, what can clubs actually do to make money right now? To be fair Man Utd are still paying match day staff that aren't actually need right now, aren't they? No money from season tickets? Or just ticket sales? Don't you make like 2 million each game normally?

Other than the normal dividends payments that the Glazers take (that shouldn't be happening right now in my opinion), I don't think theres anything actually bad in these results?
Figure quoted was 5 million a game back in May.
 

GoldanoGraham

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
432
Debt isn’t a problem as long as it can be serviced - money is as cheap as it’s ever been at the moment and the Glazers are still taking dividends - remember they purchased us with leveraged cash so the business model is working fine for them......cash flow reductions from Covid are an issue though as nobody seems to know when people are going to be back into the stadiums you can see why they were never going to splash out £110m on Sancho - that would have been way too risky in these times.
 

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
3,121
You generallly need income to have an income.

You heard it here first.
 

gajender

Full Member
Joined
May 7, 2016
Messages
1,166
It includes movement in cash in the bank (£256m). It's not just borrowings.
Our last quarter net debt was 429 m and now it stands at 474 m so it can't be 133% and I don't think we actually used the credit facility money at all this summer it's should be still in reserve .
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
921
Location
Not far enough
You have to read their accounts to get a proper idea of what's going on - the net debt has gone up because 1) sponsorship payments have been deferred (looks temporary), 2) we've spent more on transfers (which we should be happy about) and 3) we've not had season tickets/prepaid tickets cash in yet (covid).

Debt in the financial world is not an issue if you have the cash flow/cash on hand to pay interest and debt as it falls due, banks are still willing to end and you're profitable enough long term. It's not quite a disaster, and we still spent more on transfers than all the non-oil clubs.
Good luck trying to explain to people on here that debt is not necessarily a bad thing and that's how business works...

Also, watch how the same people will moan that we are not spending £100m+ on a single player while then claiming we should not be under debt...

Of course, the crux of it will be the dividend payments. I would imagine none of the complainers own any equity in any company.
 

gajender

Full Member
Joined
May 7, 2016
Messages
1,166
What was published today are accounts for 9 months?
My bad then so they could be right while also sensationalising by using figures for 9 months instead of analysing 3rd quarter results only because that's what was declared today ,net debt increased by 10% this quarter and earlier increase in net debt is old news and already factored in.
 
Last edited:

nokillingmoths

Full Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
5,809
I think people need to read some of the comments in here before jumping up and down.

But the biggest take away from this shit as always is, it's not Uniteds fecking debt, don't know how it was ever allowed to happen really. Criminal.
 

nokillingmoths

Full Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
5,809
Not this one though.

Good luck trying to explain to people on here that debt is not necessarily a bad thing and that's how business works...

Also, watch how the same people will moan that we are not spending £100m+ on a single player while then claiming we should not be under debt...

Of course, the crux of it will be the dividend payments. I would imagine none of the complainers own any equity in any company.
We aren't in debt due to player payments, the debt is from the glazers buying the club. The amount of money spent servicing "our" debt, which in this instance is absolutely not a good thing for united, could have bought a whole new fecking squad.
 

Wixqaz

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
48
Supports
Celtic
Not this one though.



We aren't in debt due to player payments, the debt is from the glazers buying the club. The amount of money spent servicing "our" debt, which in this instance is absolutely not a good thing for united, could have bought a whole new fecking squad.
Out of interest, has anyone ever done a calculation of how much of the money used to service the debt, would have instead been tax? I've seen the 1 billion total previously that's aparently whats been spent on debt repayments. Now I'm not in the finance industry, but if the debt wasn't there, does anyone know how much of that money would have instead been tax, as my undertstanding is that so called 'good debt' is essentially a way companies avoid having to pay more taxes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 711

blackhawk747

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
24
Generally speaking, the increase of “debt” is mainly because of cash receivables- the delay of boardcasting and sponsorship payment since the 19/20 has been deferred (fiscal year cut off at 6/30)
 

Gasolin

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
5,477
Location
NYC
The title should be renamed "net debt". Not debt. Our gross debt didn't change so much, it's the cash reserve that went down dramatically for various reasons. This is a fine line, but also why I don't think we would want Poch or any manager. Ole should be trusted in order to navigate this difficult time financially speaking, and see how much success we can get as much as possible.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
It’s not really a shock or a sudden new concern. Our debt was double this when we were bought by Glazers. While the debt remains manageable, it’s not really a concern. Glazers ownership is a whole new topic though.
could we have afforded Sancho? What would these numbers have looked like if we had paid the £108m?
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
921
Location
Not far enough
Not this one though.



We aren't in debt due to player payments, the debt is from the glazers buying the club. The amount of money spent servicing "our" debt, which in this instance is absolutely not a good thing for united, could have bought a whole new fecking squad.
Well..let's follow that logic. The dividend issued in April was $0.09 per share. Manchester United has 164,572,687 shares outstanding. Multiply one to the other and you will get $14.8m (£11.3m). The title of this thread claims debt has increased 133% to £474.1m which implies that debt used to be £203.5m, so those £11.3 for the dividends are in reality 5.6% of the previos debt levels or 2.4% of the new debt levels. Any way you look at it, that's not the reason. But don't let me spoil your moan and complain session.

I realize not everyone understands corporate finance. That's ok. But here we are talking about simple arithmetic and just googling stuff. Don't be stupid, do your research, don't follow trends and narratives just because they sound easy.
 

iHicksy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
1,254
I'd rather have any other owner than these cash grabbing fecks. Feels like we're being run by the trump family.