Panorama: Man United - Into the Red, BBC One, Tuesday, 8 June

[Rood]

People are protesting/angry/upset that the primary purpose of Manchester United now seems to be to make a profit for an American family...

So essentially your problem is that they are American?
Lets not forget that the English Edward's family made plenty of profit out of Manchester United in the past - the club has been run as a business for a long time before the Glazers came along.

Martin Edwards floated the soul of the club onto the stock market in 1991 - it has been up for grabs ever since.

To be honest, you sound like many others who's main gripe seems to be about the commercialisation of football in general - obviously this isnt down to the Glazer family but clearly they are a part of it and I suppose they do make good scapegoat material.

 

[peterstorey]

You boys are catching them up Peter, how many years now?

A few to go before we hit 25, eh?

 

[GCHQ]

Okay, assuming your figures are right, that gives an average of 28.0% of profit paid in tax per annum and 25.8% paid in dividends. That means an amount equal to 53.8% of profit left the club each year under the PLC on average.

What was the club's profit this past year, and what would 53.8% of it be? Obviously it's all very rough, but it would give an idea.

Based on the financial results for 2008/09 and the projected results for 2009/10, the amount of tax and dividends paid out in total over those two years if the club was still a PLC would have been higher than what was in fact paid out in interest under the Glazers ownership during that period.

Just makes the idea of a boycott look even more silly really.

 

[Crerand Legend]

A few to go before we hit 25, eh?

Liverpool thought that back in 1990.

 

[Commadus]

To be fair none of GCHQ's or Roodboys figures here have been proven wrong to date so, yet they have proven some counter arguments wrong, The disucssion surrounding the Ronaldo sale and Uniteds profit that year springs to mind and the Glazers taking £430 million to date another.

You been following the posts? GCHQ has fallen silent on a post I have asked him to clarify. He banged on about we would have made a cash profit of £3m irrespective of the Ronaldo sale but then when he is challenged he declines to answer. If he is EastStand375 as AndersRed contends then he does the same.

As to the figures - its the freakin interpretation some contend the debt is manageable others do not. You can't just pull a figure without some justication its the caveats and side issues that is where the debate is.

 

[Crerand Legend]

So essentially your problem is that they are American?
Lets not forget that the English Edward's family made plenty of profit out of Manchester United in the past - the club has been run as a business for a long time before the Glazers came along.

Martin Edwards floated the soul of the club onto the stock market in 1991 - it has been up for grabs ever since.

To be honest, you sound like many others who's main gripe seems to be about the commercialisation of football in general - obviously this isnt down to the Glazer family but clearly they are a part of it and I suppose they do make good scapegoat material.

The Edwards and the Glazers, two of a kind. The Glazers made themselves scapegoats by buying something they could'nt afford and hence the problems that exist now. If I bought a car for example and found the payments were too steep I would sell especially if I could make a profit, why cant these leeeches be like that?

 

[Crerand Legend]

You been following the posts? GCHQ has fallen silent on a post I have asked him to clarify. He banged on about we would have made a cash profit of £3m irrespective of the Ronaldo sale but then when he is challenged he declines to answer. If he is EastStand375 as AndersRed contends then he does the same.

As to the figures - its the freakin interpretation some contend the debt is manageable others do not. You can't just pull a figure without some justication its the caveats and side issues that is where the debate is.

That has been the trend all through this thread, they either dont answer the obvious questions or they tie it up in waffle

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Based on the financial results for 2008/09 and the projected results for 2009/10, the amount of tax and dividends paid out in total over those two years if the club was still a PLC would have been higher than what was in fact paid out in interest under the Glazers ownership during that period.

Just makes the idea of a boycott look even more silly really.

Can you post your working please? That's quite a bold claim.

 

[GCHQ]

Nooooo! You're looking at bottom line profit which is wrong. EBITDA. It's the future.

Anyway, back on track. We made a £35m bottom line profit give or take. 53.8% of that is about £20m.

Nooooo!

Red Football Limited's pre-tax profit was £48m for the year ending June 30 2009. However, those results include expenses of £42m in interest and £35.4m of goodwill amortisation which obviously wouldn't have been incurred if the club was still a PLC. So pre-tax profit would have been £125.4m under the PLC last year.

If you look at the projected results for this year (2009/10) then the pre-tax profit would be c.£65m if the club was still a PLC.

 

[Commadus]

Based on the financial results for 2008/09 and the projected results for 2009/10, the amount of tax and dividends paid out in total over those two years if the club was still a PLC would have been higher than what was in fact paid out in interest under the Glazers ownership during that period.

Just makes the idea of a boycott look even more silly really.

Dividends are not contracted to be paid, you can decide not to pay them. Second paying Tax to the Government - well depends on what angle you take their - its helps retain money in the economy rather than it being paid as interest to foreign bond holders.

 

[Crerand Legend]

Nooooo!

Red Football Limited's pre-tax profit was £48m for the year ending June 30 2009. However, those results include expenses of £42m in interest and £35.4m of goodwill amortisation which obviously wouldn't have been incurred if the club was still a PLC. So pre-tax profit would have been £125.4m under the PLC last year.

If you look at the projected results for this year (2009/10) then the pre-tax profit would be c.£65m if the club was still a PLC.

Does that £48m not include the Ronaldo sale?

 

[GCHQ]

Can you post your working please? That's quite a bold claim.

Already done above. Take 28% off the pre-tax profit in each year to get to the corporation tax figure and then take 30% off the remaining figure to reach the total amount for dividends paid out.

 

[GCHQ]

Dividends are not contracted to be paid, you can decide not to pay them. Second paying Tax to the Government - well depends on what angle you take their - its helps retain money in the economy rather than it being paid as interest to foreign bond holders.

Of course dividends would have been paid out. Don't be so fecking daft.

 

[Rood]

Does that £48m not include the Ronaldo sale?

Sometimes I really wonder if you are just on one big wind up

 

[Crerand Legend]

Sometimes I really wonder if you are just on one big wind up

So it did'nt then?

 

[GCHQ]

Does that £48m not include the Ronaldo sale?

Yes. But it also includes £35.4m of goodwill amortisation which is a non-cash loss/operating expense and is completely irrelevant.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Already done above. Take 28% off the pre-tax profit to get to the corporation tax figure and then take 30% off the remaining figure to reach the total amount for dividends paid out.

Hmm, so based on your figures, with a pre-tax profit of £125.4m under the PLC (Red Football Limited's pre-tax profit of £48m plus £42m in interest and £35.4m of goodwill amortisation) the tax bill would have been £35.1m and the dividend roughly £37.6m. This would indeed be more than left the company in interest due to the loans on the company. Is this true? Would Andersred like to comment?

 

[Commadus]

Of course dividends would have been paid out. Don't be so fecking daft.

Again is it a legal requirement? NO
Also still not bothering to answer my question.
Also no need to swear because you have been exposed as a shill - objective my ass.

Where did you get the figure of 30% from for Divident payments?

Also the whole argument you use re if we were a PLC we would have paid more out is total rubbish as you use two selective years - not an argument as much as being deceiving. Or should we use the full 5 years instead which I have been through with you on this before on the other thread.

 

[Crerand Legend]

Yes. But it also includes £35.4m of goodwill amortisation which is a non-cash loss/operating expense and is completely irrelevant.

What would our profits have been then had we not sold Ronaldo?

 

[GCHQ]

What would our profits have been then had we not sold Ronaldo?

Net cash profit would have been £50m.

 

[Crerand Legend]

Net cash profit would have been £50m.

£50m clear profit, you sure? Where is it?

 

[GCHQ]

Again is it a legal requirement? NO
Also still not bothering to answer my question.
Also no need to swear because you have been exposed as a shill - objective my ass.

Where did you get the figure of 30% from for Divident payments?

Also the whole argument you use re if we were a PLC we would have paid more out is total rubbish as you use two selective years - not an argument as much as being deceiving. Or should we use the full 5 years instead which I have been through with you on this before on the other thread.

You what? Would dividends have been paid out? Yes of course they would.

30% of the post tax profit being paid out in dividends to shareholders was about standard when the club was a PLC.

And yes, I went through those figures with you before on the other thread and you were over £300m out if I remember rightly.

 

[GCHQ]

£50m clear profit, you sure? Where is it?

In the bank.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Again is it a legal requirement? NO

A PLC with annual profits of £125m is obviously going to pay out big dividends, either that or their share price is going to crash.

 

[GCHQ]

Hmm, so based on your figures, with a pre-tax profit of £125.4m under the PLC (Red Football Limited's pre-tax profit of £48m plus £42m in interest and £35.4m of goodwill amortisation) the tax bill would have been £35.1m and the dividend roughly £37.6m. This would indeed be more than left the company in interest due to the loans on the company. Is this true? Would Andersred like to comment?

Yup. I doubt you'll hear much from Andersred as he's far too busy making up spurious arguments such as his £437m figure which has apparently been the ''cost'' to the club of the Glazer's takeover, and of course all that guff about the Glazers shopping mall business which has no relevance to Manchester United whatsoever.

 

[MrK]

Just wanted to say, as someone who really doesn't understand the financial side of things but is interested to learn as much as time permits, the calming influence AndersRed's appearance has brought to this thread has been extremely refreshing (welcome to RedCafe!). Personal attacks, mudslinging and name calling has been pretty minimal in the last few pages, the points people have made haven't been blighted by the inclusion of tirades of expletives and condescending laughing green smilies, it's great!

I know it's an emotional topic for many, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that people on both sides of the argument can do a lot for the cause they're fighting by trying to keep this educational for those less informed, i.e. me (I presume I'm not alone, though!). Trying to win arguments through insulting or having digs at people until they stop bothering is just a personal and petty victory, and in my eyes at least does more damage than good to any arguments made by that person.

So... err... yeah, thanks to all concerned for the efforts, and sorry I can't contribute anything more meaningful to the discussion!

 

[Commadus]

You what? Would dividends have been paid out? Yes of course they would.

30% of the post tax profit being paid out in dividends to shareholders was about standard when the club was a PLC.

And yes, I went through those figures with you before on the other thread and you were over £300m out if I remember rightly.

Oh please. You make me laugh. The figures were from Anders and your "calcuations" well they were just poor.

Anyway I am still waiting for an answer to the question which you are still dodging. I have posted it a few times and still no response. Strange when you made a song and dance about £3m profit - strange how some things then just get overlooked when they are not in your favour.

 

[Commadus]

A PLC with annual profits of £125m is obviously going to pay out big dividends, either that or their share price is going to crash.

Assuming they didnt invest some of tha £125m in players first! Why enter into a total deceptive argument where GCHQ uses a year that has an exceptional non recurring item like Ronaldos fee. Serious its not even an argument as being deceptive.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Well he is right - most of the teams out there aren't going to win anything anytime soon - Spurs haven't won the league since 1961 but 40,000 of them turn up every week.

He's not right. Just because some teams don't win things regularly doesn't mean that their supporters don't care about winning, that just makes winning all the sweeter for them. My dad's bird is a Bolton ST holder, and she goes to every Bolton match thinking that Bolton are going to win, whoever it may be against. Obviously she's very regularly wrong, and they haven't won a trophy since feck knows when, but it doesn't stop her hoping that one day they will. She goes in the hope that Bolton will win, that's why the manager takes his players out there, and that's why the fans turn up to watch - in the hope of a win. To say that only glory supporters care about winning is complete bollocks.

 

[GCHQ]

Assuming they didnt invest some of tha £125m in players first! Why enter into a total deceptive argument where GCHQ uses a year that has an exceptional non recurring item like Ronaldos fee. Serious its not even an argument as being deceptive.

Oh right! So it is an exceptional item now!

I'm covering a two year period anyway. And in the second year (09/10) the dividend and tax pay out under the PLC would have been roughly the same as the interest that was actually paid out under the Glazers.

 

[Rood]

Assuming they didnt invest some of tha £125m in players first! Why enter into a total deceptive argument where GCHQ uses a year that has an exceptional non recurring item like Ronaldos fee. Serious its not even an argument as being deceptive.

You seem to be spending an unnecesary amount of time going on about people being deceptive and finding relatively meaningless issues (£3m?) to poke holes with - if you dont agree then why dont you show us your figures and let us critique them?

 

[Commadus]

Oh right! So it is an exceptional item now!

I'm covering a two year period anyway. And in the second year (09/10) the dividend and tax pay out under the PLC would have been roughly the same as the interest that was actually paid out under the Glazers.

Exceptional because £80m is not going to be breached anytime soon.

Lets take the years 07-09 then we would have a different perspective. Yes you pick the years to make your argument.

 

[peterstorey]

He's not right. Just because some teams don't win things regularly doesn't mean that their supporters don't care about winning, that just makes winning all the sweeter for them. My dad's bird is a Bolton ST holder, and she goes to every Bolton match thinking that Bolton are going to win, whoever it may be against. Obviously she's very regularly wrong, and they haven't won a trophy since feck knows when, but it doesn't stop her hoping that one day they will. She goes in the hope that Bolton will win, that's why the manager takes his players out there, and that's why the fans turn up to watch - in the hope of a win. To say that only glory supporters care about winning is complete bollocks.

You can be a right obtuse cnut, YES she goes with the hope of winning but if she was rational about it she knows that most of the time she won't and Bolton aren't going to win the football league. If it was just about winning she'd feck off and support Man Utd claiming it was just down the road. Most people make an emotional connection to their teams and that's it for better or worse.

 

[Commadus]

You seem to be spending an unnecesary amount of time going on about people being deceptive and finding relatively meaningless issues (£3m?) to poke holes with - if you dont agree then why dont you show us your figures and let us critique them?

Dude

Meaningless - hahahaha.

I asked GCHQ a question and you could not answer it yourself either in an attempt to support him. I have asked it him more than once. If you actually you knew what it was about and you clearly do not because it relates to the bond prospectus.

So I suggest you keep better track of the posts.

Also you think its churlish that it relates to £3m when the same GCHQ made a song and dance about how we would have made a £3m profit irrespective of the Ronaldo fee. So you tell me it's meaningless if so then so is the £3m profit that GCHQ banged on about.

 

[GCHQ]

Exceptional because £80m is not going to be breached anytime soon.

Lets take the years 07-09 then we would have a different perspective. Yes you pick the years to make your argument.

Oh I agree. It's just that when people make the same point about the effect that exceptional item has had on the club's net transfer expenditure the likes of yourself describe the Ronaldo transfer fee as anything but exceptional.

You can't have it both ways.

And you can include the 2007/08 year (c.£60m pre-tax profit as a PLC) too if you want and the total amount of tax and dividends that would have been paid out over the three year period would still have been higher than what has been paid in interest.

 

[Rood]

... So I suggest you keep better track of the posts...

To be honest, you are right - I didnt follow that particular conversation at all and said so when you asked me. All I know is that it was a disgreement over £3m which seemed pretty minor to me in the grand scheme of things.

Anyway since you dont agree with these calculations, I look forward to see your version - it is easy to pick holes from the side but if you dont offer an alternate then it doesnt mean a lot.

 

[andersred]

In my opinion, Andersred has wasted a whole load of time in not proving very much of any importance here.

1) He does seem to have some personal issue with Gill and is pulling him up for his comments about PIKs which is fair enough I suppose.
However I, and others, have said all the way since the bond prospectus was issued that it gave the Glazers the option to use club funds to pay down the PIKs so this is old news as far as I am concerned.

2) So the Glazer commercial property business in the USA has had some problems? Wow that really is a revelation - it's not like the US just went through the biggest property crash in living history or anything

That's all sounds a little odd roodboy.

Having been on here one day, you'll excuse me if the fact that you

"and others, have said all the way since the bond prospectus was issued that it gave the Glazers the option to use club funds to pay down the PIKs"

isn't of much interest to me. Wisdom after the event isn't very special.

Eaststand/GCHQ's argument (I don't know yours) seems to rest on some peculiar - "we can cover the bond interest so ticket price hikes and the sheer waste don't matter". An "I'm alright Jack" approach if you like that ignores the rape of the club because we can afford for it to be raped. Lovely.

That argument looks even weaker than it already was if the club has to pay the PIKS. Whether you've always known that was the case or not doesn't change the maths does it?

If they take the "50% of consolidated net income" dividend entitlement in a year like this one, the club is left with a princely £17m cash flow, roughly 18% of our cash profits, the EBITDA that Eaststand thinks is so clever, or to put it another way, half a Dimitar Berbatov.

I think attempting to work out whether they will have to take such dividends to pay off the PIKS, contrary to the club's statements, is therefore important. How can we work out whether they will? Surely we look at their other businesses. Maybe you already knew (perhaps through some intuition). If they had a valuable cash cow then this becomes a non-issue. They don't, far from it.

You say:

So the Glazer commercial property business in the USA has had some problems? Wow that really is a revelation - it's not like the [US just went through the biggest property crash in living history or anything.

as if your generic after the event revelation has some value to it!

Guess what? It isn't a surprise, but until I did my research, that sort of pub debate level point was all we had. If I'd asked you any questions about First Allied last week, you'd have got them wrong. You wouldn't know the turnover, costs, property taxes, occupancy rate, mortgage structures, purchase dates, blah, blah, blah. You wouldn't even know how big a business it was.

I've actually bothered to quantify it all. That obviously doesn't matter to you, because you already knew, er, something, America innit?, er debt, er.....

The $9.7m of annual cash flow is actually a huge over statement, but because it's verifiable, I stuck with it. You didn't know that did you? What's the pro-forma number next year at current occupancy levels? No idea? Er... America innit.... er... I knew this.... pointless.....

That $9.7m is not enough to even cover the interest on the PIKS, the family don't have the resources to pay them. I think that matters. Of course to a wise internet warrior like you, this is old hat, even if David Gill claims otherwise.

So I should probably pack it in roodboy shouldn't I? Not waste my time actually finding stuff out? Accept you and Eaststand are right? Why moan? We almost won the league don't you know? This stuff is obvious. You knew it all already. You might even have an ACA. What's the point eh?

 

[GCHQ]

Dude

Meaningless - hahahaha.

I asked GCHQ a question and you could not answer it yourself either in an attempt to support him. I have asked it him more than once. If you actually you knew what it was about and you clearly do not because it relates to the bond prospectus.

So I suggest you keep better track of the posts.

Also you think its churlish that it relates to £3m when the same GCHQ made a song and dance about how we would have made a £3m profit irrespective of the Ronaldo fee. So you tell me it's meaningless if so then so is the £3m profit that GCHQ banged on about.

It isn't meaningless when you consider that every newspaper in the country and 99% of the club's supporters were saying (and still do) that the club would have made a £30m-£40m loss if Ronaldo hadn't been sold.

Let's quote Andy Green (AKA Andersred) again shall we:

''I have NEVER used the “would have lost money without selling Ronaldo” argument as it’s spurious. I have NEVER briefed journalists along those lines and I have encouraged MUST not to.''

Funny how he never pointed out that fact in an article on his blog until he was challenged about it in the comments section of one of his recent articles.

I wonder why...

 

[GCHQ]

That's all sounds a little odd roodboy.

Having been on here one day, you'll excuse me if the fact that you isn't of much interest to me. Wisdom after the event isn't very special.

Eaststand/GCHQ's argument (I don't know yours) seems to rest on some peculiar - "we can cover the bond interest so ticket price hikes and the sheer waste don't matter". An "I'm alright Jack" approach if you like that ignores the rape of the club because we can afford for it to be raped. Lovely.

That argument looks even weaker than it already was if the club has to pay the PIKS. Whether you've always known that was the case or not doesn't change the maths does it?

If they take the "50% of consolidated net income" dividend entitlement in a year like this one, the club is left with a princely £17m cash flow, roughly 18% of our cash profits, the EBITDA that Eaststand thinks is so clever, or to put it another way, half a Dimitar Berbatov.

I think attempting to work out whether they will have to take such dividends to pay off the PIKS, contrary to the club's statements, is therefore important. How can we work out whether they will? Surely we look at their other businesses. Maybe you already knew (perhaps through some intuition). If they had a valuable cash cow then this becomes a non-issue. They don't, far from it.

You say:



as if your generic after the event revelation has some value to it!

Guess what? It isn't a surprise, but until I did my research, that sort of pub debate level point was all we had. If I'd asked you any questions about First Allied last week, you'd have got them wrong. You wouldn't know the turnover, costs, property taxes, occupancy rate, mortgage structures, purchase dates, blah, blah, blah. You wouldn't even know how big a business it was.

I've actually bothered to quantify it all. That obviously doesn't matter to you, because you already knew, er, something, America innit?, er debt, er.....

The $9.7m of annual cash flow is actually a huge over statement, but because it's verifiable, I stuck with it. You didn't know that did you? What's the pro-forma number next year at current occupancy levels? No idea? Er... America innit.... er... I knew this.... pointless.....

That $9.7m is not enough to even cover the interest on the PIKS, the family don't have the resources to pay them. I think that matters. Of course to a wise internet warrior like you, this is old hat, even if David Gill claims otherwise.

So I should probably pack it in roodboy shouldn't I? Not waste my time actually finding stuff out? Accept you and Eaststand are right? Why moan? We almost won the league don't you know? This stuff is obvious. You knew it all already. You might even have an ACA. What's the point eh?

Will you please admit to the other members of Red Cafe that the £437m ''cost of the Glazers ownership'' figure that you presented MUST with, was in actual fact wildly inaccurate?

I won't say you deliberately intended to mislead people because I know what a litigious bunch you lot are.

 

[GCHQ]

I assume he's Eaststand375 who's identity I believe I know and if so he doesn't work for JPM, United or anyone connected to them.

I doubt that very much. And keep up. Have you not heard the latest revelation as to whom I work for? I'm supposedly now working for some of the bond investors to keep the price high.

Incidentally, what price are the bonds currently trading at?