And no prizes for guessing which group of anti-Glazer fanatics were briefing the media with the ''Would have lost money without selling Ronaldo'' line. 
Edit - Corrected.
Edit - Corrected.
Panorama: Man United - Into the Red, BBC One, Tuesday, 8 June
- Thread starter mickthered
- Start date
That's a rather large understatement don't you think?
In other news, Napoleon surrendered at Waterloo.And no prizes for guessing which group of anti-Glazer fanatics were briefing the media with the ''Would have lost without selling Ronaldo'' line.
Lazy journalism if they couldn't see that we wouldn't have needed Valencia.
If they focused on the debt levels and the supporters being treated like shit, then it would have been better.
Well done.In other news, Napoleon surrendered at Waterloo.
Lazy journalism if they couldn't see that we wouldn't have needed Valencia.
If they focused on the debt levels and the supporters being treated like shit, then it would have been better.
So, gchq, do you expect the debt to ever be cleared or an endless cycle of refinancing while they milk the club for every penny they can?
What happens if UEFA introduce sterner "anti-debt" measures that exclude us from Champions League entry?
What happens if UEFA introduce sterner "anti-debt" measures that exclude us from Champions League entry?
UEFA won't introduce those measures because it would mean they'd have to exclude several of Europe's top clubs from the Champions League.
And yes, the debt will continue to be refinanced and due to inflation it will become less significant as time goes by.
The latter statement assumes BAU though, yes, as well as no growth in the debt for it to be considered as less significant. You have said that the money is there for players. Will Sir Alex have the funds next year to replace Scholes, Giggs, Van Der Sar and Neville with the same quality equivalents? There is an obvious conflict between the now somewhat cliched "no value in the market" and the opportunity cost of not signing quality replacements.
do you have any idea about the time-frame you are looking at for inflation to make our debt "less significant"?
The accounting adjustments are there to reflect the true performance of a company and match the costs to the period, so no, not a large understatement. The only one I'd say to exclude would be the amortisation of the goodwill.
Re the debt decreasing with inflation, unless the inflation becomes higher than the loan interest that is being capitalised then the effect of inflation will be negligible. Given that the pik interest is 16.25% this would appear unlikely. Your scenario only really works if the debt is a fixed amount.
Yup, all £35.3m of it. The other thing to point out is that in a ''normal'' year there is a £15m-£20m profit on disposal of players so it gives a false impression to discount all of the £80m profit on disposal of players in the 2008/09 period. So the ''would have lost money (c.£30m) without selling Ronaldo'' argument is c.£50m incorrect. So like I said, you were making a rather large understatement.
The bond is a fixed amount and that's the borrowing that matters because it's secured against the club's assets.
Over the life of the bonds. So in around six years time depending on when the next refinancing takes place.
Yes, Sir Alex will have the funds. There will have been c.£160m in the bank as of June 30 2010, so even in a worst case scenario where the Glazers channel as much cash as they're allowed to up to RFJV, there will be more than enough cash available to spend on players next summer.
Apart from that the most important point to make is that the club will save a lot of money on wages when those players retire and those savings will be reallocated to pay the wages of new signings.
That's some inflation rate your forecasting!
The papers were referring to the financial results, not cash, so were correct. It wasn't MUST propoganda as you are trying to insinuate. As for the rest it has been discussed in depth previously and not worth revisiting.
Others would disagree that it'd the only borrowing that matters, but you are correct if you are only referring to the bonds. It should be noted that even though the real value of the debt in real terms will decrease, it still yields a premium interest rate that doesn't.
If you are replacing one high wage with another, you are not saving the club any money at all.
The strategy must surely be to take out the PIKS as quickly as possible. Once that's done the bond coupon is comfortable to service.
Bollocks. The most important points are to make the club as successful as possible while remaining accessible to local fans. They've failed on the second point, guess we'll see on the second point next summer.
The £160m - when are the accounts out to show this?
That's what I would expect, but at present it doesn't appear to be in their short term plan.
What time does it go in
The more interesting question is when does it go out to service Glazer debt.
Now the Glazers wouldnt do that Peter, they have the best interests of the club and its fans at heart
You're so naive Paddy - watch them pay off their debt and marvel at GCHQ's gymnastics to 'prove' that no money has been taken out of the club. 31 July is the day I think.
Not at all they wouldnt do that
It won't move anywhere until the transfer window shuts after Sir Alex has seen no value in the market. Nuff said.
I hope you posted that with your tin foil hat on.
Ah right so even though the ''would have lost money without selling Ronaldo'' argument is completely spurious it's ok because the papers were referring to the financial results. MUST have used that argument themselves on numerous occasions and I'm sure have been briefing the media along the same lines, so yes, I'm afraid it was MUST propaganda. You only think the rest of my post isn't worth revisiting because it catergorically proves that the media and MUST propaganda is BS.
No shit. Where have I said anything different?
Will we know at the end of July whether or not the money has gone yankee doodle or we will we have to wait until the next accounts?
The club can only remain accessible to local fans up to a point. We're not a charity and so many of the poor people of Trafford and Stretford will miss out. That's just life I'm afraid.
The club has been extremely successful under the Glazers ownership, though one can't help but notice that this fact greatly disappoints some so called United ''supporters''.
The next accounts are due out at the end of August.
I can't answer that.
You aint a communist that is for sure
Perceptive chap, aren't you?
You what?
You seem to be a little confused. The papers were reporting that we would have made a financial loss, not referring to actual money from the headlines that were posted on the previous page. I'm sure the media have enough nous to be able to analyse a set of accounts without having to be briefed what to say by MUST.
If you haven't noticed, this whole thread and others have discussed the accounts in detail hence I am not going to engage any more on it.
Paddy doesn't like to swear what he meant in industrial language is 'you're a right cnut aren't you?'.
Well the fact that you mentioned a saving here perhaps:
It's a rather contradictory sentence.
GCHQ just seems to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome to me.
Im puzzled why not. When will we know, sincere question
Sports journalists haven't got a fecking clue how to analyse a set of accounts. They just look for the highest number they can find and put a sensationalist spin on it. You'll note that whenever the Financial Times write a piece about United's finances they're always vastly better informed and balanced articles.
Do you not think it's significant that the ''would have lost money without selling Ronaldo'' line was used on numerous occasions by journalists and MUST even though the whole argument is completely spurious?
Of course there's a saving when the player retires. My point was that the money saved by not having to continue paying that retired player can effectively be put towards paying the wages of a new signing/direct replacement.