You're a bit posh to be a proper Commie, aren't you Peter?
Panorama: Man United - Into the Red, BBC One, Tuesday, 8 June
- Thread starter mickthered
- Start date
I don't know. How the hell am I supposed to know precisely when cash will be chanelled up to RFJV?
Seriously mate and no insult intended but for a person of your obvious financial expertise I cant figure out what is so complicated about what I am asking, when we will know if the money in the accounts is still here? surely there is a timescaleI don't know. How the hell am I supposed to know precisely when cash will be chanelled up to RFJV?
So now you are blaming the sports journalists for not having 'a fecking clue' instead of it being some huge MUST conspiracy?
But you are just replacing one cost with another, so it's all an irrelevance unless you are paying the new player significantly less and not really worth mentioning.
I was making a general point about sports journalists and their ability to comprehend financial statements. MUST have regularly been briefing journalists over the last few months and the ''would have lost money without selling Ronaldo'' line has been one of their favourites.
It is worth mentioning because it makes it considerably easier to finance new signings.
So have you been privy to these briefings to be able to say that as fact?
We all can admit that journalists favor sensationalism rather than complete truth & this makes for a far more interesting headline than a accounts summary. Even if the journalists knew the truth they would still have run with loss without Ronaldo line with approporiate exclusions carefully submerged in the article.
I'D suggest that the replacements for giggs and the neviller are already at the club so there could be a potential saving.
If theres one thing Paddy is, its observant.
The headlines were correct though, hence why I don't really see the value of this line of argument.
We also bought Valencia, Tosic and Obertan. For all we know, most of the Ronaldo money has already been spent. Only time will tell, but I think you might have a long wait if you are expecting United to splurge £80m net any time soon. Those PIKs won't pay themselves.
I wouldn't expect fergie to spend £80m net piks or not.
When have United ever splurged 80m net?
One of these days you might just stop misrepresenting damned near everything that goes on with the club, but I'm not holding my breath.
No they weren't correct. The papers were saying we would have lost ''money'' without the sale of Ronaldo when in actual fact we would have simply have made an accounting loss.
The latest results will be out at the end of August.
No. However, Andy Green admitted that he tried to stop MUST from briefing the media with the ''would have lost money without selling Ronaldo'' line.
I can't recall seeing headlines using 'money' in them but as I've repeated numerous times this has all been discussed in depth so this is all rather pointless.
It's not pointless because MUST and the media were completely twisting the reality of United's/Red Football's financial results. If they had reported that United would have made an accounting loss without the sale of Ronaldo and then outlined why items such as goodwill amortisation shouldn't be included then that would have been fine. Clearly that wasn't the case though and we all know why.
Whats has goodwill got to do with the sale of ronaldo and the money/Cash inflow that generated?
I was talking about the affect that goodwill amortisation has to the P/L account.
Yes but they were talking about the effect of ronaldos sale and the £80m cash which you seem to dispute. The goodwill is a separate issue.
Spoken like a Glazer. Which one are you?
It's equally easy to argue the case that we've been successful in spite of the Glazers. Or does Sir Alex's 19 year reign before their invasion count for nothing?
So, how much of the £160m bank balance is deferred income (advanced ST renewals and UEFA income)? Cash in bank as at 31 March was £96m. This deferred income is really part of the 2010/2011 revenue stream and hence will feed the EBITDA for that accounting period. I don't think that chunk of deferred income can be considered as money available for capital expenditure.
The EBITDA estimate for this accounting period (From 1st July) is around £100m, but if you deduct bond interest, max dividend entitlement, management fee, facility capex, swap loss payment, and allow for fact that cash under-performs EBITDA to the tune of £9m (as a result of the Aon deal), there might be a little as £10m for squad investment coming through from income.
What part of 'it's been discussed in depth' do you fail to comprehend?
round and round, round and round, round in circles we go....
Doubt it. Thought we'd have had an answer by now from GCHQ to my last question.
I dispute the claim that United ''would have lost money without the sale of Ronaldo'' because it's not true! The £35.3m non-cash goodwill amortisation charge is a vital part of why that statement isn't correct.
More like you don't want to admit that the media and MUST claims about United reporting a loss without the sale of Ronaldo are completely meaningless because it would simply have been an accounting loss which included irrelevant non-cash expenses such as goodwill amortisation.
No, just that all of this has been discussed before, at the time if the results announcement. Is it that difficult for you to understand?
You seem to be stressing far too much importance on headlines from months ago that have no real relevance to the current situation which most people want to discuss.
As for the goodwill being an irrelevant expense, that's not really correct. It represents the additional cost of purchasing the club that was effectively financed by debt so is a relevant cost.
£215m has been spent on players in the last five years, an average cash spend on players of £43m pa. The club also has one of the top five largest wage bills in Europe at c.£125m. Clearly Fergie has been well supported by the owners when it comes to squad investment.
Looking at previous years, c.£70m of the c.£160m cash reserves will be deferred income.
The cash balance at the end of each quarter in the 2009/10 year was £150m at June 30 2009, £146m at September 30 2009, £122m at December 31 2009, £96m at March 31 2010, rising to c.£160m at June 30 2010.
It's important to point out that there was one-off exceptional expenditure in the third quarter of c.£15m relating to the bond issue so a more relevant figure for the end of March 2010 would be c. £110m.
Remember that there was also a net cash outflow of £32.5m on transfer expenditure in the nine months to March 31 2010. So from that you can see that without transfer spending the cash balance would be roughly the same after nine months of the year as it was at the start of the accounting period.
If net cash transfer expenditure is zero then the club's cash balance increases by £50m a year, so clearly the deferred income can be considered as money available for transfer expenditure.
As for your second point. There could well be postive changes to working capital which cancel out the impact of the £9m pa already received from the AON deal. I also wouldn't discount the management fee from the projected £100m EBITDA for next year. Remember that there was a management fee of £3m paid in the 2008/09 year when EBITDA was £91m.
So I think we're looking at c.£50m cash available to spend on capex with a maximum of c.£23m of that available as a dividend. It goes without saying that the Glazers won't take out the maximum allowed dividend every year. When you consider that the club's current cash balance could comfortably allow for the PIK loan to be stabilised in the short-medium term with immediate one-off dividend payments of up to £95m, then I really don't think there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the club's ability to finance considerable annual net transfer expenditure going forward.
It is completely irrelevant when all that matters now is the club's/Red Football's operating performance and its ability to service its borrowings whilst at the same time making sufficient cash available for capex.
Those headlines played a major part in all the BS that has been spouted and continues to be spouted about United's finances. You understand that surely?
We're going to have the exact same scenario for the 2009/10 year results. Red Football Limited will report a c.£80m accounting loss but crucially that figure will include c.£105m of completely irrelevant non-cash charges and one-off exceptional costs. I haven't included the depreciation of fixed assets and amortisation of player registrations in that figure because those items obviously are relevant.
I can see the media headlines now. They won't mention those c.£105m of expenses and will instead simply say: ''United make £80m loss!!! That's what happens when the club aren't able to sell a player for £80m every year!''
And 90% of people will take those headlines at face value.
£215m on players?
2005 - Park (£4m), van der Sar (£2m)
2006 - Carrick (£18.6m), Evra (£5m), Vidic (£7m), Foster (£2m)
2007 - Nani (£17m) Anderson (£17m), Hargreaves (£17m), Tevez (£10m - Loan), Rafael (£?), Fabio (£?)
2008 - Berbatov (£30.75m),
2009 - Valencia (£17m), Obertan (£3m), Owen (Free), Diouf (£3m)
2010 - Hernandez (£10m), Smalling (£7m)
I make that £150m - add a few more million on for a few fringe players and you still fall someway short of your £215m figure. Unless I've missed a big signing off.
2005 - Park (£4m), van der Sar (£2m)
2006 - Carrick (£18.6m), Evra (£5m), Vidic (£7m), Foster (£2m)
2007 - Nani (£17m) Anderson (£17m), Hargreaves (£17m), Tevez (£10m - Loan), Rafael (£?), Fabio (£?)
2008 - Berbatov (£30.75m),
2009 - Valencia (£17m), Obertan (£3m), Owen (Free), Diouf (£3m)
2010 - Hernandez (£10m), Smalling (£7m)
I make that £150m - add a few more million on for a few fringe players and you still fall someway short of your £215m figure. Unless I've missed a big signing off.
I make that £170m.
You haven't included transfer fees for PIG (£4m?) and Tosic (£7m?). The twins reportedly cost £2.6m each. Hargreaves and Anderson both reportedly cost just over £20m when performance related payments are included. The vast majority, if not all, of the above fees weren't disclosed by the club which is why I take my figures from the club's independently audited cash flow statements since the Glazers takeover.
You also have to take into account agents fees which are included as a cost of acquiring players registrations and there will have been compensation paid for numerous youngsters over the last five years.
You wouldn't believe the number of people who berated me for even suggesting that those two had cost around that fee last year. People were informing us, how Anderson cost "15 million euros at most".
Youngsters we paid (or possibly paid) either compensation or a transfer fee for since 2005: Eikrem, Macheda, Cofie, Brady, King, Possebon, Petrucci, De Laet, McGinty, Pogba, Massacci, Fornasier.
Anderson and Nani cost around £8m each, with performance related clauses taking it up to £17m.
Are you suggesting that the independently audited accounts lied Elvis? Don't be silly.
Absolute nonsense. They cost £14m (Nani) and £17m (Anderson) respectively with performance related clauses taking those figures up to £17m and £20m.
The confusion appears to have come from the fact that United paid the initial transfer fees over a two year period (which is perfectly normal practice in the football industry).
Fanboys and people trying to make the transfer sound better (or not as bad) than it was I would imagine.
The club has paid c.£90m for the registrations of Anderson, Nani, Berbatov and Hargreaves and frankly the return on that investment has so far been pretty poor.
Fergie's best three signings (not just ''signings'' in terms of value but the actual quality of the players too) under the Glazers ownership cost a total of c.£15m (Van Der Sar, Evra and Vidic) which rather neatly shows that the size of a transfer fee has little baring on how well the player will perform for the club.