You're a bit posh to be a proper Commie, aren't you Peter?Paddy doesn't like to swear what he meant in industrial language is 'you're a right cnut aren't you?'.
You're a bit posh to be a proper Commie, aren't you Peter?Paddy doesn't like to swear what he meant in industrial language is 'you're a right cnut aren't you?'.
I don't know. How the hell am I supposed to know precisely when cash will be chanelled up to RFJV?Im puzzled why not. When will we know, sincere question
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?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?
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.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.
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.So now you are blaming the sports journalists for not having 'a fecking clue' instead of it being some huge MUST conspiracy?
It is worth mentioning because it makes it considerably easier to finance new signings.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.
So have you been privy to these briefings to be able to say that as fact?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.
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.So now you are blaming the sports journalists for not having 'a fecking clue' instead of it being some huge MUST conspiracy?
I'D suggest that the replacements for giggs and the neviller are already at the club so there could be a potential saving.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.
If theres one thing Paddy is, its observant.Paddy doesn't like to swear what he meant in industrial language is 'you're a right cnut aren't you?'.
The headlines were correct though, hence why I don't really see the value of this line of argument.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.
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.Is that an assumption on your part cause Fergie has not spent the Ronaldo money yet?
If Fergie says the market is over inflated to make any decent purchase, then I am satisfied to believe him. We did buy Berba and put in a bid for Benzema, but there is no way we can compete against Real or Shitty.
When have United ever splurged 80m net?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.
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 headlines were correct though, hence why I don't really see the value of this line of argument.
The latest results will be out at the end of August.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 timescale
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.So have you been privy to these briefings to be able to say that as fact?
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.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.
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.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.
Whats has goodwill got to do with the sale of ronaldo and the money/Cash inflow that generated?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.
I was talking about the affect that goodwill amortisation has to the P/L account.Whats has goodwill got to do with the sale of ronaldo and the money/Cash inflow that generated?
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.I was talking about the affect that goodwill amortisation has to the P/L account.
Spoken like a Glazer. Which one are you?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.
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?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''.
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 next accounts are due out at the end of August.
What part of 'it's been discussed in depth' do you fail to comprehend?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.
Doubt it. Thought we'd have had an answer by now from GCHQ to my last question.round and round, round and round, round in circles we go....
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.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.
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.What part of 'it's been discussed in depth' do you fail to comprehend?
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?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.
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?
Looking at previous years, c.£70m of the c.£160m cash reserves will be deferred income.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.
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.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.
I make that £170m.£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.
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".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.
Are you suggesting that the independently audited accounts lied Elvis? Don't be silly.Anderson and Nani cost around £8m each, with performance related clauses taking it up to £17m.
Absolute nonsense. They cost £14m (Nani) and £17m (Anderson) respectively with performance related clauses taking those figures up to £17m and £20m.Anderson and Nani cost around £8m each, with performance related clauses taking it up to £17m.
Fanboys and people trying to make the transfer sound better (or not as bad) than it was I would imagine.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".