You know Cider turned in a spreadsheet or two while you were in Florida on R&R. They were quite well received.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
You know Cider turned in a spreadsheet or two while you were in Florida on R&R. They were quite well received.
Yes, I think I saw those when I got back and was catching up. The effects of the 20% PIK purchase on the repayment schedule. I was quite impressed... and depressed... all at the same time.
Sorry, been out of this for a little while. Where does the 280m figure come from ? Surely that's gross revenue before operating costs.
Did GCHQ respond to this?
He was last seen in a nice little charade with his comrades.
Yes, he did.
We all knew that season tickets didn't sell out, that there were about 1,500 left below the 54,000 limit. Why the big deal then when the club sends an e-mail offering to sell those remaining? It's no great revelation that there are still ST's available, frankly i'm surprised that fred et al seem to have been unaware of the situation until now; perhaps he should follow the Glazer threads a little more closely? OT has been full for every game so far; that's all we can hope for really; a reasonably pleasing target to meet. I think the reaction to this latest e-mail then has so far been a resounding 'meh'.
Full every game? All tickets may have sold but it hasn't been full every game. Each one I've been to (Liverpool aside) there have been empty red seats dotted around.
sold out Elvis is full in that nice Mr Glazers eyes and makes him very happy with united fans
in his place i'd be happy tooAll tickets were sold and that's all that matters. There's no ''may have'' about it. They were sold. End of.
I did yes, despite it being a completely meaningless post as we knew season tickets were on sale anyway. Fred appears to have got terribly excited by it all mind.
I was responding to ciders comment that Old Trafford was full for every game. It hasn't been. End of.
Old Trafford as an all seater stadium has never been full for any game then. What's your point?
You're being a cock.
I'm not. I'm just making clear that your point about the stadium not being full is completely meaningless. It's desperate stuff really. You must be able to do better than that surely.
Cider was saying OT has been full every game, I said it hasn't. What's there to dispute?
Well you know what i mean; sold out.
It's clear that Cider meant that all tickets had been sold for every game this season. That means full in the mind of any rational human being. You'd have to be rather odd to think that he meant that every single seat in the stadium had been occupied by somebody for every game this season.
Right, so ralphie and others make a slight mistake on their wording and you all jump on it, cider does it and it's 'obvious' what he meant.
I know how angry you get about misleading information.
I know how angry you get about misleading information.
What slight mistakes are you referring to?
Sorted then, we're even.
I doubt anyone was misled into thinking that 'full' meant every single ticket-holder turned up and there wasn't an empty seat in the stadium, but there you go, you've made your point.
I'll re-post so we can move on...
gaffs said:
Yes, he did.
We all knew that season tickets didn't sell out, that there were about 1,500 left below the 54,000 limit. Why the big deal then when the club sends an e-mail offering to sell those remaining? It's no great revelation that there are still ST's available, frankly i'm surprised that fred et al seem to have been unaware of the situation until now; perhaps he should follow the Glazer threads a little more closely? OT has been sold-out for every game so far; that's all we can hope for really; a reasonably pleasing target to meet. I think the reaction to this latest e-mail then has so far been a resounding 'meh'.
Yes, it's gross revenue before operating costs but the point is that ALL clubs have operating costs but that even with the Glazers taking their cut and the Bond Interest, we still "start off" from a substantial base that is in excess of what most PL clubs bring in.
Ralphie said that the 'vast majority' of the club's revenue was spent on interest payments for the senior debt.
I think some were so quick to correct Ralphie because this is exactly the kind of shite that people so often get confused about, and that it's essential to the point that many of us are making that people are aware that the interest payments are well within the club's capability to make.
I don't think saying 'full' when meaning 'sold-out' is quite such a mistake, but nevermind, Elvis has done his Ally McBeal bit for the day now, we can just move on with 'sold-out' instead.
What esmufc obviously doesn't appreciate is that saying "the game was sold out" when it wasn't is a worse thing to say than saying "the stadium was full", when it wasn't in a thread that it all to do with finances.
Out of 75,000 people, it is reasonable to expect that, on the day, a percentage may not be able to actually make the game for all kinds of reasons, despite the fact that they have purchased a ticket for the game.
Out of 75,000 people, it is reasonable to expect that, on the day, a percentage may not be able to actually make the game for all kinds of reasons, despite the fact that they have purchased a ticket for the game.
I've changed it now anyway so we can move no. Nitpicking over.
Funny really because the issue in this thread was whether all season tickets would be sold and obviously they have not.
That in itself is proof of a slight decline, whether this is just a minor blip due to recession or the beginnings of the risk rising for the Glazers only time will tell.
Some people did say they would definitely sell out though and they have be proved wrong.
EDIT: the other thread was about ST not this one but was locked. Seems to be the current topic of this thread however.
That in itself is proof of a slight decline, whether this is just a minor blip due to recession or the beginnings of the risk rising for the Glazers only time will tell.
Some people did say they would definitely sell out though and they have be proved wrong.
EDIT: the other thread was about ST not this one but was locked. Seems to be the current topic of this thread however.
The jury's out on that one, I suppose.
There was definitely a call to boycott prior to this season and that could have had an impact but, financially speaking, the fact that the games are selling out despite the fact that STs didn't fully sell out is good news because the club will probably be making more money selling those seats on a match-by-match basis than if they had been filled with ST holders.
Yes but if the net revenues are 100m it's slightly different from inferring that there is a figure of 280m to play with. The bond costs around 46m a year and the PIK's which will have to be repaid, at some point, by drawing from the clubs net revenues, probably cost around 25m a year. So that's effectively around 71m which leaves 29m over. From that comes dividends for the Glazers and money for Fergie's team building. It's viable, if things continue as they have been, but not a great margin.
Hmm... £280million or thereabouts is coming in. That much is fact (and is therefore what we, or at least the Glazers, have to "play with") but I appreciate that some prefer to use the £100million EBITDA figure.
The debts can be serviced and the wages paid along with all the other bills any football club has and we still have money left over.
You're also making the mistake of counting what the Glazers can take twice. They can take £25million in dividends. They can't take £25million dividends and THEN take some more to pay off their PIKs (EDIT: there is, of course, the one-off £70million entitlement provided by the Bond Issue)
They either use their £25million divs to pay off the PIKs or find the money from elsewhere.
EDIT: If you want the definition of unviable. Go and check on how much profit Manchester City and Chelsea made this year!
Looking at the long-term viability, what is interesting is how even in these days of a "global football industry" clubs like United are so financially reliant on doing well on the pitch.
Look at the CL TV money for last season. We earned £14m more than Liverpool because:
a) We got to the Qs, they didn't make it out of the group stage
b) We won our domestic league the previous year and they came 2nd.
Those are pretty fine margins worth 14% of our EBITDA.
Matchday income at United last season will probably be slightly down on 2008/09, purely because we played two fewer home games (inc a CL semi). Those two games are equivalent to a quarter of our annual transfer budget.
Like GCHQ says, United won't go bust, but heaven help us if in a post Fergie world we have a couple of mid-table seasons.
Look at the CL TV money for last season. We earned £14m more than Liverpool because:
a) We got to the Qs, they didn't make it out of the group stage
b) We won our domestic league the previous year and they came 2nd.
Those are pretty fine margins worth 14% of our EBITDA.
Matchday income at United last season will probably be slightly down on 2008/09, purely because we played two fewer home games (inc a CL semi). Those two games are equivalent to a quarter of our annual transfer budget.
Like GCHQ says, United won't go bust, but heaven help us if in a post Fergie world we have a couple of mid-table seasons.
Every silver lining has a grey cloud eh, Anders?
The rest of what you're saying there is a bit "No shit, Sherlock" with a smattering of the usual scaremongering to be honest.
It has long been established that doing everything in their power to ensure that we remain at the top end of football is crucial to the Glazers' business-plan. Only a bunch of numpties would have suggested otherwise.
How are your mates doing by the way? They've been unusually quiet of late.
I remember when Sir Matt retired- we were all set for more european cups and we had a hand picked replacement- what happened?....... 26 years in the wilderness that's what. If that happens again I'll still be here but so will only about 8 of you bastards.
EDIT: If you want the definition of unviable. Go and check on how much profit Manchester City and Chelsea made this year!
They are completely irrelevant though as they are not run as businesses.
Oh, yeah. The two clubs above us in the league are completely irrelevant...
When people worry about our future success, it is the likes of Manchester City and Chelsea who, were it not for the FFP Regs, would provide our most serious threat.
However, they will have to drastically improve on their financial performance over the next few years or they'll be completely stuffed - City in particular.
Oh, yeah. The two clubs above us in the league are completely irrelevant...
When people worry about our future success, it is the likes of Manchester City and Chelsea who, were it not for the FFP Regs, would provide our most serious threat.
However, they will have to drastically improve on their financial performance over the next few years or they'll be completely stuffed - City in particular.
Can you write a reply without a stupid smiley when someone disagrees with you?
You are comparing our financial results with theirs when they are not comparable. It makes no sense. They have billionaire owners who are financing them and can just write off the debt at a whim, losses/profits are irrelevant to them.
They'll have to be when the new Uefa regs kick in. What they are doing now is unsustainable.
That wasn't the point. I assume you mean the FIFA Fairplay?
I'm still unsure of how enforceable it will be, but that has been discussed in another thread and isn't relevant here.
Can you actually read what I have written before responding?
The fact is, if the FFP Regs are implemented and succeed in doing what they are intended to do, these clubs will HAVE to be run as a business. The whole point of the FFP Regs is to get clubs to live within their means.
This means that a billionaire owner will be rendered practically impotent.
We are currently living within our means and the situation is only likely to get better as time goes by because the impact of the debt is fixed whilst revenues look more likely to go up rather than down.
It is relevant because Anders just came along and pointed out how stuffed we might be if we had a couple of "mid-table seasons".
Which clubs are in a better situation to fill ten league places above us?
Even if we don't take it to Anders' level of nonsense, what if we finished fifth for a couple of seasons? Which four teams are better equipped than us?
Off the top of my head, the only one is Arsenal. I am not entirely sure about the situations with Spurs and Villa.
So. Is the "if we don't achieve success, we're doomed" argument based on foundations which are realistic or is it based on a pile of doom-mongering crap from an expert in the field?
Can you actually read what I have written before responding?
The fact is, if the FFP Regs are implemented and succeed in doing what they are intended to do, these clubs will HAVE to be run as a business. The whole point of the FFP Regs is to get clubs to live within their means.
This means that a billionaire owner will be rendered practically impotent.
We are currently living within our means and the situation is only likely to get better as time goes by because the impact of the debt is fixed whilst revenues look more likely to go up rather than down.
Excellent, another stupid smiley.
I did read your post and there was no reference to the FFP regulations in it, or the post you were responding too, hence why I commented. Maybe you should have made yourself a little clearer by actually referring to them in your post as I am not psychic to your intentions.
As I also said, discussing the FFPs in relation to other clubs should be done in the proper thread in the football forum.
- Status