We all know the glazers are parasites and all we are arguing about it how bad the financial situation is.
Or in GCHQs case how wonderful the financial situation is.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Or in GCHQs case how wonderful the financial situation is.
MikeUpNorth
Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 20,041
As I've tried to argue all the way along. We dont know how much of United is secured agaisnt the PIKs
100% surely?
We dont know the ins and outs of the covenants. So without knowing those details you cannot discount anything.
You can discount a deal whereby hedge funds lend someone money and then allow them to take that money out of the structure and not pay them back. Hedge funds may be bastards, but they're not stupid.
One thing I am sure of. At some point, Glazer has to put money back into his shopping malls, because the money to buy United was taken from there. He can barely afford to cover the loans he's taken out so at some point or other he is going to get the money and put it back. I am absolutely convinced of it.
How he does it, thats a different matter.
Whilst the bond issue is in place the maximum amount that can leave the club is defined as per the bond prospectus.
The Mail can't even get the name of the company right. A tragically bad newspaper.
fredthered
I want Peter Kenyon back
Whilst the bond issue is in place the maximum amount that can leave the club is defined as per the bond prospectus.
We know what they can take out.
What we dont know is what they are able to do with it.
fredthered
I want Peter Kenyon back
The Mail can't even get the name of the company right. A tragically bad newspaper.
Let me guess. Because they don't agree with your expert financial analysis.
You sound like a patronising old man here.
I accepted that I might be judgemental. I was going to provide a link to the shit article Crerand posted here so that you could look at the photo for yourself but the Telegraph appear to have taken the article down. Presumably because it was so shit.
What you are basically doing there though is calling me names.
You'd normally say something to me if I came up with such a weak argument.
You seem obsessed with Anders. His blog is far less influential than you think. I would imagine the percentage of the fanbase who read it is very low.
Not obsessed with Anders but I have seen him on the TV at least twice (on Sky Sports News once and on the Panorama documentary) in the last 10 months and I have seen his name mentioned in countless newspaper articles during the same period.
Stop trying to pretend his influence is minimal. Again, you don't do your argument any good.
There is nothing wrong with criticism or sceptisim. It is far healthier than apathy.
I would suggest that when it is constant criticism and scepticism then it is actually worse than apathy. The chances of seeing a positive Glazer story coming from MUST or Anders are probably slightly lower than the chances of seeing the Yeti playing centre-forward for United.
Excellent, the inevitable success argument! At least you are consistently predictable.
Again. A weak response. I don't see what is wrong with pointing to the success that has been maintained under the Glazers. You can be damn certain that Anders and MUST would be all over it like a rash if we were in Liverpool's position right now.
Anders himself came on here yesterday and said how the financial picture could change dramatically if we weren't successful so I guess success is generally agreed to be a good thing by both sides of the argument. Except you who just changes what is important to suit the argument at hand, it seems.
Please explain what damage that MUST have done that is greater than the cost to United of the debt imposed on it by the Glazers and the ticket price increases pricing out some of the core support?
No. You show me how the debt has damaged United. You show me how the pricing out of "core-support" has damaged United (you might have to prove that the core support (whatever the hell that is) has been priced out first, though).
I cannot possibly see how the core support has been priced out. You have them all down as financial analysts and business experts. They must all be earning a fair few bob in positions like that.
By constantly undermining the owners and turning the fans against them, it can only have had a negative impact. How can that kind of thing possibly be a positive for the club?
When they are telling people not to buy the shirts and buy their own G&G shirts and scarves, how can that not have a negative impact on club revenues?
They may not have come out and said "boycott" but the implication was always there - starve the Glazers of your money - force them out.
Negative.
fredthered
I want Peter Kenyon back
When they are telling people not to buy the shirts and buy their own G&G shirts and scarves,.
Can you provide me evidence of where MUST have told fans not to buy merchandise ?
fredthered
I want Peter Kenyon back
By constantly undermining the owners and turning the fans against them, it can only have had a negative impact.
It may have escaped your notice but the fans were against them owning the club the moment they showed interest.
They are not undermining the owners. They are simply re-iterating what we've known all along.
They cannot afford to own United. Just like Gillette and Hicks cannot afford Liverpool. Or are you suggesting SOS have undermined them and if they'd been left to their own devices Liverpool would have been just peachy.
For anyone interested, this thread has inspired me to enroll on an Open University undergraduate accountancy course starting in February. Pretty exciting, eh?
Huh? I had you down as more Rick Moody, the writer, than Doofus Dullard, the accountant. Good luck in any event.
On the current model any old cnut (like you for example) could own the club since club funds are being used to fund the acquisition.
Now now peter. There's no need for name-calling. I would suggest that you are probably older and more of a cnut than me, anyway.
Well. Why don't you pop down to RBS in the morning and ask them to give you one billion quid? Then you could buy United, sell all our players to Arsenal and be a very happy man.
fredthered
I want Peter Kenyon back
They may not have come out and said "boycott" but the implication was always there - starve the Glazers of your money - force them out.
Negative.
Negative to the Glazers yes..
Its not negative to the long term future of United and the supporters.
fredthered
I want Peter Kenyon back
Now now peter. There's no need for name-calling. I would suggest that you are probably older and more of a cnut than me, anyway.
Well. Why don't you pop down to RBS in the morning and ask them to give you one billion quid? Then you could buy United, sell all our players to Arsenal and be a very happy man.
After whats happened with Liverpool I cant see RBS rushing to hand out money to football clubs in the very near future.
Oh sorry. There wasnt a problem with a leveraged buyout at Liverpool was there.
It was just uneducated morons being fed a load of old crap by self serving supporters looking to feather their own nests.
Its not like the owners bit off more than they could chew and fecked it up completely.
YES YOU DOPEY TWONK..
THE TICKET PRICES ARE GOING THROUGH THE BLOODY ROOF...
HAVE YOU BEEN ASLEEP FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS.
I know they say ignorance is bliss, but you are abusing the privilige...
You might want to read the rest of the post before typing, fred.
You just make yourself look like a twonk who can't work out how to turn his caps lock off.
fredthered
I want Peter Kenyon back
You might want to read the rest of the post before typing, fred.
You just make yourself look like a twonk who can't work out how to turn his caps lock off.
I read the rest of the post, and as putrid shite goes, then I'd say you deserve to be shouted at.
Service... product..
You are one prize A1 plonker
Can you provide me evidence of where MUST have told fans not to buy merchandise ?
We've been here before Fred and you came out second best that time too.
This is not actually the source I had in mind but it has just come to my attention and is actually better at proving my point.
The Fans Shirt vs The Glazer Shirt
Note: The "Glazer" Shirt is actually the Official Manchester United shirt.
It may have escaped your notice but the fans were against them owning the club the moment they showed interest.
Based on what, though? We had just seen Abramovich come in and do wonders for Chelsea. If the finances were not in the public domain, would we not have thought at first that the Glazers might do the same for us?
Or was the initial anti-Glazer sentiment fuelled by the anti-Glazer campaign that MUST had undertaken since Malcolm Glazer first started to buy shares in 2004?
They are not undermining the owners. They are simply re-iterating what we've known all along.
Who's this we? Did we all have some kind of inate knowledge of the Glazers prior to 2004? I think I could have said "Malcolm Glazer" to 99% of United fans in 2004 and they would have looked at me blankly.
They cannot afford to own United. Just like Gillette and Hicks cannot afford Liverpool. Or are you suggesting SOS have undermined them and if they'd been left to their own devices Liverpool would have been just peachy.
Well, they've bought the fecking thing (five years ago, when it was worth much less) so they must have been able to afford it.
The question is now: can they produce the revenues required to maintain it?
The evidence suggests that they can and that they will - given a fair chance by the likes of MUST.
H&G couldn't do this and that appears to be why they have found themselves in trouble. Unlike ours which are now pretty well contained, Liverpool's debts appear to have spiralled out of control.
I don't mind arguing the toss with you fred but at least come with an argument that isn't comparing apples with oranges.
Excuse me, but I've been saying all along that could be the case, and you've stood here saying its just impossible.
Completely changed your tune now.
Nah you were just listening to a different tune.
Is there? I don't think there's any way the PIK terms would allow significant cash leakage from RFJV. Otherwise the Glazers could strip the club, funnel themselves the cash and leave the PIKs to default, with the PIK lenders then owning a worthless asset. No chance any lender puts themselves in that position.
As far as I understand there 2 different possible payments: the first is a one off special dividend of upto £70m which is specifically for PIK payment. The other is an annual dividend - I think it would be something like £25m but is dependant on hitting certain EBITDA targets. With the second they can do whatever they want but some people believe they will also use that to attack the PIKs.
Basically there are many possibilities and todays results will just be another piece in the jigsaw of information which is far from complete.
I read the rest of the post, and as putrid shite goes, then I'd say you deserve to be shouted at.
Service... product..
You are one prize A1 plonker
I know you're not a businessman, fred. You wouldn't understand.
Keep pushing those lift buttons though. You might get a promotion to window licker one day.
Ole's_toe_poke
Ole_Aged_Slow_Poke
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,846
I don't see why our pro-Glazer crowd think its OK for us to paying a huge slice of our turnover on interest payments on debt that was not incurred by the club but by having the Glazers own us
I don't see why our pro-Glazer crowd think its OK for us to paying a huge slice of our turnover on interest payments on debt that was not incurred by the club but by having the Glazers own us
Firstly because revenues have increased since they took over to such an extent that they cover the interest payments and more besides so some of us don't see it as such a problem.
Secondly because there are some of us who feel pretty pissed off that some people out there have been telling us how fecked we are but a closer inspection of the accounts reveals that the situation is nowhere near as bad as we were led to believe (i.e. Manchester United is not going to be asset-stripped, plunged into oblivion and left an empty, bankcrupt shell of what it once was).
Thirdly, some of us don't want some half-arsed attempt to over-throw what we currently have in favour of something that might even be worse and so we try to bring some balance to the debate before we all go out and boycott our tickets.
There are probably other reasons for some of the other so-called "pro-Glazer crowd" but that's my take on it.
GCHQ sounds a little concerned, all not well in Glazerland? The 20% they own of the PIKs is of no benefit to the club, the club pays the interest and the Glazers personally collect it do they not
Wrong. Again.
Despite being told over and over again you fail at every opportunity to grasp any of the concepts under discussion in this thread. And yet somehow you still manage to convince yourself that you're right about everything. It's mental.
It's a complete waste of time conversing with you, Crerand, you're absolutely clueless when it comes to this stuff and you've shown no inclination whatsoever that you intend to alter the fact. Total time-waster.
RedThaiDevils#7
Full Member
Manchester United to announce £60m loss despite being first English club to break through £100m operating profit mark - report
8 Oct 2010 07:40:00
Manchester United's latest financial figures will be announced this morning, with a British first £100 million operating profit overshadowed by an overall loss of £60m, according to Press Association Sport.
The club's controversial owners, the Glazers, have boosted income by instigating a 'territory specific' approach to deals. This has seen individual telecommunications partnerships in different parts of the world, with the latest being that signed in Hong Kong with PCCW.
Increased exploration of the commercial sector by director Richard Arnold is understood to be the reason for the main jump in the figure as matchday revenue has dropped due to the decline in corporate ticket revenues.
Attention will be stolen by any loss incrued, however. A decline in the value of the playing squad could be one factor, but interest will centre on whether a dividend has been paid to the American owners and how much has leaked out through interest repayments.
A large one-off cost was charged following the £500m bond issue earlier this year that sparked the wave of protest from supporters. Money could also have been withdrawn to help pay off the £200m Payment in Kind debt which has a set interest rate at 16.25 per cent.
Anyone care to explain why a 100m profit makes a 60m loss ? 16.25% in interest ? Jesus... Who the feck is doing the accounting there ?
Anyone care to explain why a 100m profit makes a 60m loss ? 16.25% in interest ? Jesus... Who the feck is doing the accounting there ?
A large portion of our outgoings detailed on the Profit&Loss statement will be non-cash expenses and as such do not effect the the operating profit of the club at all; we're talking multiple tens of £millions that though appear on the accounts as actual costs quite simply just aren't so. The club then made a considerable cash profit despite the accounts showing a financial loss made up largely of irrelevent non-cash expenses.
The 16.5% interest is on the Glazers personal debt, thus far United hasn't paid one penny towards that; the Glazers have never taken a dividend from the club.
RedThaiDevils#7
Full Member
Let's say the Glazers loaned 400m to cover their bid, paying 16.5% a year would be like 64m a year ?
This means the longer they stay, the more debt they pay from their own pockets... How will they benefit this on the long run ?
This means the longer they stay, the more debt they pay from their own pockets... How will they benefit this on the long run ?
£100m+ pre-exceptional EBITDA would be pretty sensational. That would be £5m+ ahead of what the Glazers projected back in 2006. You'd be looking at EBITDA growth year on year of 10%+ for the last two full financial periods during the worst recession in living memory!
These boys ain't riding out of town any time soon.
These boys ain't riding out of town any time soon.
Let's say the Glazers loaned 400m to cover their bid, paying 16.5% a year would be like 64m a year ?
This means the longer they stay, the more debt they pay from their own pockets... How will they benefit this on the long run ?
Well the PIK debt is reportedly a little over £200m, of which we know they own at least 20% themselves, so effectively it's just £140m at 16.5%. Nobody knows their plan for this, their personal debt, and nobody knows any details of the terms and conditions either; it's their debt, nothing to do with the club.
If the Glazers wished to take the option, as owners they're entitled to certain limited dividends from United (currently limited to around £25m per season plus a one-off carve-out of £70m), but as far as we know they've not taken this option, nobody knows why.
The Glazers are benefitting financially from the club though because they're pushing up its overall value; as long as their PIK's don't spiral out of control then they're making a profit by increasing value of their primary asset (the club). They bought the club for £800m and five years later it's worth £1.5bn; a tidy profit should they decide to sell.
Try and second guess the Glazers and they pull aces out of their sleeves; nobody knows the true situation with the PIK's, nobody likely ever will know, we can only guess.
datura
Full Member
I accepted that I might be judgemental. I was going to provide a link to the shit article Crerand posted here so that you could look at the photo for yourself but the Telegraph appear to have taken the article down. Presumably because it was so shit.
What you are basically doing there though is calling me names.
You'd normally say something to me if I came up with such a weak argument.
I said 'sound like' that is not name calling, it is a weak argument that I can't really believe you are trying to defend.
Not obsessed with Anders but I have seen him on the TV at least twice (on Sky Sports News once and on the Panorama documentary) in the last 10 months and I have seen his name mentioned in countless newspaper articles during the same period.
Stop trying to pretend his influence is minimal. Again, you don't do your argument any good.
You are obsessed with him, you freely admitted following and posting on his blog and refer to his blogs. You are seeing things just from your side and have become rather myopic in your view. I didn't say his influence was minimal, just that you are overstating it, as you have the tendency to do to try and buffer a weak argument.
I would suggest that when it is constant criticism and scepticism then it is actually worse than apathy. The chances of seeing a positive Glazer story coming from MUST or Anders are probably slightly lower than the chances of seeing the Yeti playing centre-forward for United.
Why again the focus on MUST and Anders?
Again. A weak response. I don't see what is wrong with pointing to the success that has been maintained under the Glazers. You can be damn certain that Anders and MUST would be all over it like a rash if we were in Liverpool's position right now.
Anders himself came on here yesterday and said how the financial picture could change dramatically if we weren't successful so I guess success is generally agreed to be a good thing by both sides of the argument. Except you who just changes what is important to suit the argument at hand, it seems.
Again, you mention Anders and MUST when they are not important or relevant!
Many would argue (more convincingly) that the success has been in spite of the Glazers and due to the excellent management of SAF.
My position has been consistent. Another strange comment.
No. You show me how the debt has damaged United. You show me how the pricing out of "core-support" has damaged United (you might have to prove that the core support (whatever the hell that is) has been priced out first, though).
I cannot possibly see how the core support has been priced out. You have them all down as financial analysts and business experts. They must all be earning a fair few bob in positions like that.
By constantly undermining the owners and turning the fans against them, it can only have had a negative impact. How can that kind of thing possibly be a positive for the club?
When they are telling people not to buy the shirts and buy their own G&G shirts and scarves, how can that not have a negative impact on club revenues?
They may not have come out and said "boycott" but the implication was always there - starve the Glazers of your money - force them out.
Negative.
This has to be a parody, you can't be serious and have failed to read any of the the discussion properly (the shirt argument).
I don't understand your consistent attempts to undermine the fanbase? It is pretty clear that the price increases have priced out a number of the fans, it is a fact.
You've also failed (predictably) to address the actual issue and gone off on a rant about MUST that you can't back up. The financial effect of any boycott is far less costly to the club than financing the debt. There has been no cost to the club of people not buying the shirts.
Anyone care to explain why a 100m profit makes a 60m loss ? 16.25% in interest ? Jesus... Who the feck is doing the accounting there ?
Well you've got c.£65m of irrelevant non-cash expenses/losses and c.£40m of exceptional refinancing costs relating to the swap loss included in that. So in short, that accounting ''loss'' of c.£60m isn't worth a second's thought.
Escobar
Shameless Musketeer
Well you've got c.£65m of irrelevant non-cash expenses/losses and c.£40m of exceptional refinancing costs relating to the swap loss included in that. So in short, that accounting ''loss'' of c.£60m isn't worth a second's thought.
non-cash expenses like what? Can you give examples? And are they deducted after the profit is evaluated?
I'm old fashioned and quite simplistic in my approach to business. Turnover matters very little if I end up with less money than I had started the year. I count what I have left over as profit after paying for all business related costs.
non-cash expenses like what? Can you give examples?
Sure.
There's £35.3m of goodwill amortisation.
c.£21m of unrealised foreign exchange losses on the dollar denominated bonds which is meaningless given that the bonds don't reach maturity until 2017.
c.£6m of amortised debt issue costs from the old bank debt.
datura
Full Member
Well you've got c.£65m of irrelevant non-cash expenses/losses and c.£40m of exceptional refinancing costs relating to the swap loss included in that. So in short, that accounting ''loss'' of c.£60m isn't worth a second's thought.
You can't discount the c£40m refinancing costs though, just need to caveat that they are not 'normal' business. They are entirely relevant to the current year results.
Escobar
Shameless Musketeer
Sure.
There's £35.3m of goodwill amortisation.
c.£21m of unrealised foreign exchange losses on the dollar denominated bonds which is meaningless given that the bonds don't reach maturity until 2017.
c.£6m of amortised debt issue costs from the old bank debt.
So they are deducted after the profit? (EBITDA that is?) Well, in the end, its still a loss which does not make a good financial year. Or am I missing something?
Escobar
Shameless Musketeer
You can't discount the c£40m refinancing costs though, just need to caveat that they are not 'normal' business. They are entirely relevant to the current year results.[/QUOTE]
Thats what I thought too, they worsen our financial results and make it a loss. but then again i am no accountant
Sure.
There's £35.3m of goodwill amortisation.
c.£21m of unrealised foreign exchange losses on the dollar denominated bonds which is meaningless given that the bonds don't reach maturity until 2017.
c.£6m of amortised debt issue costs from the old bank debt.
Surely it's money gone out of the clubs ownership. It's costs/expenses whatever accounting terms are used...
You can't discount the c£40m refinancing costs though, just need to caveat that they are not 'normal' business. They are entirely relevant to the current year results.
A very large caveat that they don't reflect normal business.
Escobar
Shameless Musketeer
A very large caveat that they don't reflect normal business.
But they reflect our business as a whole - and lead to a loss. Its still money that flows out of the club, money that would stay at the club if the Glazers didnt put the debt on the club...
So they are deducted after the profit? (EBITDA that is?) Well, in the end, its still a loss which does not make a good financial year. Or am I missing something?
Yup, deducted after EBITDA.
It's an accounting ''loss'' which is entirely due to the irrelevant non-cash losses that I mentioned and there's also the £40m exceptional refinancing costs which won't be repeated.
It's a good financial year because the underlying trading performance is very strong. EBITDA growth of 10%+ year on year for both of the last two full financial periods during the worst recession in living memory. That's very impressive, simple as that.
But they reflect our business as a whole - and lead to a loss. Its still money that flows out of the club, money that would stay at the club if the Glazers didnt put the debt on the club...
Basically we have less money than we started the previous accounting year despite higher turnover.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Share: