No. Non-cash items.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
No. Non-cash items.
The growth is very impressive indeed!
Although one off costs, United lost money this year. Which basically means more debts, equals more interest payments. The cycle continues.
I've never stated that the £40m cash refinancing costs (swap loss) should be discounted from this year's results but it's clearly very important that people acknowledge that the £40m cost won't be repeated again.
If the accounting ''loss'' is c. £60m then once you've deducted the irrelevant non-cash items there's no ''loss'' anyway.
Can you please explain in layman's terms.
The cash balance will be higher than last year.
It's stuff like depreciation and goodwill, things which are given a value for accounting purposes but which have not actually physically cost anything in the year.
The goodwill amortisation charge reflects the acquisition price paid by the Glazers for the club back in 2005 over and above the ''fair value'' of the club's assets at the time of the purchase.
The unrealised foreign exchange losses on the dollar denominated bonds are in there simply because the pound weakened against the dollar (from 1.62 down to 1.50) between the date on which they were issued on January 29 and the end of the financial year on June 30 2010. It simply reflects the increase in the total value of the dollar denominated bonds between the two dates. Bonds that won't reach maturity until 2017.
My daughter is a corporate accountant. She is totally amused by some of the terms and figures being bandied about here. One big farce is going on. Lets see what the accounts say.
To be fair, depreciation does leave the business. We have to renew these assets from time to time. Even more of an issue for football clubs than normal business with players losing value with age. We will have to be particularly aggressive in the transfer market next season with the likes of Giggs, Scholes, Neville, and VDS all coming to the end of their cycle.
I should get my mum on here to read all the posts about my power and influence!
On the the dividend, if they haven't taken it then I am totally baffled, I'll freely admit that.
It isn't just the bond document and it's dozens of pointers, it's the briefings by Woodward to journos in May along the line of "yes but not until after the year end", it's the JP Morgan note assuming it would be paid. It's the capital reorganisation they did in February to allow dividend payments....
But if it hasn't gone, it hasn't gone and I'll hold my hands up!
On the the dividend, if they haven't taken it then I am totally baffled, I'll freely admit that.
It isn't just the bond document and it's dozens of pointers, it's the briefings by Woodward to journos in May along the line of "yes but not until after the year end", it's the JP Morgan note assuming it would be paid. It's the capital reorganisation they did in February to allow dividend payments....
But if it hasn't gone, it hasn't gone and I'll hold my hands up!
Had the currency gone in favour would that have benefited the club?
Well it would have benefited the club in the sense that the half-yearly interest payment at the start of August would have been slightly lower. In terms of the P&L, there would have been an unrealised profit on the dollar bonds but it would be just as irrelevant as the loss that there has been.
Yes, of course you are ciderman.
Indeed we are. Do you ever read anything in the press that we hadn't already been aware of and discussed in great length on here? Do the press articles go into anywhere near as much detail as we do?
No.
Do you dispute that?
As an example, read the Guardian's story published late last night which previewed today's accounts. It's exactly what GCHQ told us two days ago only in far less detail.
Of course we're ahead of the press with our discussions and of course we go into more details. I'm surprised you find that so unbelievable.
Yes, of course you are ciderman.
To be fair he's right. I'll be astonished if there isn't some sort of bebe/financial meltdown combo piece in the mail.
Nobody is saying that the amortisation of player registrations charge and the depreciation of fixed assets charge should be discounted from the results. They're not cash items but they're clearly relevant.
Squeaky bum time Anders.
Doesn't Owen Gibson's well briefed piece in the Guardian tell us that it hasn't been paid?
All indications thus far seem to point towards the Glazers having taken no money from the club, yes.
for those of you who aren't too familiar with accounting concepts, the best place to look (if you have access to the financials) is the cash flow statement.
It'll show you what the actual cash movement of the club was due to and will give you a good idea whether operation inflows are exceeding financing outflows
(ie. does the club make enough actual cash to pay off the interest/debt)
alot of the income statement is meaningless (as pointed out about) due to the purely accounting concepts of amortisation/depreciation expenses and other such things.
It'll show you what the actual cash movement of the club was due to and will give you a good idea whether operation inflows are exceeding financing outflows
(ie. does the club make enough actual cash to pay off the interest/debt)
alot of the income statement is meaningless (as pointed out about) due to the purely accounting concepts of amortisation/depreciation expenses and other such things.
Well yes and no. Now the bond is in place, the payments are semi-annual, Feb and Aug.
So the P&L for Q4 2009/10 will accrue 3 months of bond interest but it won't be in the cash flow i.e. cash outperforms profit.
In Q1 2010/11 they'll be a huge bond cash payment far in excess of the quarterly accrual i.e. profit outperforms cash.....
Cash flow is lumpy, P&L is smoothed. They both have their place.
Yes it does. Are you on the conference call?
The cash flow statement is far more relevant though even with your legitimate point about the interest payments.
Sigh; all this wasted money, even if it is a 'one-off'.
Of course.
I think I can guess what the first question will be then. That should tell us a lot more.
Are you sure Woodward wasn't referring to the end of the calendar year as opposed to financial year in his comment to the journos back in May?
They won't take a question from me (they haven't on the last two calls). Maybe that's what Woodward meant, obviously I got it second hand....
why wouldn't they have used the 70million facility? dumb question I'm sure but surely that would be of benefit if we make the assumption that the club will be required to finance the PIKS in the long run?
Nobody knows. PR?
The results are going to be up on this website in about ten minutes time for anyone interested: Manchester United - MU Finance
not something I'd say they've been hugely concerned with during their tenure. Or at least not when it's going to cost them anything anyway.
That's some fecking pricey pr!
Holy crap, the final loss is £83.6m!!
Shame we didn't have another Ronaldo to sell to make a pro.....oh wait.
Cash at bank £163m. Dividend hasn't been taken. Nothing in the post balance sheet notes.
errm where did you get that from?
Record turnover £286.4m. Record pre-exceptional EBITDA £100.8m.
What's the numbers on debts? That's my line of interest.
Cash at bank and in hand 163,833
Debt due within one year 3,099
Debt due after more than one year (524,769)
Debt due within one year 3,099
Debt due after more than one year (524,769)
- Status