Wages - £131.7m, up from £123.1m the year before. 46% of turnover.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
I thought people on here were adament that we got £8 million for Tosic alone? So it turns out that in total for Foster and Tosic we only got that much? The report also mentions the fees received for Campbell and Martin or is that for the year before?
If they can somehow significantly reduce debts over the years, and keep the team competitive, fans happy and then not use United as collateral for furthering their business interests it should be fine.
I have to say, the longer they hang in there the more worried I am that the Glazers will eventually get the debt down to a sensible level and keep bleeding the club dry for the forseeable future.
What has that go to with anything, we still lost over £80m, there is no bright side to this
As I mentioned before, the club would be in a much healthier position if not for the Glazers. I am astonished that this is ignored completely and the increase of revenue is hailed...
We still pay a shit load of money to serve the debt and we make a loss of 80m fecking poinds, whether it is cash relevant or not, its a huge number and its concerning
I've amended it. That was profit on sale, not cash received. There may be additional stage payments to come also. I'd need to get home and look at it properly as only glancing briefly at work.
That is a very possible scenario
Why would it be hard for the marketing men? they are achieving wonderful results. If anything they should be proud of keeping United in business.
According to Mark Ogden the club's interest and refinancing costs ran at £107m, so if it weren't for the debt we'd be 1.33 Ronaldo's better off.
Sorry Sults but reduce debt? not likely they have trouble paying interest. Team competitive? We have become a selling club. Fans happy? season ticket sales falling and today will accelerate this. Using United as collateral? The Glazers are unscrupulous business men whose empire is in trouble and hemorrhaging cash, of course the first chance they get we will be used as collateral
There was a massive one off payout due to the bond issues earlier in the year plus £40m on interest on the debt.
The media are trying to create hysteria but over the next few years the club will be making a profit .
Is it any wonder there has been no significant investment in the team over the last few years.
Of course they should but I am sure that they would like to see their hard work benefiting the club not disappearing down the Glazer blackhole
Thats like live horse and you will get oats
We're fans CL, we think different.
They'll likely be on bonuses to achieve and I'm sure they'll enjoy their fruits of success.
GCHQ:
We are making a loss of about 40mln per annum (excluding the one off financial costs…) and owe something like 600-700mln that we’ll have to refinance/pay off round 2016.
With all due respect, no matter how you explain it, it is hardly a financial favourable position especially considering we don’t have a sugar daddy aka ManCity. I reckon if we were talking moody’s ratings we’d be down there with something like a C minus rating.
Come 2016 we will be in a similar situation to Liverpool (if something doesn’t happen before then).
We are making a loss of about 40mln per annum (excluding the one off financial costs…) and owe something like 600-700mln that we’ll have to refinance/pay off round 2016.
With all due respect, no matter how you explain it, it is hardly a financial favourable position especially considering we don’t have a sugar daddy aka ManCity. I reckon if we were talking moody’s ratings we’d be down there with something like a C minus rating.
Come 2016 we will be in a similar situation to Liverpool (if something doesn’t happen before then).
That is a serious number! And it shows that the Glazer are not good for our club, no matter how you spin it round
I struggle to see how the Glazers have had a direct correlation to our turnover except with increasing gate receipts. It is the Manchester United brand and success on the pitch that makes us who we are. I'd say we'd be just as successful whoever owned us in terms of our business. And it is all pretty pointless anyway when a huge slice of that goes to pay the debts which like I said wasn't ours to begin with.
I do agree with you about the half-arsed attempt to over-throw though. For example I never bought the whole "Red Knights" thing and that whole campaign seemed amateurish to the extreme.
Truth is I can't see anyone having the kind of capital needed to buy a club like Man Utd without any debt. Unless it is Bill Gates or we go down the Liverpool path where we default on a few loans and the banks force a sale at a very low value. Neither scenario is likely. So for the moment I think we are stuck with them for the medium term anyway. And they continue to spend a vast portion of our resources paying to own the club. Fecking leeches.
Leverage buy-outs should be outlawed
Gross profit was 100m, cost to service the debt was 107m, so I would like to see a breakdown of the additional 73m that resulted in such a large net loss.
The growth in commercial revenue is mandatory if the Glazers are to refinance in the future or maintain liquidity, they are effectively trying to de-risk the business and reduce the highly geared situation. Put it this way, you buy a house two years ago for 100k with a mortgage of 70k, the house is now worth 80k in the current economy and your LTV is at an all time high, you struggle to get a remortgage and you're stuck paying interest rates that have since dropped very low in the market.
You paint the house pink and stick a big pretty bow on it, and get ten polish imigrants to rent a room, you now have a cashflow of rental income. You take that money and extend the house and it is now worth 110k, suddenly you have more equity and you can now remortgage to a lower rate. You now have even more spare cash each month.
In ten years the house is worth 170k, you sell it and walk off into the sunset with your profit.
And as you note the debt has never been touched, it remains the same throughout and interest is merely paid. This is the Glazer plan, get it generating cash and wait for the tides to turn, and they will but the timescale for this is impossible to call.
The growth in commercial revenue is mandatory if the Glazers are to refinance in the future or maintain liquidity, they are effectively trying to de-risk the business and reduce the highly geared situation. Put it this way, you buy a house two years ago for 100k with a mortgage of 70k, the house is now worth 80k in the current economy and your LTV is at an all time high, you struggle to get a remortgage and you're stuck paying interest rates that have since dropped very low in the market.
You paint the house pink and stick a big pretty bow on it, and get ten polish imigrants to rent a room, you now have a cashflow of rental income. You take that money and extend the house and it is now worth 110k, suddenly you have more equity and you can now remortgage to a lower rate. You now have even more spare cash each month.
In ten years the house is worth 170k, you sell it and walk off into the sunset with your profit.
And as you note the debt has never been touched, it remains the same throughout and interest is merely paid. This is the Glazer plan, get it generating cash and wait for the tides to turn, and they will but the timescale for this is impossible to call.
Have to agree with that, take over deals should have restrictions so that a potential new owner can only use loans for a certain % of the cost.
You're not very good at this are you CL?
That post was meant to throw some questions back at the pro Glazers.
But this is not a 20-30 year 100k mortgage on a house, it’s a 600-700mln debt that needs to be refinanced in 2016.
United is still fecked in the ass by the Glazers, without lube... Not much has changed, and our situation is as shit as ever. If you look at the payments, expenses etc, you clearly see why there is "no value in the market"
Pathetic. I cant wait for Gills pathetic spin on the operating profits and commercial revenue
So we're not selling out season tickets. We're losing horrendous figures year on year. Season ticket prices have rose and rose. The fans are turning on each other.
And some people come on here and tell us it's all ok? It's not all ok. Something needs to be done.
And some people come on here and tell us it's all ok? It's not all ok. Something needs to be done.
This is the question, the club has a shit load of cash (£163m)... why haven't they taken the dividend and paid down the PIKs? It doesn't make sense, why leave that money in the club when it could be servicing their personal debts?
I can only think of the following possible reasons:
1. To avoid negative publicity
2. They plan to make large club asset purchases with the money
3. They own more of the PIKs than the 20% suggested and are using them as a tax offset
Rood, Anders, thoughts?
I can only think of the following possible reasons:
1. To avoid negative publicity
2. They plan to make large club asset purchases with the money
3. They own more of the PIKs than the 20% suggested and are using them as a tax offset
Rood, Anders, thoughts?
Yeah, I'd like some thoughts on this one as well. Makes no sense to me.
£12m is set aside for Carrington renovations, no? Maybe the rest is Mourinho's singing on fee after SAF calls it a day 
That's not correct at all. In 2017 the remaining debt will be re-financed at a more favourable rate, and by then revenues should have grown enough to make future interest payments all but insignificant. Liverpool's owners got their sums wrong; by all accounts and in contrast our owners have got them right.
These latest results describe a financially healthy company with an excellent rate of growth. Those praising the club's marketing team for improving our situation in spite of the Glazers negative effect would do well to remember that that very marketing team is led from its London offices by a man called Joel Glazer.
The financial situation at the club is improving rapidly. If you're unable to see that because your view is clouded by incorrect preconceptions then that is unfortunate; unfortunate, but sadly not unexpected.
If you want the most basic explanation as to why the reported financial loss isn't as drastic as it would appear at first glance then you should look towards our cash reserves. In a twelve month period in which we made an apparent loss of £83m our cash in bank reserves increased from £150m to £164m. That shows you that the reported loss was largely down to non-cash expenses reported on the P&L statement which didn't actually cost the club a penny.
The results are encouraging. The club is profitable. You don't have to fully understand it - many probably wont - but you should accept it, for it is the reality of the situation.
£12m is set aside for Carrington renovations, no? Maybe the rest is Mourinho's singing on fee after SAF calls it a day
We won't be able to afford him by then - I've heard we're lining up Souness
The situation might be improving - but its still absolute shit and concerning. I am astonished why ppl cant see that paying 107m a year to serve the debt is some serious feck up
God, I really don't want to get sucked into this, but it's not 107m a year.
ffs Rams, the theory is the same. I was merely trying to make it simple to follow.
the number of zero's is irrelevent it all comes down to LTV, Liquidity and risk. Come 2016 the Glazers hope to have increased the value of United the brand and subsequent cashflows, so they can get a lower interest rate and "remortgage". Then they have lower interest payments and more cash for capital repayments and/or investment. How many people on here stay with the same mortgage lender ? probably none, as your finances improve you get better deals, the GLazers are attempting to do this.
It all hinges on commercial revenues and cost saving tho, if these continue to improve and more favorable interest rates are obtained then it is not impossible to get out of this mess, but certainly a long journey. More likely to be bought out before debt is cleared IMO.
the number of zero's is irrelevent it all comes down to LTV, Liquidity and risk. Come 2016 the Glazers hope to have increased the value of United the brand and subsequent cashflows, so they can get a lower interest rate and "remortgage". Then they have lower interest payments and more cash for capital repayments and/or investment. How many people on here stay with the same mortgage lender ? probably none, as your finances improve you get better deals, the GLazers are attempting to do this.
It all hinges on commercial revenues and cost saving tho, if these continue to improve and more favorable interest rates are obtained then it is not impossible to get out of this mess, but certainly a long journey. More likely to be bought out before debt is cleared IMO.
Well, they are the only areas that Gill has any control over so Gill is bound to trumpet them.
Is that cash not to service ongoing business expenses for the year?
Hargreaves Medical invoice hasn't been paid yet?
- Status